The Week in Radical Leftism, 8/26/2017

Loading

Welcome back to the week in Radical Leftism! Let’s start with who the media is hoping to be the face of the next generation of Democrats!

8/20 – Chelsea Clinton Tries Again, Compares Confederate Monuments to Satan: Backfire in 3…2…1…

Please keep pushing her as the future face of the Democrats, MSM – please?

8/20 – Thousands of Leftists Converge on Boston to Protest Nazis

The counter-protesters were under the impression that the free speech rally would be similar to the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, last week that became violent and left a woman dead. But they were wrong. The rally was organized by a free speech group with no connection to white nationalists or Nazis. The protest on Saturday seemed to be either a result of mass hysteria fanned by a rabidly anti-Trump MSM, or a massive astroturf effort funded by the usual suspects on the organized left. Or a combination of the two.

Look at the bright side Lefties, at least this time you get to be right when you say that the two sides are nothing alike. On that note, let’s jump back a few days…

8/18 – Antifa Declares: ‘F**k Your F***ing Constitution, We’re Here to Punch Nazis’

Ladies and gentlemen, your keynote speaker for the 2020 Democratic National Convention!

8/21 – CNN Scrubs Headline That Correctly Identified Antifa as Violent

CNN caught accidentally telling the truth – immediately acts to correct their mistake!

8/21 – Smithsonian’s Black History Museum to Feature ‘Colin Kaepernick Collection’

Yes, our tax dollars are now being used to promote terrorist organizations. Hey Antifa – diversify your ranks and take off the masks if you want our government’s formal endorsement!

8/22 – OVERREACH: PAYPAL BANS JIHAD WATCH, THEN BACKS DOWN

You know, because exposing murderers equals hate…

8/22 – Black Lives Matter Asks Whites to ‘Give Up Your Home to Black Family’

(censorship mine)

7. White people, especially white women (because this is yaw specialty — Nosey Jenny and Meddling Kathy), get a racist fired. Yaw know what the f*** they be saying. You are complicit when you ignore them. Get your boss fired cause they racist too.

BLM inadvertently makes the best argument ever for school choice vouchers

8/22 – ESPN, THE WORLDWIDE LEADER IN LIBERAL IDIOCY

As in an asian dude named “Robert Lee”. I’m glad that I’m not in the satire business, as it’s become impossible to write anything more ridiculous or laughable than today’s Radical Left. In honor of this brilliance todays Twitter roundup at the end is dedicated completely to this topic – take a bow, ESPN!

8/23 – WaPo Editorial: Satan Is Good; Christians Are Responsible for Charlottesville

ESPN: “No media outlet is going to say anything dumber than us today!”
WaPo: “Hold my Smirnoff Ice”

8/23 – WATCH: Top 5 Versions Of The Antifa Protester Being Hit In The Balls Outside Trump’s Rally

There just aren’t enough truly happy stories in the news these days. This one is guaranteed to warm your heart and put a smile on your face!

8/23 – Kasich, GOP and Senate remain in health care cartels’ pockets

Just a reminder, Kasich is still an a**hole

8/24 – You: There’s No Way Hillary Clinton Will Keep Playing The #FemaleCard Now That She Has No Races Left to LoseHillary Clinton: Check Your Assumption, Male #Hater

Meanwhile, Hillary is kind enough to provide monthly reminders of the bullet this country dodged by not electing a whiny harpy that was supposed to embody #GirlPower

8/24 – The Left Arms Up: John Brown Clubs

After arranging for a collision between the two gangs (recall that John Brown sponsor Redneck Revolt was there, taking part in the attack), McAuliffe and Streeter stood down the police in hopes of a confrontation or even worse, a massacre. A few dozen dead kids would have suited them just fine. But this time (and largely, I would be willing to bet, thanks to the basic cowardice of the KKK/Nazis), they did not get it.

The Socialists’ attempt at starting a Reichstag Fire in Charlotte could have been a lot worse. This needs a separate post. If only there were more hours in the day…

8/25 – ACLU Wants Border Agents to Suspend Duties So Illegals Can Escape Hurricane Harvey

Um, do we really need to spell out the obvious solution, ACLU?

Until next week – have a great weekend, everybody!

https://twitter.com/omriceren/status/900182364755775488

https://twitter.com/CounterMoonbat/status/900186997838540800

https://twitter.com/ProducerKen/status/900291769077837824

Follow Brother Bob on Twitter and Facebook

Cross posted from Brother Bob’s Blog

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

@Greg:

The administration and enforcement of immigration law are the exclusive responsibility of the federal government and federal law enforcement entities. In accordance with Constitutional law, state, county, and municipal governments have no legal authorit

You are just totally ate slam up with the dumbass. Any police officer is pledged and duty bound to uphold every law that is in effect in the domain where they are a police officer. Being in the country illegally is a crime in every jurisdiction in the US. You didn’t answer my question from yesterday. If a city policeman is in a bank and a bank robber pulls out his gun to rob the bank, the policeman has ‘no authority’ to act? After all, it is ONLY a Federal law about bank robbing. So give us an answer. Put more of your dumb assety on display.

DA, go to this site: you will see NYPD officers arresting bank robbers. Robbing a bank is a Federal Law. According to you, those NYPD officers are violating those citizens rights to rob a bank unless Federal officers are present. :Give us an answer. How can that happen?
http://nypost.com/2016/12/23/cops-catch-bank-robber-using-gps-planted-in-stolen-loot/

This clearly says it is a ‘federal’ crime: “Bank robbery is the crime of stealing money from a bank, while bank employees and customers are subjected to force, violence, or the threat of violence. This refers to robbery of a bank branch, as opposed to other bank-owned property, such as a train, armored car, or (historically) stagecoach. It is a federal crime in the United States.”

That is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_robbery

According to you, only a federal officer can arrest for a federal crime.

@Greg: If if is found that a person is an illegal resident, that person can be held and turned over to immigration authorities, and that is what was happening. They simply were not IGNORING the fact that a suspect was here illegally, as the Obama administration wanted all law enforcement to do. Furthermore, if a law enforcement officer knowingly allows an illegal immigrant to go free, THAT IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW, as harboring illegal immigrants is a CRIME. Arpaio was not the only lawman doing it, he was just the most visible, so the political DOJ went after him. All for naught.

Ha.

Regarding that last assertion, only around 38 percent of Americans share your opinion. The first assertion is most definitely false. All of Trump’s bullshit is going to come back and bite him.

According to what… one of your “polls”? Yeah, you worry about that. I won’t. Trump is doing a pretty damn good job, especially considering all the anti-American opposition he faces.

@Ajay42302: I’m sure it’s just an oversight on your part, but you never answered my questions, particularly the one concerning Hillary dropping N-bombs. Forget? Or just chicken$hit?

@Ajay42302:

I think You’ve enlightened me. So, uh, racism per your logic only exist in the event of slavery.

No DA, that’s not what I said. Give me a quote to where I said anything even remotely like that. I said:

Racist? you know, Kitt. I don’t see or think about racism until some black asshole gets up and starts accusing all white people of being racist. And it is especially hysterical when a white racist gets up and starts calling other whites racist

that was in 46.
You should be ashamed to publicly display so much pure ignorance in just one comment. Nothing you said bares any resemblance at all to what I said. I’ll boil it down to 1 and 2 for you. Two people in a room, names 1 and 2 No 1 stands up and calls 2 a racist. you can figure that No. 1 is the racist, he’s the one seeing color. And 98% of the time, No 1 will be black. Has nothing to do with who sold who out of the jungle. But my point was that blacks want to blame whites for slavery when it is/was the blacks themselves that invented and sustained slavery. You need to go back to kindergarten and take up logic for pre K’s, maybe you’ll figure it out.

@Bill… Deplorable Me, #53:

If if is found that a person is an illegal resident, that person can be held and turned over to immigration authorities, and that is what was happening. They simply were not IGNORING the fact that a suspect was here illegally, as the Obama administration wanted all law enforcement to do.

The entire point of this bullshit was an attempt on the state level to override Obama’s federal immigration policies. Obama’s approach involved such things as prioritizing deportation, by focusing limited federal resources on the most undesirable undocumented aliens, while granting a level of protection to the most productive and desirable.

That state level policy would have quickly overloaded jails, prisons, and federal courts with an overwhelming backlog of undocumented aliens that simply couldn’t be processed. It was politically useful to local republican politicians, but totally idiotic in its outcome.

President Obama was actually trying to deal rationally and effectively with a problem that politicians had ignored for decades in all respects but their blovating campaign rhetoric, and in many ways had actually contributed to in their quest for a plentiful labor pool that would work without complaint for substandard wages. That’s what brought these people here to begin with.

According to what… one of your “polls”?

According to ALL of the polls.

Undocumented aliens get a huge share of the blame for depressed wages, of course. They’re an easy target for politicians on the right. The poor and minorities tend to get get the same treatment. And, of course, so do democrats, and unions. They historically take the side of the disadvantaged.

It’s all about blame shifting. If the blame were properly placed, big trouble would soon follow for those most responsible. ‘X’ Marks the Spot Where Inequality Took Root: Dig Here

Everything is a distraction from the truth. Trumper the Juggling Clown is a distraction from the truth. More and more, I think that’s his real function.

@Redteam: Its all they have, name calling, we have become pretty immune to it as well as the maxed out race and woman card. They are deep in the matrix, they truly believe that everyone that isnt all about their feelings is evil.
Perhaps it can be boiled down to Dr. Spocks how to raise your kids books. I do draw the line with attacking our veterans, shoving all of them into the racist group. Perhaps its because they ignored and abused them the current administration is trying to right their wrongs so they also must be vilified.
If this does boil down to the civil war they are trying to gin up, that wont work well for them.
I give no sympathy to any groups that think they own America and everyone else shut up and give me your stuff. Thats BLM and Antifa in a nutshell.
My favorite Antifa Protester Being Hit In The Balls Outside Trump’s Rally, was Trump hits a golf ball and the beanbag lands it.

@Greg:

President Obama was actually trying to deal rationally and effectively with a problem that politicians had ignored for decades i

President Obama did not have authority to tell police officers to not do their jobs. If someone didn’t want a law enforced, repealing the law is the correct way.

override Obama’s federal immigration policies.

I think you may have stumbled up on something (even a blind hog finds an acorn occasionally) There were not and are not any “Obama federal immigration policies’. There are US laws, State laws, country laws, city laws. but didn’t know there were any Obama’s laws. Sounds like, if only Feds can enforce Fed laws, then only Obama can emforce obama laws. Is that right? Let’s see, the reason Obama didn’t want them enforcing the Obama laws was because it would fill up the jail cells. Hmmm, how so if only Obama could make arrests? According to you, local police couldn’t enforce an Obama law, so it wouldn’t fill up anything. I realize you get confused, but we’ll try to keep you straight.

Undocumented aliens get a huge share of the blame for depressed wages, of course.

Next you’ll be blaming low wages on slavery.

Trumper the Juggling Clown is a distraction

I thought juggling clowns drew attention.
So are “Obama’s Law” above or below “federal laws” ?

@Greg:

The entire point of this bullshit was an attempt on the state level to override Obama’s federal immigration policies.

The point was to override Obama’s refusal to enforce laws already enacted; laws which protected the public. However, those laws impeded Obama’s capacity to pander, so he blatantly ignored his sworn duty to uphold the laws of the United States of America. He sorta took an oath to do that.

President Obama was actually trying to deal rationally and effectively with a problem

Obama was trying to load the United States up with illegal immigrants that the left has been actively trying to wedge into the electoral process. Nothing more; he was trying to destroy the Constitutional electoral process because it no longer benefits the left’s drive towards socialism.

@Bill… Deplorable Me, #59:

Obama was trying to load the United States up with illegal immigrants that the left has been actively trying to wedge into the electoral process.

Would that explain why the number of undocumented aliens living in the United States hit the lowest number in a decade over the course of the Obama presidency? Because that’s precisely what happened.

It sure as hell didn’t have anything to do with what the republican-majority Congress did about immigration policy. They yapped incessantly about Obama and immigration, but they didn’t actually do squat. All changes resulted from executive decisions affecting administrative policy, not legislation. There was no legislation.

Nothing has changed regarding republican incompetence in that actual matter of governance, which is what they’re supposedly being paid to engage in. At last having control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, these idiots can’t even make good on their most prominent campaign promises. We’ll probably be lucky to get a budget passed without a government shutdown and a default on the debt. All they’re capable of doing is pointing their fingers and blaming somebody else, while turning regulatory control over to the special interests who fill their pockets. And cashing their paychecks, of course.

@Greg: That chart you linked to showed that the number in 09 was 11.3 million and in 16 11.3 million. You do know that the one’s that left did so because the economy was so poor even they couldn’t get a job here. The president sets the policy for immigration, both legal and illegal and Obama did nothing, no’s remained the same.

Do you remember this? Probably not. It’s one of those bits of annoying information that fails to register on the right.

Record number of deportations took place on Obama’s watch

That, with the focus on deporting the least desirable people first… It was a rational and effective approach to a problem by a president that the republican House was doing everything possible to obstruct. But the right have their own imaginary facts, and their own imaginary little reality.

@Greg: You failed to note who published that info and failed to note that it was not ‘official’ stats. Obozo controlled the Fake News organizations.

@Greg:

Would that explain why the number of undocumented aliens living in the United States hit the lowest number in a decade over the course of the Obama presidency? Because that’s precisely what happened.

This was due to Obama’s rotten economy, not any efforts on his part to enforce immigration law.

Record number of deportations took place on Obama’s watch

This inflated number has been shown to be due to the fact that Obama began counting those illegal immigrants turned away at the border as “deportations”. Just more lies, Greg. You KNOW how Obama lied.

Any source that presents information you don’t want to hear—or, rather, that your manipulators don’t want you to hear—is, by their definition, a phony news source. They’ve convinced you of that to such an extent that they’ve effectively cut off any consideration of alternative views and unfiltered news. You can no longer think for yourselves. You’ve lost all capacity for independent evaluation and judgement. It’s so bad that Trump could flipflop constantly during the campaign, telling one story in the morning and a contradictory one that afternoon, and his hypnotized followers wouldn’t even notice the reversal. They think the other side is clueless.

@Greg:

or, rather, that your manipulators

and you would know all about that.

@Greg: Giving up getting anyone here believing your Sosos-brand false talking points? You might as well; it ain’t going to happen. We traffic in facts, not liberal fantasy.

Your buddy AJ is far too cowardly and stupid to honestly answer a simple question; maybe you are up to it. Is this proof that Hillary is a racist?

@Ajay42302 HELLO? Anything? You going to clear this up anytime soon?

Katie Couric confirms Hillary dropping F- and N-bombs at interview
http://dailypostfeed.com/katie-couric-speaks-out-on-canceling-clinton-interview-it-was-over-when-she-called-him-the-n-word/

@Ajay42302 HELLO? Anything? You going to clear this up anytime soon?

@Bill… Deplorable Me, #7:

Arpiao ignored a liberal judges liberal interpretation of restrictions to illegal immigration. HE is held responsible. Well, he has done no wrong and I am glad and proud that stain on American justice has been reversed.

By the way, how do you think it’s been reversed? By Trump jumping in there and giving a man convicted of a crime a pardon, not even waiting for him to be sentenced, or possibly to file an appeal?

You probably don’t understand the implications of a Presidential pardon any better than our Pretender in Chief does: Specifically, that the granting and acceptance of a presidential pardon is an imputation that the offender is truly guilty of the crime, and an acknowledgement on the part of the offender of that guilt.

A pardon is not a stain remover; it’s an open acknowledgement that the stain actually exists, written on the back of a get-out-of-jail-free card. That’s not my opinion. It has been clearly and unambiguously established by the U.S. Supreme Court. Refer to the following paragraph from Burdick v. the United States:

There are substantial differences between legislative immunity and a pardon; the latter carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it, while the former is noncommittal, and tantamount to silence of the witness.

Arpaio won’t be able to appeal his conviction, once a pardon for the crime has been accepted. He will have legally acknowledged that he was, in fact, guilty as charged.

@Greg:

Specifically, that the granting and acceptance of a presidential pardon is an imputation that the offender is truly guilty of the crime, and an acknowledgement on the part of the offender of that guilt.

You are totally full of crap. It does no such thing. If a person is convicted of a crime, whether they did it or not. It will stay on their record forever, unless a pardon is issued. Did you whine when Chelsea Manning was pardoned? Did you cry when Clinton pardoned his brother Roger? Did you cry when Clinton pardoned Marc Rich? I’m sure if Arpaio’s case had been appealed it would have been overturned. Just no point in wasting gov time waiting when it was going to be overturned anyhow.

I’m sure you’re standing in solidarity with the Fascists (called antifas) in Berkeley aren’t you? They seem to be especially anxious to prove that Trump was right when he blamed it on both sides at Charlottesville. (Of course, both sides were paid by Soros, so they were on the same side)

@Greg:

He will have legally acknowledged that he was, in fact, guilty as charged

You’re crazy as hell. Accepting a pardon only acknowledges that you accept a pardon. Nothing else.
I’ve seen on the internet where a president can only pardon for a Federal Crime. BS, a president’s pardon power is absolute. It can be used for jaywalking or for bank robbery. All the same. Absolute means absolute.

@Redteam, #69:

You are totally full of crap. It does no such thing.

I’m not saying. The Supreme Court of the United States is saying it, very plainly and precisely, in Burdick v. United States. Can you read English?

The President of the United States can only grant pardons for federal crimes. He cannot pardon state offences. Only the Governor of the state in question can do so.

Reality is what it is, not what Trump or his supporters would prefer that it be.

@Greg:

I’m not saying. The Supreme Court of the United States is saying it,

Nope, it’s all you. The Supreme court does not say anything like what you are saying. The question you bring up is what they state near the beginning of that review. Then it goes on and discusses that theory and reaches the conclusion that it is not right. that accepting the pardon is unconditional and that the only thing you are acknowledging is that you are being offered a pardon and that you accept it. You do not have to acknowledge any guilt. All your imagination. Go back an read it again with your brain in gear (if that is possible).

@Redteam, #72:

From Burdick v. the United States, word for word:

“There are substantial differences between legislative immunity and a pardon; the latter carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it, while the former is noncommittal, and tantamount to silence of the witness.”

What do you think that means?

The granting of a presidential pardon to Arpaio, and his acceptance of it, have the legal effect of an acknowledgement of his guilt.

@Greg:

What do you think that means?

Well, if you wasn’t such a dumbass liberal, you would read on down a little ways and find out that was the legal question that was being debated and that the answer was NO IT DID NOT MEAN that.

Want to try again?

I haven’t even been able to find a copy of any official document signed by President Trump pardoning Arpaio—only an announcement from the White House Press Secretary, and a Twitter post by Trump himself. He reportedly didn’t seek any White House legal counsel. He may not know the difference between the various types of clemency a president may grant. He has no legal background.

When a pardon is granted, the convicted offender is forgiven the crime and its penalty. A head of state or government generally grants it when the convicted individual has fulfilled his or her debt to society or is somehow otherwise worthy of being forgiven the crime. A pardon does not erase the conviction, but it can in some jurisdictions remove some of the disqualifications caused by it.

@Greg: Clemency means either a reprieve, a commutation of sentence, or a pardon The president said he gave him a pardon. Seems rather straightforward.
Since you’re cherry picking definitions, I’ll go with this one. It agrees with what I said and is contrary to what you quoted:

A pardon is a government decision to allow a person who has been convicted of a crime to be free and absolved of that conviction, as if he or she were never convicted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon

@Greg:

By the way, how do you think it’s been reversed? By Trump jumping in there and giving a man convicted of a crime a pardon, not even waiting for him to be sentenced, or possibly to file an appeal?

Once again, you cannot support the lawless utter disregard for justice and the Constitution of the past administration and disagree with Trump pardoning a political target OF that administration on the premise you SUPPORT law and order. You simply can’t; it has no credibility and gains no traction. Obama pardoned drug dealers, killers, traitors and terrorists and you want us to believe you actually disagree with Trump pardoning someone politically targeted and found guilty of a misdemeanor. Really, Greg. REALLY.

This was a misdemeanor, not a violent drug dealer as Obama released by the hundreds… because they were black. This was a misdemeanor, not someone that revealed national security secrets to our enemies… so he could pander gays. This was a misdemeanor, not terrorists who killed Americans… so he could pander to Muslims. Obama took a big stinking $hit on our system of justice. Trump is removing the stain that left.

Arpaio IS guilty. Guilty of relentlessly upholding the law and drawing the attention of the lawless liberals that do not want illegal immigration impeded. The stain removed is the stain Obama, Holder, Hillary and Lynch put on the concept of justice in the United States, where laws apply to everyone and NO ONE is above the law. That stain… dirty, stinking stain… has been removed by Trump.

Now, I’ll try this again. After Hillary has been dropping the N-bomb, are you ready to admit she is a racist? Either defend her racism or condemn it, Greg. Don’t be like AJ. Being like AJ is BAAAAD.

@Redteam, #76:

Maybe you need to look up the definition of the word absolve. It means to declare someone free of blame, guilt, or responsibility for a crime or action. It’s not a declaration that the crime or action in question didn’t happen, or that they didn’t do it.

@Greg:

Maybe you need to look up the definition of the word absolve.

And maybe you need to look up the definition of the word stupid. You take a word and try to redefine it to fit some stupid purpose and pretend like you have a clue. Sounds like the definition of stupid, but you might want to look it up.

You take a word and try to redefine it to fit some stupid purpose and pretend like you have a clue.

I’ll go with the meaning that you’ll find in any standard dictionary.

absolve – transitive verb. 1 : to set (someone) free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt. The jury absolved the defendants of their crimes.

…which doesn’t mean the crime didn’t exist, or that they weren’t guilty of it. Apparently the alternate reality of the right includes an alternate understanding of the English language.

@Greg: But, of course, no actual crime DID exist, did it? Only liberal lynching.

@Greg:

absolve – transitive verb. 1 : to set (someone) free from an obligation or the consequences of guilt. The jury absolved the defendants of their crimes

So you’re saying a pardon totally absolves “sets someone free from any obligation or consequesnce of guilt” ? I’ll go along with that, That’s exactly what I said. It’s as if the crime never happened as far as the pardoned person is concerned. If you had looked that up earlier, you would have recognized long ago that I was right and that you were arguing the wrong side of the definition. But go ahead, if it makes you feel good and give yourself an F for effort. That’s for the admission.