VIDEO LGBT Activist Heads Trump’s EEOC, Bans Words – What I Did When a Little Boy Patient Said He Was a Girl

Trump Nominates LGBT Activist to Head EEOC, Which Shouldn’t Even Exist

Dec 15, 2017 by  


Trump Nominates LGBT Activist to Head EEOC — Which Shouldn’t Even Exist

In yet another swamp victory, the Trump administration has decided to re-nominate a radical LGBT activist and Obama-era holdover for commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) — a bureaucracy that shouldn’t even exist.

Lesbian Chai Feldblum has been serving in the post since 2010, having been made EEOC head without Senate approval, via an Obama recess appointment. And from some dark recesses is whence her ideology comes. As Powerline reported Tuesday, “Feldblum is…the architect of the Obama administration’s radical LGBT agenda, including its policy mandating that transgender individuals can use the restroom of their choice” — in other words, sexually confused boys in girls’ locker rooms.

The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins provides more detail:

She came to the administration with an impressive resume of radicalism — complete with jobs at the Human Rights Campaign, the ACLU, and a clerkship with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, who authored the Roe v. Wade decision. She not only wrote the deceptively named “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” (ENDA) which is a threat to religious freedom in the workplace, she openly vowed to implement ENDA by regulations if Congress didn’t pass it. At one point, Chai even signed on to an online petition “‘Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families and Relationships,’ which advocates for polygamy and government recognition… for… diverse kinds of partnerships” — a view she later disavowed.

But perhaps Feldblum is most remembered for pulling back the curtain on the same-sex marriage agenda. Asked what would happen if religious liberty clashed with the “rights” of people who identify as LGBT, she brazenly stated that she’d have “a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” That’s chilling, FRC warned at the time, since as head of the EEOC, she would act as the head referee on disputes over workplace discrimination. If Americans were hoping for neutrality, they certainly didn’t get it under Chai’s leadership.

… When she was asked about the rights of Christians hiring employees of their choosing, she replied, “Gays win; Christians lose.”

Of course, this “gay rights” vs. religious-rights debate should be no debate. Free exercise of religion is in the Constitution. Homosexual “rights” (which really are special privileges) aren’t.

In reality, the EEOC shouldn’t even exist. It’s plainly unconstitutional for the federal government to be involved dictating to private entities what their employee demographics should be. Moreover, even if you believe that the government needs to contravene “discrimination,” note that states and localities generally have their own anti-discrimination laws, along with bureaucracies to enforce them. Why are we paying to have different layers of government do the same thing?

Yet while states have the power to enforce workplace “diversity,” this doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Hearing, though, that people should have a right to discriminate raises eyebrows even among many conservatives. But the relevant principle here is freedom of association, an imperative for liberty. As I argued last September:

Every sane person recognizes your right to include in or exclude from your home whomever you wish. And it doesn’t matter if your reason for exclusion is that an individual is Catholic, Jewish, black, white, conservative, fat, ugly, homosexual, or likes Fig Newtons. Now, question: Why should you lose this right simply because you erect a few more tables and sell food or engage in some other form of commerce?

It’s still your property, paid for with your own cash and created by the sweat of your own brow. Why should you lose your freedom of association just because you want to make a living? Is the message, submit or starve?

If you cannot exercise choices relating to association and religion on your own property, do you really have the freedoms of association and religion at all? As Dr. Walter Williams has pointed out, our commitment to a “liberty” isn’t evidenced by a willingness to let people exercise it in ways we like; even tyrants do that. Commitment to a liberty is only evidenced when we tolerate exercise of it we dislike.

Also note that this unjust government intrusion was legitimized by a contortionist-worthy judicial rationalization. As I wrote last February:

Of course, this all goes back to a Supreme Court ruling stating that private businesses can be viewed as “public accommodations,” which was a huge step toward the Marxist standard disallowing private property. And it has led to endless litigation, with the Boy Scouts sued by homosexuals, atheists, and a girl (who wanted to be a “boy” scout); the PGA Tour sued by a handicapped golfer who wanted a dispensation from the rules; Abercrombie & Fitch sued by a Muslim woman who wanted to wear her hijab on the job; and Barnes & Noble sued by a male employee who claimed he suddenly was a female employee, just to name a few cases. It has also led, now, to some Americans being confronted with a Hobson’s choice: cast the exercise of your faith to the winds and bow before the government’s agenda, or kiss making a living goodbye.

Such is the situation with a case currently before the Supreme Court, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Colorado government is essentially telling the shop owner, Jack Phillips, that he must bake cakes for faux weddings, bake no wedding cakes at all, or go out of business. Land of the free?

So because we’ve accepted that government can trump freedom of association, now it’s not just that the state forces us to serve certain classes of people (Phillips does, mind you, sell to homosexuals). It also wishes to compel participation in certain classes of events. What’s next? A Jewish or black baker forced to service a Nazi or KKK affair?

Is this standard, that a man’s business is the government’s castle, really the American way?

Photo: dbeck03/iStock/Getty Images Plus

I’m a Pediatrician. Here’s What I Did When a Little Boy Patient Said He Was a Girl.

H/T The Daily Signal.

It is a shame more doctors do not have this kind of courage and this transgender stuff would be treated for the mental disorder that it really is.

“Congratulations, it’s a boy!” Or, “Congratulations, it’s a girl!”

As a pediatrician for nearly 20 years, that’s how many of my patient relationships began. Our bodies declare our sex.

Biological sex is not assigned. Sex is determined at conception by our DNA and is stamped into every cell of our bodies. Human sexuality is binary. You either have a normal Y chromosome, and develop into a male, or you don’t, and you will develop into a female. There are at least 6,500 genetic differences between men and women. Hormones and surgery cannot change this.

An identity is not biological, it is psychological. It has to do with thinking and feeling. Thoughts and feelings are not biologically hardwired. Our thinking and feeling may be factually right or factually wrong.

If I walk into my doctor’s office today and say, “Hi, I’m Margaret Thatcher,” my physician will say I am delusional and give me an anti-psychotic. Yet, if instead, I walked in and said, “I’m a man,” he would say, “Congratulations, you’re transgender.”

If I were to say, “Doc, I am suicidal because I’m an amputee trapped in a normal body, please cut off my leg,” I will be diagnosed with body identity integrity disorder. But if I walk into that doctor’s office and say, “I am a man, sign me up for a double mastectomy,” my physician will. See, if you want to cut off a leg or an arm you’re mentally ill, but if you want to cut off healthy breasts or a penis, you’re transgender.

No one is born transgender. If gender identity were hardwired in the brain before birth, identical twins would have the same gender identity 100 percent of the time. But they don’t.

I had one patient we’ll call Andy. Between the ages of 3 and 5, he increasingly played with girls and “girl toys” and said he was a girl. I referred the parents and Andy to a therapist. Sometimes mental illness of a parent or abuse of the child are factors, but more commonly, the child has misperceived family dynamics and internalized a false belief.

In the middle of one session, Andy put down the toy truck, held onto a Barbie, and said, “Mommy and Daddy, you don’t love me when I’m a boy.” When Andy was 3, his sister with special needs was born, and required significantly more of his parents’ attention. Andy misperceived this as “Mommy and Daddy love girls. If I want them to love me, I have to be a girl.” With family therapy Andy got better.

Today, Andy’s parents would be told, “This is who Andy really is. You must ensure that everyone treats him as a girl, or else he will commit suicide.”

As Andy approaches puberty, the experts would put him on puberty blockers so he can continue to impersonate a girl.

It doesn’t matter that we’ve never tested puberty blockers in biologically normal children. It doesn’t matter that when blockers are used to treat prostate cancer in men, and gynecological problems in women, they cause problems with memory. We don’t need testing. We need to arrest his physical development now, or he will kill himself.

But this is not true. Instead, when supported in their biological sex through natural puberty, the vast majority of gender-confused children get better. Yet, we chemically castrate gender-confused children with puberty blockers. Then we permanently sterilize many of them by adding cross-sex hormones, which also put them at risk for heart disease, strokes, diabetes, cancers, and even the very emotional problems that the gender experts claim to be treating.

P.S. If a girl who insists she is male has been on testosterone daily for one year, she is cleared to get a bilateral mastectomy at age 16. Mind you, the American Academy of Pediatrics recently came out with a report that urges pediatricians to caution teenagers about getting tattoos because they are essentially permanent and can cause scarring. But this same AAP is 110 percent in support of 16-year-old girls getting a double mastectomy, even without parental consent, so long as the girl insists that she is a man, and has been taking testosterone daily for one year.

To indoctrinate all children from preschool forward with the lie that they could be trapped in the wrong body disrupts the very foundation of a child’s reality testing. If they can’t trust the reality of their physical bodies, who or what can they trust? Transgender ideology in schools is psychological abuse that often leads to chemical castration, sterilization, and surgical mutilation.

I’m a Pediatrician. Here’s What I Did When a Little Boy Patient Said He Was a Girl.



Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


  • Centers for Disease Control  seven forbidden words are: “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”
  • The meeting about the banned words was led by Alison Kelly, a senior leader in CDC’s Office of Financial Services


Trump administration officials are forbidding officials at the nation’s top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases – including “fetus” and “transgender” – in any official documents being prepared for next year’s budget.

Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden words are: “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”


In some instances, the analysts were given alternative phrases. Instead of “science-based” or “evidence-based,” the suggested phrase is “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes,” the person said. In other cases, no replacement words were immediately offered.

The question of how to address such issues as sexual orientation, gender identity and abortion rights – all of which received significant visibility under the Obama administration – has surfaced repeatedly in federal agencies since President Donald Trump took office. Several key departments – including Health and Human Services, which oversees CDC, as well as Justice, Education and Housing and Urban Development – have changed some federal policies and how they collect government information about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.


At the CDC, the meeting about the banned words was led by Alison Kelly, a senior leader in CDC’s Office of Financial Services, according to the CDC analyst who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak publicly. Kelly did not say why the words are being banned, according to the analyst, and told the group that she was merely relaying the information.


Read more:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO Roy Moore Recount Is ON: What you need to know

The Recount of the Alabama Senate Race is ON. Multiple levels of election fraud being uncovered. After nearly an entire precinct in a black neighborhood in Birmingham was tossed out this morning by the Alabama Secretary of State for widespread and rampant voter fraud, estimates have Roy Moore in the lead by more than 300 votes. The 421st precinct racked up nearly 26K votes for Doug Jones, mostly with brand-new voter registrations, in an area with only 1100 residents. The widespread fraud and corruption is the new method of winning elections for Democrats, who have little to no actual support in America anymore outside of the 4 cities they all seem to live in.

This isn’t Chicago we’re talking about, however…it’s Alabama. There’s no way some Democrat beat a fine, upstanding public servant like Roy Moore, who has been a faithful Alabamian all his life. Police say they are also ready to make hundreds of arrests just as soon as the DA files charges. They could stem anywhere from voter fraud, a 3rd-degree felony, to falsification, a 1st-degree misdemeanor, landing hundreds if not thousands of criminals in jail for a year or more. The method of fraud was fake IDs, which is ironic since Democrat oppose voter ID laws because they are “too expensive” for people living in poverty in minority neighborhoods. The Alabama Secretary of State’s office says it will refrain from certifying the election until a recount can happen.

* * *

Roy Moore Recount Day Two Progress and Correction

It is Day Two in the Judge Roy Moore Alabama Vote Count. My first video on the subject had an error in it. So here is me saying “I was mistaken!” “I was wrong” plus some information that has broken since.

* * *

Watch Liberals Rejoice Over Stealing Elections

* * *

Alabama Voter Fraud Cover-Up, Court Allows Ballot Record Destruction (video)

Roy Moore Recount Is ON: What you need to know (video)

Related previous post on this blog

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO AL Voter Fraud Cover-Up, Court Lets Ballot Record Destruction

Alabama Court to Election Officials: Don't Preserve Electronic Ballot Records

Dec 15, 2017 by 

In a move blasted by voting rights experts as an affront to transparency, the Alabama state Supreme Court granted local election officials permission not to preserve electronic ballot records less than 24 hours before polls opened – records that could form the basis of a recount.

The Alabama state Supreme Court’s ruling overturned an injunction issued by a lower court in Montgomery, the state capital, which had ordered election officials across the state to preserve digital images of the ballots cast in the Senate race between Republican Roy Moore and Democrat Doug Jones.

Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill appealed the lower court’s injunction to the state supreme court at 4:38 PM on Monday afternoon and the justices came back with their ruling at 5:18 PM – an usually quick turnaround time.

“It’s just unbelievable that they examined the pleadings and got eight judges to concur in half an hour on a Monday afternoon,” said Priscilla Duncan, an attorney representing the plaintiffs in the case.

Duncan expressed concern the voting machines could be compromised, “whether intentionally or through error,” indicating tests around the country have demonstrated sizable discrepancies.

“We have reason to believe those machines can be compromised. Whether intentionally or through error, there can be some false results, and there have been some tests around the country where there have been some rather sizeable discrepancies,” she said.

“There’s no legitimate reason not to preserve ballot images,” said Christopher Sautter, a Washington election lawyer who helped the plaintiffs in the case. “It’s neither expensive nor inconvenient. It amounts to flipping a switch.”

While some have noted Alabama officials could just count the original paper ballots in the event of a recount or court challenge, Alabama law does not provide for manual recounts – only a machine recount of the digital images that are taken at the time each ballot is cast.

“People think that when they mark the ballots and they go into the machine that that’s what counted,” Duncan noted. “But it’s not, the paper ballot is not what’s counted. That ballot is scanned and they destroy [the ballots] after the election … If there’s ever an election challenge you need to have what was actually counted.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

VIDEO Trump FBI Graduation Speech – People Are ‘Very Angry’ at FBI

On His Way to Address FBI Academy Grads, Trump Says People Are ‘Very Angry’ at FBI

Dec 15, 2017 By Susan Jones

President Trump stands for the National Anthem before addressing graduates of the FBI Academy in Quantico, Va. (Photo: Screen grab/C-SPAN)

( – President Donald Trump stopped to speak to reporters on his way out of the White House on Friday, criticizing the FBI on his way to speak to graduates of the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia.

“It’s a shame what’s happened with the FBI,” Trump said. “Everybody, not me, everybody, the level of anger at what they’ve been witnessing with respect to the FBI is certainly very sad.”

Later, asked if he would consider a pardon for Michael Flynn, his former national security adviser, Trump replied:

“I don’t want to talk about pardons for Michael Flynn yet. We’ll see what happens. Let’s see. I can say this: When you look at what’s going on with the FBI and with the Justice Department, people are very, very angry.”


Trump was referring to press reports and recently revealed text messages showing a strong pro-Clinton/anti-Trump bias among certain FBI agents assigned at one time to the Trump-Russia investigation.

Republicans in Congress have raised numerous other conflict-of-issue concerns regarding Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia “coordination” investigation as well as former FBI Director James Comey’s apparent agreement to soften the language in his announcement regarding the non-prosecution of Hillary Clinton.

Trump addressed the collusion issue on Friday morning, too:

“There is absolutely no collusion,” the president insisted. “That has been proven. When you look at the committees, whether it’s the Senate or the House, everybody — my worst enemies — they walk out, they say, ‘There is no collusion but we’ll continue to look.

“They’re spending millions and millions of dollars; there is absolutely no collusion. I didn’t make a phone call to Russia, I have nothing to do with Russia. Everybody knows it. That was a Democrat hoax — it was an excuse for losing the election, and it should  never have been this way. ”

Trump said it’s time to “get back to running a country.”

He also noted that the ongoing investigations have found evidence of a “rigged system” on the part of the Clinton team.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

VIDEO Sen Johnson Outlines Scope of FBI Officials Sculpting Hillary Exoneration for Comey…- ‘Irreparably Tainted’

Senator Johnson Outlines Scope of FBI Officials Sculpting Clinton Exoneration Statement for Comey…

Senator Ron Johnson sends a letter to current FBI Director Christopher Wray questioning the surrounding investigative details about how the James Comey (July 5th, 2016) exoneration manuscript was changed and sculpted. (Full pdf below)

Within the letter Senator Johnson shares the changes that were made to the manuscript, and asks Wray if FBI officials are aware of who made the changes and why.  Prior revelations from within an ongoing IG report showed FBI Counterintelligence Agent Peter Strzok participating in both the investigation of Hillary Clinton, and changing some of the manuscript to shape the narrative away from criminal conduct and toward Clinton’s favor.

Earlier information showed, via text messages with FBI lawyer Lisa Page, the scope of FBI Agent Strzok’s partisan efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election due to his personal political bias.  Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe appeared to be coordinating together on the Clinton investigation toward a united outcome.  Director James Comey delivered that outcome to the American electorate.

Essentially today Senator Johnson is asking current FBI Director Wray if he is aware of any further FBI officials that would have also participated in this coordinated effort; and what measures Director Wray is taking to look into the ‘matter’:

WASHINGTON – Newly released documents obtained by Fox News reveal that then-FBI Director James Comey’s draft statement on the Hillary Clinton email probe was edited numerous times before his public announcement, in ways that seemed to water down the bureau’s findings considerably.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, sent a letter to the FBI on Thursday that shows the multiple edits to Comey’s highly scrutinized statement.

In an early draft, Comey said it was “reasonably likely” that “hostile actors” gained access to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email account. That was changed later to say the scenario was merely “possible.”

Another edit showed language was changed to describe the actions of Clinton and her colleagues as “extremely careless” as opposed to “grossly negligent.” This is a key legal distinction.

Johnson, writing about his concerns in a letter Thursday to FBI Director Christopher Wray, said the original “could be read as a finding of criminality in Secretary Clinton’s handling of classified material.” (read more)




Recent alarming information surrounding the politicization of the FBI and DOJ:

♦Release #1 was the Agent Strzok and Attorney Lisa Page story; and the repercussions from discovering their politically motivated bias in the 2015/2016 Clinton email investigation and 2016/2017 Russian Election investigation.

♦Release #2 outlined the depth of FBI Agent Strzok and FBI Attorney Page’s specific history in the 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton to include the changing of the wording [“grossly negligent” to “extremely careless”] of the probe outcome delivered by FBI Director James Comey.

♦Release #3 was the information about DOJ Deputy Bruce Ohr being in contact with Fusion GPS at the same time as the FISA application was submitted and granted by the FISA court; which authorized surveillance and wiretapping of candidate Donald Trump;  that release also attached Bruce Ohr and Agent Strzok directly to the Steele Dossier.

♦Release #4 was information that Deputy Bruce Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, was an actual contract employee of Fusion GPS, and was hired by F-GPS specifically to work on opposition research against candidate Donald Trump.  Both Bruce Ohr and Nellie Ohr are attached to the origin of the Christopher Steele Russian Dossier.

♦Release #5 was the specific communication between FBI Agent Strzok and FBI Attorney Page.  The 10,000 text messages that included evidence of them both meeting with Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to discuss the “insurance policy” against candidate Donald Trump in August of 2016.

August 15, 2016, FBI Agent Strzok tells FBI Lawyer Lisa Page:

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

What do you think the odds are that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe will not show up next week in front of the House Judiciary Committee?

If he does indeed show up, that’s probably the one congressional hearing this year that will be well worth watching live.

Oh Lordy – Senator Johnson Outlines Scope of FBI Officials Sculpting Clinton Exoneration Statement for Comey…

Laura Ingraham: Unless Investigated, Mueller’s ‘Irreparably Tainted’ Russia Probe ‘Will and Should’ Collapse

15 Dec 2017  by John Nolte

Laura Ingraham ripped into the “irreparably tainted” Mueller investigation into Russian collusion with the claim that it is now an example of “how big government can end up becoming a threat to a representative democracy.”

On her Thursday night edition of The Ingraham Angle, Fox News’s latest primetime star opened with a blistering breakdown of the gobsmacking corruption and conflict of interest that has fueled, not only Hillary Clinton’s exoneration over her email scandal, but Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation into Russian collusion.

Specifically, Ingraham pointed to text messages written by FBI Agent Peter Strzok in August of 2016 that read: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

Strzok is referring to what was obviously a political meeting in FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s office.

Worse still, earlier that same month, Lisa Page (a key player in Mueller’s Russia probe) texted to Strzok: “Maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace [Trump].”

“I can protect our country at many levels,” Strzok replied.

This exchange occurred in the heart of the 2016 presidential election, and these texts relate directly to the idea of stopping Donald Trump from becoming president, to an “insurance policy” if he is elected, to an FBI Agent promising to “protect our country” from Trump on “many levels.”

This is stuff of banana republics and their secret police.

Strzok would go on to play a key role in aiding and abetting former FBI Director James Comey’s inexplicable exoneration of Hillary Clinton. Moreover, at this point, Clinton had spent millions to put together the phony Russia dossier that was almost certainly used by the FBI and the Obama administration to obtain the warrants necessary to spy on their political opponents in the Trump campaign.

Strzok then, inexplicably, became a top investigator for Mueller’s Russia probe, and Mueller only became a special prosecutor after Comey illegally leaked confidential notes to the news media in the hopes the appointment of a special prosecutor would be the result. Another conflict of interest is that Mueller and Comey are close friends.

If that is not bad enough, in 2015, when FBI Deputy Director McCabe’s wife ran for state senate in Virginia, longtime Clintonista Terry McAuliffe funneled some $675, 000 into her campaign. The following year, Strzok watered down the language that exonerated Hillary for her prosecutable email crimes.

And if that is not bad enough, Bruce Ohr, a top Justice Department official, is married to Nellie Ohr, who worked for Fusion GPS to put together the discredited Russian dossier.

Hovering over all of this is the number of Hillary Clinton donors hired by Mueller to investigate the man who beat her.

Focusing specifically on the Strzok’s “insurance policy” reassurance to Lisa Page, and calling this text a “smoking gun,” Ingraham broke down exactly how that “insurance” has manifested itself over the last 18 months.

They were intent on preventing him from being elected by any means necessary. And if that meant applying for a FISA warrant based on a phony dossier in order to spy on the campaign, maybe they’d do it. And if it meant deploying the entire mainstream media apparatus into Defcon 1 mode; hyper-ventilating about Russian collusion 24/7, they’d do it.

Ingraham then moved into what this “insurance policy” looks like today as a means to stop Trump from governing.

And today, if it means floating a specious story alleging that the president has early on-set dementia, they’ll do that too. Or maybe spreading damaging falsehoods with anonymous sources that are later parroted and then retracted by major news organizations. Yeah, they’ll do that too. … Whatever it takes. As former Mueller investigator Peter Strzok put it, they needed an “insurance policy” to stop Trump.

With only an hour show, Ingraham could not hit on everything, but this “insurance policy” has also manifested itself through inexcusable leaks of President Trump’s phone calls with foreign leaders and Mueller’s apparent desire to derail the (successful) Senate vote on tax reform by announcing, on the morning of the vote, his plea bargain (for a process crime) with Michael Flynn, Trump’s former National Security Adviser.

“The Founders never envisioned that a separate office inside the executive branch could hire a bunch of agenda-driven investigators, in search of a crime, by the head of the executive branch [Trump],” Ingraham said, and then called on FBI Deputy Director McCabe to be fired over many things, including his apparent role in planning to “subvert Trump’s campaign, or if elected, his ability to lead the government as president of the United States.”

Although she said she is tempted, Ingraham did not call for Mueller to be fired, but did say his investigation is “irreparably tainted” and needs to be investigated. If not, she believes his investigation “will and should” collapse over these “endless revelations of bias.”


Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNCFollow his Facebook Page here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

VIDEO Official Conducting Ethics Investigations Charged with Sexual Misconduct – Dem Drops Out – Soros Behind

 Soros Behind Some of Trump Sexual Harassment Claims

Dec 15, 2017  by  


Soros Behind Some of Trump Sexual Harassment Claims

Billionaire left-wing globalist George Soros is at it again, this time wielding his financial heft to advance the narrative that President Trump is guilty of sexual harassment and assault.

InfoWars reports that Soros’ Open Society Foundations and Media Matters for America funds Brave New Films, an allegedly non-partisan, non-profit organization that released a film entitled “16 women and Donald Trump,” which detailed the accounts of 16 women who claim to have been sexually harassed and assaulted by the president.

Brave New Films then hosted a press conference on December 11, which proved a forum for the women to share their firsthand accounts of their experiences being harassed by President Trump. The women claimed that they had been forcibly kissed and groped by President Trump before he came to office.

While Brave New Films claims that they do not “expressly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates for public office,” their videos tell a different story:

Stand Up, Senate! The President-elect is a hypocrite.

Protect Public Education — Stop Betsy DeVos!

Indivisible: A Practical Guide For Resisting The Trump Agenda


A statement by CBS announcing the press conference stated that the conference would call for accountability and “an investigation by Congress of sexual misconduct by the president.” CBS’ statement left little room to question the news outlet’s bias: “These brave women have all spoken out individually.” It sounds like CBS has already made up its mind about the accusations.

But despite the media firestorm against Trump over the allegations, there has not been substantial evidence to corroborate the women’s claims or prove the accusers’ credibility. One accuser, Rachel Crooks, who claimed that Trump tried to kiss her on an elevator in 2005, claimed she felt intimidated when Trump asked for her number and begrudgingly gave it to him. Crooks was a public supporter and donor to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Another accuser, Jessica Leeds, said she was groped by Trump on a plane, though her story was disputed by an eyewitness. Anthony Gilberthorpe said he was seated across the aisle from Trump and Leeds when the alleged incident took place. Gilberthorpe claimed that Leeds was in fact the “one being flirtatious” and that the event did not unfold as she detailed. He states that when Trump went to the restroom on the plane, Leeds turned and confided in him that “she wanted to marry [Mr Trump].”

Leeds also accused Trump of calling her a c—, which, though distasteful, is not sexual assault.

President Trump has denied the allegations against him, and contends that Democrats are resurrecting the accusations because they have been unable to prove the Russian collusion story. “Despite thousands of hours wasted and many millions of dollars spent, the Democrats have been unable to show any collusion with Russia,” he states. “Now they are moving on to the false accusations and fabricated stories of women who I don’t know and/or have never met.”

The White House released a statement early Monday denying the claims of the women at the press conference: “These false claims, totally disputed in most cases by eyewitness accounts, were addressed at length during last year’s campaign, and the American people voiced their judgment by delivering a decisive victory,” a White House spokesperson said in a statement. “The timing and absurdity of these false claims speaks volumes and the publicity tour that has begun only further confirms the political motives behind them.”

But the mainstream media continues to provide Trump’s accusers an outlet in this new post-Weinstein era in which the accused are guilty until proven innocent.

Critics note that the media has not always been so vigilant on this subject, however. Michael Snyder, a Republican candidate for Congress in Idaho’s First Congressional District, points out the mainstream media’s choosy reporting of sexual misconduct claims: “It is funny how the mainstream media never even wanted to address the very serious allegations of sexual misconduct against Bill and Hillary Clinton that kept arising, and yet anyone with any sort of a claim against Trump gets front page coverage.”

Image: Screenshots of the website of Brave New Films

Official Conducting House Ethics Investigations Charged with Sexual Misconduct

15 Dec 2017 by Penny Starr

A top official with the Office of Congressional Ethics is now among the growing number of men accused of sexual misconduct with women and for using his powerful position in the unethical ways that his committee investigates when claims are made against House lawmakers.

Omar Ashmawy, staff director and chief counsel at the ethics office, is named in an ongoing lawsuit being litigated in a Pennsylvania federal court, according to a Foreign Policy report.

The report said charges in the lawsuit include verbal and physical assault against women in a late-night brawl on Valentine’s Day in 2015.

According to FP, three women at the bar that night, including the bartender, have accused Ashmawy of harassing them verbally and physically.

Ashmawy was never charged or arrested, according to the report, but two months later, three men were arrested for assaulting him. He was the only one who suffered injuries that night, according to FP.

In September, one of the men charged with assaulting Ashmawy, Greg Martucci, filed a lawsuit against Ashmawy related to the 2015 event. His suit was filed in federal court in Pennsylvania.

FP reported:

In his lawsuit, Martucci accuses Ashmawy of using his political power and position with the Office of Congressional Ethics to pressure the police and the district attorney into not arresting him for assaulting the women. Martucci also alleges that Ashmawy threatened federal investigation of local government and police if they did not press charges against those accusing him of assault.

For his part, Ashmawy denies the charges in the original lawsuit, according to a statement he provided to FP.

“To be clear, I did not harass anyone that evening, physically or verbally,” Ashmawy said in the statement. “To the contrary, I was the victim of a wholly unprovoked assault for which those responsible were investigated, arrested and charged. Any allegation to the contrary is unequivocally false.”

Ashmawy has previously filed a motion to dismiss, and on December 6, he filed a brief in support of that motion to dismiss, saying he was the victim that night, according to FP.

The Milford Borough and its police chief have filed similar motions to dismiss, and a conference with attorneys for all parties to the lawsuit is scheduled before a judge on January 5, 2018, FP reported.

FB also reported on some of the cases Ashmawy’s office has been involved in:

According to the website of the Office of Congressional Ethics, it has pursued investigations into Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) and Del. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam), whose cases, like that of Conyers, began under Ashmawy and were referred to the ethics committee for further investigation. The New York Times this week reported that Republicans are citing a 2015 decision by the Office of Congressional Ethics clearing Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas), who has also been accused of sexual harassment.

Meanwhile, FP could be facing problems over its reporting.

“Please be advised that the official response on behalf of Milford Borough and Chief DaSilva is ‘No comment during the course of pending litigation,’” Sheryl L. Brown, an attorney with the firm Siana Bellwoar, wrote FP in response to queries.

“We reserve the right to subpoena unprivileged portions of your files considering you assert you are in possession of ‘police statements from witnesses,’” Brown wrote.

BOMBSHELL: Dems Paid Women To Accuse Trump Of Criminal Activity

Kansas Democrat Accused Of Sexual Harassment Drops Out Of US House Race

EndGame HQ full length version


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

VIDEO Net Neutrality Is Dead, Not a Moment Too Soon! – YouTube Temporarily Suspends Ajit Pai

Net Neutrality Is Dead, And Not a Moment Too Soon!

Dec 15, 2017  by 


Net Neutrality Is Dead — And Not a Moment Too Soon!

Net Neutrality is dead. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted 3-2 Thursday to dismantle the scheme. And while its supporters are busily running around like Chicken Little, claiming the sky is falling, the simple truth is that the death of the Obama-era regulation of the Internet is a very good thing.

When the FCC voted on February 26, 2015 to reclassify the Internet as a public utility under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, then-Chairman Tom Wheeler promised that so-called Net Neutrality would usher in an era of a “free and open” Internet. Never mind that the entire scheme was built on one lie after another. For instance, the first big lie is that the Internet needed government regulations to make it free and open. Here is a tip for those who want to know: government regulations are the opposite of free and open.

To illustrate that, let’s take a moment to remember that the architects and supporters of Net Neutrality promised that there would be no rate regulation (similar enough to Obama’s promises of no premium increases with the misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). And yet, in April 2016, Wheeler testified before Congress that a bill to keep the FCC from regulating Internet rates would kill Net Neutrality and prevent the commission from enforcing its rules. Because the power to set rates was part of the plan all along, just like with ObamaCare.

Likewise, the promise that Net Neutrality would not regulate content was so much political hot air. In November 2015, it was already apparent that politically conservative websites could find themselves in the crosshairs of censorship. After all, the authority of Net Neutrality allowed it, and Wheeler’s promise of “forbearance” was just words.

Even without the threat of the FCC regulating both rates and content, Net Neutrality was the bane of freedom and openness. As this writer explained in detail when Net Neutrality was just taking effect, the rules against blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization were really rules against a free market Internet. Those so-called “bright-line” rules were also mere window dressing for what Wheeler called a “catch-all standard.” That “catch-all standard” was the “general conduct rule” which Wheeler described by writing:

The bright-line bans on blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization will go a long way to preserve the virtuous cycle. But not all the way. Gatekeeper power can be exercised through a variety of technical and economic means, and without a catch-all standard, it would be that, as Benjamin Franklin said, “A little neglect may breed great mischief.”

“Thus,” Wheeler noted, “the Order adopts the following standard”:

Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage (i) end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or (ii) edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this rule.

Given that latitude, there would be little the FCC could not regulate about the Internet. Given the propensity of government to expand its own power, it is easy to see how Net Neutrality was a threat to the freedom and openness of the Internet.

Now, those concerns are a thing of the past. Net Neutrality — passed by a 3-2 vote — has been dismantled by a 3-2 vote.

One thing that really stands out in this is that government regulations — no matter how bad — are so rarely repealed. Take ObamaCare as an example. In the few years it has been in force, it has already become engraved in the American psyche to the point that Republicans who railed against it when it passed are now trying to figure out how to repeal and replace, rather than just repeal. In another comparison, it matters little how broken the Social Security scheme is; few will ever talk about jettisoning it.

As such, there was a very narrow window of opportunity to kill Net Neutrality before it killed the free and open Internet it claimed to protect. The election of Donald Trump and his appointment of Ajit Pai — an outspoken opponent of Net Neutrality — to replace Wheeler as FCC chairman served to mark the beginning of the end of government regulation of the Internet.

That end — long predicted — came Thursday with firm finality. The vote removed not only Net Neutrality, per se, but also the faulty logic on which it rested: Title II reclassification. Now that the Internet is no longer considered what it never was — a public utility — the FCC lacks the authority to regulate it. Period.

Because the Internet — like the rest of the free market — does better in the absence of government regulation.

And while the doomsday prophets on the Left are already predicting the Dark Ages of the Internet with people unable to access content and communicate freely, the reality is that — as Ajit Pai said after Thursday’s vote — “The internet wasn’t broken in 2015. We were not living in some digital dystopia.” In fact, even supporters of Net Neutrality seem to realize that, even if they don’t know they realize it.

For instance, The Verge — an avid apologist for Net Neutrality — accidentally expressed that principle in an article that seems designed to create a sense of fear and dread at the death of Net Neutrality. The article — under the headline, “What public libraries will lose without net neutrality” — begins, “The FCC will vote on a measure today that would repeal net neutrality and pave the way for the end of the free, open internet as we’ve always known it.” Always? If we have always known a free, open Internet and Net Neutrality has been around only since 2015, then it can’t be the cause of a free, open Internet. In other words, Pai is correct, “The internet wasn’t broken in 2015.” And it didn’t need to be fixed.

Now that this backward scheme has been relegated to the trash heap of history, the Internet will continue to be free and open.

Photo: PeopleImages/E+/Getty Images

YouTube Temporarily Suspends Ajit Pai’s Parody Video on Copyright Grounds

15 Dec 2017 by Allum Bokhari

YouTube took down a Daily Caller video featuring FCC chairman Ajit Pai making the case for Title II (commonly described as “Net Neutrality”) repeal earlier today, only to restore it several hours later.

The video was taken down on the basis of a copyright claim based on an 11-second clip featuring the FCC chairman dancing to the song “Harlem Shake” along with Daily Caller staffers.

Harlem Shake” is one of the most parodied tracks in existence. After becoming an internet meme in 2013, thousands of people have uploaded videos of themselves dancing along to short clips of the song. At one point in 2013, uploads of Harlem Shake videos on YouTube reached 4,000 per day.

The producer of the song, DJ and musician Baauer, did not make attempts to take down the flood of parody videos, instead opting to claim ad revenue on them from YouTube. Most of the parodies are still online to this day.

In a statement about Pai’s video, Baauer said “My team and I are currently exploring every single avenue available to get it taken down. I support net neutrality like the vast majority of this country and am appalled to be associated with its repeal in anyway.” “Harlem Shake” was produced using samples from other artists without permission, leading the copyright claim to be met with skepticism in some quarters.

The use of copyrighted material for the purposes of parody is legally protected under the U.S. fair use doctrine. Fair use claims are also strengthened if only a small amount of copyrighted material (say, 11 seconds of a 3-minute song!) is used.

Title II regulations on ISPs, which are portrayed by defenders as synonymous with “Net Neutrality” (the idea that all online data should be treated equally), were repealed in a 3 – 2 vote by the FCC yesterday, triggering outrage and panic from many on the left.

Much of the argument over Net Neutrality revolves around the concern that content could be blocked or removed from the internet. Perhaps ironically, Baauer has chosen to respond by trying to remove content from the internet.

You can follow Allum Bokhari on, and add him on Facebook. Email him securely at


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments
%d bloggers like this: