WTF? The Weedkiller ROUNDUP Has Been Detected In These BEER & WINE Brands

H/T Clash Daily.

I am relieved that my drinks are not on the list Dragon OOlong tea and Pepsi with real sugar.

That’s quite the list. (Even ‘organic’ brands are affected.) Is YOUR brand on it?

Is this a case of ‘nothing to worry about’ or will this have you thinking about switching drinks?

A Glyphosate study on fifteen major brands of beer and five brands of wine turned up ‘trace amounts’ of the active ingredient in Roundup.

The study was done by an advocacy group — US PIRG — which tested positive for at least some level of Glyphosate for all but one of the brands tested.

No, it doesn’t mean we’re all going to look like that fish in the Simpsons anytime soon.

But it is still good to know a thing or two about what you’re drinking.

They include brands like Coors Light, Miller Lite, Budweiser, Corona, Heineken, Guinness, Stella Artois and Samuel Adams.

“The levels of glyphosate we found are not necessarily dangerous but are still concerning given the potential health risks,” U.S. PIRG said.

…The highest concentration of glyphosate was found in the 2018 Sutter Home merlot, which came in at 51.4 parts per billion, or ppb.

For beer, Tsingtao from Hong Kong had the most with 49.7ppb, and Coors Light had the most for American beers with 31.1ppb.

The study author, US PIRG Edication Fund’s Kara Cook-Schultz, said of the study: ‘No matter the efforts of brewers and vintners, we found that it is incredibly difficult to avoid the troubling reality that consumers will likely drink glyphosate at every happy hour and backyard barbecue around the country.’

A spokesperson for the Beer Institute, a national trade organization, responded to the report by telling USA: ‘Our members work with farmers who go to great lengths to raise their crops sustainably and safely….and the results of the most recent federal testing showed farmers’ use of glyphosate falls well below federal limits.’
Source: USAToday

It’s too bad there are no other options out there for someone who’d like a drink.

Oh, never mind.

We’re good.

Consequences of 2018: Mad Nadler attacks our rights

H/T AmmoLand.

I have but one comment “Elections have consequences.”

Washington, D.C. – -( You can’t say that there was no warning. Last year, Ammoland discussed how our rights would be at risk with Jerrold Nadler as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. At the time, I noted, “In terms of his voting record, Nadler is just as bad as Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein. There is one major difference – he has just been much more low-key, and as a result, he is under the radar.”

Well, Nadler is no longer under the radar, folks. Furthermore, he’s left no doubt that he is just as bad as Feinstein. Oh, he doesn’t have a “Mr. and Mrs. America” moment, but according to Cybercast News Service, he has embraced Australia as an example when it comes to firearms ownership. Which, for all intents and purposes, means he wants to confiscate your modern sporting rifles, your modern multi-purpose shotguns, and even your old pump-action shotguns that were handed down from your parents or other relatives.

But Australia-style goes beyond that. One has to show a “genuine purpose” to own a gun. And as is the case with the so-called discretionary-issue states (really no-issue states as a general rule), self-defense is often not considered a good reason to have a gun. Australia is the “needs-based” licensing system of Sarah Brady’s dreams. Oh, and you can forget concealed carry of any stripe, either. If self-defense is no longer a valid reason to own a gun… they why would they even think about letting you carry one?

And here is something that should wake a lot of people up: Jerrold Nadler thinks he can eventually pull it off. He’s thinking long-term, and he has a plan to get there. He knows that the current situation won’t let him get that Australia-type legislative package, but he can lay the groundwork to get it. In this, he has a far better grasp of strategy and tactics than many of those who deride the NRA as “Negotiating Rights Away” or who label Second Amendment supporters trying to effectively counter Nadler’s extreme anti-Second Amendment agenda as “Fudds.”

There were tons of close races for House seats this year… races that almost uniformly tipped against the most viable pro-Second Amendment candidates. How many of those who denounced the NRA or other Second Amendment supporters for insufficient purity empowered Nadler either through votes for third-party candidates or by sitting out the midterms? They didn’t defend the Second Amendment, they helped Bloomberg by putting Nadler in a position where he could go on offense.

But that offense is really not the big prize. Legislative and political battles are really holding actions for two to four years. The Supreme Court, while important, gives a longer respite of about two or three decades. The real battle is an ongoing one for the hearts and minds of our fellow Americans.

We won’t ever get Nadler, Chuck Schumer, or Dianne Feinstein to give up efforts to take away our rights over shootings we never committed. But that isn’t what we need to do. We can and must focus our efforts on convincing our fellow Americans that those anti-Second Amendment extremists are in the wrong to punish millions of law-abiding citizens who either wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights responsibly or who actually do exercise those rights for the actions of criminals and madmen.

This is a battle that cannot be won or lost with just a few pronouncements about the Second Amendment. No, this is an ongoing fight, and the right strategy and tactics, including coming across in the right way, will give us a better chance of having a more favorable political climate to win those hearts and minds.

Study: Green New Deal Would Cost Up to $94 Trillion

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

Just where is this money going to come from?

Do the DemocRats have access to a money fairy?

Sen. Barrasso: ‘Green New Deal would bankrupt the nation’

The False Red Flag


Finally the truth about these Red Flag Laws.

By L. Neil Smith. February 22nd, 2019. (
Attributed to L.Neil Smith’s The Libertarian Enterprise

It’s the left’s fondest wet-dream, unfulfilled before now: a right-wing would-be domestic terrorist — a “white nationalist” and a Coast Guard lieutenant, to boot, if the lying mass media are to be believed — with a hit-list of protocommunist politicians and a formidable and terrifying “arsenal” to carry it out.

However. “If it seems too good to be true, it probably is,” may not be one of Leroy Jethro Gibbs’ life-preserving rules (other examples: Gibbs’ Rule #40: “If it seems like someone’s out to get you, they are.”; Gibbs’ Rule #36: “If it feels like you’re being played, you probably are.”), but it damn well should be.

It turns out that the man’s “arsenal” is only formidable and terrifying to the wet-panties buttons-‘n’-bows crowd back east and on the left coast who know better about everything than you do, and want to run your life. To anybody else — to anybody who lives west of the Mississippi or south of the Mason-Dixon Line — it represents a small-to-moderate personal gun collection of fifteen pieces. My daughter laughed when she heard the actual number. They’re also reporting breathlessly that he had a thousand rounds of ammunition. That’s sixty-six cartridges per gun, just about enough for a sunny afternoon at the range, shooting just for fun.

Another thought: working your way up to the rank of full lieutenant in the Coast Guard (the equivalent of an Army or Air Force captain, but with fewer chances for promotion) represents a modest but respectable career — my own dad was only a major when he retired — and I’m not sure I believe a guy like this would throw away his life unless he had a tumor in his skull the size of a bowling ball. Once again, the socialists who think they own us have overreached absurdly. They say the guy was also in the Army — and the Marines. Yeah, right.

Historically, such “terrorists” — like the one who shot Gabby Giffords, just to name one example — have turned out to be leftists, or actors, pretending to be terrorists. The jury, figuratively speaking, is still out on the Las Vegas shooter. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle put it so articulately, the police are baffled.

Personally, I call bullsh!t — and it’s time that you did, too. Like so many other such incidents, I am confident that the guy — assuming he actually exists — will turn out to be a Democrat operative, dutifully advancing the collectivist agenda. And the hapless morons at FOX News are falling for it just like the other networks. But tell me: why is it that clearly leftist mass-shooters always manage to surprise the authorities, while the one advertised as right wing gets nipped in the bud?

Friends and neighbors, this exercise was staged — as transparently as a Jussie Smollett hoax — to back up unconstitutional “red flag” gun confiscation laws that are going to end up costing — PAY ATTENTION, NOW, POLITICIANS — city, county, and state government billions, if we do our work.

One thing we need to do better is communicate. If I’m any example, I’ve been writing about gun politics since the late 1960s, over fifty years. I’ve written thousands of essays, articles, and columns, not to overlook going on forty gun-heavy books. In all that time, over half a century, not even one of my so-called “comrades” in the same struggle has contacted me to exchange ideas or hire a piece of work, even though I have tried to reach them. The only thing they ever seem to want from me is money — with the notable exception of the late, great Aaron Zelman of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, a wonderful man and a genuine freedom-fighter who asked me to write two books for him and many, many articles.

I’m doing my part, boys and girls, I’ve been doing it for five decades, even when gun editors called me “hysterical” for predicting the mess we’re living with now.. We’re up against the worst threats we’ve ever faced and we need each other’s help to fight what looks to me like a homegrown communist revolution. You need my help. Ask anyone who actually reads my stuff.



Award-winning novelist and essayist L. Neil Smith is a retired gunsmith, Publisher and Senior Columnist of L. Neil Smith’s The Libertarian Enterprise and the author of over thirty books. Look him up on Google, Wikipedia, and He is available, at professional rates, to write columns, articles, and speeches for your organization, event, or publication, fiercely defending your rights, as he has done since the mid-1960s. His writings (and e-mail address) may also be found at L. Neil Smith’s The Libertarian Enterprise, at or at, to which you can contribute, directly. His many books and those of other pro-gun libertarians may be found (and ordered) at L. Neil Smith’s THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE “Free Radical Book Store” The preceeding essay was originally prepared for and appeared in L. Neil Smith’s THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE. Use it to fight the continuing war against tyranny.


McAuliffe Agrees With WaPo Editorial on Green New Deal: It’s ‘Unrealistic’

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

Even Terry”The Punk”McAuliffe knows this Green New Deal is a joke.

Former Virginia Democratic governor Terry McAuliffe said Monday that he agrees with an editorial by the Washington Post criticizing Green New Deal, suggesting the deal doesn’t focus on “things we can actually get done.”

Asked during an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” whether he supports the Green New Deal proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), McAuliffe said he supports “parts of it.”

Host Joe Scarborough then brought up the Washington Post editorial board’s characterization of the Green New Deal.

“The editorial board said ‘yes we agree we need to do some things, but we don’t think the Green New Deal is actually possible, is feasible in the time frame they put forward.’ Dianne Feinstein famously believes the same way. Is that the camp you find yourself in, Dianne Feinstein and the Washington Post or AOC and Ed Markey?”

“I come from a place [where I think] there are some great aspirational goals. Climate change is real. We need to be very concerned. I took action as governor [to produce] record amounts in renewable energy. I’d like to talk about things we can actually get done and things that we have actually done. That’s the difference. All these litmus tests, of this and that. Listen, voters want someone who actually has big, bold ideas,” McAuliffe responded.

“So do you agree with the Washington Post editorial this morning?” Scarborough pressed.

“Sure, I would. There are things in [the Green New Deal] that are great goals, but are unrealistic. … I had to deal with Hampton Roads flooding on a regular basis. Norfolk, Virginia, if it rained for two hours, I had to deal with flooding. That’s what I deal with today. It’s real, and I came up with solutions,” McAuliffe said.

On Sunday, the Washington Post argued the nation needs an alternative plan to address climate change, criticizing the Green New Deal championed by Ocasio-Cortez and Markey.

We favor a Green New Deal to save the planet. We believe such a plan can be efficient, effective, focused and achievable.

The Green New Deal proposed by congressional Democrats does not meet that test. Its proponents, led by Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), are right to call for ambition and bold action. They are right that the entire energy sector must be reshaped.

But the goal is so fundamental that policymakers should focus above all else on quickly and efficiently decarbonizing. They should not muddle this aspiration with other social policy, such as creating a federal jobs guarantee, no matter how desirable that policy might be.

And the goal is so monumental that the country cannot afford to waste dollars in its pursuit. If the market can redirect spending most efficiently, money should not be misallocated on vast new government spending or mandates.

The Green New Deal faced a turbulent rollout earlier this month after Ocasio-Cortez posted a supplementary document on her official website that called for “economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work.” It said the Green New Deal acknowledges challenges to “fully get[ting] rid of farting cows and airplanes” in 10 years and said it would also seek to replace or upgrade every building in America with green energy alternatives. The document was later removed from the congresswoman’s website.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) said he asked Markey “What in the heck is this?” after reading the resolution. Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) called the Green New Deal a “dream” and said he has “got to work with the realities.”

Race-Baiters Now Say Charcoal Face Masks Are RACIST — No, This Is Not Satire

H/T Clash Daily.

You can not make up this level of asinine absurdity.

The pretty young things on Instagram are going to have to live with those unsightly skin blemishes — unless they’re ok with being called racist.

First, they came for Gucci, and I said it was stupid.

Then, they came after Katy Perry’s shoes, and I said they although they were fugly they did not appear to be racist.

But this?! This is a step too far.

In our leftist #StayWoke culture filled with microaggressions, and alleged ‘implicit bias’ (which basically means everyone is racist,) it’s no longer just the things that are made in a way that could appear to be blackface if you looked at it the right way — beauty products are now ‘problematic.’

Some random person on Twitter tweeted about charcoal masks possibly being blackface, and boom! the wokescolds pounced.


Activated charcoal face masks are becoming all the rage in beauty treatments. The charcoal has specific properties that draw impurities from the skin, unclog and shrink pores which aim to prevent blockage and thus stop breakouts. Many women have used activated charcoal masks to keep their skin blemish-free. But, because charcoal is black, and in order to get the benefits of it you have to put that on your face, the charcoal mask is now ‘blackface’.

Dior Dez@ItsDesiFuentes

Are charcoal face mask a form of blackface…😳

See Dior Dez’s other Tweets

No. No, it isn’t. It’s charcoal.

The offensiveness of blackface is that it was historically used to demean and mock an entire race of people based on their skin color. Blackface was used in minstrel shows, in order to both appropriate black music as a form of entertainment for non-blacks and to promote negative stereotypes that have plagued the black community for decades. Charcoal face masks, on the other hand, are beauty products intended to remove impurities from the skin.

Some people, however, don’t seem to understand the difference.

For those not aware, charcoal face masks are used to help improve skin by unclogging pores and the product is black in colour because the main ingredient (charcoal) also happens to be black.

The mask is applied to the face, left for a while to dry, before being peeled or washed off.

The argument around the product began several days ago with a tweet by a woman named Nicole Oliver, who wrote: “Racism is so insidious that you can promote blackface for years under the guise of ‘pore mask’ and it goes unchecked.”

She added the hashtags #blacklivesmatter #StayWoke #BIORE #poremask and #Blackface to her post as well as several examples of the charcoal masks being sold online.

Source: MIrror UK

Nicole Paula Oliver@nicole_p_oliver

Racism is do insidious that you can promote blackface for years under the guise of “pore mask” and it goes unchecked. 🙃

284 people are talking about this

Neel Nanda@neelnanda

Did you guys know that white women can wear blackface if they call it a charcoal face mask ???

See Neel Nanda’s other Tweets

It’s not just blackface, it’s ‘casual blackface’:

Ali Macofsky@notalimac

white women love self care and doing casual black face with charcoal face masks

See Ali Macofsky’s other Tweets

Some still say that may look like blackface, but that’s just because it’s charcoal and charcoal is black.

sweet heart lesbian 💕@Spooky_Spice666

I see that when wearing a charcoal face mask it looks the same as blackface but most people who are wearing the masks do it in the privacy of their home for 15 min&then peel it off& it’s black bc it’s charcoal. Sad that blackface is prevalent enough that this is an issue tho.

See sweet heart lesbian 💕‘s other Tweets

For some, it’s not just that the charcoal masks are black, it’s the symbolism that’s a problem, too — you put it on, wear the black on your face for 15-20 minutes or so, and then you remove it to remove the impurities and your fresh skin is revealed.

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter

Flesh Frog@IsaacTheDead

Aren’t we ever going to address how the Charcoal Mask takes blackface up to 11? You put it on, it looks really racist, then you pull off the black to get flawless skin.

See Flesh Frog’s other Tweets

Welp, it looks like Tucker Carlson is going to have to update that ‘100 Things That Are Racist’ thread on Twitter. 

Recently, AOC mentioned on Instagram that she uses beauty masks occasionally — but is it charcoal?


I bought a black charcoal face mask once. I looked in the mirror and was like “nope that’s racist” & immediately washed it off. Been buying green tea ones ever since.

31 people are talking about this

Green tea, you say?

Apparently, someone hasn’t thought about Gamora’s feelings.

So, brace yourself if you happen to use a charcoal face mask.

Kandy Foxx@KandyFoxx

YouTube is a strange place. If someone isn’t ripping on my eyebrows, its my weight, or my room decor or even how I sometimes have a lisp. Now apparently I am racist for wearing a charcoal mask in a video.

29 people are talking about this

What happens if a ‘person of color’ uses a charcoal facemask?

sarah coffey:)))))@sarahcoffey_

this mean im racist to my own kind?because i definitely wear charcoal face masks

National Review


Charcoal Face Masks Deemed an Example of ‘Racism’ and ‘Blackface’  via @KatTimpf

View image on Twitter
See sarah coffey:)))))’s other Tweets

Maybe let’s not Jussie Smollett everything screaming ‘racist’ at things that simply aren’t. It detracts from the actual racism which we should all condemn when we see it.

It’s Official: This Senate Vote Proves Dems Are Now ‘The Infanticide Party’

H/T Clash Daily.

If he was alive today I wonder what my dad would think about his beloved DemocRat party?

This will definitely become one of the defining issues of 2020.

It should have been a non-controversial law, and it would have been had not the Democrats gone all-in and become the Party of Kermit Gosnell.

The entire argument about abortion until now hinged upon ‘my body my choice’. This vote proves that has been a lie all along. It has REALLY been about the right to kill the baby and avoid the parental responsibilities that go with it.

How do we know this? Because this bill had nothing to do with the mother’s body. It had everything to do with a living, breathing infant that is born — despite the best efforts of an abortionist to kill it — being treated like one.

The logic of it should be uncontroversial: Not in her body. No longer her choice.

We can thank Virginia’s Governor Northam and his $3 Million in political donations from Planned Parenthood for bringing this issue to light. His infanticide statements are all-but-forgotten after the blackface/KKK yearbook photo and the Smollett Hoax, but they still have a legacy.

The GOP-led Senate only mustered 53 votes — seven shy of the 60 needed to overcome the Democratic filibuster. Three Democrats crossed the aisle to back the bill, while three Republicans missed the vote.

Backers said they were driven to act by recent state laws and bills they said would allow abortions up to the point of birth — and, in at least the case of one failed piece of legislation in Virginia, would have allowed a child born despite an attempted abortion to be left to die.

“It isn’t about new restrictions on abortion. It isn’t about changing the options available to women. It’s just about recognizing that a newborn baby is a newborn baby. Period,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican. He said it made him “uneasy” that such legislation was even considered controversial.
Source: Washington Times

Donald J. Trump


Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children. The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth….

Donald J. Trump


….This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.

63.5K people are talking about this

In the lead-up to the vote, parties made their respective cases:

The Senate is currently debating the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act on the floor and will vote on the legislation later this evening. The bill, sponsored by Senator Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) requires that doctors provide medical care to infants born alive after attempted abortion procedures.

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell opened the session, saying of the bill, “It isn’t about restrictions on abortion. It isn’t about changing the options available to women. It’s just about recognizing that a newborn baby is a newborn baby, period.”

“Can the extreme far-left politics surrounding abortion really have come this far?” McConnell added. “Are we really supposed to think that it’s normal that there are now two sides debating whether a newborn, whether newborn living babies deserve medical attention?”
Source: National Review

The answer, clearly, is ‘yes’.

Schumer stood up and lied to the public:

Shortly after McConnell’s remarks, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said on the Senate floor that the born-alive bill “is carefully crafted to target, intimidate, and shut down reproductive health care providers.” He also claimed the bill “would impose requirements on what type of care doctors must provide in certain circumstances, even if that care is ineffective, contradictory to medical evidence, and against the family’s wishes.”

In fact, the bill doesn’t mandate any particular type of care for infants, and the medical specifics are left up to the judgment of the physician in each case. Instead, it enacts a requirement that newborns delivered in the context of abortion be afforded “the same degree” of care that “any other child born alive at the same gestational age” would receive.
Source: National Review

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness does NOT extend to only SOME Americans. It extends to even the smallest among us. Our politicians are looking less and less like AMERICANS and increasing like ancient Romans and Greeks that would leave unwanted children in the wild to be devoured by beasts.
Not long ago, Abortion activists would have denied wanting abortion on demand right up to the moment of birth — and now, to exercise their ‘choice’ to infanticide even after the baby is born.

Even the most hopelessly landlocked Trump fan can unleash their ‘inner surfer’ with this one!