“The 15:17 to Paris”

Don’t miss the trailer…

Clint Eastwood’s new movie, “The 15:17 to Paris,” is based on true events, where three American heroes stopped a terrorist on a Paris train in 2015, and it is causing the Hollywood crowd to go nuts. They just tried to put the kibosh on certain scenes that didn’t fit their liberal agenda, and boy, that made Eastwood mad. So, the famous actor and director who voted for President Donald Trump just slapped the leftists hard with a brutal surprise. You’re going to love it.

Clint Eastwood is an American icon and is probably the most famous conservative actor and director in Hollywood. Eastwood’s legendary work affords him the ability to pick and chose what type of movies he’ll make, and he loves making patriotic American movies.

His current film, “The 15:17 to Paris,” is in the final edits, but the Hollywood crowd hates it, and they tried to stop certain people from seeing it. The reason is the pro-American message it sends, described in this synopsis on Google: “In the early evening of August 21, 2015, the world watched in stunned silence as the media reported a thwarted terrorist attack on Thalys train #9364 bound for Paris—an attempt prevented by three courageous young Americans traveling through Europe.”

The summary adds, “Throughout the harrowing ordeal, their friendship never wavers, making it their greatest weapon and allowing them to save the lives of the more than 500 passengers on board. The heroic trio is comprised of Anthony Sadler, Oregon National Guardsman Alek Skarlatos, and U.S. Air Force Airman First Class Spencer Stone, who play themselves in the film.”

The movie stirs real patriotic emotion and honors the three American heroes who have military backgrounds. It shows an Islamic terrorist, who gains entry into France as a migrant, attempting to slaughter 500 people, with three Americans stopping him. This just isn’t the type of movie the Hollywood crowd makes, and they tried to screw Eastwood by giving it an “R” rating.

The reason they gave for the “R” rating was it showed “violence,” and this pissed off Clint Eastwood, who is making this film so teens could also see a movie with real American values. It was a cheap shot by the liberal Hollywood idiots, and Eastwood decided that wasn’t going to happen. The legendary star shocked the Hollywood crowd by taking on the rating board himself, something that never happens. And, not only did he take them on, he blew them away.

“Clint Eastwood has won an appeal to overturn the R rating originally assigned to his upcoming film, The 15:17 to Paris. Instead, it will be rated PG-13. According to a source, the R rating was given for the train attack scene at the center of the film, which the Classification and Rating Administration described as ‘a sequence of violence and bloody images,’” reported Hollywood Reporter.

They added, “The Classification and Rating Appeals Board says it reviews 800 to 900 films each year, with fewer than 12 ratings a year appealed. Eastwood represented his own film on behalf of Warner Bros., which opens the film in theaters on Feb. 9.”

Clint doesn’t just play a “tough guy” in his movies, he showed those Hollywood snakes that he really is a tough guy who won’t be pushed around. He’ll make any darn movie he wants to make, and they won’t stop him from making sure as many Americans as possible can see it.

Here’s the highly awaited trailer for “The 15:17 to Paris” that just came out:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC_lnyn2R2Q

In case you’re wondering how much the Hollywood crowd detests this movie for its pro-American military theme along with its anti-Islam, anti-migrant message, here’s how one Hollywood critic describes it:
“But in the hands of someone like Eastwood, this [movie] reads like a recruitment ad for the military. Nothing diminishes the heroism of these three men, but in Eastwood’s hands, it looks like he’s coasting on their achievements to tell a story that will make some people think that they too can be heroes if they just head down to their local recruitment office.” [Source: Collider]

Well, let the haters hate. They loathe patriotism and they despise middle-class working Americans who love this country. They can’t stand Clint Eastwood who said that former President Barack Obama is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”

Lastly, what in the hell is wrong with sending the message to teens that they too can be heroes? What is wrong with giving some kids the idea that joining the military is a heroic thing to do? This is exactly the kind of movie our young people need to see in today’s world that is filled with idiot celebrities pushing anti-American messages. If this movie inspires just one young American to join the military and make their life worthwhile, then Clint Eastwood’s film will be a resounding success.

I can’t wait to see how the Academy of Arts treats this movie because the American people will love it. I predict a response from Hollywood similar to their reaction to the Trump victory.  LMAO  – The Liberator

Is Climate Change a Tool to Eliminate Democracy?

Reprinted from Armstrong Economics Blog

COMMENT: Your view on denying climate change is supporting the capitalist model. This shows you have no credibility.

-OD

REPLY: Climate is changing and it is part of the normal cycle – not human-induced. You are actually correct that I support capitalism and freedom and am against authoritarianism and totalitarian systems. What you fail to understand is that climate change is an agenda to eliminate your freedom. The entire argument is to support a move toward an authoritarian state. You better wake up. This is not truly about the climate change, it is all about controlling society, eliminating democracy, and changing the entire economic model that changes society. There is far more st stake here than most people realize.

Here is a piece that appeared in the Weekend Australian.

It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error. It’s not surprising.

We have been subjected to extravagance from climate catastrophists for close to 50 years.

In January 1970, Life magazine, based on “solid scientific evidence”, claimed that by 1985 air pollution would reduce the sunlight reaching the Earth by half. In fact, across that period sunlight fell by between 3 per cent and 5 per cent. In a 1971 speech, Paul Ehrlich said: “If I were a gambler I would take even money that ­England will not exist in the year 2000.”

Fast forward to March 2000 and David Viner, senior research scientist at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, told The Independent, “Snowfalls are now a thing of the past.” In December 2010, the Mail Online reported, “Coldest December since records began as temperatures plummet to minus 10C bringing travel chaos across Britain”.

We’ve had our own busted predictions. Perhaps the most preposterous was climate alarmist Tim Flannery’s 2005 observation: “If the computer records are right, these drought conditions will become permanent in eastern Australia.” Subsequent rainfall and severe flooding have shown the records or his analysis are wrong. We’ve swallowed dud prediction after dud prediction. What’s more, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which we were instructed was the gold standard on global warming, has been exposed repeatedly for ­mis­rep­resentation and shoddy methods.

Weather bureaus appear to have “homogenised” data to suit narratives. NASA’s claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record was revised, after challenge, to only 38 per cent probability. Extreme weather events, once blamed on global warming, no longer are, as their frequency and intensity decline.

Why then, with such little evidence, does the UN insist the world spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on futile climate change policies? Perhaps Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change has the answer?

In Brussels last February she said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.”

In other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.

Figueres is on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model. This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN. It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.

Figueres says that, unlike the Industrial Revolution, “This is a centralised transformation that is taking place.” She sees the US partisan divide on global warming as “very detrimental”. Of course. In her authoritarian world there will be no room for debate or ­disagreement.

Make no mistake, climate change is a must-win battlefield for authoritarians and fellow travellers. As Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation, says: “Even if the ­(climate change) theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

Having gained so much ground, eco-catastrophists won’t let up. After all, they have captured the UN and are extremely well funded. They have a hugely powerful ally in the White House. They have successfully enlisted compliant academics and an obedient and gullible mainstream media (the ABC and Fairfax in Australia) to push the scriptures regardless of evidence.

They will continue to present the climate change movement as an independent, spontaneous consensus of concerned scientists, politicians and citizens who believe human activity is “extremely likely” to be the dominant cause of global warming. (“Extremely likely” is a scientific term?)

And they will keep mobilising public opinion using fear and appeals to morality. UN support will be assured through promised wealth redistribution from the West, even though its anti-growth policy prescriptions will needlessly prolong poverty, hunger, sickness and illiteracy for the world’s poorest.

Figueres said at a climate ­summit in Melbourne recently that she was “truly counting on Australia’s leadership” to ensure most coal stayed in the ground.

Hopefully, like India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Tony Abbott isn’t listening. India knows the importance of cheap energy and is set to overtake China as the world’s leading importer of coal. Even Germany is about to commission the most coal-fired power stations in 20 years.

There is a real chance Figueres and those who share her centralised power ambitions will succeed. As the UN’s December climate change conference in Paris approaches, Australia will be pressed to sign even more futile job-destroying climate change treaties.

Resisting will be politically difficult. But resist we should. We are already paying an unnecessary social and economic price for empty gestures. Enough is enough.

Only an uninformed fool or someone with an anti-capitalist agenda supports the so-called climate change agenda. – The Liberator

Sad, but True

by Ingrid Jacques

The Detroit News

As a woman in a traditionally male-dominated field, I am concerned about what the #MeToo fallout means not only for me but for the women journalists who will come after me. Men (the smart ones anyway) are going to be scared to death of interacting with their female counterparts, for fear of their actions getting misconstrued. For instance, a recent poll from The Economist found that young people (18-30) have some very strict ideas of what’s acceptable behavior. In the U.S., about one-third believe it’s sexual harassment for a non-partner to compliment a woman’s appearance. Similarly, 25 percent think it’s always or usually harassment if a man asks a woman out for a drink.

All of my bosses in the media business have been men, and I’ve learned so much from my time working with them, and developing friendships with the experienced professionals I respect. Yet younger women may not get that chance, as men may not think such platonic relationships are worth the risk.

Good luck, millennial males, you have a long row to hoe, and the females of your generation are going to make you hoe it without a hoe because they don’t have a clue about what they really want. Such are the fruits of this politically correct, f*cked up world they have created.. – The Liberator

AL GORE: Global Warming Means Bitter Cold

By JOSEPH CURL

“So, to the climate change doubters and deniers out there, the unusual weather we’re seeing this winter is in no way evidence against climate change. It is an example of precisely the sort of extreme winter weather we expect because of climate change.”

Read the entire article HERE…if you can handle the insanity.

Al Gore is the Elmer Gantry of climate change. – The Liberator

 

George Will Calls Trump “Nation’s Worst President.”

One advantage of being in the commodities trading business is one very quickly learns the folly of stubbornly clinging to an opinion when the empirical evidence of price action shows that you’re wrong . . . at least for the time being. I couldn’t help but reflect on this notion when I read George Will’s scathing review in The Washington Post of the Trump presidency, now wrapping up its first year. He offers up Mr. Trump’s ill-conceived support for the awful candidacy of Roy Moore for the Alabama Senate seat — a seat that a blind water snake with an (R) by his/her name should have won easily for the GOP — as yet another bit of evidence to prove that the Gotham billionaire is “the nation’s worst president.” These are some strong words. They’re also demonstrably false.

And this brings me to the theme of the past year. I don’t want to unload on George Will per se. In fact, he’s one of my favorite pundits; I have many of his books, read his columns often, have watched him for years on the Sunday morning talk shows . . . oh, and he’s a Cubs fan who grew up in Champaign, Illinois. What’s not to like? So, the fact that even such an astute observer as Mr. Will can be so infected by #NeverTrump (the milder white-shoe conservative strain of the Left’s own rage virus that is Trump Derangement Syndrome) says much about the idea I mention above. Opinions that die hard can be quite harmful. In trading it hits the pocketbook. In punditry it diminishes one’s credibility as a clear thinker.

To be sure, I didn’t support Trump in the primaries for all the reasons many conservatives didn’t: his brash shoot-from-the-hip, often factually challenged, style made me conclude someone more even keel should have access to the nuclear codes; his general diminishment in the tone and character of a presidential race that, given the gravity of the office in question, demanded more decorum; I didn’t trust his conservative bona fides, especially with the late Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s pivotal seat sitting vacant; I doubted that he could transfer his undeniable business and selling skills (you think it’s easy to make a buck in Manhattan real estate?) to the White House. Not to mention, from a realpolitik standpoint, I honestly thought Hillary Clinton would easily defeat him in the general election . . . and a Hillary presidency would have been a death sentence for the Republic I love as it would have meant continued globalist policies, an ever-expanding confiscatory and regulatory state apparatus, open borders, the permanent left-tilt of an activist judiciary, and, worst of all, the abject cancer of corruption in the D.C. body politic that would have metastasized under her sleazy stewardship in the White House.

Well, guess what? I was wrong. At least so far. And I’ll admit it. Happily so, as I care more for the well-being of my country than being right.

What has me so vexed is how, even now, with the evidence before us, otherwise bright men like George Will still refuse to admit the same. If anything, like a bad trader watching a market crater as he buys and buys as his losses exponentially mount, he’s actually doubling down.

So, I’d like to offer this thought experiment: How would the #NeverTrump-ers like Mr. Will and others have responded if in 2016 I looked into my crystal ball and told them that Mitt Romney, or Jeb Bush, or perhaps John Kasich, would become the 45th president, and they would achieve the following in just their first year in office:

1) The economy would grow for three consecutive quarters at greater than 3%, and even top 4% in Q4. Consumer confidence by year’s end would be at a 17-year high, and unemployment a 16-year low.

2) The DJIA would rally from election night until the end of the 2017, 35%, from roughly 18,300 to 24,700.

3) Federal regulations would be curtailed at rate of 15:1, meaning that for every new federal rule, 15 would be red-lined off the books.

4) The Keystone Pipeline would finally be green-lighted, as would drilling in ANWR, creating even greater U.S. energy independence, which makes future meddling in the Mideast less a strategic necessity than since before World War II, while diminishing the power and influence of OPEC.

5) 80% of taxpayers would see sweeping middle class tax relief in one of the most consequential tax overhauls in modern history.

6) A bona fide strict constructionist conservative would fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court once held by the great Antonin Scalia as well as over 50 conservatives appointed to appellate and district courts . . . all lifetime appointments, re-shaping the federal judiciary for a generation. These judges would be hand-picked with a mind to, as Bahar Azmy, the Legal Director of the left-leaning Center of Constitutional Rights, laments, “end the progressive state.”

7) ISIS would be obliterated, without new U.S. boots on the ground. The reversal of the tide of the war has been so laudable, in fact, that even The New York Times recently admitted the administration has not been given enough credit by an openly hostile press.

8) The U.S. would finally recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s rightful capital city, and have his very competent U.N. ambassador put all ingrate nations who condemn this action on notice that they will be remembered when it comes time to open the checkbook. And in the meantime, we’ll keep $185 million from even what Mr. Will calls “The United Regimes” for the American people, thank you much.

9) Illegal immigration would fall by over 60% while the federal government would once again be in the business of law enforcement, rather than selective application for political expediency, as was Mr. Trump’s predecessor’s practice. It wasn’t long ago that Mr. Will himself declared President Obama’s abuse of executive power in skirting the legal process a disregard for the Constitution that was “worse than Nixon’s.”

10) Two entrenched and entitled familial political dynasties, who viewed the presidency not as a temp job on behalf of the American people but rather a regal birthright, were destroyed and sent into long-overdue retirement. Mr. Will often warned of the “imperial presidency.” And yet, had the establishment in which he finds himself so ensconced after forty-some years inside the beltway had its way, in 2016 the American people would have faced a choice for the next president between the wife of a former president on one side, and the son and brother of former presidents on the other.

And number ten seems to be the key, doesn’t it? There really is a D.C. establishment that values the status quo because it’s been just so lucrative for them. Big, entrenched government means big money, no matter what side of the aisle you sit. Seven of the ten richest counties in the USA do not populate cradles of innovation like Silicon Valley, nor financial hubs like Wall Street, nor manufacturing belts along the Great Lakes, but rather are attached like barnacles on the D.C. beltway. This speaks volumes about what is at stake for those on the inside. Government of a size and scope that would make the Founders howl is the lifeblood of so many found among the #NeverTrump-ers as much as for the “big government liberals” they decry. As Newt Gingrich once quipped, Republicans like to spend other people’s money as much as Democrats, they just feel guilty about it. Not guilty enough to root for the success of the man who wants to derail your gravy train though. They will not go gently into that good night.

So once again, I ask so-called conservatives like Mr. Will and others, if the above list of measurable accomplishments were achieved under a Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney administration, would he still consider the man at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue “the nation’s worst president”? That will come as a relief to Warren Harding, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Barak Obama, and Woodrow Wilson, but I don’t see the data points behind such a clarion call.

Is Donald Trump the ideal face behind the new American agenda? No. I can understand how he turns off people on a personal level. But as they say on The Godfather, this is business, it’s not personal. And the business of America, so far, has been taken care of far better than I expected. I’ll admit it. As Ben Shapiro often demonstrates with his “Good Trump/Bad Trump” segments, there is much to criticize as well as applaud. But to call him with uncharacteristic hyperbole “the nation’s worst president”? Come now, Mr. Will. As we say in trading, someone is talking their book.

I would call Mr. Will’s motivations the stubbornness of the small-minded, but his mind is anything but. Perhaps it’s just the disillusion of those who wanted the Clintons gone, but were never willing to nominate the type of bruiser it really took to really take them down by playing their own game. If Trump’s style is such a turn-off to Mr. Will and other Bill Buckley-esque conservatives that it negates his litany of very real accomplishments, then I don’t know what to tell them. As for me, who am I going to believe? My pre-conceived notions, or my own eyes? The eyes have it. 2018 should be interesting as the marginalization of the old guard media-political establishment continues under the relentless pressure of an orange monster . . . and in the face of the more incessant, petulant, childish, and mean-spirited opposition from more sides, be it from the GOP and conservative establishment, the DNC and their Praetorian Guard in the mainstream media, or the paragons of virtue and deep thought in Hollywood and late-night TV, than any president has ever had to endure, or should ever have to.

Let’s hope the data, rather than personal distaste for the man, eventually lifts the scales from George Will’s eyes. Methinks he doth protest too much. If the past year’s accomplishments were at the hands of any other Republican, he’d be singing a far different tune than labeling him “the nation’s worst president.” Or not. Although it doesn’t really matter. No one beyond the D.C. cocktail party circuit, the college lecture hall, and the think-tanks really seem to care what he has to say anymore . . . as the election of 2016 amply demonstrated. Too bad. Cubs fans are usually more fun than this.

George Will is an elitist, know-it-all, twit. Trump’s style may be a little rough around the edges but his accomplishments speak for themselves. – The Liberator

THE COMMUNIST FAMILY TREE OF VALERIE JARRETT

A disturbing reminder of who our President chose to serve as his co-president — and why.

John Perazzo
Barack Obama’s closest and most influential adviser, Valerie Jarrett, has never been an enigma. She was, after all, the person most responsible for bringing the revolutionary communist Van Jones into the Administration six years ago, so her bona fides as a radical extremist have long been obvious to anyone who wasn’t afraid to notice. But a newly released report from Judicial Watch, which examines key FBI documents related to Jarrett’s many family ties to hardcore Communists, brings bold color to what previously were gray areas. The effect is nothing short of breathtaking, when we consider that the twice-elected President of our nation chose this woman—and no one else—to serve, essentially, as his co-president.

Valerie Jarrett’s late father—a physician named James Bowman—had a lengthy FBI file showing that he was a Communist who often collaborated with other Communists based principally in Chicago. In 1950, for instance, Bowman communicated with a paid Soviet agent named Alfred Stern, who later fled the U.S. to Prague when he was indicted on espionage charges that were ultimately confirmed beyond doubt—specifically, he had conspired to transmit military and political information to the Soviet Union. Bowman was also a member of the Association of Internes and Medical Students, a group that, according to his FBI file, engaged in un-American activities and “has long been a faithful follower of the Communist Party line.”

So much for dear-old-Dad.

Valerie Jarrett’s mother is the early-childhood-education author Barbara Taylor Bowman (born 1928), who in 1966 co-founded a Chicago-based graduate school in child development known as the Erikson Institute, named after the psychoanalyst Erik Erikson. In 1950 Erikson became a hero to the Left by choosing to resign from his professorship at the University of California rather than sign an anti-Communist loyalty oath as the school required. The Erikson Institute’s radical orientation is reflected in the fact that its board of trustees has included such figures as Bernardine Dohrn, wife of the former Weather Underground terrorist and lifelong Marxist Bill Ayers, and Tom Ayers, father of the same lifelong Marxist.

Okay, so much for Mommy.

Jarrett’s maternal grandfather was a Chicagoan named Robert Taylor, the first African-American head of the Chicago Housing Authority. In the 1940s he was involved with such Communist fronts as the American Peace Mobilization and the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee. A fellow member of these groups was Frank Marshall Davis, the Communist journalist who in the 1970s would mentor a young Barack Obama. An FBI documentshows that Taylor, like Valerie Jarrett’s father, was believed to have been “in contact” with the aforementioned Soviet agent Alfred Stern “on a number of occasions.”

Oh dear. So much for Grandpa.

Well, how about Grandma? Remember going to your own grandmother’s house on Sunday afternoons, years ago, for fresh-baked pies, sweet jam, and lots of hugs? Valerie Jarrett’s maternal grandmother, Dorothy Taylor, was an activist with Planned Parenthood in its early years. Planned Parenthood was founded in 1942 by Margaret Sanger, a member of the New York Socialist Party and a eugenicist who favored the use of use birth control to limit the reproduction of society’s “least intelligent and fit” members. Toward that end, Sanger in 1939 created the so-called “Negro Project” specifically to prevent black people from breeding. Her Birth Control Reviewmagazine once published an article emphasizing the “urgent need” for “eugenic sterilization.” That piece was penned by none other than Ernst Rüdin, who, as Jonah Goldberg points out, was Adolf Hitler’s director of sterilization and a founder of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene.

Okay Grandma. Thanks for the pie and revolutionary politics. See ya next Sunday!

Eventually, the time came for Valerie to explore love and marriage. In 1983 she wed Dr. William Robert Jarrett, son of the Chicago Sun-Times reporter Vernon Jarrett. And Valerie got along just splendidly with her new father-in-law, who surely must’ve reminded her very much of Daddy and Gramps.

You see, in the 1940s Vernon Jarrett had been the first nationally syndicated black columnist for the Communist-influenced Chicago Defender, where he wrote pieces extolling the Communist poet Langston Hughes andlifelong Stalinists like W.E.B. DuBois and Paul Robeson. Also in the ’40s, Vernon Jarrett was a leader of the Chicago chapter of American Youth for Democracy—the youth wing of the Communist Party USA. Moreover, he served on a publicity committee for the Packinghouse Workers Union, a Chicago-based entity dominated by the Communist Party. In each of these endeavors, Vernon Jarrett had close contact with the Communist Frank Marshall Davis—who, as noted above, later became Barack Obama’s mentor.

According to his FBI files, Vernon Jarrett was a leading Chicago-based Communist. “For a period of time,” reports Judicial Watch, his name “appeared on the FBI’s Security Index and [he] was considered a potential Communist saboteur who was to be arrested in the event of a conflict with the [USSR]. His FBI file reveals that he was assigned to write propaganda for a Communist Party front group in Chicago that would ‘disseminate the Communist Party line among … the middle class.’”

There were lots of tears when Vernon Jarrett died in 2004, but also many laudatory remembrances. Not the least of those was a glowing salute in the pages of People’s Weekly World, the house organ of the Communist Party.

These, then, are the people who raised and most heavily influenced a young Valerie Jarrett; the people who made her who she is today. Is it any wonder, then, that she gravitated so quickly and eagerly to Barack and Michelle Obama when she first met them in the late 1980s? Is it any wonder that when Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, he appointed Jarrett to a prominent position in the new Administration: Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs?

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank tells us that Valerie Jarrett’s connection to Obama is “deep and personal,” calling her “the real center of Obama’s inner circle.” Milbank describes Jarrett as someone in a “position of unparalleled influence over the president.” Obama himself has acknowledged that he solicits Jarrett’s input on every decision he makes.

Jarrett, for her part, puts it this way: “We have kind of a mind meld. And chances are, what he wants to do is what I’d want to do.” “I kind of know what makes them [the Obamas] who they are,” she adds.

Truer words have never been spoken.

The truth about Obama will surely come out as time passes. He is a communist. Period.  – The Liberator

THE SOCIALIST FACE OF “IMMIGRANT RIGHTS”

“I have only one loyalty,” Gutierrez emphasized later that year, “and that’s to the immigrant community.”

On August 1, 2014—in the midst of a sudden, massive influx across America’s southern border by more than 50,000 unaccompanied, illegal-immigrant minors hailing from Central America—Gutierrez asserted that conservatives who advocated closing the border to these newcomers were essentially obsessed with finding ways to “get meaner [and] nastier with immigrants.” In a press conference that same day, Gutierrez accused Republicans of: having reached the “least common denominator of hatefulness”; behaving “as though they despise and hate all of our [Hispanic immigrant] children”; permitting “the loudest, meanest, most vile voices” to dominate their party; and viewing Hispanic immigrants as “a vile, repugnant community.”

Click HERE for the rest of the story…

This is one twisted soul. Hateful of Americans to the extreme. He IS the face of the Democrat Party. – The Liberator