And you’re lecturing us about Trump?

Loading

 

obama laugh constitution

 

The IRS has announced that it has opened an investigation into the Clinton Foundation “pay to play” schemes:

The IRS confirmed in a letter it is looking into claims of “pay-to-play” practices at the Clinton Foundation, after dozens of Republican lawmakers requested a review of potential “criminal conduct” at the organization founded by the family at the center of this week’s Democratic National Convention.

Commissioner John Koskinen wrote in a July 22 letter to Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn that the issue has been “forwarded” to the IRS “Exempt Organizations Examinations” program in Dallas.

“This program considers all referrals and will send you a separate acknowledgement letter when it receives your information,” he wrote, in a letter first reported by The Daily Caller.

It’s unclear whether the agency might take any further action. The letter noted that, under the law, they could not reveal “any actions we may take on this information.”

There’s a lot of excitement from the right about this and I hate to rain on anyone’s parade but just forget this now. It’s not as if justice shouldn’t be served, it’s that it just won’t. This is going to go the way of the email scandal- that is to say, I suspect the IRS is opening an investigation as a means of exonerating the Clinton’s just as did Comey. The IRS is hopelessly corrupt and that brings me to the topic at hand.

The left is now lecturing us about how dangerous and reckless Donald Trump is. Really? Let’s review.

It wasn’t Trump who sold 2500 automatic weapons to Mexican cartels via Fast and Furious only to see them used in mass killings.

It wasn’t Trump’s Department of Labor who stonewalled for six years and then admitted destroying records sought under FOIA.

It wasn’t Trump who weaponized the IRS to target conservatives.

It wasn’t Trump who’s weaponized all of the government.

It wasn’t Trump’s IRS who destroyed Lois Lerner’s back-up emails after they were subpoenaed.

It wasn’t Trump who called ISIS the JV. Since the time obama dismissed them as the JV ISIS has killed more than 20,000 people.

It wasn’t Trump who toppled a sovereign country without any support from Congress.

It wasn’t Trump who admitted what was supposed to be Hillary’s greatest moment was his worst mistake.

It wasn’t Trump who gave ISIS a place to grow in Libya.

It wasn’t Trump who expanded warrantless surveillance of Americans.

It wasn’t Trump who promised “No more secrecy.” 

It wasn’t Trump who promised not to spy on innocent Americans and then renege.

It wasn’t Trump who decided not to enforce immigration laws.

It wasn’t Trump who flaunted the immigration laws and the courts.

It wasn’t Trump who won’t even mention ISIS at the Convention.

It wasn’t Trump who killed four Americans without due process.

It wasn’t Trump who lied 36 times about the ACA.

It wasn’t Trump who intentionally deceived Americans about the Iran deal and then brag about it.

It wasn’t Trump who was “extremely careless” with top secret intelligence.

It wasn’t Trump who lied repeatedly about his illicit private server.

It wasn’t Trump who made the US state secrets vulnerable.

It wasn’t Trump who incited a war on cops.

It wasn’t Trump who got millions of dollars for doling out US government favors.

It wasn’t Trump who lies about the TPP

It wasn’t Trump who said he was under sniper fire in Bosnia.

It wasn’t Trump who prefers BLM over the police.

It wasn’t Trump who banned uniformed police from the DNC Convention floor.

 

anti hillary ad

 

 

 

And you’re lecturing us about how dangerous Trump is?

Shove it. Really. Shove it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
138 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Bill:

Of course its hypothetical (even though according to Trump, noncitizens can and did run as he is a true blue birther).

Why are you so scared to answer the simple question? It isn’t a trick question. The fact that you tuck tail and run from your very own convictions rather than grow some balls discredits you more.

Are you afraid that your cohorts here would laugh at you or disown you for admitting you’d vote Lucifer over some left liberal like Joe Biden or vote Mussolini over some moonbat progressive like John Kerry?

Of course you’d vote against the bleeding heart liberal, even if he happened to be Jesus Christ (again, all hypothetical). Why are you ashamed of your very own beliefs? Why do you run from them?

You’re looking like a spineless coward with absolutely no balls at all, just a little fuzzy bag.

Wow, a list of rightard lunacy all in one place! Thanks, lol!

@Ajay42302: You have asked a totally stupid question. But, no, I would never vote for any of them, and for the same reason I would not vote for Hillary. They are corrupt socialists that would break any law to achieve their ends and personal enrichment.

Biden or Kerry would not be as bad as Hillary or Obama.

Of course, I need not ask you the same question; if your scenario could be placed in reality, they would be on the same ticket.

So, now that that bit of stupidity is out of the way, why would you vote for a proven liar, one proven incapable of handling the job she seeks, one proven to be totally corrupt over a legitimate businessman? That is not hypothetical or stupid…. that is a real scenario. Why would you vote for proven incompetence, especially after seeing the results of 8 years of far left incompetence?

@Greg: 38.

Do you really imagine the police or the coroner somehow missed a second gunshot wound?

I’m suggesting that Hillary was the wife of a sitting president and she could have shot someone in Times Square on New Year’s eve and no one would have been able to find any evidence of it. That’s what I’m suggesting, that there are crooks in government, especially ‘the establishment’ government.

@Ajay42302:

The fact that you’re still dipping in the Benghazi well

and the fact that you are not interested in her incompetence says a lot.

@Redteam:

You are combining 2 different arguments. The GOP admitted and obvious exploitation of Benghazi for political gain while considering the GOP’s shortcomings in the hearing is not part of the equation of my thoughts on her competence.

@Bill:

To answer your question, I have always given my party first consideration but flexible contengent on the candidate. The McConnell lot have become so out of touch and corporately liplocked that it has become harder to give any R consideration.

But I would vote any of them-McConnell, Ryan, Romney, McCain, even dimwitted and intellectually challenged Sarah Palin over Hitler or Mao or Jong or bin Laden. I would even vote for the likes of con man Don over any of them, as bad as I despise him.

So your attacks on Hillary are superficial and irrelevant. From your very own admission, you would be here blathering derogatives towards any Democrat while building a case for Lucifer or Saddam or whoever it is running against them. It isn’t the person, its the party.

That’s likely why you can’t recognize this racist bigoted shyster for who he is. You can’t let reality come in the way of your blind partisan hatred.

@Ajay42302):

So your attacks on Hillary are superficial and irrelevant.

No, they aren’t. You could not be more wrong and, believe me, you seem to be putting forth some effort towards that end.

Superficial? What I criticize is the very basis of what a leader needs to be. Hillary is demonstrably dishonest, untruthful, corrupt and incompetent. Having PROVED oneself incapable of making sound decisions and caught destroying government information and mishandling classified information… then lying about it under oath… is anything BUT superficial. Same goes for irrelevant… lying about causing American lives (something you leftists thought was pretty relevant when you were falsely accusing Bush of the same) and trying to run a secret, separate State Department is pretty damned relevant.

Why do you keep calling Trump racist when you (you, who accused ME of cowardice for ignoring your stupid question) take the chicken-sh!t coward’s way out when asked to provide proof?

@Bill:

After admitting that you’d vote Kim Jong, Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, or Lucifer just as long as they were on the right political ticket, excuse me for not taking you seriously on anything else.

And with that said, wasting time trying to rationalize with someone that partisan is like trying to teach advanced calculus to a tree frog, something that just can’t be done. Accordingly, my fuzzy friend, I’ll pass on any future attempts.

I will close with telling you the answer to your question is wrapped in neatly in my closing paragraph that you responded to. I would say any hopes of comprehending it is up to you.

Poor Dr J !!
He keeps hoping and hoping that one of his fantasies will come true.
What a life of political disappointments he has had

@Ajay42302): After proving, repeatedly, you are a cowardly liar, don’t bother forgiving me for pointing out you prove my point; the the left is bereft of ethics and character, cannot stand by their failed ideology and has nothing but lies to try to sell their agenda.

I answered your stupid question; why are you such a chicken-sh!t, yellow, spineless, liberal pr!ck coward that you won’t answer mine? Let me add another; now that Hillary’s own emails reveal she lied about giving weapons to jihadists in Syria, are you still blindly, stupidly, ignorantly voting for that incompetent, corrupt liar?

Bill
Post your name an address I drive over the road happy to come for a visit

@john: Here’s a better idea; you post your phone number and I’ll give you a call.

@Froggie):

And with that said, wasting time trying to rationalize with someone that partisan is like trying to teach advanced calculus to a tree frog,

So AJ do we call you ‘froggie’ from now on?

@Bill: Anyone that doesn’t think that the president of the US should be honest , truthful, not corrupt and competent has no judgment and reasoning ability. AJ (lately known as Froggie) seems to fit that well.

Calling another man “froggie” seems to help build self esteem in some posters
Probably they see their political party self destructing before their own eyes

@john:

Calling another man “froggie” seems to help build self esteem in some posters

I don’t know John, you might want to ask froggie about that since he is the one that mentioned calling someone that. Let me know what you and froggie decide.

@Redteam: There is no quantity of corruption, dishonesty, incompetency or lying can cause a liberal, waiting impatiently for their free goodies paid for by others and for the government to wipe their butts for them, that will turn them away from one of their lying candidates.

So, is Donald Trump the Siberian Candidate or a Democratic Party mole? Inquiring minds want to know.

Maybe he’s just got the most interesting reality television show concept anyone has yet thought of. He hasn’t even needed to pitch it to sponsors, and it’s already running on all cable news channels. There’s definitely going to be a book and movie deal in all of this at some point.

@Greg: No, he’s just a candidate that is about 1000% more qualified than Hillary, who is a lying, corrupt criminal.

Fortunately for the nation, it doesn’t appear that a majority of American voters are likely to agree with you, come November 8. Trump’s lead in the polls has already evaporated. He’s now playing before an audience of all eligible voters, not just a republican audience, and he can’t even keep himself from offending mainstream republicans. It’s not as if liberals or democrats are the only ones who have noticed.

The next president is going to have to deal with these psychos. It’s going to take someone who can be calm, cool, and collected under pressure—not someone who seems like he might be prone to road rage if provoked.

@Greg: Seems as if you’re overlooking the fact that Trump led Hill for 30 of the 31 days in July in the ultra lib state of Gayfornia. And he has led 2 of the 2 days in the month of August. So don’t get too excited yet. I’m sure you’re going to be happy about the coming Wikileaks emails. I’m sure they’ll be good news for Hill.

@Greg:

The next president is going to have to deal with these psychos

like Hill dealt with the Benghazi attacks?

@Redteam, #73:
Trump gets stuck on winning pointless arguments like Br’er Rabbit gets stuck on Tar-Baby. His ego won’t allow him to let a thing go.

He could have simply clarified and rephrased his Muslim position in response to the Kahn family’s criticisms, and apologized for any pain they’d been caused by misunderstanding him. He wouldn’t have had to “I was wrong.” Then it would have been over, he would have taken minimum damage, and it would have been forgotten in a day or two.

Instead, he has to double down on his error, because he has have been right to begin with. He can’t see or take the wiser course, even when the consequences of not doing so are obvious.

So, how does that personality trait come into play, when you’re dealing with someone irrational and dangerous in the context of international affairs? What if he has to prove something personally in the context of a showdown with Kim Jong Un? Screw that up, and you could suddenly be involved in rematch of the Korean War, except the nutcase on the other side would have nukes to throw at Seoul or Tokyo or maybe Honolulu.

I see this as a very real, obvious, and serious problem, that has been demonstrated repeatedly during this campaign. It’s a more dangerous problem than any Hillary Clinton might pose. Anyone who can’t see that surely isn’t paying attention.

@Greg: Your point might be well taken if it were not for the fact that Trump was the one that was correct and Khan was a Muslim working to get more illegal Muslim’s into the country and attempting (very poorly) to try to blame Trump for his son being killed in 2004. I believe it the truth were known and told, Kahn would have to blame the Muslim’s for the death of his son. It takes a pretty small person to attempt to benefit by personal gain by telling lies about his motives and trying to milk sympathy for him for something his fellow Muslims did. I don’t see where having a Muslim lover as president has benefitted the US in their relations with Muslim countries. If anything, it has benefited the Muslim countries

@Greg: 70% of the nation thinks Obama, and Hillary as a continuance, has the country going in the wrong direction.

The next president is going to have to deal with these psychos. It’s going to take someone who can be calm, cool, and collected under pressure—not someone who seems like he might be prone to road rage if provoked.

That ain’t Hillary. She is more spontaneous than Trump, only she lashes out at the people around her, trying to help her. Now, THAT’S stable.

How long did she carefully ponder and consider what she ultimately did in Libya?

He is right on Khan. Just as the rest of the left has done, Khan has reacted to a position Trump does not hold and he used his heroic dead son to do it.

@Bill: sorry I don’t accept collect calls

@Bill: unsure of why that would be a better idea ? I drive over the road so a face to face would probably be feasible

@john: Yeah, you don’t accept responsibility for your failures, either.

You think those who contract you to carry their goods would appreciate you getting your ass whipped on the clock?

@Redteam:
Red Team you are cherrry picking your numbers again
Try looking a RealClearPolitics CA polls average, if you do you will see that they show a 22 point Clinton average lead
You choose one poll LA Times with a small sample but because you NEED to believe you see only what you wish

@Greg: How about having a proven liar as President. How about her dealing with any foreign country. Are they going to believe her? What has she ever done to prove she can lead? She has been identified by the FBI as too ignorant to even protect this nation’s secrets, too stupid to know how to use a Blackberry and email. Yet, you profess that she is the best choice? Who is ignorant and irrational here? It seems like the answer is Clinton supporters.

@Redteam: actually it is the US military that is supposed to deal with attacks like that not the Department of State

@Redteam:
@Randy:
Ohhh how sweet the Cljnton victory will be in Nov !!!
Your Trumpenstein monster has gone rogue

@john: I didn’t choose a poll, I used the one that clearly showed that Trump was ahead of Hillary 30 of the 31 days in July and 2 of the first 2 days of August. Why would it not be representing the truth?

@john: The person responsible for the Dept of State is charged with insuring the security of embassies throughout the world. They have the US Military to provide services as requested. None were ever requested for Benghazi. The US Air Force, US Navy and US Army informed the State Dept they had forces ready to roll at her request. It never came.

@john:

actually it is the US military that is supposed to deal with attacks like that not the Department of State

Someone has to go to the effort to pick up a phone and call the military. Apparently, 9/11/12, everyone that should have was in campaign mode and couldn’t be bothered.

Ohhh how sweet the Cljnton victory will be in Nov !!!

Should someone that is extremely careless in handling national security and sold arms to terrorists (then lied about it all) be President of the United States?

@Bill:

Should someone that is extremely careless in handling national security and sold arms to terrorists (then lied about it all) be President of the United States?

it’s ok with Dims, they have no standards.

@Redteam: as soon as the attack was reported Obama told JCS to do everything possible
Unfortunately life is not like a Tom Clancy novel
Even in the Bengahzzi!!!! Investigations Trey Goudy admitted in conclusion that the US military was unable to do anything
And
The Dec of State has no power over any of the uniformed branches. She was not in the chain of command
Even YOU should know that

@Redteam: you mean like Reagan trading our top of the line Hawk missles to Iran ????

Frustrated Fact-Checker: Trump’s Crime Stats ‘Mostly Accurate’

I will present the facts plainly and honestly. We cannot afford to be so politically correct anymore.

Homicides last year increased by 17% in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. In our nation’s capital, killings have risen by 50 percent. They are up nearly 60% in nearby Baltimore.

In the President’s hometown of Chicago, more than 2,000 have been the victims of shootings this year alone. And more than 3,600 have been killed in the Chicago area since he took office.

The number of police officers killed in the line of duty has risen by almost 50% compared to this point last year. Nearly 180,000 illegal immigrants with criminal records, ordered deported from our country, are tonight roaming free to threaten peaceful citizens.

(Seema) Mehta (Los Angeles Times correspondent) griped:

While there have been sharp recent increases in homicide rates in certain parts of the country, overall murder rates are the lowest they have been in decades, according to factcheck.org. Additionally, a snapshot offered by looking at a couple years is insufficient to determine whether there is a new trend.

In terms of specific statistics, Trump was accurate when he talked about a 17% year-over-year increase in homicides in the nation’s 50 largest cities; and the murder rates in Washington, D.C., Baltimore and Chicago.

But he was inaccurate when he said that the number of police officer deaths has risen nearly 50% compared to the same period last year. While the number of police officers killed by guns has gone up that amount, the overall number of police officers killed in the line of duty is flat.

Note, in particular, Mahta’s last paragraph, in which she claims that Trump said “the number of police officer deaths has risen nearly 50%.” Now look again at what Trump said: “killed in the line of duty.”

She corrects him for a mistake he never made.


Liberal Fact Checkers Investigate Trump’s Speech… Guess What Happened Next

Mason couldn’t deny the fact that her “fact checking” showed that Donald Trump was right in his assessments. In fact, she was the second reporter to confirm that The Donald’s facts were indeed facts.

(Snip)

“The number of new illegal immigrant families who have crossed the border so far this year already exceeds the entire total from 2015,” Trump said during his speech.

According to Mason, Trump was essentially correct, according to statistics from the U.S. Border Patrol. Approximately 51,000 families have crossed the border since the beginning of the 2016 fiscal year.

The liberal fact checkers could no longer deny that Trump knew what he was speaking about, even if it pained them to say so.

Fact Checkers Can’t Handle the Truth

In their haste, or maybe it was their zeal, to try to de-bunk Trump’s statements on immigration, they put out sloppy work and sometimes downright false evaluations.

The following are the Trump statements examined by Politifact and the Post:

The number of new illegal immigrant families who have crossed the border so far this year already exceeds the entire total from 2015. They are being released by the tens of thousands into our communities with no regard for the impact on public safety or resources.


This statement is 100 percent true.
According to the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) website, as of the end of June, with three months remaining in the 2016 fiscal year, 51,152 family units were apprehended crossing the border illegally. There were 39,838 family units apprehended in all of FY2015, more than 11,000 less than the 2016 partial total.

As per Obama administration policy, nearly all are released into American communities, regardless of the cost to local communities. The release policy was outlined in a statement by DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson on June 24, 2015. The statement is silent on the cost to local taxpayers, although these have been documented to reach hundreds of millions of dollars nationwide for education alone, not counting health care, housing and other public welfare services.

The DHS statement gives lip service to considerations of public safety, but these words are contradicted in policy and practice, as illustrated by another event mentioned by Trump in his speech. In January, 21-year old Sarah Root was killed by a Central American illegal alien named Eswin Mejia, who crashed into her car while drag racing drunk through the streets of Omaha. Mejia crossed the border illegally in 2013 as a minor, and was released according to Obama administration policy. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorities declined to take Mejia into custody after two previous arrests, and after he killed Root, still refused to take him, despite five requests from Omaha police, because he “did not meet ICE’s enforcement priorities”.

In their rapid response to Trump’s speech, Washington Post writers Glenn Kessler and Michelle Ye Hee Lee dismissed the Trump statement as “another cherry-picked number”. They wanted readers to focus instead on the total number of apprehensions at the border, which they pointed out was also higher than last year, but lower than 2012-2014.

But Trump’s statement appropriately ties the rising number of illegally-arriving families and minors with the policy that allows for their release into American communities.
Top Border Patrol officials, too, have linked this catch-and-release policy to the rising numbers. In contrast, most other illegal border crossers are promptly repatriated, and thus impose no public safety or fiscal cost on local communities. The Post’s redirection is inapt. Besides, it does not change the fundamental truth of Trump’s statement.

(Snip)

Mason also wanted to comfort her readers with the knowledge that, “overall, however, the number of people living in the country illegally has essentially leveled out since 2007.” As proof, she included a graph showing that the population of illegal aliens dropped sharply after 2007, grew noticeably from 2009-2011, then decreased, and has gradually inched up again until 2014. Never mind that the graph pre-dates the time period Trump was talking about (2015-16). And, new Census data reveal that illegal immigration surged significantly in 2014 and 2015.

Nearly 180,000 illegal immigrants with criminal records, ordered deported from our country, are tonight roaming free to threaten peaceful citizens.

This statement is 100 percent true. Like the previous one, it comes directly from a federal government source, this time from ICE. According to the June 20, 2016, edition of “Weekly Departures and Detention Report”, the number of non-detained convicted criminal aliens on the Post Final Order Docket was 176,126.

(Snip)

Valverde went on to justify the “mostly true” characterization by noting that “experts say there is some important context.” The first expert she quoted, Ana Gonzalez-Barrera of the Pew Research Center (no parenthetical offered on their slant), noted that the 180,000 includes deportable aliens whose countries won’t take them back. Yes, it does, but as I told Valverde several hours later, according to ICE statistics I had given her, in 2015 those cases made up about 10 percent of the releases, and thus are not particularly representative of the total, so how is that vital context that materially affects the truth of the statement?

Valverde next quoted Nestor Rodriguez, a sociology professor at the University of Texas (no descriptive language other than “sociology professor” needed for the reader to understand his slant). He told Valverde that the 180,000 included “many young mothers with small children who seek asylum … looking for informal jobs to support their families.” That is quite obviously wrong (the ICE document clearly labels these cases “convicted criminals” who have concluded their immigration hearings).

Some hours after I wrote Valverde to point out these errors, she got back to me saying that Rodriguez has retracted his “expert” comment on the mothers. She added a statement from ICE, saying that the agency makes release decisions on a “case by case basis”. Right, just like Root’s killer, Eswin Mejia, and just like MS-13 members Henry Ernesto Dominguez-Vasquez and Juan Moises Aguirre Zelaya, awaiting trial for the murder of another “unaccompanied” teen in Loudoun County, Va., and just like Osmin Antonio Murcia, now incarcerated in Massachusetts for slashing with intent to murder another teen last Halloween.

(Snip)

Glen Kessler’s commentary in the Washington Post was also sloppy and full of errors, not to mention astonishingly blasé about crime and public safety
. Kessler wrote that Trump’s statement on the 180,000 at-large deportable criminal aliens “sounds worse than it really is.” Glen, tell that to the mother of Casey Chadwick, who was killed by one of them.

Kessler then wrote: “The actual crimes committed by this group are not documented, so Trump cannot easily claim all of these illegal immigrants are threatening.” Though Trump was speaking about criminal aliens who have not been removed, Kessler cited ICE statistics on criminal aliens who were removed to try to show that these 180,000 aliens who are still here are not particularly threatening to anyone.

If Kessler had done a simple internet search on “crimes of released criminal aliens”, he would have found pages of links to various articles, not only on the CIS website, where we have published ICE’s enumerations of the crimes committed by aliens released in the last several years (see here, here, and here), but also in widely circulated investigative reports in the Boston Globe and the Atlanta Journal & Constitution.

We have even published a map of where the homicide convicts were released, and another report on the 124 homicides that have taken place after ICE released them.

(Snip)

Kessler & Lee and Valverde also botched a fact-check earlier in the week on Sen. Jeff Session’s statement in a convention speech noting that “there are about 350,000 people who succeed in crossing our borders illegally each year.” Politifact declared the statement to be “False” and the Post said it was not supported by data. Both claimed to disprove Sessions’ statement by quoting CBP data on border apprehensions numbering 337,117 in 2015, and statements from various advocates and scholars saying that apprehensions had recently declined. But the federal government data on apprehensions counts only those aliens who are caught. Sessions was referring to aliens who succeed. It is generally accepted by experts and Border Patrol agents that only about half of all the aliens who attempt to cross the border illegally are caught, meaning an equal number probably get through. This was reported in a Washington Post story with the headline “Study: The U.S. stops about half of illegal border crossings from Mexico”. So Sessions was right; if apprehensions are running at about 337,000, then about 350,000 likely are getting through.

@Randy, #82:

How about having a proven liar as President. How about her dealing with any foreign country. Are they going to believe her?

Most foreign nations haven’t swallowed the political right’s domestic propaganda about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton hook, line, and sinker.

The majority of foreign leaders and officials look upon Donald Trump in total disbelief and with great foreboding, and have openly stated as much. There are notable exceptions, of course: the governments of North Korea and Russia. They have their own reasons for wanting Trump in the White House—none of which any thoughtful American voter ought to be comfortable with.

@Redteam: Their only standard is they be liberal, which itself includes incompetency and corruption.

@Greg:

Most foreign nations haven’t swallowed the political right’s domestic propaganda about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton hook, line, and sinker.

This would be why we have been making such swell deals with other countries, like the stinking-out-loud Iran deal, trade agreements, cooperation on terror and immigration… because everyone respects Obama so much.

Ditto
Perhaps you forgot to mention something about those Chicago numbers
They are the highest in 10 years!!
Hey wait??
You mean that they were higher when Bush was POTUS ?????
Look less police have been shit under Obama as under Bush
In general crime overall has been decreasing not increasing
Crime in city HAS been increasing, but so has populations as people flee the countryside and come to the city for work and governmental services
Crime rates were higher under Bush why not mention that?? Trying to mislead us ???

@john: You mean mention that crime has been on a steady decline since Clinton’s tougher stance on crime, which Obama is reversing? Or that, despite left wing rhetoric and lies, crime declines though millions and millions of new guns have been bought?

Only specific segments have suffered greater violence and cops is one of them… thanks to Obama.

@john: murders in chicago were highest under Clinton, within 3 yrs after Bush took office murders went from avg of about 650 to about 450, where they are today with Obama. So they came down under Bush and have stayed about that level since.

Crime rates were higher under Bush why not mention that?? Trying to mislead us ???

As I said, when Bush came in the murder rate was high but he got it down to a level where it remains today. Obozo has done nothing to reduce it further.

@Redteam:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago#Annual_homicide_totals_by_year
Why stop your analysis with Clinton ???
THE highest number of murders of any 2 term POTUS was under Ragan.
The highest total number of murders in one year was in Bush I’s last year when it peaked at 943, up slightly from the year before at 928
The total number of murders under Bush II will be higher than it was under
Obama
The total killed under Bush in Chicago 3,789
The total of police shot and killed is also lower under Obama regardless of what the rightwing media screams about “the war on cops”

Bill a bit confused here…… are you saying that you think that one reason why the increase in cops shot is due to the additional millions of guns that have recently been sold ?
Anyway total number of cops shot and killed has been on a decline, the fewest officer deaths by gunshot will be its lowest under Obama.
Of course many more cops kill themselves each year than are killed by others. http://www.officer.com/article/12156622/2015-police-suicide-statistics
Actually the true number is higher many police suicides are termed “accidental” as in he was cleaning his gun and it accidentally discharged

https://www.odmp.org/search/year
And why is the largest Red State (which is smaller than the largest Blue state) have more than 3 times as many cops shot to death as CA???
Is Obama making Texans kill cops? If he is he should stop.

@john: Ah, Chicago. I don’t care how far you go back, you find Democrat control of Chicago. Indeed, why does the left not scream about the steadily high number of murders where THEY are in control and THEY have banned guns?

Like the lives taken by your coddled illegal immigrants, the left does not care one goddamn about blacks slaughtering blacks in the poverty-ridden ghettos liberals have created.

Is Obama making Texans kill cops? If he is he should stop.

Yes, as a matter of fact, he is. The last 5 killed was a result of the cop-hate generated by Black Lies Matter and supported by Obama and Hillary.

Bill a bit confused here

More than a bit, my boy. More than a bit.