They hide behind empty slogans like the one recently resurrected from the 1970s by Hillary Clinton: “The future is feminine” while shutting their gold—ringed ears to the cries of all women eking lives under oppressive Muslim regimes. CanadaFreePress
UN Watch, a non-governmental human rights NGO in Geneva, expressed disappointment that Sweden’s self-declared “first feminist government in the world”sacrificed its principles and betrayed the rights of Iranian women as Trade Minister Ann Linde and other female members walked before Iranian President Rouhani on Saturday wearing Hijabs, Chadors, and long coats, in deference to Iran’s oppressive and unjust modesty laws which make the Hijab compulsory — despite Stockholm’s promise to promote “a gender equality perspective” internationally, and to adopt a “feminist foreign policy” in which “equality between women and men is a fundamental aim.”
In doing so, Sweden’s female leaders ignored the recent appeal by Iranian women’s right activist Masih Alinejad who urgedEuropeans female politicians “to stand for their own dignity” and to refuse to kowtow to the compulsory Hijab while visiting Iran. UN Watch
Stephen A. Smith: “My days of rooting for him have come to an end and here is why. As an African-American in this country you have to be sensitive to the fact that civil rights legislation was passed in the mid 1960’s, ok? When we talk about the battles that have been fought, the things that have happened to people, what they’ve had to endure, the fact that folks ended up dying for the right for him to have the right to vote in this great country of ours, you have the opportunity to vote and what exactly is voting all about?”
“Ladies and gentlemen, you know what voting is? Do you not understand that that’s the reason why we’re the greatest country on the planet earth? It’s not just because of our wealth. It’s not just because of the resources that we have available to us. It’s because we have the power to change and manipulate the course not just of our lives but of generations to come because of the voice that we have through the vote to promote change. If anybody in this country should appreciate that more, it is African-Americans, because that right wasn’t something that was always bestowed upon us.”
The New York Times released a partial set of 1995 state tax documents belonging to Donald Trump. The illegally obtained 20 year old tax documents show Trump declared a $916 million loss in 1995 by using legal tax deductions that made his tax liability was zero. The NY Times article contains a lot of might have, could have and may not to imply thatthe business loss declared in 1995 might have resulted in Trump not paying taxes in some subsequent years.
Hillary Clinton claimed a $699,5000,00 loss in 2015. She also used the legal tax code of historical losses to avoid paying some taxes in 2015.
New York Times paid no taxes in 2014 and received an income tax refund of $3.5 million with a pre-tax profit of $29.9 million in 2014.
But the Times itself has “avoided” paying taxes — in 2014, for example.
As Forbes noted at the time:… “for tax year 2014, The New York Times paid no taxes and got an income tax refund of $3.5 million even though they had a pre-tax profit of $29.9 million in 2014. In other words, their post-tax profit was higher than their pre-tax profit. The explanation in their 2014 annual report is, “The effective tax rate for 2014 was favorably affected by approximately $21.1 million for the reversal of reserves for uncertain tax positions due to the lapse of applicable statutes of limitations.” If you don’t think it took fancy accountants and tax lawyers to make that happen, read the statement again.”
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani defended Trump on Sunday, telling NBC News’ Meet the Press that Trump was a “genius” in business who was simply doing what the tax code allows every American to do by counting losses against tax liabilities, and bouncing back from failure to success.
That would include the New York Times — which, however, is still struggling.BreitBart
Since 2006 non-military federal agencies have spent $1.48 billion on guns and ammo.
“Conservatives argue that it is hypocritical for political leaders to undermine the Second Amendment while simultaneously equipping non-military agencies with hollow-point bullets and military style equipment,” Open the Books said. “One could argue the federal government itself has become a gun show that never adjourns with dozens of agencies continually shopping for new firearms.”
There are now more non-military government employees who carry guns than there are U.S. Marines, according to a new report.
Open the Books, a taxpayer watchdog group, released a study Wednesday that finds domestic government agencies continue to grow their stockpiles of military-style weapons, as Democrats sat on the House floor calling for more restrictions on what guns American citizens can buy.
The “Militarization of America” report found civilian agencies spent $1.48 billion on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment between 2006 and 2014. Examples include IRS agents with AR-15s, and EPA bureaucrats wearing camouflage. FreeBeacon
Congressional Democrats ended their 25-hour sit-in on the House floor this afternoon, failing to force a vote on two pieces of gun legislation. The controversial sit-in included 26 Democratic lawmakers who themselves own guns, Heat Streetlearned after examining 2013 USA Today data on congressional firearms ownership. The participants also included 12 more Democrats in Congress who either didn’t respond to USA Today’s gun survey or declined to say whether or not they possessed a firearm…
The participation of Democratic gun owners can be viewed as the pursuit of reasonable compromise by left-wing firearm fans—or, potentially, as hypocrisy. HeatSt
Here’s the full list of Democratic gun owners who participated.
Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick
Rep. Bennie Thompson
Rep. Dina Titus
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger
Rep. Jared Huffman
Rep. Jim Cooper
Rep. Jim Costa
Rep. John Carney
Rep. John Garamendi
Rep. Keith Ellison
Rep. Mike Thompson
Rep. Peter DeFazio
Rep. Peter Welch
Rep. Rick Nolan
Rep. Ron Kind
Rep. Steve Cohen
Rep. Tim Ryan
Sen. Gary Peters
Sen. Harry Reid
Sen. Mark Warner
Sen. Martin Heinrich
Sen. Patrick Leahy
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse
Sen. Tammy Baldwin
Sen. Tim Kaine
Sen. Tom Carper
Paypal has cancelled plans to expand in North Carolina because of the state law that prohibits people from using public bathrooms of their opposite sex; keeping its public bathrooms safe.
“Becoming an employer in North Carolina, where members of our teams will not have equal rights under the law, is simply untenable,” PayPal CEO Dan Schulman said in a statement. “The new law perpetuates discrimination and it violates the values and principles that are at the core of PayPal’s mission and culture.” CNN Money
The values and principles at the core of PayPal?
“PayPal does business in 25 countries where homosexual behavior is illegal, including 5 countries where the penalty is death, yet they object to the North Carolina legislature overturning a misguided ordinance about letting men in to the women’s bathroom? Perhaps PayPal would like to try and clarify this seemingly very hypocritical position.” –Congressman Robert Pittenger of North Carolina
PayPal operates in Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Qatar, Somalia, United Arab Emirates, Uganda, and Yemen.
British lawmakers on Monday debated a petition to ban U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump from Britain over remarks on Muslims after the horrific mass shooting by two Islamic terrorists.
Jack Dromey, an opposition Labour Party spokesman on home affairs said, “To have someone come to our shores who demonizes all of the Muslim community would be fundamentally wrong and would undermine the safety and security of our citizens and that is not a risk I am prepared to take … I don’t think Donald Trump should be allowed within a 1,000 miles of our shore.” Reuters
This is sheer hypocrisy by the British who have no problem welcoming leaders from countries with huge records of human right violations: King Salman of Saudia Arabia, President Putin of Russia, Chinese President Xi Jinping…
Members of parliament decided Trump should be allowed into Britain where his views could be challenged and that it was not for Britain to get involved in US affairs.
“I believe it is for the American people to hold him to account. It is bad politics … to intervene in the electoral processes of other countries,” said Conservative lawmaker Tom Tugendhat. Reuters
A Christian man called 13 gay or pro-gay bakeries and asked if they would make a cake for a pro-traditional anti-homosexual event putting “gay marriage is wrong” on the cake. All 13 bakeries denied him service some in an ugly vulgar manner. Christian bakers tell gays that it is against their religious beliefs with none of the ugliness and vulgarity that was thrown by some at this Christian young man. Hypocrites!
YouTube Removed the videos. View the videos at Shoebat.com
The homosexual activist in this video said you can’t choose who you serve, as though he is taking a purely objective position, but when we ask for an anti-gay marriage cake, all of a sudden the saying of “you can’t choose who you serve,” does not apply to us.
In conclusion, here is our point. A Christian making a homosexual cake goes against his faith and a homosexual putting “gay marriage is wrong” goes against his faith as well. Now of course we honor their right to say no, but what about honoring the Christian right to say no?
The big lie of the homosexual agenda is this: They say that they were only fighting for equality and tolerance. This is false. Read More at Shoebat.com
Harvard University students blockaded its administration offices to persuade Harvard to divest endowment investments in oil, gas, and coal companies. This is only the latest campaign to persuade U.S. universities and colleges to divest from fossil fuels investments over concerns about climate change and pollution.
The campaign has persuaded 11 colleges to divest wholly or partially from fossil fuels. Harvard’s $33 billion endowment is the largest targeted of any educational institution. Demands for divestment of investments by colleges in fossil fuel companies have been backed by many students and more than 100 faculty members.
Have these students and faculty members given up fossil fuels? Are they living a fossil fuel free existence? Do they jump on their motorcycles or in their cars to drive to the coffeehouse, to work, to school? Are they heating their living spaces with fossil fuels? Are the student and faculty members benefiting from fossil fuels? The students blockaded the administration offices of Harvard University to make a point they are not living. Hypocrisy!