Liberals Hate This Photo Of The 1924 Democrat National Convention

By Scott Osborn | 

Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…The 1924 Democrat National Convention, also called the Klanbake, was held at the Madison Square Garden in New York City from June 24 to July 9, 1924.

Maybe this was where Democrat and former KKK member Robert Byrd got his start.

This seems too crazy, even for liberals, to be true, but you can Google ‘Klanbake” and discover the authenticity of how involved the Democrat party has been involved with the KKK.


Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…


After World War I, the popularity of the Klan surged due to connections of its public relations leadership to those who had promoted the successful Prohibition Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, becoming a political power throughout many regions of the United States, not just in the South. Its local political strength throughout the country gave it a major role in the 1924 Democratic Party National Convention (DNC).

The 20th Century Ku Klux Klan was notoriously anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic, in addition to being anti-black. The Klan advocates opposed those supporting Catholics from the major cities of the Northeast and Midwest. The tension between pro- and anti-Klan delegates produced an intense and sometimes violent showdown between convention attendees from the states of Colorado and Missouri.

Klan delegates opposed the nomination of New York Governor Al Smith because Smith was a Roman Catholic. Smith campaigned against William Gibbs McAdoo, who had the support of most Klan delegates.

The second dispute of the convention revolved around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform. Klan delegates defeated the platform plank in a series of floor debates.

The final vote on condemning the Klan was 542.85 in favor, 546.15 against, so the plank was not included in the platform. To celebrate, tens of thousands of hooded Klansmen rallied in a field in New Jersey, across the river from New York City.

This event, known subsequently as the “Klanbake”, was also attended by hundreds of Klan delegates to the convention, who burned crosses, urged violence and intimidation against African-Americans and Catholics, and attacked effigies of Smith.

The notoriety of the “Klanbake” convention and the violence it produced cast a lasting shadow over the Democratic Party’s prospects in the 1924 election and contributed to their defeat by incumbent Republican President Calvin Coolidge.

Democrats love trying to pin racism on Conservatives…maybe to try and hide their real past. The Democratic Party has always been the party of racism and slavery! They were behind the Jim Crow laws. Maybe they need to look in the mirror before they cast stones at us.

Since its founding in the late 1820s, the Democratic Party has defended slavery, started the Civil War, and opposed Reconstruction. The Democratic Party imposed segregation. Its members engaged in the lynchings of blacks and opposed the civil rights acts of the 1950s and ’60s.

During Reconstruction, hundreds of black men were elected to Southern state legislatures as Republicans, and 22 black Republicans served in the U.S. Congress by 1900.

A few decades later, the only serious congressional opposition to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 came from Democrats.

Eighty percent of Republicans in the House of Representatives supported the bill. Less than 70 percent of Democrats did.

The Democratic Party did not elect a black man to Congress until 1935.

That is the history of the Democrat party folks.

But the difference is in the two perspectives. The Democrat mentality is to blame and cry in front of hurdles. The Republican perspective is to use those hurdles to become strong. In my lifetime, had Jesse Jackson and All Sharpton had a message of ‘grab your bootstraps’ and make the best of life, instead of cry and blame, we would be in a very different world.

The Democrat party has been and will always be the true racists in America!

Please follow and like us:

Donald Trump Threatens to Cancel Some Health-Care Benefits for Lawmakers

President Donald Trump, shown Thursday, has for months threatened to stop reimbursements to insurance companies made through the Affordable Care Act.

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump made one of his most explicit threats to cut off payments to insurance companies to force senators and lobbyists back to the bargaining table for a GOP health-care bill, and saying, for the first time, that he was also willing to cancel some of lawmakers’ health-care benefits.

“If a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies and BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon!” Mr. Trump tweeted Saturday.

Mr. Trump’s statement came less than two days after the collapse in the Senate of Republicans’ effort to overturn the Affordable Care Act.

For months, Mr. Trump has threatened to stop reimbursements to insurance companies—a part of the ACA—but his administration has always paid them in the end, including amid significant uncertainty in June and at a crucial moment in GOP negotiations just a week ago in July.

The next set of payments, which total millions of dollars for insurers that have lowered deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs for the poorest enrollees in coverage under the law also known as Obamacare, is due in three weeks.

Those payments have been challenged in court by House Republicans, who argue the funds were never authorized by Congress. A federal judge has sided with the House but allowed the payments to continue until the litigation concludes.

Democrats have said that cutting off the payments would be tantamount to sabotaging the insurance markets, and that Republicans will bear the blame.

“If the president refuses to make the cost-sharing reduction payments, every expert agrees that premiums will go up and health care will be more expensive for millions of Americans. The president ought to stop playing politics with people’s lives and health care, start leading and finally begin acting presidential,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) on Saturday.

Mr. Trump’s Saturday tweet came on the heels of several others expressing his disappointment that GOP senators had so far failed to come together around a single piece of legislation that would fulfill a shared campaign pledge of repealing the ACA and enacting their own set of proposals in its place.

It was also the first to mention that he was open to another idea proposed by conservative activists to pull lawmakers back to the task of a health-care bill: cutting off their existing health benefits.

Activists including Heritage Action, the political arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation, have proposed that Mr. Trump’s administration change a rule promulgated by the Office of Personnel Management during the Obama administration that allows members of Congress and their staff to obtain subsidized insurance alongside other Washington, D.C., small businesses.

That rule has been the subject of significant contention for years, with some lawmakers contending that it is an end-run around a provision in the 2010 health law that requires members of Congress to get their health coverage like other Americans. Lawmakers and their aides get a hefty subsidy from their employer—Congress—when they buy coverage through the D.C. online insurance exchange, which critics contend is unique to them. Defenders of the rule argue that the provision was never intended to force members of Congress or their aides to lose the employer-sponsored health benefits that many people get on the job.

Effectively cutting off members’ existing health benefits would focus their attention, Heritage Action has argued.

“With the long-promised goal of repealing Obamacare and providing relief from the failing law slowly slipping away because of liberal intransigence, senators should finally subject themselves to the same burdens imposed upon their constituents. Maybe then they would come around to begin delivering on their longstanding promise,” wrote Michael Needham, head of Heritage Action, in an opinion piece this week.

Republican lawmakers scattered after the early Friday morning defeat of fallback legislation to dismantle parts of the ACA. Some have said they want to turn quickly to bipartisan bills that shore up the individual markets with steps such as an appropriation for the contested payments. Others have said they are still pursuing GOP legislation and are refusing to give up the idea they can come back after recess with a proposal that secures the support of at least 50 Republicans in the Senate.

Write to Louise Radnofsky at

Please follow and like us:

McDonald’s Under Fire After Muslim Bites into Wrap With Bacon

Curated By Ariel Lablonski

Amir Ali, 37, said he was horrified to find he had bitten bacon and that his religion beliefs were violated.
From (h/t The Religion of Peace):

A FATHER from East Oxford forbidden to touch pork products due to his strict Muslim faith has raised a formal complaint with McDonald’s.

Amir Ali, 37, of Shelley Road, bought a sweet chilli chicken wrap at the fast food branch in Headington.

It was only after biting into the hot snack that he made a jarring discovery: a store worker had mistakenly added bacon.

He said: “In our religion we can’t eat bacon at all. We can’t even touch it, so I spent £3.69 just to get the other wrap.

“But I took a bite and something else was in my mouth. I thought it was lettuce because I’ve never tasted bacon. I took it out and thought ‘God, that’s bacon.”

Since the incident earlier in July Mr Ali, a waiter at an Indian restaurant, has spoken to staff at the Headington branch.

He said: “Everyone makes mistakes but something like this is very serious. I’m worried about my children going now

Please follow and like us:

Re: Ride inspector talks Ohio State Fair accident

By Ariel Lablonski

After reading all the News articles about this tragedy and watching all the video I wanted to see if I could find an unbiased opinion on what really happened at the Ohio State Fair.

I don’t believe I ever will. But, that being said, I did manage to find someone with a long history in the Carnival business to give his honest opinion on what happened.

His name is Kevin Morra,  he has a now long defunct blog called Diary of a Carny on He spent the better part of three decades on the road as a Carny and pretty much “saw it all!”

When I reached out to him he was reluctant to speak to me concerning the Ohio State Fair tragedy for the simple reason that he doesn’t like or trust any media, news outlet, or reporter. I explained I was a simple blogger who curated news and none of the above. He said I could print his opinion here.

In his own words: A number of years ago there was a ride accident and I was contacted by a national news network. I talked to the reporter briefly and realized she didn’t want my opinion. She wanted to sensationalize my opinion but in favor of her story. She was trying to lead me and put words in my mouth. I hung up but did give my opinion on my blog at the time. No one was interested of course. They wanted a biased opinion leaning towards the danger of Carnival Rides.

I’ve watched this video of the inspector and what I think is this….he’s there because he’s going to say exactly what FOX and the reporter want him to say, and he says it. He even intimates that he thinks he shut that particular ride down once, but isn’t sure. Ok, sure you did. There are so many “Fireballs” out there but yeah, that’s the one!

In all my years on the road I saw one ride break. It was the “Scrambler” and it was during a test run before opening. That’s it. If the rides at the Carnival were so dangerous you would think I would have seen a lot more break in 26 years of being around them day in and day out, but I didn’t.

I’m not an inspector. I don’t honestly think this guy gets too close to the rides. He seems to be more of an administrator, and we all know how useful and knowledgeable most of them are!

I don’t know what really happened. It was likely a freak accident. Someone knows what happened and if it was indeed a freak accident most people won’t be interested in that. They will however be interested in hearing that “All Carnival Rides are dangerous!” They aren’t. They’re well built and inspected.

I also saw the “North American Midway Entertainment” had shut down their big rides for a time. What a dumb move. A ride broke in Ohio so that means all rides are a danger? Carnival rides are less dangerous than flying or driving a car!

I think it was a freak accident. My thoughts are with the people hurt and the young man killed and his family.

In regards to the “Ohio State Fair!” This is one of those times that the saying “The Show Must Go On!” doesn’t apply.

Kevin Morra

I thanked him and told him I would print it as he said it. He said people likely wouldn’t be interested but print it.

Please follow and like us:


Marine General Joseph F. Dunford answers questions during a Pentagon briefing in Arlington, Virginia, May 19, 2017.

By Win McNamee/Getty Images.

Donald Trump incited a political firestorm on Wednesday when he unexpectedly announced on Twitter that transgender people would be barred from serving in “any capacity” in the United States military, with no clarification from the White House as to what the order meant for the approximately 15,000 trans people already serving. Now, less than 24 hours later, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have sent a clear message that the military doesn’t consider tweets to be orders, notwithstanding Sean Spicer’s assertion that they should be “considered official statements by the president of the United States.”

“I know there are questions about yesterday’s announcement on the transgender policy by the President,” Marine General Joe Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in an internal memo obtained by Politico. “There will be no modifications to the current policy until the President’s direction has been received by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary has issued implementation guidance.” In what reads like a rebuke of the policy Trump outlined on Twitter, Dunford added, “In the meantime, we will continue to treat all of our personnel with respect . . . and will all remain focused on accomplishing our assigned missions.”

Dana White, the chief spokesperson for Secretary of Defense James Mattis, echoed Dunford’s message. “The Department of Defense is awaiting formal guidance from the White House as a follow-up to the commander-in-chief’s announcement on military service by transgender personnel,” White said. “We will provide detailed guidance to the department in the near future for how this policy change will be implemented.”

Mattis was reportedly given very little notice of Trump’s imminent announcement about the ban, which the president argued was because the U.S. military “cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption” associated with transgender individuals in the service. But while Mattis was notified on Tuesday about the controversial policy shift, CNN reports that the Joint Chiefs only found out about the president’s order when it was suddenly tweeted out. When the Pentagon was originally asked for comment on the ban Wednesday, a spokesperson told the Associated Press that they had no information and referred all questions back to the White House.

This apparent lack of communication reveals an unsettling disconnect between Trump and the military. While the White House has dismissed protocol and presidential tradition at every turn, the military relies on chain of command and formality to function properly—a troubling concern in the context of future military crises. “We grow up and learn to obey the chain of command, and my chain of command is secretary of the Army, secretary of defense, and the president,” General Mark Milley, the Army chief of staff, said at a National Press Club event on Thursday, Politico reports. “We will work through the implementation guidance when we get it . . . To my knowledge, the Department of Defense, Secretary Mattis has not received written directives yet.”

Asked at a White House press briefing Wednesday what would happen to the thousands of transgender troops already deployed, deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders also seemed at a loss, though she defended the order forcefully. “That’s something that the Department of Defense and the White House will have to work together as implementation takes place and is done so lawfully,” she said. “The decision is based on a military decision.”

Trump himself may have been unclear about what he was ordering, or why. Politico reports that Trump pulled the trigger after learning that a congressional fight over gender reassignment treatments might endanger the funding for his border wall in an upcoming budget bill. But instead of addressing the medical issue itself, Trump appeared to ban all transgender people from the military entirely—an order that administration officials reportedly feel is guaranteed to face a court challenge on constitutional grounds. A senior House Republican aide told Politico, “This is like someone told the White House to light a candle on the table and the WH set the whole table on fire.”

By Abigail Tracy

Please follow and like us:

Woman Arrested For Shitting On Boss’ Desk After Winning The Lottery

According to The Valley Report:

A 41-year-old woman had the winning lottery ticket worth over 3 million dollars on Friday night, but showed up to work anyway on Monday to deliver one last package.

That package was very hot! And very steamy!

The courier company had no idea of her winnings. “I knew something was wrong because I came back from lunch and the door to my office was closed,” said the manager. “I slowly opened the door to discover the woman with her pants around her ankles, hunched over on my desk like a hippopotamus/cheetah dropping a massive poo on my desk. She shot her head towards me and locked eyes. I was frozen in shock and fear. “I couldn’t believe what I was seeing.” He said.


“It was worth it,” the woman said on arrest. “On Friday when I realized I hit the lotto, I knew this would be the first thing I would do. I hit up every Mexican food truck and saved my dumps all weekend. I was shuffling around like a death-row inmate trying not to explode. I’ve been putting up with that guy’s shit for years, it’s time he put up with some of mine.”

Please follow and like us:

Tips for analyzing news sources:False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and/or Satirical “News” Sources

Click-bait and “truthiness” are just as bad.

 November 18, 2016

Melissa Zimdars is an assistant professor of communication and media at Merrimack College.
  • Avoid websites that end in “lo” ex: Newslo (Newslo is now found at These sites take pieces of accurate information and then packaging that information with other false or misleading “facts” (sometimes for the purposes of satire or comedy).
  • Watch out for common news websites that end in “” as they are often fake versions of real news sources (remember: this is also the domain for Colombia!)
  • Watch out if known/reputable news sites are not also reporting on the story. Sometimes lack of coverage is the result of corporate media bias and other factors, but there should typically be more than one source reporting on a topic or event.
  • Odd domain names generally equal odd and rarely truthful news.
  • Lack of author attribution may, but not always, signify that the news story is suspect and requires verification.
  • Some news organizations are also letting bloggers post under the banner of particular news brands; however, many of these posts do not go through the same editing process (ex: BuzzFeed Community Posts, Kinja blogs, Forbes blogs).
  • Check the “About Us” tab on websites or look up the website on Snopes or Wikipedia for more information about the source.
  • Bad web design and use of ALL CAPS can also be a sign that the source you’re looking at should be verified and/or read in conjunction with other sources.
  • If the story makes you REALLY ANGRY it’s probably a good idea to keep reading about the topic via other sources to make sure the story you read wasn’t purposefully trying to make you angry (with potentially misleading or false information) in order to generate shares and ad revenue. Thanks to Ed Brayton for this tip!
  • If the website you’re reading encourages you to DOX individuals, it’s unlikely to be a legitimate source of news.
  • It’s always best to read multiple sources of information to get a variety of viewpoints and media frames. Sources such as The Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, and Fox News vacillate between providing important, legitimate, problematic, and/or hyperbolic news coverage, requiring readers and viewers to verify and contextualize information with other sources.
  • For more tips on analyzing the credibility and reliability of sources, please check out School Library Journal (they also provide an extensive list of media literacy resources) and the Digital Resource Center.
  • OpenSources Steps for Analyzing Websites:Step 1:  Title/Domain Analysis. If words like “.wordpress” or “blogger” are in the domain that usually signifies it’s a personal blog rather than a news source. If slight variations of well known websites appear, such as “,” this is usually a sign that the website is fake version of a source. However, remember that foreign reputable news organizations may have these country-specific domains.Step 2: About Us Analysis. I usually google every title/domain name/anyone listed in the “About Us” section to see if anyone has previously reported on the website (snopes, hoax-slayer, politifact,, etc.) or whether it has a wikipedia page or something similar detailing its background. This is useful for identifying and correctly interpreting lesser known and/or new websites that may be on the up-and-up, such as satirical sources or websites that are explicit about their political orientation. Then I look for information about the credentials and backgrounds of affiliated writers (is it a content mill or do they pay their writers?), editors, publishers, and domain owners ( etc.). It’s also useful to see if the website has a “Legal” or “Disclaimer” section. Many satirical websites disclose this information in those sections.

    A total lack of About Us, Contact US, or any other type of identifying information may mean that the website is not a legitimate source of information.

    Step 3: Source Analysis. Does the website mention/link to a study or source? Look up the source/study. Do you think it’s being accurately reflected and reported? Are officials being cited? Can you confirm their quotes elsewhere? Some media literacy and critical scholars call this triangulation: Verify details, facts, quotes, etc. with multiple sources.

    Step 4: Writing Style Analysis. Does the website follow AP Style Guide or another style guide? Typically, lack of style guide may indicate an overall lack of editing or fact-checking process. Does it frequently use ALL CAPS in headlines and/or body text? Does the headline or body of the text use words like WOW!, SLAUGHTER!, DESTROY!? This stylistic practice and these types of hyperbolic word choices are often used to create emotional responses with readers that is avoided in more traditional styles of journalism.

    Step 5:  Aesthetic Analysis. Like the style-guide, many fake and questionable news sites utilize very bad design. Usually this means screens are cluttered with text and heavy-handed photoshopping or born digital images.

    Step 6: Social Media Analysis.  Look up the website on Facebook. Do the headlines and posts rely on sensational or provocative language– aka clickbait– in order to attract attention and encourage likes, clickthroughs, and shares? Do the headlines and social media descriptions match or accurately reflect the content of the linked article? (this step isn’t particularly good at helping us find fake news, but it can help us identify other misleading news sources)

    By considering all of these areas of information we can determine which category or categories a

    website may occupy, although all categorizations are by necessity open to discussion and revision.  

    Website Labels for

    Fake News (tag fake): Sources that entirely fabricate information, disseminate deceptive content, or grossly distort actual news reports.  

    Satire (tag satire): Sources that use humor, irony, exaggeration, ridicule, and false information to comment on current events.  

    Extreme Bias (tag bias): Sources that come from a particular point of view and may rely on propaganda, decontextualized information, and opinions distorted as facts.

    Conspiracy Theory (tag conspiracy): Sources that are well-known promoters of kooky conspiracy theories. Ex: 9/11 conspiracies, chem-trails, lizzard people, birther, flat earth, flouride, vaccines as mind control etc.

    Rumor Mill (tag rumor): Sources that traffic in rumors, gossip, innuendo, and unverified claims.

    State News (tag state): Sources in repressive states operating under government sanction.

    Junk Science (tag junksci): Sources that promote pseudoscience, metaphysics, naturalistic fallacies, and other scientifically dubious claims.

    Hate News (tag hate): Sources that actively promote racism, misogyny, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination.

    Clickbait (tag clickbait): Sources that provide generally credible content, but use exaggerated, misleading, OR questionable headlines, social media descriptions, and/or images.  These sources may also use sensational language to generate interest, clickthroughs, and shares, but their content is typically verifiable.

    Proceed With Caution (tag unreliable): Sources that may be reliable but whose contents require further verification or to be read in conjunction with other sources.

    *Political (tag political): Sources that provide generally verifiable information in support of certain points of view or political orientations.  

    *Credible (tag reliable): Sources that circulate news and information in a manner consistent with traditional and ethical practices in journalism (Remember: even credible sources sometimes rely on clickbait-style headlines or occasionally make mistakes. No news organization is perfect, which is why a healthy news diet consists of multiple sources of information).

    Unknown (tag unidentified): Sources that have not yet been analyzed (many of these were suggested by readers/users or are found on other lists and resources). Help us expand our resource by providing us information!

    Note: Tags like political and credible are being used for two reasons: 1.) they were suggested by viewers of the document or OpenSources and circulate news 2.) the credibility of information and of organizations exists on a continuum, which this project aims to demonstrate. For now, mainstream news organizations are not included because they are well known to a vast majority of readers.

    Working Website List for

    The below list of websites is a combination of my original list in this google document, numerous other lists on the internet, and suggestions from readers/internet users. All tagged websites have been analyzed by myself or one of the librarians I’m working with on OpenSources. All websites tagged as “unknown”  still need to be analyzed, and some of them may be removed entirely from the resource for various reasons (i.e. it doesn’t circulate “news” or the website no longer exists). Finally, please remember that all tags may be subject to revision based on feedback, discussion, continued analysis, or website changes etc.

Please follow and like us:

Deputy Premier Sarah Hoffman wastes no time slamming United Conservatives

rick-bell  BY CALGARY SUN


sarah hoffman

Sarah Hoffman, Alberta’s deputy premier, takes no prisoners Wednesday. None.

Conservatives uniting in one party this past weekend and then thinking they’ll kick NDP butt has Hoffman more than willing to jump into the fray — with gusto. (Seeing her jump would be entertaining!)


Hoffman wants it to be known to one and all. The Notley NDP are playing for keeps. (At keeping what I don’t know! They never had anything. Their win was a simple “knee jerk reaction to silly things said in the media by the former Premier!)

Brian Jean and Jason Kenney, both ready to rumble for the United Conservative leader’s job, get an early mention.

They both seem to be doing a song and dance, thinking it’s all good and they’ll magically be able to walk easily over the finish line.” (Actually, they will!)

“I’m here to say: We’re not going to stand aside. We’re going to stand and we’re going to fight. Albertans deserve nothing less.” (You don’t have to stand aside, you’ll be pushed aside!)

And Hoffman believes the United Conservatives do have a hidden agenda.

The early talk about budget matters has been soft. There will be little pain. Just some adjustments. It might pinch but it surely won’t hurt.

Earlier this week, Jean avoided tough talk while still promising to soon get the province back in the black.

Hoffman thinks his platform is “delusional” with “no connection to reality.” (Hey…..she just described the NDP mentality in it’s entirety!)

The deputy premier says the real plan is pain, no matter which conservative is in charge. (Real pain comes from the idiocy of the NDP!)

“It is moving forward with deep cuts. And you know what? They freak out when we say they’re going to fire teachers and nurses because they don’t want people to know that’s what they’re going to do.” (A tad dramatic, but that’s the NDP for you!)

So why don’t they tell us, in this province liking to say it’s conservative while almost always electing big-spending governments, long before the NDP came to power?

“Because they know they won’t get elected if they do.”

(They’re getting elected no matter what anyone does! NDP got lucky last election. I’m afraid “Lady Luck” has now moved on!)

Hoffman then mentions United Conservative Derek Fildebrandt, who doesn’t mind mixing it up in the political ring.

“Derek Fildebrandt at least is admitting these cuts would hurt, these cuts would mean pain. That’s the truth.”

And lookee here … Fildebrandt.

He says conservatives have to be crystal clear in where they stand, so the NDP can’t claim there is a hidden agenda.

That debate begins now.

Fildebrandt says Jean’s budget plan doesn’t add up and doesn’t get to a balanced budget in three years.

It doesn’t even come close.

“We’re not going to get to a balanced budget with nail clippers. We need shears,” he says.

Then there’s the idea of axing the carbon tax and somehow stopping the federal carbon price being imposed on Alberta by launching a court battle and winning, moves very popular with United Conservatives.

Notley’s No. 2 figures that dog won’t hunt, though it is a simple message.

United Conservatives either don’t understand reality or are “trying to create a false reality for the public, one they know isn’t going to be possible.”

(Hey, you just described the NDP mentality again…..create their own reality…don’t actually acknowledge reality!)

Don’t forget about lowering the corporate tax, another winner in United Conservative circles.

“They want to create tax breaks for the wealthiest in our society. This is their values.” (More hyperbole!)

Speaking of values, Hoffman also says United Conservatives aren’t coming clean on social values, their position on women’s issues or LGBTQ issues. ( Oh, here we go with the “made up” issues again!)

“I know Rachel is very confident in telling Albertans who she is and what her values are. I think we should expect that from anyone who wants to be leader of this province.” (But no one cares except a small minority of “have nots!”)

Hoffman says, by not explaining their position on these social questions, conservatives are giving a wink and a nod to certain people in their party “who may be quite comfortably homophobic or misogynist.” (More “made up issues!”)

The deputy premier also feels the old PC culture of entitlement is far from gone.

Hoffman believes casualties from the defeated Toryland dynasty have been frustrated since the NDP election win and have plotted on how to get back to the good old days.

(Frustrated at their previous leader yes, not the NDP, after all, it wasn’t anything they did or had going for them that got them elected in the first place. No need to be frustrated with the NDP, amused at their delusions and idiocy yes!)

“They’re trying to figure out any way they can to regain power. It doesn’t matter who they need to buddy up with to get into that position.” (The power has always been their’s. Bye bye NDP!)

Now there’s unity and Alberta conservatives feel they have the wind in their sails and the province’s politics can soon go back to normal. (Yes “normal”, meaning no NDP!)

“That is the epitome of entitlement,” says Hoffman, speaking of the United Conservatives and leadership hopefuls Jean and Kenney. (Yes, the favorite NDP word…”entitlement” Something have nots call everyone else!)

“They think all they have to do is hold their noses and dance for a little bit and then it will be back to normal. I don’t think Albertans voted for normal. I think Albertans voted for change.” (Now you’re getting it, yes change, now they’ll vote for “change” again. But a “change” back to “normal!”)

On Twitter: @sunrickbell

Please follow and like us:

No immediate military trans-gender change, top officer says

Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford

Robert Burns, The Associated Press 
Published Thursday, July 27, 2017 12:11PM EDT 
Last Updated Thursday, July 27, 2017 1:43PM EDT

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military will keep permitting its transgender members to serve openly until Defence Secretary Jim Mattis receives President Donald Trump’s actual direction to change its policy and then figures out how to implement it, America’s top military officer said Thursday.

In a memo to all military service chiefs, commanders and enlisted military leaders, Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said “there will be no modifications” to current policy for now, amid questions about President Donald Trump’s announcement on Twitter that the U.S. government will not “accept or allow” transgender people to serve in any capacity in the military.

“I know there are questions about yesterday’s announcement,” Dunford began, adding that nothing would change until the president’s direction has been received by Mattis and Mattis has issued “implementation guidance.”

“In the meantime, we will continue to treat all of our personnel with respect,” Dunford wrote. “As importantly, given the current fight and the challenges we face, we will all remain focused on accomplishing our assigned missions.”

The Dunford statement suggests that Mattis was given no presidential direction on changing the transgender policy. Mattis has been on vacation this week and has been publicly silent amid questions about Trump’s announced ban. His spokesmen declined to comment Thursday. On Wednesday they said the Pentagon would work with the White House and provide revised guidance to the military “in the near future.”

Dunford himself was not aware that Trump was going to announce the ban, a U.S. official said. The official was not authorized to discuss the matter and so spoke on condition of anonymity.

The chief of staff of the Air Force, Gen. David Goldfein, sent a note internally to his entire force Thursday citing Dunford’s memo and saying that he and Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson “emphasize that all airmen will be treated with dignity and respect as we work through the potential policy changes” coming from the White House.

Together, the Dunford and Goldfein notes illustrate that military leaders do not equate Trump’s tweets with legal orders.

Gen. Mark Milley, the Army chief of staff, made similar points during a speech at the National Press Club.

“I have yet to receive implementation guidance” from Mattis, Milley said. “We’ll act when we receive directives through the proper chain of command channels.” Until then, nothing changes, he added, citing the Dunford memo.

Trump’s announcement caught the Pentagon flat-footed and unable to explain what it called Trump’s “guidance.”

Please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military,” the commander in chief tweeted.

Trump wrote that he had consulted with “my generals and military experts,” but he did not mention Mattis, the retired Marine general who recently told the service chiefs to spend another six months weighing the costs and benefits of allowing transgender individuals to enlist. At the time, Mattis said this “does not presuppose the outcome of the review,” but Trump’s tweets appeared to have done just that.

The Pentagon has not released data on the number of transgender people currently serving. A Rand Corp. study has estimated the number at between 1,320 and 6,630 out of 1.3 million active-duty troops.

 Criticism for Trump’s action was immediate and strong from both political parties.

John McCain, the Arizona Republican and Vietnam War hero, said Trump was simply wrong.

“Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be allowed to continue serving,” he said. “There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train and deploy to leave the military — regardless of their gender identity.”

Not everyone at the Capitol agreed.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said: “It’s about time that a decision is made to restore the warrior culture and allow the U.S. military to get back to business.”

Transgender people already in uniform were concerned about what comes next.

“Everybody is hurt, everybody is scared,” said Rudy Akbarian, 26, who is in the military but did not want to identify his branch.

Trump’s sudden declaration appears to halt a decades-long trend toward more inclusive policies on military service, including the repeal in 2010 of a ban on gays serving openly. President Bill Clinton in 1993 began the push to allow gays to serve. In December 2015, President Barack Obama’s Pentagon chief, Ash Carter, announced that all military positions would be open to women. Liberalizing policy on transgender troops was the next step.

Just last week, when asked about the transgender issue at a Senate hearing, Gen. Paul Selva, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, “I am an advocate of every qualified person who can meet the physical standards to serve in our uniformed services to be able to do so.”

Transgender service members have been able to serve openly since 2016, when Carter ended the ban. Since Oct. 1, transgender troops could receive medical care and start changing their gender identifications in the Pentagon’s personnel system.

Carter also gave the services until July 1 to develop policies to allow people already identifying as transgender to join the military if they meet normal standards and have been stable in their identified genders for 18 months.

On June 30, Mattis extended the July 1 deadline to next Jan. 1, saying the services should study the impact on the “readiness and lethality of our forces.”

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Trump had made “a military decision.” She said it was his judgment that allowing transgender service “erodes military readiness and unit cohesion.”

Sanders said the “president’s national security team was part of this consultation” and that Trump “informed” Mattis of his decision immediately after he made it on Tuesday.


Please follow and like us:

Hillary Clinton calling new book “What Happened?”

FILE - In this Sept. 21, 2016, file photo, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton pauses as she speak during a campaign stop at the Frontline Outreach Center in Orlando, Fla. Clinton is calling her new book “What Happened” and promising to let her “guard down” as she remembers her defeat last year to Donald Trump. Simon & Schuster told The Associated Press on Thursday, July 27, 2017, that Clinton will describe the “intense personal experience” of being the first woman nominated by a major party for president. (Matt Rourke, File/Associated Press)
 July 27 at 2:14 PM
NEW YORK — Hillary Clinton is calling her new book “What Happened” and promising unprecedented candor as she remembers her stunning defeat last year to Donald Trump.

“In the past, for reasons I try to explain, I’ve often felt I had to be careful in public, like I was up on a wire without a net,” Clinton writes in the introduction, according to publisher Simon & Schuster. “Now I’m letting my guard down.”

Simon & Schuster told The Associated Press on Thursday that Clinton’s book will be a highly personal work that also is a “cautionary tale” about Russian interference in last year’s election and its threat to democracy. In public remarks since last fall, the Democrat has cited Russia as a factor in her defeat to her Republican opponent, along with a letter sent by then-FBI Director James Comey less than two weeks before the election.

Comey’s letter, sent to Congress on Oct. 28, said the FBI “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation” into the private email server that Clinton used as secretary of state. Days later, Comey wrote that the FBI did not find anything new.

“Now free from the constraints of running, Hillary takes you inside the intense personal experience of becoming the first woman nominated for president by a major party in an election marked by rage, sexism, exhilarating highs and infuriating lows, stranger-than-fiction twists, Russian interference, and an opponent who broke all the rules,” according to Simon & Schuster. “In these pages, she describes what it was like to run against Donald Trump, the mistakes she made, how she has coped with a shocking and devastating loss, and how she found the strength to pick herself back up afterwards.”

“What Happened” is scheduled to come out Sept. 12 and has evolved since first announced, in February. It was originally billed as a book of essays that would “tell stories from her life, up to and including her experiences in the 2016 presidential campaign,” as opposed to a memoir centered on the race. Clinton’s loss has already been the subject of the best-selling “Shattered,” a highly critical book by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, and a more sympathetic account, Susan Bordo’s “The Destruction of Hillary Clinton.”

Within hours of Thursday’s announcement, “What Happened” had jumped from No. 3,350 to No. 17 on

Clinton’s previous works include the 2003 memoir “Living History,” published while she was a U.S. senator from New York, and a book about her years as secretary of state, “Hard Choices,” which came out in 2014 as she prepared to launch her presidential candidacy. She also wrote “It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us” when she was first lady.

Her upcoming memoir isn’t the first political book to be called “What Happened.” Scott McClellan, a former White House press secretary during the George W. Bush administration, released a book with the same title in 2008. McClellan’s memoir was an unexpectedly critical take on his former boss that became a best-seller.

Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


Please follow and like us: