Here’s Hollywood’s Mueller Report Meltdown

H/T Godfather Politics.

Poor Little Snowflakes in Hollyweird have been hit by the Trump 2020 Train.

Hollywood celebrities should stick to their craft, professional acting. When it comes to politics they are in way over their heads.

Hollywood Meltdown is a great day for America! It is election night all over again, judging from the left freaking out.

I can’t wait for the master expert level troll James Woods to start hammering his fellow actors.


I pity the fools 

Hollywood’s Mueller Report Meltdown: ‘Complete Whitewash,’ ‘Trump Is Guilty As Hell’

Hollywood joined Democrats and the establishment media in going into full meltdown mode Thursday following Attorney General William Barr releasing the full Mueller report to the public. Celebrities…

30 people are talking about this

Hollywood joined Democrats and the establishment media in going into full meltdown mode Thursday following Attorney General William Barr releasing the full Mueller report to the public. Celebrities accused President Donald Trump of being “guilty” and called the report a cover-up.

As Barr already stated in his letter to Congress in March, the Mueller probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election found no evidence of the Trump campaign colluding with Russia and did not recommend criminal charges against the president for obstruction of justice.

Hollywood, having learned nothing since their last Mueller meltdown, simply quadrupled down on their claims that President Trump is a criminal. More

As if I didn’t think so before, I am now convinced that Hollywood people are the low information kind and lack the ability to comprehend complex matters!

And now, the Hollywood Mueller Meltdown as promised:

John Cusack


Barr = complete whitewash coverup
A press circus orchestrated by the White House – 💯 corruption

550 people are talking about this



poor donald …

Rick Wilson


The Attorney General of the United States just defended obstruction because of the President’s hurt feelings.

271 people are talking about this
I seriously doubt that the “Meathead” knows what “prima facie” means. Great to see these idiots so apoplectic.

Rob Reiner


Prima Facie: Trump is guilty as hell.

6,270 people are talking about this

Mia Farrow


Just stunning to see the Attorney General in the role of Trump’s personal attorney

278 people are talking about this

Debra Messing



Ana Navarro-Cárdenas


Barr looks like a teddy bear. But he is complicit. He is duplicitous. He is disloyal to the Constitution. He is in dereliction of duty. He strategically & meticulously planned this charade today when people are distracted by a Holiday week & Congress not in session. He is devious

297 people are talking about this

Jamie Lee Curtis


“At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.”

326 people are talking about this

Sophia Bush


Glad the report helps us get to the bottom of things.

Rep. Don Beyer


Actual pages of the Mueller report as redacted by Attorney General Barr:

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
182 people are talking about this

Patricia Arquette


I wish a reporter would have asked Barr if Mueller finished with his investigation unimpeded or if he was asked by anyone to conclude it or if funding was stopped in any way.

348 people are talking about this

rob delaney


I’m not counting on even a Dem led House to do what’s right, so I’d never thought the Mueller report would solve all our problems (We will; through direct action, unions, strikes, protests, primarying, etc) but holy shit it is damning & the president is a garden variety criminal.

332 people are talking about this

Embedded video

Kathy Griffin


Look folks, we can still have a sense of humor while dealing with Orange Dumbass. I have many other items where you can take your anger and have a giggle at the same time. Go to  to check them out.

895 people are talking about this

Patton Oswalt


Sooooooo it’s not illegal if you’re really upset?

1,462 people are talking about this

‘Woke’ Librarian Claims Libraries Are Racist — No, This Is Not Satire

H/T Clash Daily.

Channeling Jonathan Quayle Higgins III  with a British accent I declare “Oh My God!”

In the ever-expanding list of things that are racist, you can add libraries.

Back in December 2017, Tucker Carlson posted an epic thread on Twitter where he listed 100 ridiculous things that Leftists complain are racist. Among the entries that included tamarisk trees in California, Dr. Seuss, the state of New Jersey, milk, Bitcoin, the solar eclipse, and credit reports, he missed the most obvious one — libraries.

At least, it’s obvious to “woke” librarian, Sofia Leung.

Library Journal tweeted out a link to Leung’s blog post that claimed that libraries “promote and proliferate whiteness with their very existence.

Library Journal


Library collections continue to promote and proliferate whiteness with their very existence and the fact that they are physically taking up space in our libraries. Via @sofiayleung 

8,822 people are talking about this

Her blog covers the topics of libraries, social justice, and critical race theory.

Leung starts by praising Marie Kondo, the decluttering guru who now has a Netflix show. Kondo’s method of “tidying up” includes rather radical and impractical means of decluttering by assessing possessions on whether or not they “spark joy.” (So, I guess it’s ok to get rid of that toilet plunger?!)

Leung was attempting to “connect the dots” on how she came up with the premise that libraries are havens of white supremacy by using Kondo’s principles, a podcast she listened to, a chat she had with another “woke” librarian with whom she was sharing an AirBnB as they attended the “White AF” conference, and her understanding of critical race theory.

By definition, critical race theory presupposes that racism is inherent in American society and it centers race as the primary focus for analysis of legal, social, and educational issues. It is the theory that leftists point to that “reveals” that America is a systemically racist country and that “whiteness” and “white supremacy” is valued by those that hold the reigns of power — which in itself is racist.

Many that ascribe to critical race theory hold the bizarre and incompatible view that race is a “social construct” and should, therefore, be dismissed — unless it means to suppress white people (especially white men) and elevate literally anyone else.

Leong explains that because so many books (historically) have been written by “straight, white men,” libraries are monuments to the worldview and ideas of “straight, white men” as though that is one unified view.

If you look at any United States library’s collection, especially those in higher education institutions, most of the collections (books, journals, archival papers, other media, etc.) are written by white dudes writing about white ideas, white things, or ideas, people, and things they stole from POC and then claimed as white property with all of the “rights to use and enjoyment of” that Harris describes in her article. When most of our collections filled with this so-called “knowledge,” it continues to validate only white voices and perspectives and erases the voices of people of color. Collections are representations of what librarians (or faculty) deem to be authoritative knowledge and as we know, this field and educational institutions, historically, and currently, have been sites of whiteness.

She also claims that “white” people have stolen ideas from people of color without credit to those communities and thereby marginalize them.

Library collections continue to promote and proliferate whiteness with their very existence and the fact that they are physically taking up space in our libraries. They are paid for using money that was usually ill-gotten and at the cost of black and brown lives via the prison industrial complex, the spoils of war, etc. Libraries filled with mostly white collections indicates that we don’t care about what POC think, we don’t care to hear from POC themselves, we don’t consider POC to be scholars, we don’t think POC are as valuable, knowledgeable, or as important as white people. To return to the Harris quote from above, library collections and spaces have historically kept out Black, Indigenous, People of Color as they were meant to do and continue to do. One only has to look at the most recent incident at the library of my alma mater, Barnard College, where several security guards tried to kick out a Black Columbia student for being Black.

Source: Sofia Leung

Ummmm… which is it? Is the “white” perspective the prime example of horrible, monolithic tunnel-vision, or do nefarious white people steal from people of color and promote those ideas as their own? You can’t have it both ways.

Why is it the “woke” anti-racists sound so darned racist all of the time? Oh, it’s because they keep judging an entire group of people based on the color of their skin which is the actual definition of racism. 

Oh, and by the way, the incident at Barnard College that Leung referenced isn’t so cut and dry. It seems that the student was looking for free food late at night and when caught by campus police wandering on campus late at night ignored the request to show his Student ID. The campus police followed him into the library (ironic!) and again asked him to show his Student ID because it was after 11 pm, which is in line with the college’s policy. He still refused, and only after campus police grabbed his arm did someone start filming the incident. So, to sum up, he was belligerent, refused to obey the officers who were just following policy, and then called it racism.

But if you’re looking through the lens of “critical race theory” the details of an event don’t matter — the only thing that does matter is skin color.

What these advocates of the inherently racist “critical race theory” don’t realize is that they have become the thing that they hate the most — they are vile racists.

You can’t judge a book by its cover, you can’t judge the ideas of an author based on their skin color, but I think it is completely fair to judge someone based on the ideas that they have clearly expressed. As she has revealed in her article, Sofia Leung is racist against white people.

Flame Fougasse The Highly Effective Anti-Tank & Anti-Everything Device

H/T War History OnLine.

I heard Viet Nam Veterans telling of using Fougasse in Viet Nam but I was not aware of its history.

Stock Image

During the early stages of the Second World War, it began to look more and more likely that the Germans would stage a full-on invasion of Britain – the first invasion of the island by a foreign foe in hundreds of years. In preparation for the coming invasion, Britain’s Home Guard began to set up a number of defenses.

One such defense was the terrifyingly effective flame fougasse – essentially barrels of petroleum and oil that, when detonated, would engulf enemy tanks or armored cars in ferocious fireballs as large as 50 square yards in area.

The idea of the flame fougasse did not originate in the Second World War. Instead, the use of similar weaponry goes as far back as the sixteenth century, when fougasses were invented. These early fougasses were crude but effective (when they worked), and basically consisted of a large hole or hollow dug in the ground which was filled with gunpowder and projectiles like rocks or scrap metal.

A demonstration of ‘Fougasse’, somewhere in Britain. A car is surrounded in flames and a huge cloud of smoke. c 1940.

These primitive fougasses were ignited by a rudimentary black powder fuse, which could be risky to the man igniting it, and which generally gave away the position of the fougasse to the enemy. However, in later centuries the fuse was modified so that it could be ignited by flintlock, and later by tripwire mechanisms, effectively turning fougasses into the first anti-personnel fragmentation mines.

Fougasses saw a good deal of use throughout a number of wars in Europe, as well as the Revolutionary War and the Civil War in America. However, it was not until the Second World War that the fougasse concept was refined and made into a far more effective and reliable form of weaponry.

Demigasse installation diagram.

For the purpose of defending Britain against invading German forces, who would no doubt come with a large force of tanks and armored cars, the flame fougasse – a fiery refinement of the centuries-old fougasse concept – would prove a potent and effective means of defence, in tests conducted by the Home Guard, at least.

Fougasse charge diagram.

Developed by the British Petroleum Warfare Department, the flame fougasses with which the Home Guard intended to defend Britain were initially filled with a mixture of 25% petroleum and 75% oil, which later was changed to 40% oil and 60% petroleum, inside a 40-gallon steel oil drum.

Safety fougasse installation diagram.

Detonation of this highly flammable mixture was achieved with ammonal, an explosive made from aluminum and ammonium nitrate. Larger 50-gallon drums were also used, and an improved mixture of lime, tar and a different type of petroleum later replaced the 40/60 oil and petroleum mix.

When detonated, the fireball generated by the explosion was formidable to say the least; covering an area of up to 50 square yards per barrel. The heat of the flames was beyond intense, and any unfortunate invader caught in the raging torrent of fire would be dead within seconds.

Those who were in tanks or armored cars, even if shielded from the flames would likely be roasted alive inside their vehicles as the heat turned the steel boxes into ovens.

Remains of a flame fougasse barrel at Danskine Brae, near Gifford, East Lothian, Scotland.Photo: James T M Towill CC BY-SA 2.0

In order to increase the effectiveness of these weapons, they were strategically placed in areas where approaching vehicles would be forced to either stop or slow down. As such, they were often hidden in banks on the side of the road where there were sharp bends, steep inclines, o other geographic features that would cause vehicles to have to slow down.

As the target vehicle passed the flame fougasse, it would be detonated by a person nearby hiding behind cover, who activated the fuse.

The detonator was the weak point of the flame fougasse. Because ammonal – a cheap, easily-produced industrial explosive – is easily damaged and rendered ineffective by moisture, whoever was manning the flame fougasse installations (which usually consisted of four barrels used together) would have to wait until the enemy was fairly close before inserting the detonator.

Petroleum Weapons Against Invasion- a Demonstration of Anti-invasion Defences, UK, 1945

In preparation for the expected German invasion, around 50,000 flame fougasse barrels in approximately 7,000 different installations were set up all across Britain. Fortunately, the German invasion of the British Isles never happened, and none of the flame fougasses in Britain were ever used in combat.

Diagram of a flame fougasse made with a 55-gallon drum as a battlefield expedient, 1967.

The concept of the flame fougasse was a crude but effective one, and while not guaranteed to stop a German invasion in its tracks, it certainly would have impeded an invading force and probably taken out a good number of tanks and other military vehicles.

A flame barrage demonstration staged by the Petroleum Warfare Department at Mid Calder in Scotland, 28 November 1940. Barrels of petrol were projected using a ‘hedge hopper’ device and ignited electrically, and were intended for use against enemy tanks and vehicles.

The concept of the flame fougasse was also used by Soviet forces during the Second World War, most notably in the defense of Stalingrad. The Germans had their own version, called the Abwehrflammenwerfer 42, but this was far smaller and different in design to the British flame fougasse.

The design for the flame fougasses that Britain intended to use during WWII was improved over the years, and flame fougasses were used in later conflicts, such as the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Designs for flame fougasses are still, in fact, part of the current British battlefield manual, Combat Flame Operations. Hopefully, however, flame fougasses will never need to be put into action.

A Legend of the Dogwood Tree


The Bible does not tell us what type of wood the cross Jesus was crucified on was made of. Roman history does not go into specifics as to how the crosses were made or what type of wood was used.
There is a legend that the cross was made of dogwood.
This is unlikely considering the typical size of a dogwood tree.
The legend of the dogwood tree, author unknown, is as follows:
In Jesus’ time, the dogwood grew
To a stately size and a lovely hue.
‘Twas strong and firm, its branches interwoven.
For the cross of Christ, its timbers were chosen.
Seeing the distress at this use of their wood
Christ made a promise which still holds good:
“Never again shall the dogwood grow
Large enough to be used so.
Slender and twisted, it shall be
With blossoms like the cross for all to see.
As blood stains, the petals marked in brown,
The blossom’s center wears a thorny crown.
All who see it will remember Me
Crucified on a cross from the dogwood tree.
Cherished and protected, this tree shall be
A reminder to all of My agony.”
Again, this is just a legend.
It is a nice poem, but there is no biblical basis to it.

16th Amendment as written: no tax on wages or salaries

H/T BarbWire.

We were sold a pig in the poke so to speak when it came to the 16th Amendment.

This is why the whole Damned system needs to be scrapped and a flat or fair tax implemented.

The current tax code is now four million words long, more than four times longer than the collected works of Shakespeare, and six to seven times longer than the Bible. It requires 25 volumes to contain it, and takes up nine feet of shelf space.

According to Forbes, it takes Americans over six billion hours to comply with its filing requirements. That’s the equivalent of 8,758 lifetimes. In people years, not dog years.

This monstrosity is based entirely on the 16th Amendment, which authorizes Congress:

“to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.”

Now the 16th Amendment had to be ratified by the American people. How in the world did the framers of this misbegotten gargantua convince the American people to do this to themselves.

Easy. They lied to us.

They told us “income” meant one thing when they convinced us to vote for it, then they changed its definition when it went into effect and nailed us all to the wall.

The American people were led to believe that the “income” that would be taxed under this amendment was what we today call “unearned income,” that is, profit from investments, dividends, interest, capital gains, and net income from business and corporate earnings.

The term “income” did not apply to wages and salaries. That was considered “earned income,” income received from labor, and not “unearned income,” the money fat cats made from investments and their corporations. What we call “unearned income” was the target of the 16th Amendment.

The American people were told that the income tax provision would apply only to the top one percent of wage earners, and would sock them with a one percent tax on income. The rest of America – you know, the ones that had to vote for this thing – were told we would be left alone. None of this would apply to us.

Prior to the passage of the 16th Amendment, virtually the sole source of income to the federal government came from tariffs collected on imported goods. That itself was a profound limitation on the size and reach of the federal government. In 1910, for instance, the budget for the entire federal government was $1.042 billion dollars. You read that right. The entire federal budget in 1910 was one billion dollars.

Now ordinary Americans complained that tariffs burdened them but gave a built-in profit margin to American manufacturers. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that production costs for manufactured items were the same in the U.S. as, let’s say, Europe. If importers had to pay, for example a five percent tariff on everything it wanted to sell in the United States, then U.S. manufacturers could raise their prices four percent – pure, unadulterated profit for them – and still undercut international competition.

Since the increased cost for these goods fell upon ordinary, hard-working Americans while at the same time padding the already heavy wallets of the Vanderbilts and the Mellons and the Carnegies and the Rockefellers, working Americans began to feel that they were being taken advantage of, that they were in effect bearing all the cost of funding the federal government, and that the tariff system was essentially a perpetual, taxpayer subsidized bailout for American tycoons.

So, the 16th Amendment was proposed as the solution. It was sold to the American public as a way to make the rich pay their “fair share.” No longer would the federal budget be balanced on the backs of the working poor, no sir. The free ride for the corporate fat cats was over. We were going to sock it to ‘em, by golly.  It was billed as a “soak the rich” scheme.

The meaning of the word “income” was clearly understood at the time. For instance, the authoritative Black’s Dictionary of Law, in its 1891 edition (reiterated verbatim in 1910), defined “income tax” this way:

“A tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions, trades, and offices.” (Emphasis mine throughout.)

West Publishing Co produced a widely used Judicial and Statutory Definition of Words and Phrases in 1904. It defined:

“income tax” as a “tax which relates to the product or income from property or from business pursuits…[it] includes a tax on the gross receipts of a corporation or business.”

You will notice absolutely no mention, anywhere, of the wages or salaries of the average citizen in the definition of “income.” The 16th Amendment was proposed and passed as a way of collecting indirect taxes on unearned incomes and annual profits.

As Sen. Heflin said during the congressional debate:

“An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.”

Roger Foster wrote, A Treatise on the Federal Income Tax Under the Act of 1913 in 1914. In it he writes:

“[I]t is evidently the intention, as a general rule, to tax only the profit of the taxpayer, not his whole revenue.”

So, wages and salaries were exempt from taxation under the 16tth Amendment; investment and dividend income and profits from business were not.

According to Investopedia, “unearned income” is “Any income that comes from investments and other sources unrelated to employment services.”

As Phil Hart says in his book, Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?:

“It is the annuity check you get in the mail from your investments, it’s your passive income. It is not the money you worked for. It is the net income, the profit left over from your ‘income property’ after you have paid all your expenses and taxes on the property. It is the interest income that accrues to your savings account even while you sleep” (p. 236).

Hart adds:

“[T]he target of the income tax amendment was income from unincorporated businesses and from investments” (p. 243).

He concludes:

“The people of America simply did not think the 16th Amendment was ever going to tax the wages or salary of a working man” (p. 313).

But it wasn’t long before the federal government, insatiably greedy for our money, changed the definition of “income” from the one we had voted for – investment and dividend income and corporate profits – to include wages and salaries. And so the march to a 3.8 million-word Leviathan began. It wasn’t long before ordinary working stiffs like you and me got completely hosed. A law intended to soak the rich instead now threatens to drown us.

Most folks, including me, will pay their taxes for the simple reason that they don’t want to go to jail. But the bottom line is this: if we are to be guided, as we should be, by the original intent of the framers of the Constitution and the intent of the American people when they voted for the 16th Amendment, then there is absolutely no constitutional authority for your wages or salaries to be taxed by Uncle Sam. None, nada, zilch, zip.

Host, “Focal Point” on the American Family Radio Network

Brave Republican Announces Candidacy to Run Against Trump

H/T BarbWire.

Let us clear up one thing William Weld is not a Republican.

William Weld is a gutless nutless Hillary loving RINO.

At the beginning of the year, over 200 Democrats had expressed an interest in running for the White House in 2020.

There is a difference between intent and actually running and so far, there are around 2 dozen Democrats who have officially launched campaigns.

On the Republican side, up to this week, the only candidate was President Donald Trump.

This is no surprise as incumbents, regardless of which party they belong to, seldom face more than a handful of challengers.

So far, only one Republican challenger has stepped forward with the launch of an official campaign to challenge Trump.

That brave soul is former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld formally declared his candidacy for the White House on Monday.

Former Ohio Gov. John Kasich, another vocal Trump critic, has been mulling a GOP primary challenge against Trump. So has Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan. So far Weld is the only one to throw his hat in the ring.

“It is time for patriotic men and women across our great nation to stand and plant a flag. It is time to return to the principles of Lincoln – equality, dignity, and opportunity for all. There is no greater cause on earth than to preserve what truly makes America great. I am ready to lead that fight,” said Weld in a statement as he launched his bid to try and topple Trump, who remains very popular with Republicans.

Weld, a very vocal critic of Trump released a three-minute-long video hitting out at the president and highlighting his own ‘achievements’ during his two terms as governor of Massachusetts in the 1990s…

I’ve seen rumors that another former Massachusetts governor might run against Trump and that is current Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), but Romney has yet to declare and has stated that he isn’t going to run, at least not this time.

The chances of Weld winning the GOP nomination away from Trump is slight and probably a waste of time and money, but then some people have grandiose perceptions of themselves.

One thing is certain and that is, if you thought the 2016 election was a political circus, just wait until next January when the 2020 circus heats up.


Ocasio-Cortez Says Cutting US Aid to Israel ‘Is Certainly on the Table’

H/T BarbWire.

I do not see President Trump allowing aid to Israel to be cut.

The West Bank is part of Israel even if Alexandria Occasional-Cortex does not think so.

The West Bank aka Judea and Samaria have been part of the Nation of Israel since the days of King David and before.

Freshman Congresswoman and outspoken socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said the US should consider cutting aid to Israel following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent election victory.

When asked on Yahoo News‘ “Skullduggery Podcast” whether US policy towards Israel should change after Netanyahu vowed to extend Israeli sovereignty to Jewish settlements in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), Ocasio-Cortez said:

“I think so.”

“I think these are part of conversations we are having in our caucus, but I think what we are really seeing is an ascent of authoritarianism across the world. I think that Netanyahu is a Trump-like figure,” she added.

Trending: 120 Christians Killed in Nigeria and the World Remains Silent

She also said reducing military and economic aid to Israel “is certainly on the table.”

“I think it’s something that can be discussed. I also acknowledge my role in this as well in that I think that I hope to play a facilitating role in this conversation, a supportive role in this conversation, but I also know that people have been leading on this for a long time.”

One of the leaders Ocasio-Cortez referred to is Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) who  proposed a bill in November 2017 that requires:

“the Secretary of States to certify that United States funds do not support military detention, interrogation, abuse or ill-treatment of Palestinian children.”

The bill claims the Israel Defense Forces detains “around 500-700 Palestinian children between the ages of 12 and 17 each year” and does not provide them due process. Israel denies that it is unjustly imprisoning children.

The Jewish Democratic Council of America criticized Ocasio-Cortez for promoting the idea of cutting aid to Israel and urged her to speak with Jewish leaders in the House of Representatives.

“We are pleased Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recognizes she is NOT a leader on Israel in Congress. We recommend she engage with Dem leaders Eliot Engel, Nita Lowey, & Ted Deutch before contemplating the future of US military aid to Israel,” the group said. “US-Israel ties must supersede politics.”

Ocasio-Cortez is a harsh critic of Israeli policy and advocates for a two-state solution.

“I believe absolutely in Israel’s right to exist,” she has said. “I am a proponent of a two-state solution.”