ABC Reporter: Everyone Knew About John Conyers For Years

From the “thanks for saying something” file, we have ABC News correspondent Cokie Roberts, who appeared on the channel’s “This Week” program on Sunday to sing that all-too-common refrain we hear every time one of these sexual predators gets caught: Oh, we all knew about THAT GUY.

In this case, though, considering that the “That Guy” in question is the Democratic – cough, cough – “icon” known as Rep. John Conyers, we probably shouldn’t be too surprised that the mainstream media did nothing to uncover his dirty deeds. Quite the contrary, we imagine they worked very hard over the years to avoid any mention of his scandalous behavior.

In a discussion about the sexist culture on Capitol Hill with Martha Raddatz and Anna Palmer, Roberts said that it has always been the nature of Washington to circle the wagons and protect their own.

“The fact that people are willing to be public can change things,” she said. “I mean, we all talked about this for years.”

Then she said that Conyers’ misconduct came as no surprise to her or anyone else in the Washington media.

“Don’t get in the elevator with him, you know, and the whole every female in the press corps knew that, right, don’t get in elevator with him,” said Roberts. “Now people are saying it out loud. And I think that does make a difference.”

Unbelievable. If there were a Republican congressman who was known for being such a sexual deviant that the word around town was “don’t get in an elevator with him,” do you think the media would have kept it a secret for years and years? Or do you think they would have put their best investigative reporters on the scent to make sure they brought him down by any means possible?

It’s just disgusting that these reporters can sit there on live TV and act like it’s…funny or something…that they all knew about this and never said anything about it. We’re not suggesting that they should be reporting DC rumors on their newscasts, but seriously? Nothing? At all? Ever? This is decidedly NOT how they report on President Trump.

Oh and by the way…have you noticed the astounding disparity between the amount of coverage the Conyers scandal has gotten when compared to the Roy Moore allegations?

Yeah, so have we.

About Admin

316 comments

  1. It is nothing less than unwritten testimony as to which side of the political spectrum is in bed with the Devil!

    • Both political parties are in bed w/the Devil. Actually the Devil has a better moral compass than a US politician………

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a55a29104ea91b711ce80002944aefd1daba0d522454a78c23520768ea41262d.jpg

      • I disagree. I think MOST republican politicians are in bed with the Devil, but I see the ordinary every day republican voter as standing tall trying to save America. I am no longer republican, but I was for 50 years. We vote for the ones we think we can trust. It is not our fault if the elected ones become entwined in greed and deception….so I don’t blame the party per se, but for its politicians.

        • The RNC movers and shakers are just as money oriented as the movers and shakers of the DNC. Money is the Devils Candy. Most of that DC Beltway gang have an unquenchable sweet tooth…….
          About party members. Both have good ones and bad ones. It’s the party leadership that shapes policy and ruins our country. Hell I bet if the Democrat party of the 70s and 80s was still around, or didn’t jump ship. The democratic agenda today would not be Gay Rights, Bathroom Confusion, Rainbows and unicorns for all………
          I know Jimmy Carter wasn’t a effective president, but he DID NOT campaign on this Fairy Tail stuff………

          • I don’t disagree with you much, but DO a tiny bit. SOME republican money movers ARE as damaging to the nation as are the democrat money movers……but ANYONE supporting a Satanic party, ANYONE, is as Satanic as the devil himself, and money movers for the right mostly are NOT related to the Satanic party, but are related to ordinary people.

            Democrats of yesteryear were NOT Satanic, but today everyone of them is, and decent people steer clear of them and their policies, their thinking, and their CRIMES.

          • Tasine,
            You are breaking my heart!!💔
            To me it appears you are picking the lesser of two evils. This is not good. In this situation I believe BOTH parties are in “It” together. They just are just playing BLAME and SWITCH. This is a major power play. Read the Communists Manifesto. Everything Karl Marx has suggested to over throw a government by bankrupting it’s TREASURY is in play here.
            I see it transpiring since George H W Bush was president.
            1. Send manufacturing abroad. To make citizens a poorer tax payer. They will loose their comforts and civil rest will develope.
            *NAFTA* No Trade barriers.
            2. Stay engaged in a endless war. The Treasury will have to pay for weapons, supply lines, solders.
            There is more. Read it, then think about our domestic and foreign policies.
            If there are 2 Evils and they join together. It is really only ONE EVIL 👿

          • They are; there’s only 1 party inside the beltway; it simply presents 2 heads outside and pretends to be 2 parties; it has 1 agenda, and they’re nearly all on board with that agenda: 1 world gov’t and totalitarian control.

          • George H W Bush (R) announced it was time for a NWO while in office and it has been bedlam every since. They are open about their progressiveness. One never sees one that is progressive ever say that they are not. McCain, Pelosi, Reid, were all in bed for a total government control. McConnell, Graham. They are all feeling the pressure of losing the ground they have made so they will lie, cover up, vote against good, Put on a show like watching the votes and if they know their vote will not matter vote conservative but if it does matter they will vote the other way. Look at McCain.

          • The Republican Tax Bill is the work of the devil-The Republicans will pass it even though it goes against their key principle of debt reduction by loading up a trillion dollar to the debt and increases taxes on the middle class…whores all. It doesn’t go unnoticed that neither PND or anyone on this comment section ever talks about the elephant in the room.

          • Funny how it seems to work out in the end and against what the liberals claim it will do. It seems to be Trump is always correct. The elephant in the room is the national Debt and the trillions that Obama has bankrupt the country with, yet there are those that say this is OK because it is party affiliated. Trump is much more frugal the Obama ever was. Look at the vacations. He even had separate planes for his dogs. Obama was weak except when it came to spending money on his tribe.
            Besides you completely avoided my statement for the sake of argument.

          • Don’t know what source you received this from but it is false-

            “Trump is much more frugal the Obama ever was. Look at the vacations. He even had separate planes for his dogs. Obama was weak except when it came to spending money on his tribe.”

            ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/02/22/trumps-family-trips-cost-taxpayers-nearly-as-much-in-a-month-as-obamas-cost-in-a-whole-year/#728ef06b36e4

          • Enjoy your big government=loss of freedom. Enjoy your trip to Orgy Island.

          • you have no proof and you admit it-good for you-

          • Life is proof. Common sense is proof. I do not need some liberal to tell what to think.

          • You statement was /is false-have the class to admit it or you are just a trump”useful idiot”-

            “Trump is much more frugal the Obama ever was. Look at the vacations. He even had separate planes for his dogs. Obama was weak except when it came to spending money on his tribe.”

            ttps://www.forbes.com/sites.

          • No I am not a Trump useful idiot. I am an American loyalist. You know one who believes in the country first, the work ethic, Constitutional rights, the Bill of Rights, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And Trump is closest to my beliefs.

          • paulrph1 — Rich Girod isn’t a “Trump useful idiot” — HE is a USEFUL IDIOT in the ORIGINAL sense (like Karl Marx, who seems to be one of Rich’s heroes, used it: as a fool who thought he was helping one side but through sheer stupidity was really helping the other).
            I’m with you. Entirely. Also, Trump has so far given us, and will do so again soon, REALLY FIRST-RATE Supreme Court justices, not the leftist birdbrains Hillary would have named.

          • Obama spent TWICE as much as ANY prior president on PERSONAL air travel for himself and his family — not to official meetings or bilateral chats with other leaders, but trips to the theater in NYC with Michelle and weekend golf outings all over the MAP. Twice as much. OK, costs have gradually risen, but costs between the George W. Bush and Obama eras DID NOT DOUBLE. In fact, Obama BRAGS about how LOW inflation was during his tenure, so he can’t turn around and say, “Well, the cost of using Air Force One to get to New York or Martha’s Vineyard has risen….” NOT THAT MUCH, BUB, not by a MILE.
            And this doesn’t even include OFFICIAL travel, just his golf games and “date nights.”

            BTW, Presidents DO (by law) have to use Air Force One and Marine One (the copter) for personal as well as official travel. Arguably, it’s a stupid law (one of many), but it IS the law. HOWEVER, First Ladies do NOT automatically get Air Force One or Marine One: they normally use any of a pool of executive jets otherwise used by military brass. But MICHELLE demanded the use of Air Force One on numerous occasions — often just to go shopping in New York or Hollywood. TOTALLY outside the authorization for her position. She must have thought she was an African Empress or something.

          • Exactly.

          • When George H.W. Bush heralded the coming of a “New World Order” he was NOT talking about what YOU mean by NWO. It was 1989. The Berlin Wall had just come down. Germany was getting ready to reunite after having been forcibly divided into one free country (West Germany) and one Soviet satellite (East Germany). The “new world order” HE was talking about was a world WITHOUT a divided Europe and WITHOUT the MENACE of SOVIET COMMUNIST. It was a HOPEFUL and positive world, and an “order” ONLY in the sense that NOBODY WAS FIGHTING ANYBODY ELSE.

            The “order” of the world was indeed CHANGING in 1989 — but NOT yet morphing into the NWO we think of today. If GWH Bush still had all his marbles (the family haven’t made a big thing of it, but he has Alzheimer’s), he would NOT approve of today’s “New World Order.” He wanted (and thought we were going to get) a PEACEFUL WORLD, but NOT world government.

          • Sorry to see that you are unaware. We had been hearing about the NWO for years before he announced. It was a one world government and the world was to be under the control of the Bankers, Illuminati, and the freedoms were to be taken away. And the United Nations is all part of the ploy.
            Your comment and slant is bull crap. Plane and simple. The Clinton have said from the beginning that they want a one world government.

          • I didn’t say a WORD about the Clintons and THEIR wish for world government. THEIR desire for world government did begin earlier, but again, I was TALKING ABOUT GEORGE H.W. BUSH, who used the phrase ONLY to mean the hopeful prospect of a world WITHOUT A COLD WAR. He was probably unaware at the time that it had another meaning. And his speech about that hopeful prospect for the future had NOTHING to do with when “he announced,” as he was ALREADY PRESIDENT at the time.

            I’ve been at this a long time and anything of which I am “unaware” is either, in your inelegant term, “bullcrap” or just not worth KNOWING. There is also NOTHING you can tell me about the Illuminati, the “Bankers,” or the U.N. that I haven’t known probably since before YOU were BORN. So don’t be so damned fast to try to lecture a stranger — who may well know FAR more about the subject than YOU ever will. And if you don’t know the difference between “the Clintons” and George H.W. Bush, don’t lecture ANYBODY — YOU need a few basic lessons before you open your trap.

            Don’t bother me with any more of your garbage. If you actually KNEW something, I’d be happy to discuss, but obviously you don’t.

          • Since you have closed the door to knowledge thinking you now know it all, what else can be said. We received a book in circa 1969 called how to prepare for the coming crash which details many of he secrets of the secret societies. As I mentioned before. And I was wondering and did not believe until G. Bush made the announcement. You give him too much credit probably because he has “R” behind his name. G Bush and sons are progressives. Why else to you think they even changed parties and voted for H Clinton. Unless you were part of the cabal no one would do it. There are other Progressives with “R” behind their names. McCain, McConnell, Graham and there are few real conservatives, ;like Lee, Gowdy,
            It really is too bad that you have closed your eyes. And you make judgements of me without ever meeting me. So sad.

          • My eyes are WIDE open, but what I see is FACT, not speculation from someone i “met” online, who apparently thinks an unidentified book he read in 1969 has any relevance TODAY (48 years later). I think I know the book you mean, and IT WAS WRONG EVEN THEN. That whole genre of nonsense-conspiracy literature (if one can call it “literature”) pretty much SANK WITHOUT A TRACE when the COLD WAR ENDED and their conspiracies proved either nonexistent or fanciful.

            I’ve KNOWN the Bush family since the 1950s (one generation earlier). You can call them “progressives” if you like; they’re certainly more “progressive” than I am, but THEY ARE STILL REGISTERED REPUBLICANS. I disagree with them on Trump, but that has NOTHING to do with the subject of your rant.

            George H.W. Bush served in Congress as a REPUBLICAN, ran for President AS A REPUBLICAN, served for 8 years as RONALD REAGAN’S VICE PRESIDENT AS A REPUBLICAN, and then ran for and was elected PRESIDENT as a REPUBLICAN. THAT MAKES HIM A REPUBLICAN. (Note: President Trump was a REGISTERED DEMOCRAT until less than a year before he was elected President AS A REPUBLICAN; do you allow HIM the party change, but think Bush wasn’t really a Republicans because he wasn’t YOUR kind of Republican?

            Who gave YOU the authority to decide who is or is not a good Republican, anyway? NOBODY, that’s who.) You can define terms ONLY for YOURSELF, not for me, not for anyone named Bush, and not for Donald Trump, either. In fact NOBODY BUT YOU is INTERESTED in your definition.

            When the Berlin Wall came down, Bush — like many, perhaps MOST — Americans saw the apparent END OF THE COLD WAR as presenting the POSSIBILITY (not yet the achievement) of a “new world order,” but NOT THE “New World Order” (I’m using the caps to differentiate the two terms) that YOU are talking about. It would have been wiser not to use that term, but I doubt Bush had ever even HEARD of THE “New World Order.” ALL HE WAS TALKING ABOUT WAS THE END OF THE COLD WAR, which you cannot deny was taking place in 1989. I KNOW THIS AS A FACT, not because he had an (R) after his name, although he DID have that (R), which then as now IDENTIFIED him as a Republican.

            In short, YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT, and I don’t have ANY desire to continue any discussion with some conspiracy hunter like yourself. So PLEASE STOP BOTHERING ME with your NONSENSE. I am NOT interested.

          • I’ve lived in the Washington area and worked for many political figures (all Republicans, ,and if they turned out not to be conservative I left quickly). I CAN assure you that only a SMALL minority of politicians are “on board with a world govt. or totalitarian” agenda. Among Republicans, the number APPROACHES ZERO, and among Dems it’s no more than 50 percent. What many DON’T understand is how easily the policies they WANT will LEAD to the RESULT of world government and totalitarian control. That’s usually NOT what they WANT — they just WANT govt. that can “do more” for those “in need” or better relationships with other nations — but it WOULD be the RESULT of what they’re supporting. When the day came, they’d be HORRIFIED, and genuinely perplexed about how it happened.

          • You MAY be correct about that; I KNOW most of the leftists do NOT think things they propose through to their conclusions logically; and thus are extremely destructive in the long run. And there’s ample evidence that the “helps” gov’t offers really DON’T HELP anyone; they just prolong the misery for everyone. Helping people is best left to the local charities, not gov’t!

          • And the past 8 years who escalated the debt from 9 trillion to 23 trillion? It wasn’t Trump. He’s trying to rein in DC, by getting rid of duplicate agencies. He’s giving the military it’s resources to make a quick end to some of the wars were are engaged in. We have to stop it over there or it will come here, as we’re seeing with the terrorists attacks.

          • See how their in this together. BushI (R-#41)
            Started NAFTA. Can you hear the vacuum Ross said would come?
            Clinton (D-#42)topped NAFTA when he joined WTO. Thus reducing tariffs for 24 European countries and Communists China. For its cheap labor. Is that vacuum sound getting louder? Then BushII (R-43) somehow misses a 6 million job exodus. Now we have a wind tunnel. On top of that, after terrorists based in Afghanistan attack NYC and DC. He attacks the wrong damn country (Iraq). After Destabilizing Iraq on the pipe dream “Democracy in the Middle East” BS. Obama (D-#44) pulls troops out and allows the birth of ISIS. Also Obama destabilizes Syria, and does his best to do Egypt the same……..
            Do you see a pattern here?
            I do, because I read the Communists Manifesto.

          • Absolutely true. For awhile there I thought Obama was going to declare Marshall law and take over as a communist dictator or a Muslim caliphate. Now he’s trying to get Michelle to run in 2020. That would be the final nail in the coffin and the U.S. would be destroyed. Sacrificed to the alter of one world order under Islam.

          • There are to many small arms owners around for the rest of the government to talk such a bold step.
            Obama and Holder did try to wreck the Second Amendment with their gun running scheme.

          • That and I don’t think the military would buy into it.

          • You’re correct. I’ve spoken with many I served with and the ones in today,( veterans), and there is no way any of us would turn on our country. We would of had no problem getting Obama but we have discussed this many times when we would get together at reunions. Even my oldest son has told me his buddies and him talk about how they would never turn against our country, for ANY president.

          • Thank you for you and your family’s service. I love our military and their commitment to our nation’s safety and our freedom.

          • We go to the shooting range once a week and it is full of people. Before it was empty but not anymore.

          • MARTIAL Law from Mars, the Roman god of war.

          • That’s “MARTIAL” (means military), not “Marshall”! And a caliphate is like an empire, run (perhaps) by one person, but the person is the CALIPH. And the word you want is “ALTAR,” not “alter” — which is a verb meaning “change.”
            Michelle Obama is most UNLIKELY to run in 2020 or any other time (after 8 years as FLOTUS, she HATES politics), and given that she has ZERO actual experience in politics — and the Dems know they made THAT mistake before! — she’d NOT be likely to do well if she DID run. There will be a long line of Democrats who at least have on-paper qualifications and want to run; Michelle (if she DID decide to run) would be bringing up the rear.

          • Thank you for your correction on martial. However I fully intended to use “caliphate”. Obama is a power hungry Muslim. His excessive use of executive orders and his entering the U.S. into illegal contracts shows his intent. Additionally Obama is still trying to undermine the current president. His trips overseas are being used as sedition and the taxpayers are paying for his security forces. He and his “followers” still in government are sabotaging him at every turn.
            As far as Michelle, what ever she decides to do, I wish she would just disappear. Our current is so much more beautiful, gracious, talented and classy that it puts Michelle to shame.

          • Hate to burst your bubble, but The Communist Manifesto was published in 1847 — ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-ONE YEARS AGO. The world has changed. ALL economic systems have changed. Basing your “understanding” of today’s world or its markets on your reading, however thorough, of Karl Marx is like basing your understanding of the Internet on the Atari you might have had (if you’re old enough) back in the 1970s.

          • You’re right — and that debt wasn’t escalated by anyone named BUSH, either. It was a guy called OBAMA who did it! And you’re right about Trump as well. He’s doing all he can as President with a narrowly divided Congress (especially Senate) that won’t always cooperate. The BEST thing we could do is ELECT MORE REPUBLICANS to the Senate AND House in 2018. They might not all be perfect, but with leadership from the White House they’d vote with the party often enough to BREAK THIS LOGJAM in the Senate (THREE HUNDRED bills that have PASSED the House THIS YEAR are SITTING in the Senate because Chuck Schumer won’t let the Republicans bring them up! THREE HUNDRED!) THAT’s why the story is out there that “Trump hasn’t DONE anything!” HE has; the SENATE hasn’t.

          • “You’re right — and that debt wasn’t escalated by anyone named BUSH, either. It was a guy called OBAMA who did it”

            Really? Can you prove that with facts?

          • Well, I’m sure you won’t accept figures as proof (someone once said “there are three kinds of falsehoods: lies, damned lies, and statistics”) but here are a few numbers that ARE FACTUAL.

            From: chartmidknightgraphs.blogspot.com

            The story behind Obama and the national debt, in 7 charts. Since President Obama took office, the national debt has increased by $7.4 trillion. On January 20, 2009, it stood at $10.6 trillion; on Monday, it was at $18 trillion.Jan 7, 2015. The Department of the Treasury releases daily updates on the amount of debt held by the government. There are two categories: debt held by the public, which is the sort of debt you think of when you think of government debt — Treasury bills and bonds and notes and so on — and “intragovernmental holdings,” which are securities held by other government accounts.

            BEFORE 2009 (Obama took office 1/20/2009), THE DEBT WAS RELATIVELY FLAT (not nonexistent; I’d be the first to say it’s been too high since World War II, but FLAT. It WAS NOT RISING.) THEN IT EXPLODED. Eight years of Obama, eight years of exploding debt. And remember: that “explosion” all happened when we had sequestration to hold down the one area in which spending badly NEEDED to rise: DEFENSE.

            We will have to accept some further increase in the debt while we catch up on defense needs — unless you’d like to see our men and women DYING when their planes FALL OUT OF THE SKY because of metal fatigue, and ships SINKING for the same reason — to say nothing of our men and women in uniform so overtired and stressed that they begin making serious mistakes and get killed. (Just this minute heard a report on news that HALF OF ALL AIR FORCE JETS CAN’T FLY because of mechanical needs.)
            DEFENSE IS THE FIRST RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, so if we’re going to spend money it’s at least a legitimate purpose.

            Anyway, THOSE are the figures. Obama & company SPENT LIKE DRUNKEN SAILORS (although, as President Reagan used to say, “that’s an insult to drunken sailors”). We’ll be paying Obama’s bills for the next 30 years — and that’ll be if the economy stays healthy!

          • About time someone hit the nail on the head.communist are evil and lyers

          • They all belong to some kind of Satanic Party!

          • I can’t accept your use of “Satanic” to describe ANY of these people. BAD, yes. DISGUSTING, sure. CREEPS, definitely. But the DEVIL? Somehow I suspect HE does a LOT more evil than any of these creeps could conjure up in a lifetime of trying.

          • It depends on what one calls bad, good, evil. I call deliberately destroying the finest nation in the world, the nation that began the removal of legally owning slaves, the nation that helps all other decent nations, the nation that all of us live in, and destroying it solely for their own personal reasons that have NOTHING to do with helping the average person in America and destroying all that is good in the nation, trying to destroy Christianity, the most foul thing anyone can do, SO VERY nasty that an average anyone in the world would call it evil beyond compare. It has been done before in this world and millions have died as a result, and in practically every case it was destruction for self serving purposes.

            What worse evil would you expect Satan to do? Do not forget that babies and children are victims just as their parents are victims. How evil must a mass murderer be before you can call him Satanic?

          • I suppose I just think Humans are capable of creating our OWN evil, and I’d expect something worse (or more enduring) from the Devil. However, point taken.
            You did have one error of fact, though, that I suspect you’d want put right: WE were not the first nation to begin the removal of legally owning slaves. GREAT BRITAIN abolished slavery by law in 1833, 30 years before the Emancipation Proclamation. It took a little longer in what were then British colonies like Jamaica, but they, too, finished with it sometime in the 1840s.

            Ironic, no? WE broke with Britain over their denial of OUR rights, but THEY beat us to putting an end to OUR greatest denial of other peoples’ rights.

          • Thanks for the info. I truly did not know that Great Britain was the first. I shall not forget that bit of info. Guess I have a peculiar brain……it tends to remember corrections rather than initial readings or lectures.

            Of course we create our own evil…..that does not say there is a a lot of difference from saying Satan creates our evil. Evil is evil and no one with any sense would be doing evil if his ego and humanity were at ease with each other, but when one flails, evil happens…..and it really matters not if the human or if the devil caused the evil. Evil is evil. The human committing the evil IS the evil, regardless who caused the evil. Decency is decency. Honesty is honesty. Integrity is integrity. Amazingly it is problematic trying to call lies honesty, decadence as decency, hateful behavior for no good reason as acceptable.

          • I’ll go along with that, though in my own mind I still reserve the Devil for greater evil than the ordinary stuff that ordinary people are likely to produce. But admittedly there’s no clear line of demarcation.

            Just FYI, with regard to Britain ending slavery before we did: the guy responsible (i suppose you could say their Abraham Lincoln, though he wasn’t Prime Minister and certainly not King) had the memorable name of William Wilberforce. He was an Evangelical Christian (unusual in Britain) and an independent Member of Parliament, and apparently a very forceful speaker. If you’re interested, there’s a good bio in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce

          • The UN is changing the way things are now. Now the word Global is sneaking into our language, Global citizen, Global community, etc. All this is happening for a One World Government.

            The UN in July 2016 appointed a Czar to oversee the normalization of homosexuality and transgenderism around the World. The Czar will be focusing on SHCOOLS! They are setting things up that we do not find out about until it is hard to stop it. This has happened to the college students with their Liberal Professors.

            The “Deep State” of Democrats and Republicans are running our country and they do not like what President Trump is doing. They will cause riots and mass shootings to disrupt the government. He is getting rid of these people as best he can, his life is in danger, just like JFK’S. There are a lot of people (retired military and former agents) working behind the scene’s to help him. Not enough people know what is happening and what the goal is. Most people only think about their everyday life and don’t realize that it is headed for a change if we do not pay attention and fight back anyway we can. Keep in touch with your representatives. When you find out something that is harmful to people or that is going to happen, spread the word on these sites.

          • jaybird — that story about the UN starting some kind of program to reorganize homosexuality and transgenderism around the world is an interrnet LEGEND, fortunately. The UN does PLENTY of damage, but THAT is not on their agenda.
            Think about it: Muslims are taught that homosexuality is just about the WORST mortal sin (and transgenderism is, if anything, even WORSE. There are 1.8 BILLION Muslims in the world (more, because that figure dates from 2015). Do you REALLY think the U.N. wants to START A HOLY WAR in which those roughly 2 billion people — 25% of the world’s population — set out to eliminate or enslave EVERYONE ELSE (including the folks AT the U.N.)?
            I believe the U.N. sponsoring homosexuality/transgenderism story grew out of a STUDY COMMISSION. The U.N. has DOZENS of study commissions; nothing they “study” ever CHANGES anything, but it keeps all those so-called “diplomats” busy.
            Anyway, don’t worry about it. The U.N. may favor Arabs (as opposed to Israel) in the Middle East, but an enraged world-wide Muslim population is the LAST thing they want!

          • We were talking about SEX, not money-grubbing. There are probably a more or less equal number of Rs and Ds trying to make an extra buck out of their public “service,” but the FACT is they’re relatively few — and even fewer DO make money from it. There are DOZENS of rules nowadays that make it difficult, and the profits almost nonexistent.
            The “fund” for paying settlements to women with complaints about sexual behavior by members really does NOT amount to much — it’s a big story, but not very big bucks, and MOST members don’t even know it exists. It should be eliminated, anyway, and the names and amounts paid of everyone who has ever used it SHOULD be published. But don’t expect the results to pay off the national debt. It won’t.

        • You are aware that it was Hillary’s former campaign manager and former campaign chair John Podesta that has been exposed as a devil worshipper aren’t you? You call President Trump a woman hating misogynist too – can you explain why he was the only candidate who had a woman campaign manager? None of the so called women’s advocates did” You may also not be aware that KellyAnne Conway was the FIRST woman in U.S. history to manage a presidential campaign – and she won!!! You don’t hear much about that from the so called “advocates for women” either do you?

          • ……Well, Go Kelly Ann!!
            🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

          • I called President Trump a woman hating misogynist? NEVER HAVE I DONE SO! And, yes, I am aware that Conway was the first woman in US history to manage a presidential campaign. What has made you so hostile to me? I am a staunch supporter of Trump…..have been since before he was elected. And I am no longer a pubbie, but am independent, and ALWAYS VOTE FOR THE CONSERVATIVE. Have missed one election since 1962.

          • Kellyanne Conway was the first woman in history to manage a SUCCESSFUL Presidential campaign (that is, for a winning candidate). SUSAN ESTRICH, A female attorney from Los Angeles who had long been active in Democrat politics, was campaign manager for Michael Dukakis (ex-Governor of Mass.) in 1988. (George H.W. Bush beat Dukakis by a country mile.)

          • Dukakis is so far from my mind I never gave the comment a thought about other campaigns, certainly not Dukakis’ campaign. Heavens, at the time I had no idea who handled his campaign, mostly because I cared not a whit.

          • Fair enough! “The Duke” (as his small cadre of supporters called him) is a long way from MY mind nowadays, too. His female manager did get some attention from the media, but I think she knew from Day One that her cause was hopeless. That’s why none of the more viable Democrats decided to run — it would have been hopeless for THEM, too. George H.W. Bush got the advantage of being “Reagan’s Third Term,” and then blew it — all by himself.

        • Keep in mind those “everyday Republican voters” ELECT those Republican politicians (or nobody does!), so what you’re saying, perhaps without meaning to (based on some of your other posts) is that the “everyday Republican voters” are ALSO stupid (or they’d choose better Republican candidates).

          • Problem is that we cannot choose who does not run.

          • That’s true (more or less), but think about it.

            1) We’ve made public service (especially in the Senate & House SO UNATTRACTIVE by calling out everyone who puts his/her name into the contest, saying they’re all stupid, “in bed with the devil” (YOUR WORDS), and so forth — WHO WITH A BRAIN AND ANY SELF-RESPECT, never mind having a spouse and kids who would HEAR all that crap — who would WANT to run to be hit with that kind of ABUSE from the people who ELECTED him/her?

            2) Who are those people who DO run? Are they REALLY as BAD as we think? Probably NOT…they’re your neighbors, the lawyer who did your Mom’s or Dad’s wills, or handled your sale/purchase of a home…they’re the doctor who was so concerned about Obamacare that he/she decided they’d have to DO something, so RAN FOR CONGRESS. They’re ordinary people, YOUR NEIGHBORS and MINE, and most of them are not only not “in bed with the Devil”, they’re really NICE people who have GOOD intentions, even if their ideas don’t always match yours 100%. MOST of them, even those who don’t share your politics, DO share a desire to do the best they can to MAGA. Maybe their views are wrong, or maybe one or another will turn out to be a dedicated Trump fan and agree with you maybe 98% of the time. BUT IF WE CALL THEM THE DEVIL’S SPAWN AND TREAT THEM LIKE CRIMINALS (without their having actually DONE something to deserve it), THEY WON’T RUN and the BAD GUYS will take over again.

            3) I don’t know you or how old you are (or anything else about you), but a wise political consultant once told me “IF YOU DON’T LIKE THE QUALITY OF THE PEOPLE YOU SEE RUNNING FOR OFFICE, YOU SHOULD RUN!” After all, how can you find a BETTER candidate than YOU would be? And what are you doing with your life that’s so vital that you can’t take 4-6 years to serve in Congress (or at least take 6 months to a year to TRY to GET there)? Just a thought!

            Believe me, and I say this having known a good many for a long time, politicians are NOT all evil. They have a HARD job (serving in Congress is NOT a vacation, despite what the MSM tell you about long “vacations” — those are WORKING vacations for almost everyone. The average member of Congress works 60-70 hours a week!

            And many — I’d even say MOST, on both sides of the aisle — are essentially good people. You HEAR about the bad apples BECAUSE bad apples ALWAYS get more attention than the good, sweet ones — whether they’re in sports, entertainment, business, politics. or anything else. (When’s the last time you read/heard about some athlete who never put a foot wrong, some actor who lived a blameless life? You DON’T hear about them, not because they don’t EXIST, but because the NEWS, by whatever medium, FOCUSES ON WHAT’S WRONG, not what’s good and wholesome and right.)

          • I and others like me look after your naivete and all those who cannot grasp the horror that we are living in, who believe most people are just like them, who are so innocent that they cannot get their minds around evil, and who will not listen, but who will lead us all to the slaughter house and at that time will wish they had thought things out more than they did.

          • ME, naive? Nobody’s said THAT about me since I was TEN YEARS OLD (and I’m almost 75). I DO “grasp the horror” we’re living in, ,and I’ve SEEN WORSE: do YOU remember when Americans were literally TERRIFIED of the prospect of being BLOWN TO SMITHEREENS by a THERMONUCLEAR missile launched by the Soviet Union? Do YOU remember the Cuban Missile Crisis, ,when the Soviets were setting those missiles up in Cuba for the PRECISE purpose of blowing Americans to kingdom come?

            I got my mind around “evil” DECADES ago, toots, and I know what it IS and WHAT IT ISN’T. I think that’s more than YOU can say. And I prefer to LISTEN TO PEOPLE WHO KNOW WHAT THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT, not someone i “meet” on a chat board whose credentials, if ANY, I have no way of being able to assess. I WILL NOT BE LEADING YOU, or myself, or ANYBODY ELSE to the slaughterhouse.

            BTW, who do you think will be doing the slaughtering? Russia? China? North Korea? Or are you still worrying about the Devil? I see MILITARY THREAT ASSESSMENTS,. not ‘fraidy-cat panic messages, EVERY DAY and I have a VERY good grasp of the REAL threats, not your invented terrors — for which I just don’t have TIME.

            If you have something BASED ON FACTS to report, I’ll listen (or read it, since we’re on a chat board here, not the phone). But I DO NOT have time to commiserate with your TERRORS. Take a chill pill and get some sleep.

          • So……who are you that you see MILITARY THREAT ASSESSMENTS? Are you talking about those threats issued by newspapers or the real McCoy? Do I remember the threats you mentioned? Yep, I do. I am older than you. I was a Registered Nurse before I retired. I served in the US Army Nurse Corps, worked in the operating room at Letterman General in San Francisco. Saw many a man off to war, took care of military men and women and spouses. I don’t think you know much that I am not familiar with, probably more directly than you.

            You are worried about foreign invasion. I’ve never worried much about that as I worry MORE about our nation being destroyed from within. I believe we can handlle foreign militaries much more easily, assuming we do not have a wet blanket for President, than we can manage to maintain our character and our nation when the assault is being led by our own people. There is NOTHING I can do about a foreign country trying to destroy us. There is a LOT all of us can do to prevent locals from destroying our country. GET IT? Until you can communicate as an adult, leave me alone…..you keep pestering and now I have had it with you. Adios! Have a grand day with your worries. I am working to put a stop to MY worries, MY country.

          • I’m pestering YOU? Sorry, I could have SWORN YOU were the one pestering ME! And I AM an adult.
            Can’t an adult with a mature understanding of the world worry about BOTH foreign invasion AND domestic destruction? I do, but maybe you have a one-track mind that can’t handle both at once. Anyway, since YOU don’t want to talk to ME, and I am TIRED of dealing with your conspiracy-theory ADDLED nonsense LET’S STOP. NOW.

      • Which is not, I hope you mean, to say that the Devil has a moral compass; because we know that’s not true.

      • This was posted by another poster, I had not seen it before.

        Avatar
        pilgrimson • 2 hours ago
        If this does not scare you, then we are in worse trouble than you know.

        By Charles Krauthammer

        I do not understand how living in a country with its democracy established over 200 years ago, and now, for the first time in history, suddenly we have one of our former presidents set up a group called “Organizing for Action” (OFA).
        OFA is 30,000+ strong and working to disrupt everything that our current president’s administration is trying to do. This organization goes against our Democracy, and it is an operation that will destroy our way of governing. It goes against our Constitution, our laws, and the processes established over 200 years ago. If it is allowed to proceed then we will be living in chaos very much like third world countries are run. What good is it to have an established government if it is not going to be respected and allowed to follow our laws?

        If you had an army some 30,000 strong and a court system stacked over the decades with judges who would allow you to break the laws, how much damage could you do to a country? We are about to find out in America!

        Our ex-president said he was going to stay involved through community organizing and speak out on the issues and that appears to be one post-administration promise he intends to keep. He has moved many of his administration’s top dogs over to Organizing for Action.

        OFA is behind the strategic and tactical implementation of the resistance to the Trump Administration that we are seeing across America, and politically active courts are providing the leverage for this revolution.

        OFA is dedicated to organizing communities for “progressive” change. Its issues are gun control, socialist healthcare, abortion, sexual equality, climate change, and of course, immigration reform.

        OFA members were propped up by the ex-president’s message from the shadows: “Organizing is the building block of everything great we have accomplished Organizers around the country are fighting for change in their communities and OFA is one of the groups on the front lines. Commit to this work in 2017 and beyond.”

        OFA’s website says it obtained its “digital” assets from the ex-president’s re-election effort and that he inspired the movement. In short, it is the shadow government organization aimed at resisting and tearing down the Constitutional Republic we know as AMERICA.

        Paul Sperry, writing for the New York Post, says, “The OFA will fight President Donald Trump at every turn of his presidency and the ex-president will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.”

        Sperry writes that, “The ex-president is setting up a shadow government to sabotage the Trump administration through a network of non-profits led by OFA, which is growing its war chest (more than $40 million) and has some 250 offices nationwide. The OFA IRS filings, according to Sperry, indicate that the OFA has 32,525 (and growing) volunteers nationwide. The ex-president and his wife will oversee the operation from their home/ office in Washington DC.

        Think about how this works.. For example: Trump issues an immigration executive order; the OFA signals for protests and statements from pro-immigrant groups; the ACLU lawyers file lawsuits in jurisdictions where activist judges obstruct the laws; volunteers are called to protest at airports and Congressional town hall meetings; the leftist media springs to action in support of these activities; the twitter sphere lights up with social media; and violence follows. All of this happens from the ex-president’s signal that he is heartened by the protests.

        If Barack Obama did not do enough to destroy this country in the 8 years he was in office, it appears his future plans are to destroy the foundation on which this country has operated on for the last 241 years.

        If this does not scare you, then we are in worse trouble than you know.

        So, do your part. You have read it, so at least pass this on so others will know what we are up against. We are losing our country and we are so compliant. We are becoming a “PERFECT TARGET” for our enemy!

        Charles Krauthammer

        • You have a lot of good talking points. Ill address 2
          1. UN and Gay normalization.
          The UN wants to discreetly thin out the human population. You know what comes w/homosexuality? AIDS. I don’t think any more explanation is necessary.
          2. Obama organization
          Im sure the Founders organized against the Crown. Maybe someone one the Right should come off some money and organize against Obama, through TV and Radio adds. I would usually say “Confront the bastards”. Since the Charlottsville hoop la, that would be playing into Obamas hand.
          I don’t wanna go there, because I believe hes going for a BIG gun fight somewhere to abolish our 2nd Amendment Right.

          • What you just posted is insane- You talk about this crap because you are trying to distract from what is important-

            The Republican Tax Bill is the work of the devil-The Republicans will pass it even though it goes against their key principle of debt reduction by loading up a trillion dollar to the debt and increases taxes on the middle class…whores all. It doesn’t go unnoticed that neither PND or anyone on this comment section ever talks about the elephant in the room.

          • Relax! The Republican tax bill WILL NOT load a trillion dollars onto the debt OR increase taxes on the middle class. What the “sky is falling” predictions from the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation (staffed almost entirely by liberal Democrats, but that’s a long story) have WRONG is that they FAIL TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE INCREASE IN BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND EMPLOYMENT that will result from the lower tax RATES, both personal and corporate. More companies doing more business means more revenue to the Treasury, even if the tax RATES are much lower. Assuming we don’t get a Democrat-controlled Congress that sets out to SPEND all that additional revenue, it will REDUCE, not RAISE, the deficit and national debt. (This was starting to happen in 1995-99, when Republicans had effective control of Congress. Bill Clinton takes CREDIT for balancing the budget three years running, BUT IT WAS THE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS WHO FORCED HIM TO ACCEPT THOSE BALANCED BUDGETS. Clinton would have preferred to go on spending like a drunken sailor.

            The predictions that the Republican tax plan will increase taxes on the middle class is likewise based on a false assumption. MOST taxpayers will get a lower tax rate and that will RESULT in lower taxes, period. Some in states with very high STATE taxes will pay a higher federal tax because they will have lost the deduction for their state taxes — BUT they will be able to use the DOUBLED STANDARD DEDUCTION, which will very likely save them more than the deduction loss will cost them (plus making it MUCH easier for everyone to DO their taxes without the help of H & R Block).

            Taxpayers in states with high state taxes may also lose the tax-increase that came from being subject to the ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX (a Democrat-planned PUNISHMENT to everyone who had a SUCCESSFUL career or business), again, saving them money. AND those high tax states just MIGHT get wise and CUT THEIR OWN TAX RATES.

            So there are several ways in which one lost deduction will very probably be offset by reductions in taxed income, meaning the taxpayer’s actual BILL will come out as it is now, or leave a little more in their pockets.

            AND remember, the tax relief package STILL has to go through House-Senate CONFERENCE, in which many small and some big changes may be made. YOU don’t know what those changes will be (neither does ANYONE else), so don’t pop your cork until the bill is DONE and you can SEE whether you win or lose as a result.

          • Wow!!Well written piece- Don’t see any facts presented to back it up your opinion, however if you are right, then answer this question-Why aren’t the republican’s in congress getting this “message” out?

          • The Republicans HAVE been shouting from the rooftops with this message, not just since Trump was elected (or nominated), but for DECADES. The problem with “facts to back it up,” you get FACTS only AFTER an economic policy is implemented and either works or doesn’t work, either causes prosperity or doesn’t. You can’t HAVE “facts” about what the policy WILL do until after it’s been DONE.

            But history is on our side. In 1925 or so President Calvin Coolidge got Congress to cut tax rates, and the result was a HUGE gain in economic activity. Unfortunately, along came a new President (Hoover) who was an engineer by training and didn’t know BEANS about economics, and a couple protectionists in Congress, Sen. Reed Smoot of Utah (R) and Sen. Willis … oh, heck, I forget where he was from … convinced Hoover the the economic gains of the mid-20s were only temporary, and they passed the “Smoot-Hawley Tariff,” which …hate to say this, but it BROUGHT ON THE DEPRESSION.

            However, then John F. Kennedy, having not succeeded in meeting his own campaign goal of “getting the country moving again,” went back to his textbooks from Harvard (or maybe the idea came from his businessman Daddy) and proposed a similar tax RATE cut, which was implemented in 1964 (after Kennedy’s death). It worked beautifully, and Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon Johnson, took credit for a big boost in economic activity.

            Lastly, the REAGAN TAX RATE CUTS — NOT the “reform” everyone’s talking about, but REDUCTIONS IN THE RATE OF TAXATION (the TOP rate was cut from 70% to 28% over 3 years) were implemented in 1982-85. (This was the famous “Laffer tax cuts,” named for economist Arthur Laffer of California, who sold the idea to Reagan.) They would have been MORE successful if the DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED CONGRESS hadn’t insisted on INCREASING SPENDING at the same time the tax rates were being reduced. The rate cuts DID increase productivity and create jobs (1982-89 were the longest period of economic growth in the 20th century), but the increases in spending also caused inflation. Solution: DON’T DO IT WHEN THE BIG-SPENDING DEMOCRATS CONTROL CONGRESS.

            Reagan’s “tax REFORM,” when they eliminated some personal tax deductions and revamped others, was also successful, but only AFTER the RATE cuts had taken effect. I’m also not impressed by the promise that people will be able to do their taxes on a postcard: THAT’S TRUE RIGHT NOW, if you don’t itemize deductions and use the “short form” 1060X, which is just a big postcard. People who are afraid of math STILL go to H.R. Block for help.

            I’d have rather seen Trump cut tax RATES (that’s what creates economic activity and jobs) and forget all this reform stuff, because some people DO rely on the home mortgage deduction or state tax deductions to keep their personal economies afloat. I think the result will be much the same as under Reagan: we WILL get increased economic activity, we WILL get job growth and wage growth, but people who are scared of math will STILL want help with their tax forms and the people who live in those high-tax states will STILL take a hit on their deductions, even with the doubled standard deduction. But, surprisingly, President Trump (whom I’ve never met) didn’t ASK ME how to do it! 🙁

          • OF COURSE economist and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich does not agree — he is a lifelong liberal, a Keynesian economist (and Keynesianism HAS been proven bogus, while the Laffer (2 Fs, you idiot!) has NOT. The Laffer curve works, while keynesianism DOES NOT. Further, Reich doesn’t EVER want tax cuts because he thinks the federal government should have ALL our money to play with — that the people who EARN the money deserve to have ONLY
            WHAT THE GOVERNMENT WANTS THEM TO HAVE TO SPEND.
            Reich was a TERRIBLE Labor Secretary (and previously screwed up both the Ford and Carter administrations’ policies. Citing HIM as an authority just PROVES my argument is CORRECT.

          • “The Republicans HAVE been shouting from the rooftops with this message…”

            Unfortunately, there are no current or historical “facts” to back it up-Because it isn’t true…

          • I could spend the rest of December collecting statistics for you, but I have BETTER things to do and YOU are such a closed-minded leftist that you wouldn’t believe ANY of it. So I won’t bother. Now stop harassing me with essentially the same statements over and over again. I have GIVEN you the facts, but you’re too BLINDED BY YOUR OWN PREJUDICE AND MISUNDERSTANDING to recognize facts when you SEE them. So DROP DEAD.

          • ricki geerodhole is a flaming idiot and has thrown up some monkey schit from that former labor secretary roberta reichACHTUNG to prove it…(not the issue, just the point…the on top of his head..)

          • I, as well, could send you facts to back up that supply side economic plans(aka trickle down) don’t work every day for the entire month of December -However, it would be pointless because you believe what you believe- I am more interested in facts than belief when it comes to economics-Belief is reserved for discussion of religion.

          • I don’t deal in belief. I deal in FACTS. The FACTS show that supply-side economics (trickle-down, if you like) WORKS. The facts also show that Keynesian nonsense has NEVER worked, except to CAUSE INFLATION and diminish economic growth.
            NOW PLEASE GO AWAY! I am BORED by this repetitive discussion and I have REAL WORK to do.

          • Forgot to add — we HAVE been shouting our message from the rooftops, but not all Republicans have been AROUND long enough to remember HOW the Reagan tax cuts worked or why they didn’t bring down spending; and they had nothing but liberal or radical professors when they took economics in college.

            Then they hear the supposedly “non-partisan” Joint Tax Committee (which is 85% staffed by Democrat loyalists!) and Congressional Budget Office (about 60% Democrat staffers) and they think they’d better go along with the “experts” because MAYBE THEIR THINKING IS WRONG.

            It’s hard, if you’re NOT 100% sure of your ground, to stand up and argue with those “experts” (who SHOULD have been FIRED the DAY the Republicans took control of Congress, but weren’t).

          • You don’t actually expect me to believe that….

          • I’m not sure just what you disbelieve, but I really don’t give a damn WHAT you believe or don’t. The number of leftists on college economics faculties is a matter of FACT, established and reestablished in one survey after another. (Last survey I saw showed 95% of economics faculty members voted for Hillary last year. Clearly open-minded — NOT!)

            The Joint Tax Committee is an official committee of Congress, including members from both House and Senate (hence: “Joint”). The Congressional Budget Office is an agency that was created to provide information and analysis to Congress. For years they were both staffed EXCLUSIVELY by Democrats, who mostly ran Congress with brief periods of interference from Republicans under Reagan (Senate 1981-87) and Clinton (both House AND Senate, 1995-2001).

            When the Republicans took over, they made the serious error of not firing everyone on the 100% Democrat staffs, in the absurd hope that people who worked for “bipartisan” offices would actually LOOK at both sides of the coin. Of course, the Democrats NEVER DID, and so Republicans are still stuck with BIASED advice from BIASED advisers. But they’re just too NICE to fire everyone.

            But sometimes even the liberal staffers see the light. Just today the Joint Tax Committee switched sides and announced its “final” analysis of the tax cut/reform bill, and that 60% of the savings will go to people earning under $75,000 per year — and only EIGHT PERCENT will go to the highest stratum of earners. Not bad.

            All of the above is TRUE, but I DON’T expect YOU to believe it. In my substantial experience, liberals NEVER accept FACTS unless they conform to liberal prejudices. You’re just proving that true.

          • can you provide a link to back up your points ? It would be appreciated-

            Point 1-“The Congressional Budget Office is an agency that was created to provide information and analysis to Congress. For years they were both staffed EXCLUSIVELY by Democrats, who mostly ran Congress with brief periods of interference from Republicans under Reagan (Senate 1981-87) and Clinton (both House AND Senate, 1995-2001).”

            Point 2-” Just today the Joint Tax Committee switched sides and announced its “final” analysis of the tax cut/reform bill, and that 60% of the savings will go to people earning under $75,000 per year — and only EIGHT PERCENT will go to the highest stratum of earners. Not bad.”

          • Point One: Except for the two periods of time I mentioned, DEMOCRATS controlled both houses of Congress from 1954 until after 2000. Democrats HIRE DEMOCRATS. They do NOT hire Republicans. Ergo, idiot, the Democrats running Congress hired Democrat grad students to be their “economists” — none of them had EVER HEARD OF any economic theory EXCEPT those of Lord Keynes. It wasn’t their fault; their professors were ALL SOCIALISTS.

            Point Two: Heard this on the radio this afternoon, just before writing the post; haven’t yet seen it in print or had a chance to call JEC and ask them for a copy. With the weekend coming up, the news will probably be widely dispersed before I get a chance to call JEC on Monday.

            Come to think of it, WHY SHOULD I DO YOUR RESEARCH FOR YOU, YOU DOLT? Go do your own — but don’t JUST look in left-wing websites, because that will give you AT BEST HALF THE NEWS, probably a LOT less!

          • I always research my opinions but , does it really matter if the presented research is perceived as bias?

            Here is why I find it difficult to believe your “opinion ” regarding the CBO-

            https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/congressional-budget-office-cbo/

            Head of CBO appointed by Republicans in congress-

            http://thehill.com/policy/finance/237594-keith-hall-starts-as-director-of-cbo

            https://www.wired.com/2017/03/cbo-health-care-score/

            http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/factcheck-mailbag-week-of-march-23-march-29/

          • The websites you cite are ALL biased — ALL are Democrat outlets except factcheck.org, and THEY are often WRONG. The Hill is a NEWSPAPER (and we ALL know how ACCURATE the MSM is!). Wired.com and mediabiasfactcheck.com are DEMOCRAT outlets. As I said, factcheck.org is sometimes right, and sometimes (often) NOT..

            I see no http://www.heritage.org or http://www.cato.org or even http://www.aei.org.

            BTW, you can actually TELL if you’re looking at a website that MIGHT NOT be biased: “.COM” sites are FOR PROFIT outlets that push the views of their owners, NOT actual facts. .”ORG” sites tend to be more reliable, although even there you have to know WHICH “.orgs” stick to FACTS and which edit the facts to suit their biases. Everythinng you rely on is biased, and all of it is BIASED IN FAVOR OF LEFT-LIBERAL GROUP-THINK, not facts or even alternative opinions.

            DON’T BOTHER ME AGAIN WITH THIS NONSENSE. I really have too much REAL work to spend more time trying to correct your misunderstanding or downright corruption of reality.

          • “…www.heritage.org or http://www.cato.org or even http://www.aei.org.

            Everything you rely on is biased, and all of it is BIASED IN FAVOR OF Right-Wing Conservative GROUP-THINK, not facts or even alternative opinions.

            I have nothing to learn from you so stop commenting on my posts-

            By the way your .com vs. .org theory is bogus,

          • I have NO MORE TIME or energy for YOU.. Your ignorance is totally impenetrable. My POINT was that I READ SITE S ON BOTH SIDES, you obviously DO NOT. Heritage, Cato and AEI may lean right, but they are NO more biased than the LEFT-leaning sites YOU listed. And of course .com and .org mean something: .com is COMMERCIAL, and .org belongs to ORGANIZATIONS that may have a point of view. But YOU are too IGNORANT to get that. NOW STOP POSTING TO ME, DAMNIT! I don;t want to have to use IGNORE, but in your case I WILL.

          • Here is a list of the top 100 right wing websites 80% of them are .com-

            You are wrong period-
            you don’t have to respond -just read- I know you are too busy posting to others on PND.COM!!!! to learn anything-

            Home » Conservatism » Top 100 Conservative Websites in March 2017
            Top 100 Conservative Websites in March 2017
            Posted on March 1, 2017 by Justin Haskins
            capitol building

            Below is New Revere Daily Press’ official list of the Top 100 Conservative Websites on the Internet, as well as Editor-in-Chief Justin Haskins’ “Justin’s Picks” rankings.

            The “Top 100” rankings were calculated by looking at Alexa rankings for roughly 180 conservative websites (U.S. ranks only). Global rankings were excluded because the point of the site is to look at popular U.S. conservative sites; foreign data would skew the results. Data is calculated by Alexa over a three-month period (at least, that’s the description we were able to find on the Alexa site).

            It’s important to note that NRDP’s rankings do not, in any way, indicate an ideological agreement with a listed site. In fact, I’m sure there is some material on many of these sites that the NRDP team would find objectionable.

            “Justin’s Picks” offers New Revere Editor-in-Chief Justin Haskins’ favorite websites, ranked based on quality and influence.

            Compared to New Revere’s most recent rankings, taken in November/December 2016, the biggest movers were Eagnews.org, an education website (up 76 spots); CIS.org, the website for the Center for Immigration Studies (up 30 spots); and Fairus.org, the website for the Federation for Immigration Reform (up 20 spots, moving into the Top 100). Throughout the rankings, immigration-focused websites and education-focused websites improved greatly, which is not surprising given how frequently these topics have appeared in the media since President Trump took over the oval office.

            Among the top 20 sites, the biggest changes belong to Breitbart, which moved up to #1 overall, beating out major media outlets such as Fox News and The Wall Street Journal. This is an incredible feat, regardless of what you think of Breitbart.com. It’s clear Breitbart’s decision to closely align itself with President Trump is paying off. Other big moves include The Hill moving up five spots (up to #7), and The Blaze, which moved up seven spots, more than any other site in the Top 20. It’s now ranked #12.

            Also worth mentioning is Mediaite.com, Lifezette.com, and DailyWire.com have all been added to the list. These are great sites and are well worth your time.

            If you have a site you think belongs in the Top 100 but wasn’t listed here, send an e-mail to Justin at Jinc1910@gmail.com.

            -New Revere

            Top 100 Conservative Websites

            Rank Website Link
            1 breitbart.com http://breitbart.com
            2 foxnews.com http://foxnews.com
            3 conservativetribune.com http://conservativetribune.com
            4 westernjournalism.com http://westernjournalism.com
            5 drudgereport.com http://drudgereport.com
            6 wsj.com http://wsj.com
            7 thehill.com http://thehill.com
            8 nypost.com http://nypost.com
            9 wnd.com http://wnd.com
            10 bizpacreview.com http://bizpacreview.com
            11 zerohedge.com http://zerohedge.com
            12 theblaze.com http://theblaze.com
            13 dailycaller.com http://dailycaller.com
            14 ijr.com http://ijr.com
            15 newsmax.com http://newsmax.com
            16 mediaite.com http://mediaite.com
            17 LifeZette.com http://LifeZette.com
            18 washingtontimes.com http://washingtontimes.com
            19 realclearpolitics.com http://realclearpolitics.com
            20 nationalreview.com http://nationalreview.com
            21 youngcons.com http://youngcons.com
            22 townhall.com http://townhall.com
            23 thegatewaypundit.com http://thegatewaypundit.com
            24 dailywire.com http://dailywire.com
            25 washingtonexaminer.com http://washingtonexaminer.com
            26 redstatewatcher.com http://redstatewatcher.com
            27 allenbwest.com http://allenbwest.com
            28 pjmedia.com http://pjmedia.com
            29 thefederalistpapers.org http://thefederalistpapers.org
            30 hotair.com http://hotair.com
            31 reason.com http://reason.com
            32 thefederalist.com http://thefederalist.com
            33 ocregister.com http://ocregister.com
            34 freerepublic.com http://freerepublic.com
            35 freebeacon.com http://freebeacon.com
            36 rushlimbaugh.com http://rushlimbaugh.com
            37 americanthinker.com http://americanthinker.com
            38 jpost.com http://jpost.com
            39 redstate.com http://redstate.com
            40 twitchy.com http://twitchy.com
            41 cnsnews.com http://cnsnews.com
            42 nationalinterest.org http://nationalinterest.org
            43 newsbusters.org http://newsbusters.org
            44 timesofisrael.com http://timesofisrael.com
            45 blog.heritage.org http://blog.heritage.org
            46 madworldnews.com http://madworldnews.com
            47 freedomdaily.com http://freedomdaily.com
            48 conservativereview.com http://conservativereview.com
            49 thepoliticalinsider.com http://thepoliticalinsider.com
            50 theconservativetreehouse.com http://theconservativetreehouse.com
            51 chicksontheright.com http://chicksontheright.com
            52 dailysignal.com http://dailysignal.com
            53 powerlineblog.com http://powerlineblog.com
            54 rasmussenreports.com http://rasmussenreports.com
            55 mises.org http://mises.org
            56 hannity.com http://hannity.com
            57 weeklystandard.com http://weeklystandard.com
            58 Cato.org http://Cato.org
            59 qpolitical.com http://qpolitical.com
            60 lucianne.com http://lucianne.com
            61 lifenews.com http://lifenews.com
            62 jihadwatch.org http://jihadwatch.org
            63 frontpagemag.com http://frontpagemag.com
            64 therightscoop.com http://therightscoop.com
            65 theamericanconservative.com http://theamericanconservative.com
            66 rightwingnews.com http://rightwingnews.com
            67 bearingarms.com http://bearingarms.com
            68 weaselzippers.us http://weaselzippers.us
            69 spectator.org http://spectator.org
            70 truthrevolt.org http://truthrevolt.org
            71 aei.org http://aei.org
            72 cis.org http://cis.org
            73 judicialwatch.org http://judicialwatch.org
            74 clashdaily.com http://clashdaily.com
            75 scotusblog.com http://scotusblog.com
            76 fas.org http://fas.org
            77 wattsupwiththat.com http://wattsupwiththat.com
            78 anncoulter.com http://anncoulter.com
            79 commentarymagazine.com http://commentarymagazine.com
            80 eagnews.org http://eagnews.org
            81 freedomoutpost.com http://freedomoutpost.com
            82 debka.com http://debka.com
            83 teaparty.org http://teaparty.org
            84 legalinsurrection.com http://legalinsurrection.com
            85 amren.com http://amren.com
            86 independentsentinel.com http://independentsentinel.com
            87 vdare.com http://vdare.com
            88 creators.com http://creators.com
            89 firstthings.com http://firstthings.com
            90 hoover.org http://hoover.org
            91 memeorandum.com http://memeorandum.com
            92 redalertpolitics.com http://redalertpolitics.com
            93 thenewamerican.com http://thenewamerican.com
            94 althouse.blogspot.com http://althouse.blogspot.com
            95 joeforamerica.com http://joeforamerica.com
            96 onenewsnow.com http://onenewsnow.com
            97 city-journal.org http://city-journal.org
            98 shoebat.com http://shoebat.com
            99 http://www.fairus.org http://www.fairus.org
            100 mrc.org http://mrc.org

            “BTW, you can actually TELL if you’re looking at a website that MIGHT NOT be biased: “.COM” sites are FOR PROFIT outlets that push the views of their owners, NOT actual facts. .”ORG” sites tend to be more reliable, although even there you have to know WHICH “.orgs” stick to FACTS and which edit the facts to suit their biases. Everythinng you rely on is biased, and all of it is BIASED IN FAVOR OF LEFT-LIBERAL GROUP-THINK, not facts or even alternative opinions.

          • “Joint Tax Committee switched sides and announced its “final” analysis of the tax cut/reform bill, and that 60% of the savings will go to people earning under $75,000 per year — and only EIGHT PERCENT will go to the highest stratum of earners”

            ” Heard this on the radio this afternoon, just before writing the post; haven’t yet seen it in print or had a chance to call JEC and ask them for a copy. With the weekend coming up, the news will probably be widely dispersed before I get a chance to call JEC on Monday.”

            So far nothing to confirm this is true-Did you get a chance to call the JEC(what ever that is) Probably too busy to back up any of you misstatements…sad.

          • The JEC is the Joint Economic Committee, a joint (obviously) Senate-House body that passes judgment on such issues. Sorry, I did spell it out in one previous post, but I also thought someone who claims to know as much as YOU do would be familiar with the acronym (that’s a term that applies to initials used as an abbreviation, like JEC for Joint Economic Committee). Any other terms you’d like me to define?

            I have NOT checked with the JEC this morning (I have ACTUAL WORK to do, not just your research!), but the news source (the local CBS newscast) whose report I heard is pretty reliable. Maybe the other mainstream media didn’t consider a report supporting the Trump tax bill wasn’t important enough to mention. That often happens — in fact, I think (although I haven’t counted references myself — that it’s a more frequent form of “fake news” than actual inaccurate stories. So much EASIER just to IGNORE reports a “news outlet” doesn’t WANT to circulate than to make up a substitute.

            Now PLEASE leave me to DO MY OWN work. If you want a research assistant who can FIND things in non-mainstream media, HIRE SOMEBODY. I’m NOT on your damn payroll.

          • As I have reminded you in previous comments, I do research-I research everything I comment on. In this case when one puts JEC in the browser the Joint Economic Committee does not appear-try it.

            A simple JEC means Joint Economic Committee would have been sufficient as a response. You wouldn’t have had to gone into a long condescending explanation of how inept I am.
            After all you are too busy to bother with me…right?

            I cannot find any references on any site regarding the reversal you claim in the report on the tax bill from the JEC, CBO or JTC albiet a .com or .org-I suspect you simply misunderstood what you thought you heard-we are all human and make mistakes-

            Any way, you do not have to respond to this -I know you are busy as I see your lavish posts-

            I would like to suggest that you read these two pieces from the conservative Forbes –

            BTW-That’s forbes.com but that’s an otherstory-

            Enjoy-

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2017/12/02/economists-say-the-trump-tax-plan-will-have-disastrous-consequences/#3ff703944209

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2017/12/02/winners-and-losers-of-the-senate-tax-bill/#46f5fa9b254d

          • I DID say “Joint Economic Committee (JEC)” in one of my posts, I thought it was to you. If not, excuse me. Keeping half a dozen (or more) chains going is a formula for forgetting what I said to whom. But then, you claim to be such an expert on EVERYTHING that I assumed you would KNOW what JEC meant.
            Sorry if you couldn’t find the information; I do not have the time OR the desire to look for it for you. Sooner or later it will make its way even to the mainstream media, and perhaps you’ll stumble across it there. If not, TOUGH!

            THIS IS MY LAST POST TO YOU. Since I left no questions unaddressed , I don’t expect YOU to have ANY reason to post to ME — EVER AGAIN. NOW PLEASE GET LOST!

          • “Keeping half a dozen (or more) chains going is a formula for forgetting what I said to whom.”

            I know . You have already told me that you are “too busy” to respond to my posts-I couldn’t keep up with the amount of time you spend on PND- So…I guess I’m the odd man out–I can’t help but thinks it’s because I offer you too great a challenge as most of the commenters on PND are one trick ponies .

            ” But then, you claim to be such an expert on EVERYTHING that I assumed you would KNOW what JEC meant.”

            Please prove I ever stated that in any of my posts-condescension noticed.

            You don’t have to respond.I now you have other PND posts to attend to…..

            “THIS IS MY LAST POST TO YOU. Since I left no questions unaddressed,,,” (cough) really?

          • I know you think me a worthy commenters because you want to unload me- However look at how your boy is doing in the “fake news” which is reality…

            https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/poll-trumps-approval-rating-hits-new-low-in-pew-poll/ar-BBGmUVj?li=BBnb7Kz

          • “The number of leftists on college economics faculties is a matter of FACT, established and reestablished in one survey after another. (Last survey I saw showed 95% of economics faculty members voted for Hillary last year. Clearly open-minded — NOT!)”

            So you think they don’t teach the concept of supply side economics?

          • Some DO NOT teach supply side theory at all. Others do, but mostly teach that it’s WRONG. That just proves THEY are either narrow-minded, ill-informed, or so brainwashed by all those Keynesians and socialists they studied with in their own college/grad school career that they can’t absorb ANYTHING that conflicts with the nonsense they learned.

            However, ALL the monetary economists who have WON THE NOBEL PRIZE since the 1970s have been SUPPLY-SIDERS (some won for econometrics or theory that didn’t fit ANY mold, but NONE of them have been Keynesians.)

            NOW, GO AWAY!

          • They are not getting the message out, because The corrupt media refuses to cover anything that is REAL news, they instead spend all their time shouting all the unsubstantiated claims against honest Republicans, with actual ethics. I’m just at a loss as to why they keep quiet about REAL news, but shout out lies from the rooftops. They have wasted millions covering the FAKE news that is the Russian Trump collusion, but are completely silent after finding out the only collusion was between Hitlary Rotten Clinton and Russia. They were also quiet about the corrupt primaries that made Hitlary the nominee.

          • They do not address it because they are part of the corruption globalist cabal…they make Pravda proud

          • The CBO does not calculate. INCREASE IN BUSINESS ACTIVITY because all of that is speculation not solid Mathematical fact.

          • Yeah? Well, it CALCULATED JUST FINE when Calvin Coolidge did it, when John F. Kennedy did it, AND when Ronald Reagan did it! You’ve been paying too damn much attention to those Keynesian college economics professors, and have, as a result, learned ABSOLUTELY NO USEFUL ECONOMICS. Read my response to Rich Girod below: you MIGHT learn something.

          • You are not much of a clairvoyant. I don’t think it will work (Trickle Down) because we have no tariffs to keep the money stateside. The companies saving the tax money will just retool their factories in Mexico and China. If you look at the timing of the GOP Tax Bill. Most of big manufacturing has been gone 10 or more years, it is time to retool.
            Very few middle class people will get a break. Just pull the dead weight of the ultra rich and ultra poor.

          • you response doesn’t appear to apply to my comment

          • I thought your comment was “The GOP Tax Plan $ucks”. You don’t like peaceful protests?
            what did I miss?

          • ricki geerodhole is always looking for stupid things to post on comment sites…

          • You’re on the right track, EXCEPT in calling for tariffs (“to keep the money stateside.”) TARIFFS (specifically the Smoot-Hawley Tariff enacted in the 1920s) was the MOST significant CAUSE of the GREAT DEPRESSION. All tariffs do is spread around the misery of low incomes and low financial expectations. The REASON the Coolidge, Kennedy, AND Reagan tax RATE reductions WORKED was because they “kept the money stateside” by ENCOURAGING DOMESTIC INVESTMENT, and NOT by trying to force it with tariffs, which sound like a good idea but are in practice RUINOUS. We should NEVER make that mistake again!

          • Sorry doofus, you are obviously a liberal Looney bird. You liberal a$$hat$ have screwed up our country for long enough. The Trump tax plan is the first intelligent plan since Ronald Reagan’s plan that was prostituted by a corrupt CONgress. Your precious invader, Buhrok WHO’sane Osama has done our country a serious injustice with his anti American agenda, and his treasonous acts, but Donald Trump is going to save us from the Devil that is Buhrok Osama. The new tax plan is going to continue to grow the economy, as it has been growing since Trump took office. That is if the haters of America are voted out of office, and we drain the swamp of all the corruption which is primarily the DumbocRAT party. MAGA

          • thank you contributing nothing to a discussion of the Tax Bill…go away

          • Democrat talking points. Total BS. The bill is not even written yet.

          • 1st the Charlottsville hoop la- Kessler is applying for a permit to hold a rally in 2018 again, he is playing into the hands of Obama groups and I think they should find some way to deny him. Yes, the founders organized against the Crown but they did not have the power that Obama and Soros has in funding these groups, they are a serious threat to American freedoms! NWO IS THE GOAL.

            The UN is also thinning out the population by putting birth control medicine in the shots given to the poor in African countries and others. So the UN wants to kill American children, also. People in America are living with AIDS because advances in medicine. They want to also destroy morality in America. The UN are unfit, sick Dicktators.

            Abolishing all of our “rights” is what they are aiming for. People should be prepared for what is happening, you are saying do nothing because it will play into Obama’s hands. I wish some of these Conservative Rich would try to organize the people against the “Deep State” groups. I saw this morning that the FBI is investigating ANTIFA, refusefascism.org their website post lies to rally the people, another scary organization. It will not be peaceful when Spring/Summer of 2018 comes.

          • I’m all for peaceful protesting. But allowing to real opposite groups to gather at the same venue (Like KKK and BLM) is a recipe for big trouble. If I were organizing right wing protests. I would find out were Obama is protesting and why. Flood that area w/TV, Radio adds stating our view on the matter. Then about 200-300 miles away in the next big city. Have a physical protest there to show people support our idea.
            I mean fighting a sissy boy organizer should be EZ. The only thing going Obamas way is he has drive, is the first, and a has lot of $$$ to get started. Simple things to over come. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f875c6d54940d69be306f8cc9574415ff3896785fc3d7a6f1806528dd1666b16.jpg

          • These groups are not “simple things to overcome”.

          • I think you are looking at this in the wrong light.
            I gave a peaceful recipe to counter.
            Run w/it………

          • I caution you to remember how effective the Bolsheviks and Mao’s red shirts were…a fraction of the population….

        • I’m not sure where Charles Krauthammer (usually one of the most perceptive conservative commentators) has been. Obama didn’t JUST start OFA; he started it under the name “OBAMA FOR AMERICA” AS HIS CAMPAIGN PAC in 2006, in preparation for the 2008 election (which he won, we will all recall sadly). During his two terms in the White House “Organizing for America,” and he has kept that title. But it’s still the same vehicle — a Political Action Committee — which should easy the concerns of everyone here, as we all know how brilliantly it functioned in 2009-2017. PACs work in campaigns, but they seldom turn into REALLY effective, large-scale grass-roots organizations or successful mass movements. Of course, it’s UP TO ALL OF US to ensure this one doesn’t succeed where others have failed.

          • I think this Obama fund will end up like the Clinton foundation.
            Just a pack of lies to get weak minded people to give them money……

          • As long as there are STUPID RICH PEOPLE willing to give their money to their favorite politicians because those are the pols who turn out for the “right” galas and parties, and get written up in the “right” magazines, there WILL be people around who are willing to fund Clintons or Obamas and their foundations. That’s the downside of capitalism. 🙁

          • The “rich people” are not stupid, they are paying to get bills approved so that their business can thrive or for something that will benefit their lives.

          • Well, then, I’ll accept “MISGUIDED.” They clearly never learned the basics of how the free market works, or they’d know going to Uncle Sam for favors for their businesses is a waste of time and effort. IF their businesses are well-run and making a product people WANT (and selling that product at a reasonable price), they WILL make money. As for wanting favors for themselves, the favors they want aren’t financial.

          • Obviously you don’t have many (any?) acquaintances among the ultra-rich. I do, and believe me, when it comes to anything outside of their immediate world of business interest, MOST OF THEM ARE STUPID. They know. what they need to know to run their own businesses (maybe), but they have VERY little understanding of the wider economy or what makes it tick. That’s why they so often make decisions that just don’t work out.

            Those businesses that the rich people want to have thrive, by the way, EMPLOY THOUSANDS (maybe 10s of thousands) OF ORDINARY AMERICANS — people JUST like YOU. Without those rich people and their businesses, there would be maybe HALF as many decent jobs for the rest of us. Do you really think that would be a GOOD thing?

            And as for their wanting “something that will benefit their lives,” I can only say: WHO THE HELL DOESN’T WANT SOMETHING THAT WILL BENEFIT THEIR LIVES? Do YOU not want anything that will benefit YOURS? Do you really want to make your life WORSE? Somehow, I doubt it!

            Wake up and smell the coffee! People are pretty much the same regardless of the size of their bank accounts. We ALL want to improve our lives and those of our family and others around us. We use whatever skills and tools we have at hand (or can learn to use) to achieve that goal, whether through BIG business or SMALL business or anything else (hopefully anything legal).

          • I don’t think Obamait is about money, it is about overthrowing our government and install the Globalist agenda.

            Clinton Foundation was about getting as much money for themselves, sex trafficking, corruption, giving away secrets for money and putting us in as much debt as possible.

          • Where do you think he got the idea from???
            Here is a picture Obama took the first time he went to DC of the Clinton’s….. The day he decided to copy them.
            (Addams family theme)

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4010f474df897a94d1223961a35b9437b7991956e17d090fde5654cdad565102.jpg

          • The Clinton Foundation was not about organizing people to protest.

            Obama is organizing people to protest, not the same kind of organization as the Clinton’s!

          • A slush fund is a slush fund. No matter what you call it. Ask Corine Brown (D-JaxFl). She tried to copy the Wounded Warrior scheme. Because of her recklessness is why the whole thing was exposed.
            If you want to personally ask Mrs. Brown “What Up?!
            She should be in federal prison by now……..

          • My comment was about the purpose of each fund, go back and read what you have posted, you keep changing.

          • King o is organizing people because he is a communist/Marxist anti-American who wants to be a dictator…he hates America

          • Very good (the pic)! As for the dog, I’d rather see him/her ATTACKING Bill than just jumping on him, but then I guess we can’t have everything?
            Is that the Clintons’ dog or one of the Obamas’ pair of Portuguese Water Dogs (which they got from Teddy Kennedy)? I wonder because Hillary did’t wear pantsuits back in their White House days.

          • He had surgery approx. 3 mos ago and there were complications, he is recovering and plans on coming back to Fox, I think the article indicated he was in rehab.

          • Yeah, I knew that. When I said I didn’t know where he had been, I meant only that his column attacking OFA came a little late in the game, and by its wording suggested that the writer (Krauthammer) hadn’t been AWARE of it previously. Some of us have been fighting OFA for years!
            Anyway, I pray for Krauthammer’s full recovery and I look forward to his returning to his column and TV appearances. He’s one of the best — and he drives the liberals crazy because he’s JEWISH, and therefore SUPPOSED to be (in their minds) one of THEM, not one of US. 🙂

          • How are you fighting OFA, I would like a few tips to pass along?

          • I KNOW THAT. I didn’t ask where he was in the sense of his physical location — it was meant to suggest I’d have thought he would have known what he seemed to be revealing in the WaPo column. If you don’t understand non-literal usage, I’m sorry, but you don’t have to keep telling me what I (not YOU) meant.

          • What I know is that you are a Jack A$$ and are not correct all of the time. Do you still think that Paul Ryan’s wife was not a Lobbyist for the Pharm. company and not a Democrat?

          • Yeah, I KNOW YOU’RE WRONG. I never mentioned Paul Ryan in any previous post to you (you must have the wrong person’s posts in mind). However, it happens that I AM
            PERSONALLY ACQUAINTED WITH JANNA RYAN (Mrs. Paul Ryan) and your information about HER is just plain WRONG.

            Janna is a TAX ATTORNEY who practices in the Ryans’ home town, Janesville, Wisconsin. That’d be a rough commute for a lobbyist, but anyway tax attorneys RARELY lobby. SHE is a registered Republican, but she does have a cousin, Dan Boren, who was a Democrat congressman from Oklahoma. He left Congress years ago; not sure what he’s doing now but I imagine he’s in Wikipedia. Now, are you going to hold people responsible for their COUSINS’ politics?

            I don’t know why Janna Ryan’s family history or profession matter. If she WERE a lobbyist, SO WHAT?
            Pharmaceutical companies make LEGAL products, and whether you approve or not, LOBBYING IS LEGAL. Janna may have done some lobbying in the course of one of her legal assignments before she and Paul moved back to Wisconsin; I never thought to ASK her because IT DOESN’T MATTER. Nor does it matter if her cousin is a Democrat or a Socialist or a member of the Whig party. I have NO idea why you even brought up the subject.

            You have no way of knowing anything about me, but WHAT I SAY IS WHAT I KNOW TO BE TRUE — or sometimes I will say “I think” just as I said I didn’t know all of Janna Ryan’s legal assignments. Why should I? I DO know that she’s a tax attorney and that they live in Janesville, where SHE practices. So if you’re calling me out on any of THAT, once again, YOU DO NOT HAVE A CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. So GO DIG A DEEP HOLE AND CLIMB IN — I have too much to do to WASTE time dealing with IDIOTS like YOU.

          • When I presented the info to you in the past, you denied it and got all bent out of shape. Tossing name around like you are better than anyone else and know more. Hadn’t seen you posting since then. I won’t post to you anymore because I know how you are. Have a “Merry Christmas”!

          • You know how I am? Wow! I am someone who doesn’t like to be accused of saying something I NEVER SAID (that Paul Ryan’s wife was a Democrat or a lobbyist). I denied saying it because I NEVER SAID IT. Got that?

            I’m not “tossing names around” — I just happen to know the woman. I have a pretty good education, but I don’t often talk about it, because I DON’T like to brag.

            Lobbying for Pharm. companies or anyone else was NOT her job. She PRACTICED TAX LAW, for awhile in DC and then (as I said) in Janesville Wisconsin. She never worked for ANY lobbyist (lobbying firm) much less TWO of them.

            I suspect you got this misinformation from someone else and for some reason are blaming ME for it. I DID NOT PROVIDE ANY OF IT TO YOU, just corrected your ERRONEOUS prior posts. That’s IT.

            I WILL NOW PUT YOU ON “IGNORE” SO I DON’T HAVE TO BE BOTHERED EXPLAINING YOUR MISTAKES TO YOU OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Please don’t bother to contact me; I don’t want OTHER people seeing and feeling the need to respond to your posts.

            Because I am basically a polite person, unlike present company, I will also wish YOU a Merry Christmas — and Happy New Year. But if you MUST respond to me again, please blame me ONLY for something I SAID, not something I NEVER DID.

        • So OFA is illegal?

          • No, you idiot. There are lots of things that are LEGAL but still HARMFUL. In a free society (which ours still is, despite the best efforts of Presidents Clinton and Obama to curb our freedoms), people have the RIGHT to make stupid decisions and join stupid organizations — like OFA.

          • “idiot”…I don’t believe I have ever make a ad hominem attack on you- I was hoping for a civil discussion-too bad.

        • Are you related to the well-known Charles Krauthammer?

        • Mr. Krauthammer I totally agree . Please keep pushing the media & anyone else to investigate this group & who is funding it. This could be bigger than Watergate as this group appears to want to bring this nation down. & the man who would be king is involved. Please use your influence . Where is the real FBI or CIA or are they part of this

          • I am not sure I have the kind of influence that is needed, I am just a regular citizen that is involved in spreading truth. Everyone needs to spread the word so people are aware of who is causing distrust, problems and wants to give in to the UN and One World Government. My local newspaper has refused to print some of my comments. I sign a lot of petitions and push bills or condemn bills to my Congressman, given up on my Demorat Senators.

            I missed a call yesterday from my Congressman’s office at the US Capitol. His office has never called me before! One of his staff wanted to discuss the e-mail on immigration that I sent them. I sign and send them a lot, could not remember which one. Luke left me a message to call anytime to discuss things and “thanked me”. When Congressman Brat was running for re-election, I became a delegate @ 71yrs. old to make sure he was on the ballot and that we had people going to the National Repub. Convention that would support Trump. If I can do this anyone can because I quit school in my Junior year. The hard part is that 1st letter printed in the newspaper, small town and lots of people that I went to school with saw it. My ex called our daughter-in-law and said he was proud of me!

          • Thank you again sir. I was born in England, At 14 I was handing out flyers for the conservative party in my home town, needless to say my family who all were labor were not happy. Since immigrating to this country @ age 18 yrs.old & marrying an American Air Force citizen, then applying after the required time & studying very hard about all three branches of government & how they worked, I became a proud American citizen myself. on May 16 1960, I have never missed a vote since that time either City, County, State or Federal. So I appreciate a person like you who gives their time to this country

          • I am a female, if you don’t describe yourself disqus does not know how to characterize your picture.

            You are welcome and thank you for voting. I post items that I have discovered and promote bills for and against things, sign a lot of petitions that people can access. NUMBERSUSA is one site, they use your sip code to send to your Representatives. If anyone uses Creedo Mobil phone – they are a Liberal group and funds Liberal protests and petitions, they also mobilize protest across the country, also has a petition site, some things I sign, but very few. Need to let people know. If you find out about a protest forming in your town, let your police force know. I have done this and they thanked me.

            Every person needs to do what they are comfortable with but do something!

        • I’ve passed it on!
          Up vote me if you have, too!

          • I am glad you passed it on, we need everyone fighting the corruption. From what I have read there are retired military and some agents working behind the scene’s helping President Trump. His life is still in danger.

            I think the “Deep State/Shadow Government” are underestimating the Conservative Republican Patriots. Most are not vocal or get involved but when push comes to shove, they will have awakened an angry bear that is willing to fight to the end.

        • In other words…the 45 Communist Goals to Takeover America….marching on…..along with Un Agenda 21/30….this is treason and they all need to be arrested and hung!

      • If they are guilty—-punish them for a change. Allowing these perverts to get away with this is stupid. Just because they are politicians, it does NOT give them the right to break the law—-especially sex crime laws. It’s time to MAGA & get rid of these lowlife SOB’s.

        • “If they are guilty,” you say. How do you propose to prove their guilt or innocence?
          * Just on the basis of allegations from women who MAY be, say, former employees with an ax to grind? Or may be telling 100% truth: how do WE KNOW?
          * Do we go to court, despite the fact that it’s sometimes been 30 years since these events happened and, in the REAL world of courtrooms, the statute of limitations expired LONG ago?
          * Do we base our assumption of guilt on a member having made payment to a staff member from that fund we’ve just found out about (I worked about 20 years, off and on, on Capitol Hill and I NEVER HEARD A WORD ABOUT IT — it’s NOT a line item in the budget!)?
          * What if the TRUTH — which we may NEVER uncover — is really that the Congressman or Senator DID NOTHING WRONG but wanted to get a troublesome staff member OFF HIS BACK?
          * What about the VOTERS? After all, those Senators and Congresspeople are SUPPOSED to WORK FOR US, we the people, the voters — they DON’T work for the Washington Post or the President or anybody else. WE are their BOSSES.
          But suppose WE — a majority in a particular Senator’s state or Congressman’s district — WANT TO KEEP HIM IN OFFICE (as may well happen with the Alabama Senate race in a week or so)?
          In that situation, does someone get to say, “No, you have to get rid of him even if he WON reelection with the FACTS about his sins on the table”?
          WHO gets to say that — some Senate or House leader (the member in question works for YOU, not the Senate or House or their leaders!)? Nancy Pelosi was defending & praising John Conyers for “all he’s done for women” (!) and as an “ICON for America” — and a couple of days later, with NO new information, she’s saying “HE MUST GO!” Which Nancy has the right to make that decision? The one who thought Conyers is an “icon” or the one who emerged more recently?
          Just to be nonpartisan, what happens if Roy Moore is elected in Alabama (which seems likely: he’s leading by 6 percent in recent polls)? That suggests “THE PEOPLE” in HIS state either don’t care about, or have forgiven, whatever HIS sins (if any) may be. Should the Senate — the 99 other Senators — be able to REFUSE him the seat HE JUST WON? (Under the Constitution, they CAN.) Or can/should the Senate LEADERSHIP have the sole right to kick him out (they DON’T)? Or should the voters of Alabama, having JUST elected the guy, be forced to have ANOTHER election (btw, running statewide elections is EXPENSIVE!) in which someone (WHO?) declared Moore INELIGIBLE to run? Who gets THAT privilege? — it’s certainly NOT in the CONSTITUTION!

          Sorry, Scuttlebutt, but it’s a BIT (ok, a LOT) more complicated than you seem to think. Frankly, I DON’T PRETEND TO KNOW the answer. My instinct is to say “Leave it to the VOTERS, THEY are the bosses!” but that means, often, that the creep stays in office for another 1-2 years, even more for Senators. And as to punishment? YES, FOR SURE, MAKE THEM PAY BACK ANY “SETTLEMENT” FUNDS THEY GOT FROM THEIR OWN OFFICE ACCOUNTS OR THE SENATE/HOUSE LEADERSHIP. I think EVERYONE can agree on THAT. But what about a “crime” committed 30 years ago (or 20) for which the criminal statute of limitations has long since expired? (or when there was, by the woman’s testimony, no “CRIME,” the boss’s attentions just made her “FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE”)? How, aside from demanding money back, do we “punish” HIM?

          And just as a closing conundrum: Many years ago when I worked for a solidly conservative, happily married, Republican Congressman, there was a youngish woman in the office who was, not to put too fine a point on it, slightly BONKERS. She DREAMED UP a “relationship” she supposedly had with the boss — and told everyone in the office, plus a bunch of people who worked for other members, about her supposed relationship. IT NEVER HAPPENED, and we eventually proved it COULDN’T have happened because the boss WASN’T THERE on dates this woman said she’d been with him (and SHE WAS there, so there couldn’t have been an out-of-town assignation).

          But before we figured out that it was just her mental problem, she’d come within inches of going public — AND RUINING A GOOD MAN’S HAPPY MARRIAGE , PLUS HIS CAREER. How do you deal with cases like that — a RUSH TO JUDGMENT is just a FASTER way to ruin someone’s marriage and career.

          Just to point out that this issue is NOT as simple to define or resolve as it may look.

    • EXACTLY!! They are the devil’s servants.

    • Beeotchstewie the deplorable

      The Shariacrats are, they are the ones trying to destroy the USA with their satanic Muslim killers and rapists.

    • There are bad apples (or guys with wandering hands or worse) on both sides of the political fence. Enough Devils to go around, I’d say. (As a Republican, I regret this: I wish all the pervs were Democrats. But they’re NOT, although a majority ARE.)

  2. Inside the Beltway there is an unwritten defacto Don’t Ask Don’t Tell directive with respect to sexual misconduct. And boy, do they take advantage of it! At long last the house of pervs is coming apart at the seams!

    • Yes they are pervs. And that is why they vote for the other pervs and we are now being ruled by pervs.

    • Hey, the “don’t ask don’t tell” directive wasn’t just in Washington. Two weeks ago we were all agog over the number of Hollywood & television types being brought down because THEY had wandering hands (or worse) — and their victims finally went public. And of course Al Franken was a comic, not a Senator, when HE was hugging all those women. Fact is, men treating women like property or prostitutes has been par for the course for DECADES, maybe longer.

      It’s ironic, but the creeps in Washington will have done ALL women a favor it highlighting THEIR behavior curbs that of other men in other industries or businesses.

      • You must understand………they are now known as ICONS!

        • Oh, I GET it! It’s just mildly amusing to me (female, almost 75) that the whole world seems to be discovering JUST NOW that some men are CREEPS. (Notice: I did NOT say “all men.” I don’t think anyone’s done a survey, but I suspect — HOPE — it’s a lot fewer than 50%.) I thought everybody — ok, every WOMAN — already KNEW that.
          But if the sudden discovery of what should be — has been — a universally recognized FACT for decades does give everyone a chance to assess their own behavior and that of those around them, make corrections where (IF) needed, and simply divest themselves of their acquaintance with hopeless losers.
          And it’s fun, as a conservative woman, to watch leading libs like Nancy Pelosi tying themselves into knots trying to explain why someone like John Conyers deserved to be forgiven TWO DAYS AGO but NOW, apparently, “has to go.” What changed? He’s a jerk; he WAS a jerk last week or last month, and he was a jerk 50 years ago. If anything has changed, it’s that NANCY WOKE UP and decided to stop DEFENDING Conyers and the rest. . They ARE indeed “icons” — of MISBEHAVIOR.

        • I was just thinking — an icon is a statue or statuette usually representing a deity from an ancient and…well, let’s just say strange…religion. Followers of ancient faiths or cults pray to icons in the place of their actual god or goddess. The Ten Commandments (actually, #1) make it a sin to “bow down to a graven image…”, so no icons. Nancy Pelosi is supposed to be a devout (although pro-choice) Catholic. Where in the world do you suppose she’s been praying to ICONS? And WHY?
          Not important, just an idle thought.

          • Well, they call the “icons” on a computer screen that since they came out. Just put the word in quotes and quiet the immoral’s.

          • Very good point.
            I guess I’m at an age where I just don’t think in terms of computer “lingo” — I sometimes don’t even understand it when I run across it, but I do know what an “icon” is.
            The Bible, I know (not as well as I should, but…).

          • Excellent point RightWriter. Be safe my friend! I don’t know the Bible as well as I should either! But then Native peoples by and large never really followed it anyway. 🙂

        • They’re not an “icon” in MY book.

  3. When I get my Washington DC News I always trust scores named Kilo, 8-Ball, Tab Man, Pot Head, Acid King/Queen, Cokie, Anonymous, and Stony.
    Actually how did this reporter get her nick name?????
    Line by line……….
    💰💉🐴🔫

  4. He got away with it because he is a NIGGER!!!!

    • NO, lots of WHITE guys got away with the same behavior. Race sometimes decided their choice of victims (Conyers seems to have had a preference for white, or mixed race, women — or maybe he was just afraid of the Big Black Mamas who might GET him if he messed with their daughters. But there’s NO evidence that these bad habits (I’m deliberately understating) are more widespread among one race than another. Sorry to disabuse you of your racisim (and I’m white!)

      • Any WHITE WOMAN that goes out and marries NIGGERS ARE SLUTS!!!

        • Your racism is unattractive (to say the least), your grammar is ATROCIOUS (that means inexcusably illiterate), and anyway I never said ANYTHING about white women marrying African-American men. You either have the wrong person to respond to or your JUST AN IDIOT AND A RACIST. I suspect the latter. DO NOT POST TO ME AGAIN.

        • Woman is…or women are. Embrace English, stupid. You’ve been at it long enough that you should be much more proficient.

  5. It has been a long-lasting joke about “the crooks in Congress”, but people didn’t take it seriously, nor recognize how it is hurting the average citizen. Now the lid has been blown off, and the scumbags are being publicly shamed. Maybe if there would be a way for us voters to get a better summary of a candidate’s background, we could avoid sending that slime to DC. They are not representing their constituents. They are just running a money, sex, and power mill, and ignoring the millions of people who are expected to trust them.

    • Beeotchstewie the deplorable

      Let’s revisit the background of the Son of Satan himself, Barack Obama please. Oh wait, we cannot, because the Shariacrats hid the truth and still are. What we know, Traitor, Muslim, Gay, Racist, Liar, and Thief. If we only knew then what we know now.

      • Amen. But there’d still have been a bunch of people vote for him because they always vote for Democrats, or because he’s black, or because they are “that way”. They would have ignored any info about him that was negative. So in a way, they made their own beds.

      • We knew, but people were being so PC they did not want to hear it.

    • How true. It’s all of DC not just a particular party, although the liberals are leading the list.

    • Good grief, here in the era of the Internet you find it difficult to get a good idea of a candidate’s BACKGROUND???? Try googling them! Don’t just read their official webpage (they, or their staff members, write that stuff so it’s likely to leave out the flaws!). Read whatever else is there! Go to one of their campaign meetings, or (better yet) to hear them speak at some public meeting they don’t actually control (a business group, a charitable organization, whatever.) Don’t know when they’re speaking, or where? Again, whats’a matter with your Internet connection? Or do it the old-fashioned way: CALL THEIR CAMPAIGN HEADQUARTERS and ASK someone where the candidate is speaking, or when he/she will be in your town, in the next …oh, two weeks.
      You CAN, of course, wait until the campaigns shove brochures into you mailbox or stick them under your door, but like the biographies online: those are self-generated information, and not likely to cover negative stuff.
      To be sure, having a blameless public record doesn’t mean someone is really blameless — until last week, everyone thought Al Franken was, for example!. But it’ll give you a starting place.
      Remember: THE MORE YOU KNOW ABOUT THE CANDIDATES, THE BETTER YOUR DECISION BETWEEN/AMONG THEM IS LIKELY TO BE. Knowledge (or information, anyway) is power.

  6. The reporters saying they all knew about Conyers, and we knew not to get in the elevator with him. What would have happened if it was these reporters that were attacked, harassed etc? The wife or daughter of one of the reporters or even a son? Would they still keep quite?

    • Don’t know about that, but I DO know that if they learn of a non-democrat doing it, they would harass them to death.

      • That’s very obviously a given with them. Would they protect their kids or self is it happen to one of them, that’s not a given?

        • Actually, we have the answer to that, in that they aren’t going after Conyers’ head and demanding he and Franken resign; they’re throwing any real victims under the bus for “party” and claiming they do “so much good for women”. BTW, saw earlier today, Conyers is pulling out of the ’18 race.

          • They ARE pushing Conyers out the door, and Franken will probably follow very quickly. Sad to say, but both Republicans and Democrats can be guilty. Now that the acceptance level has changed so drastically and so quickly, I think both Rs and Ds will get harassed — probably more according to the seriousness of their offenses (a comforting hand on an arm? or grabbing a butt? or rape?) than based on their politics. This HAS been going on for years on BOTH sides of the fence. Men are men, regardless of their politics.

          • Today, some FINALLY did call for Conyers and Franken to step down too; even some on the left; but I think they were reluctant because they know too many of them are also guilty at some level as well. Men ARE indeed men, and will try; the question is DO they stop at your “NO!” or not. IF yes, then okay, no harm, no foul; if NOT then there’s a problem that need rectified.

          • Yeah, I know… the “someone” was none other than the Democrat leader in the House, Nancy Pelosi (she who would be Speaker if the Dems reclaimed the majority). She had a lot of her own caucus (Dem members) pushing her to say it, because THEY were getting a ton of mail/messages from folks at home. Nancy was almost in TEARS when she said she thought Conyers should go — she’d really rather have him stay, because he’s “an icon” (meaning he’s an African-American who’s been around forever).

            Nancy has another problem, in the person of a young first-term Dem Congressman from Nevada named RUBEN KIHUEN (nobody else ever heard of him either!) Seems his CAMPAIGN MANAGER (or maybe it was his campaign finance manager) accuses him of hitting on her during their association in his campaign — so she waits until he’s been in office for almost a YEAR to report that he’s a creep. But in the new environment EVERYONE is guilty if ANYONE accuses them of ANYTHING, so Nancy had to pressure Kihuen to quit. At this rate there won’t be any Democrats LEFT, and probably fewer Republicans as well.

          • I know, and the exit of so many of those would be bad, why? That’s the part I’m missing…

          • Well, keep in mind when a member of the Senate or House leaves (whether through death, defeat in an election, resignation for cause like sexual misconduct, or even just election to another office), that person’s seat doesn’t just disappear. HE OR SHE IS REPLACED, either by short-term appointment by their state’s governor (for Senators only) or special election..

            And it’s a complete crap-shoot whether the replacement will be as bad, better, or MUCH WORSE. Given the way most Congressional districts lean to one party or the other, and even most states have substantial majorities and are thus likely to elect someone from the same party as the previous incumbent, if you didn’t agree with the old member there’s a high probability you won’t think ANY better of the newcomer. Example: John Conyers’ district is about 80% African-American and the ratio of Democrats is probably even higher. Will HIS replacement be BETTER than Conyers? Not bloody likely! Same statewide for Al Franken: Minnesota is one of the 8-10 MOST solidly Democrat/Liberal states in the country (it was the ONLY state to vote for Walter Mondale in Reagan’s re-election LANDSLIDE in 1984!) And of course the state’s governor is also a liberal Democrat, so we can’t expect a good appointee. Can we expect a wonderful conservative newcomer to win a special election? Not in this millennium! So WHAT do we GAIN by electing (or letting the governor appoint) someone new? ZIP.

            Worse, from the standpoint of the people who LIVE in the state or district represented by the newcomer: it will be AT LEAST A YEAR, more likely two or more, before the new member learns how to get ANYTHING (good or bad) done in the Senate or House. Over 240 years, both bodies have built up VOLUMES of rules of procedure that a new member has to master before he or she can be very effective, whether the objective is liberal or conservative. (I personally think this is GOOD: since most of what Congress DOES is either downright BAD or just unnecessary, I’d RATHER they got NOTHING done.) And they WON’T — not for a couple of years. By which time they MIGHT have been replaced by someone else.

            So while “the exit of so many” driven out by the current tsunami of concern over sexual misbehavior MAY be good, it could ALSO seriously slow down OUR progress. And since Republicans are now in control, any time we see one exit we have to realize he/’she COULD be replaced by a very liberal DEMOCRAT. So don’t root TOO hard for replacing a lot of members. OR AT LEAST BE CAREFUL WHAT (WHO) YOU WISH FOR!

          • Since, in most cases the replacement would be by special election, there is a chance the people would choose someone marginally better; since some are coming to their senses. Finding people WORSE than those in there now would be next to impossible; since they’re pretty much the “scum of the Earth” really. Frankly, I think we need to toss the lot of them out and start over from scratch with a legislature, but that isn’t likely to happen.

          • House members would be replaced by special election, most Senators by appointment (by their state governors) until the next general election.

            You might be right, but I think it’s a big risk to take, because as I said you have a 2-year “training period” before a new Senator OR House member can start to get anything done — and then only if he/she is pretty sharp.

            I have to disagree with your observation that we’ve hit the bottom of the barrel. I worked on the Hill (on and off) during much of the 1970s and 1990s, and I can tell you the current crop are WAY better than the doofuses who were serving in Congress THEN. First off, today a lot more of them are REPUBLICANS and an even greater proportion are CONSERVATIVES.. (Back in the 1970s you could count the number of conservatives in the Senate on the fingers of ONE hand, and the number in the House on TWO hands.)

            Now, you may be thinking they’re “RINOs” or just wishy-washy, but even the worst of today’s RINOs are better than the liberal Republicans of the 1970s. They were REALLY Democrats in Drag. The few conservatives and their staffs had to spend more time fighting just to get their bills READ, much less committee action, and passed? Don’t make me laugh! Also, having the levers of control in OUR hands — even if you don’t like the people — gives us a LOT of clout in what bills get introduced, get committee hearings, and maybe eventually PASS. Without that majority and the power it provides, we could get NOWHERE. Believe me, and I say this as one who has BEEN THERE in both eras, IT’S MUCH BETTER NOW. (And will get better still if we can hold our disparate numbers together well enough to GAIN seats in 2018, especially in the Senate — a 2-vote margin is NOT enough.)

          • The levers are NOT in “our” control and the states wouldn’t be appointing the senators any more than the House, since the passage of the 17th Amendment! The present and past Congress’ KNOW they are NOT answerable to we the people and act accordingly. A NEW Congress without any holdovers would both shed those rules and not be so eager to avoid accountability.

          • I don’t like to sound like the professor you hated in college, but you’re wrong about filling Senate vacancies — and if you look at Alabama just this year, you’ll see the proof.

            When Jeff Sessions became Attorney General last January, the GOVERNOR of Alabama APPOINTED Luther Strange to fill the Senate seat UNTIL A SPECIAL ELECTION COULD BE HELD. Because 5 or 6 Republicans entered the race, there had to be a primary before the special election — in which the Republicans chose Judge Roy Moore INSTEAD of Luther Strange. (Alabama requires 50%+1 vote to win a special election, some states let whoever runs first be the winner).

            The general election to fill that seat comes up NEXT WEEK — that’s what the big fight over Moore’s ALLEGED behavior toward teenaged girls is all about. (Strange, having lost the primary, will depart as soon as the election winner is sworn in, unless of course he wins the seat on a write-in — very unlikely). Meanwhile, the Democrats nominated Doug Jones as THEIR candidate in the special election. But THE GOVERNOR DID FILL THE VACANT SEAT FIRST.

            Believe me, the average member of the Senate or House DO NOT consider themselves not answerable to the voters — they spend every damn weekend visiting with constituents in their states/districts in the hopes of winning their votes! They know full well they could be booted out at any election, or even in a primary by someone else in their own party (ever hear of David Brat, Republican from the Richmond area in Virginia? He was an UNKNOWN junior professor of economics at Randolph-Macon college, BEAT THE REPUBLICAN DEPUTY LEADER OF THE HOUSE — considered virtually impossible — in 2014 and was re-elected in 2016. He may NOT win this year, but it’s hard to tell. But Brat’s victory over Republican Whip Eric Cantor was a LOUD wakeup call to EVERYONE that incumbency — even with a leadership position or super-good reputation — is NOT a guarantee of re-election. NOT ANY MORE.
            Incidentally, a clean sweep — a Congress “without ANY holdovers” — would not only be impossible (there are going to be 64-67 Senators remaining no matter WHAT happens in House elections. because only one-third of the Senate is re-elected in any election cycle), IT WOULD BE DEVASTATING. We wouldn’t have a BUDGET for at least TWO YEARS, meaning seniors wouldn’t get their Social Security checks AND THE MILITARY WOULDN’T GET THEIR PAY, EITHER. It would take the House a YEAR or more just to re-organize, and probably TWO years or longer before anyone knew what was going on.
            Believe it or not, Congress DOES do important work, for which it NEEDS MEMBERS who KNOW WHAT THEY’RE DOING. YOU would leave us in the precise position North Korea and maybe China would LIKE — we could be CONQUERED in a WEEK by anyone with an army.

            I notice you didn’t respond to my suggestion that if you don’t like the people running for office, YOU should run. That’s the usual reaction: “Gosh, NO! Not ME!” But what it SAYS is that either you think you’re too important to waste YOUR time on public service or you know so LITTLE about what Congress really does that you now you’d be up a creek without a paddle. In 30 years or so of making that suggestion to randomly chosen people (both parties), I have found ONE willing to put his money where his mouth was and RUN. The rest have been all hat and no saddle. So forgive me if I make the assumption that YOU are not any more willing to serve in what is, after all, a reasonably well-paid position (which YOU think doesn’t require a lot of work) than any of those other people. DOES IT OCCUR TO YOU THAT IF GOOD PEOPLE REFUSE TO RUN, THE ONLY PEOPLE AVAILABLE TO SERVE WILL BE THE IDIOTS OR THIEVES?

          • I won’t run for 2 reasons; 1 is health issues; and the other is that it’d be a waste of my and others’ money since I simply will not compromise on issues enough to get elected. That doesn’t mean I don’t do anything.
            A temporary fill is 1 thing; I though you were talking about serving out a full term; and that simply doesn’t happen unless there’s less time to a regular election for that slot than it would take to organize an election.
            And some of the members of both houses are next to impossible to contact; I have 2 Senators that way; which means THEY DO NOT answer to their constituents. Even if you do manage to reach them all you get is a form letter from a flunky. They are far from an exception to that rule.

          • OK, at almost 75 I get the health thing, and it’s NOT for everyone. But DO consider helping out on behalf of a candidate you DO like; campaigns run on volunteer manpower and good candidates need good people to help them win. It doesn’t always require high energy or running around to knock on doors: a lot nowadays is done by phone or text, which you (or ME) can do SITTING. 🙂

            As for members of the Senate and House “answering to their constituents,” let me give you some hopeful food for thought. Those letters or emails or text messages or Tweets DO matter, and they DO pay attention. No, you probably won’t get personal replies (the volume of mail — sometimes 10,000 pieces PER DAY — just makes that impossible). But every member I know or ever HEARD of keeps CLOSE track of how many messages come in that SUPPORT or OPPOSE a particular piece of legislation. Most members get a DAILY report from staff! And while they don’t necessarily change their minds and vote the other way because of the mail (would you really WANT that? a member with SO LITTLE “bottom,” as the Brits put it, so little CONVICTION about what’s right or wrong, that he/she can be swayed by the day’s mail?) they DO pay attention and if the “other side” — the position they had decided NOT to support — makes a REALLY good point, they might even change their own position, or at least come up with an amendment (now that Republicans are in charge, we actually use regular order and can AMEND bills instead of just accepting Nancy Pelosi’s diktat!)

            Then there’s always the possibility of a “wave” election, where there’s a big swing from D to R (or, unfortunately, the other way round) and a lot of “safe” members wake up to find themselves facing unemployment. Just knowing you were PART of one of those is satisfying!

            Anyway, since I don’t know where you live I can’t tell you how bad your member or Senators are. 🙂

          • Wow, you squeezed a LOT of wrong information into that short post.
            First, the levers ARE in our hands — we just have to USE them. Have you voted in primaries? Have you helped a candidate (or more than one) in a campaign — made calls, knocked on doors, talked to neighbors and strangers about how good So-and-So is and how he/she should be elected to Congress? Have you DONE ANYTHING other than the occasional letter to the editor (which, in most cities, has less than 1% chance of being published)?

            Second, congrats on coming up with the 17th Amendment, but there’s more to the process than that. Look at what just happened (is happening) in ALABAMA. Last January Jeff Sessions was appointed as Attorney General and resigned his Senate seat. The GOVERNOR of Alabama APPOINTED Luther Strange (yeah, I can’t get over his name, either) TO SERVE UNTIL A SPECIAL ELECTION COULD BE HELD.

            There were 5 or 6 Republicans who entered the race, which meant they had to have a Republican primary. This they did — that’s when Judge Roy Moore BEAT Luther Strange and thus became the Republican candidate. HE NOW FACES THE DEMOCRAT, Doug Jones — the special election is NEXT WEEK, 11 MONTHS after the seat became vacant. But all that time IT HAS BEEN FILLED BY A SENATOR SERVING BY APPOINTMENT. That’s the way MOST states do it, so a vacant Senate seat can be filled at least temporarily without waiting 6 months to a year for a special election.

            It’s right there in the 17th Amendment, too: “When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority (that’s the Governor) of each state shall issue writs of election to fill the vacancies, provided that the Legislature of any state may EMPOWER
            THE EXECUTIVE TO MAKE TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS UNTIL THE PEOPLE FILL THE VACANCIES BY ELECTION as the legislature may direct.” (Emphsis added. You gotta read the WHOLE amendment, not just Paragraph One.)

            Believe me, based on my 30 years of working with these guys and gals, they DO very much recognize that they ARE answerable to the people. Most of them DO try VERY hard to meet the peoples’ expectations. VERY few start out determined NOT to do so, and those are the ones who usually get BOUNCED in the next election.

            Do you know who Dave Brat is? He’s a now-second-term Republican from outside Richmond, VA, who gained FAME in 2014 by BEATING THE SECOND-RANKING REPUBLICAN IN THE HOUSE — a guy who was supposed to be UNBEATABLE, but who had been concentrating on his job as Republican Whip and NOT on the folks back home. So Dave Brat, a newcomer who had taught economics at Randolph-Macon College (but he IS a conservative, VERY much so) and had ZERO political experience. The trick will be to get him re-elected next year, but there’s a good chance he CAN do it (if not too many Republicans decide to follow YOUR “throw ’em ALL out” advice.

            Members of the Senate & House DO NOT avoid accountability — that’s what ELECTIONS are all about! — but remember: NOT EVERYONE WANTS CONGRESS TO TAKE THE SAME ACTIONS. If what they do on immigration, say, isn’t what YOU want, keep in mind SOMEONE — a LOT of someones — TOLD THEM TO DO WHAT THEY DID. Same with ANY issue. They’re NOT responsible to YOU personally: they’re responsible to 650,000 (roughly) people; more after the next census — AND THEY CAN’T PLEASE EVERYBODY.

            Anyway, we CAN’T constitutionally elect a whole new Senate. Only approximately 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election in any election year, so at the most we could replace 33 (of 100). I might say “Thank God for the Senate!” but I know your whole idea is nonsense, anyway.

            If we DID elect a whole new House, by the way, we’d be in VERY hot water. It MIGHT well be the END of the United States of America. Congress can’t just “throw out all the rules” — those rules guide Congress in EVERYTHING they do and if they were “thrown out,” they couldn’t DO ANYTHING. it would probably take TWO YEARS before the new members figured out how to do ANYTHING — get Social Security checks paid to Grandma, build that wall on the border or anyway get more ICE agents down to the border crossings to keep the illegals out, find and appropriate the funds for paying our military and fixing their broken-down airplanes and weapons (during which time China and North Korea would probably INVADE and we wouldn’t have to WORRY about making OUR laws, EVER AGAIN). I’m serious. Going without funding for essential services (which we’re already doing with the military, thanks to Obama) is a SURE way to end up IN A WAR WE DON’T HAVE THE POWER TO WIN.

            In short, a brand-new Congress (or House, anyway, and a third of the Senate), just MIGHT cause the TRANSFER OF ACCOUNTABILITY from WASHINGTON, DC. to Beijing, China.

            Keep in mind that old saw about not “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” It applies in politics even more aptly than in child-rearing.

        • It HAS happened, and DOES happen, all the time, and often to the very people you’re talking about. And THERE ARE BAD BOYS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE POLITICAL FENCE. Yes, parents usually try to protect their kids, and women on the Hill (as in many large companies) exchange information on which guys are especially likely to be annoying.

    • The “reporter” who told the story is Cokie Roberts, a former bigwig with NBC (and daughter of TWO parents who BOTH served in Congress — her father was a long-time member from Louisiana and when he died her mother won his seat). She was speaking from personal experience AND from talking with her friends, not so much with other journalists — some of whom WERE among the women who WERE harassed (or worse).

      Cokie WAS harassed as a young, single woman: I doubt there were any working on the Hill in those days who didn’t get at least SOME “unwanted attention” from boss or colleague or someone she’d thought was a friend. Women DID exchange information on which men were especially likely to be annoying — and John Conyers was one of the worst (I was around then, too, and I remember being told never to get on an elevator with just Congressman Conyers!)

      The problem then (and pretty much until now) was that the broader CULTURE simply ASSUMED that a certain number of men (or percentage of the male population) was going to behave badly, at least on occasion, and there wasn’t much ANYONE, or any RULES, could DO about it. Then in the 1960s the social rules about behavior for NICE men and women were torn up and thrown away. Suddenly anyone could have sex, any time, almost any place, and the guys didn’t understand why the women — who were often JUST as anxious to have sex as the guys were — still got bent out of shape if a guy came on to them when they weren’t expecting (or breathlessly anticipating) it. We’ve never really SET a new set of rules, so there is still confusion on both sides.

      • The only confusion I see is if the knee hit hard enough to bust a ball or glanced off. The rules of sexual harassment are the same in any company handbook and most expecially the law. When a man goes too far or even a woman, if a simple No, a knee or slap does not work. Being a stand my ground type of woman it would never happen again. Zero confusion

        • My point was just that back in the day when there WAS no “handbook” and NO official “rules of sexual harassment,” never MIND a LAW. The woman really didn’t have any recourse: IF she “stood her ground,” SHE (not HE) could end up in jail, and if he had power she might end up there for quite awhile. I was just backing up Cokie Roberts (who was an honest, straight-arrow journalist, not one of today’s MSM types) in saying women knew all about John Conyers WAY back in the Dark Ages. We (I was one) used the best self-defense technique available to us in those remote times: AVOiD GETTING INTO ELEVATORS WITH THE CREEP. Not satisfying, but it worked.

          • Unfortunately what you say is true. So many women went through so much and only because they were thought of as less and fair game. Truthfully, no matter how a woman handles it, it always gets her knocked off her feet and blamed somehow. I’ve worked hard and still had to leave a job due to sexual harassment. When coworkers find out then the woman is treated horrible by both men and women. You vow to fight but when everyone blatantly turns their back as you walk by, walking away seems the best course sometimes. So knowing better than to get in an elevator with some men is sometimes the best way.

  7. The national media are members of Satan’s Party, along with all democrats, RINOs, Islamists, socialists, communists, and all dictators. Most are NOT stupid, and I now doubt most are insane. NOW I think I can safely say they are being guided by the devil himself and are willingly being led because it makes them feel good.

    Amazing the price some will pay for a few days of self adulation……..and they WILL pay on Judgement Day.

  8. Gee, ya don’t think it had anything to do with him being black eh?

    • Race has little or nothing to do with this issue. Lots of WHITE guys got away with the same behavior. But there’s NO evidence that these bad habits (I’m deliberately understating) are more widespread among one race than another. Sorry to disabuse you of your racisim (and I’m white!)

  9. They’ve known about Bill Clinton too – for decades – and all they do is laugh about it

    • Yeah, but the worm (either one) seems to have turned. Suddenly people — even male people — seem to CARE when women complain about the guys who were ignored, or laughed about, or even admired for all those years. This new attitude may NOT last, so it’s important to take advantage of it NOW and send as many of the creeps as possible into forced retirement. We won’t get ’em all, and there’s no way to know the people who replace them won’t be as bad or worse, but at least we can weed out guys like Conyers and Al Franken NOW. And if there are new ones, at least THEY won’t have SENIORITY (yet).

      • If someone could just get the left wingers to comprehend the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL we would be off to a good start.

        • Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
          On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it GoogleNetJobsUrbanWorkFromHome/find/jobs……..

          • I flagged you, but it didn’t seem to help.

          • I have flagged/blocked her too. She keeps right on coming back however:(:(:(

          • Maybe they should change the wording from ‘flagged’ to ‘flogged’… Follow thru with that and it would make a difference!

          • Maybe you should man up and acknowledge your mistake, you mouth-running coward.

          • Mouth-running coward??? WTF is that about?? You’re one of ‘those’ who can’t deal with reality? Gotta go straight to the name-calling? Election didn’t go your way?? Cry somewhere else.

          • Typical…more mouth-running.

          • Yet the same nothing keeps spilling from yours. Your nickname is now ‘Troll’. C’ya.

          • You made a mistake. You opened your big mouth for no actual reason, and put your foot in it. You refuse to acknowledge your mistake because you are a thin-skinned, mouth-running coward with an effete name only an unwed mother would name her son.

          • Alanna's Whore Tat

            Wrong must be your default mode, stupid.

          • The add just comes back and mostly under a different name .

          • Sharon Jeanguenat

            I flagged it, & blocked it too. That way I won’t see her posts. Hopefully! I don’t know how many I’ve reported to Facebook at other sites. They need a block on here that blocks these posts.

          • It never does, I suspect that they are paying advertisers.

          • I “ENCOURAGE” everyone to do the following!

            Flag by clicking on the invisible carrot in the top right
            line of scum puppets post and selecting flag.

            Give it a down vote!

            Also Report it as a spammer to Disqus by right clicking on the scum puppets name and clicking on the three blue dots *** next to the gray private box on the top line of
            the Bio page, selecting Report User, and as spammer.

            3 steps to “hopefully” getting “SCUMBUCKETS” removed!!

            From another poster/ Alvie Taken at face value!
            This POS is nothing but a Rabid SCAMMER! CROOKED as can be! this excerpt I borrowed from Google
            (The Google work-at-home kits and other “Google job” opportunities found in search engine ads and emails
            are not legitimate work-at-home jobs and are not offered by Google. They are, in fact, work-at-home scams
            being created by con artists, tarnishing Google’s name and using it to fool job-seekers.) Enough said!

        • Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
          On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it GoogleNetJobsUrbanWorkFromHome/find/jobs….

          • I “ENCOURAGE” everyone to do the following!

            Flag by clicking on the invisible carrot in the top right
            line of scum puppets post and selecting flag.

            Give it a down vote!

            Also Report it as a spammer to Disqus by right clicking on the scum puppets name and clicking on the three blue dots *** next to the gray private box on the top line of
            the Bio page, selecting Report User, and as spammer.

            3 steps to “hopefully” getting “SCUMBUCKETS” removed!!

            From another poster/ Alvie Taken at face value!
            This POS is nothing but a Rabid SCAMMER! CROOKED as can be! this excerpt I borrowed from Google
            (The Google work-at-home kits and other “Google job” opportunities found in search engine ads and emails
            are not legitimate work-at-home jobs and are not offered by Google. They are, in fact, work-at-home scams
            being created by con artists, tarnishing Google’s name and using it to fool job-seekers.) Enough said!!

        • I can tell you the difference. If the perp is a democrat, to them it is no problem! They have shown their true allegiance!

          • Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
            On tuesday I got a great New Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
            !da254d:
            ➽➽
            ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleNewNetJobsNewsOpportunities/earn/hourly ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!da254luuuu

        • That will never happen. The left could care less about right or wrong what’s right to us is wrong too them and what’s wrong is right to the left. It’s do as I say not as I do.

        • Democrats will never let that happen because they are to hard at work trying to dump words they don’t like by either banning them or changing their meaning, like they are all knowing.
          Nope no all knowing, just dumb enough to think they are.
          I will no longer let them try to shame me for using words as they are in our Dictionaries. Or shame us into excepting corruption, lies, scandals, Fake News, ETC…
          They don’t just do it to our Dictionaries, but also our Constitution and Laws. This is the Corrupt way of the Democrats. If you don’t like it ignore it or just change meaning. Pretend to feel outrage over stupid words because the Democrats have done very good at shaming people into complying with their agendas. And sad is that, some Americans care nothing about any of this and go along with the madness cause it might get them to keep things they don’t want to give up like free Obummer Phones. Internet and Cable, Housing, food
          stamps, free schooling, free Medical, free Birth control, ETC… I understand some need help, heck a lot do. But why let the ones who don’t need it really, keep abusing and using, when there are so many out there that really do need it over other people’s laziness. Could we help more with the money saved while teaching the capable to start having respect for yourself and that doing things for yourself is a hell of a lot better on personal merle.

      • and that should included trump-

        13 accusors-

        Here’s a list of 13 women who have publicly come forward with claims that Trump had physically touched them inappropriately in some way, and the witnesses they provided.

        We did not include the accounts of former beauty contestants who say Trump walked in on them when they were half nude because there were no allegations of touching. Trump had bragged on the Howard Stern show of his “inspections” during the pageants: “You know they’re standing there with no clothes. Is everybody OK? And you see these incredible looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that.”

        Two or more contemporary corroborators

        Natasha Stoynoff
        Allegation: While she was interviewing Trump in 2005 for an article for People magazine about the first anniversary of his third marriage, Trump lured her into a room at Mar-a-Lago, forced her against a wall and abruptly kissed her, forcing his tongue into her mouth. He then said they were going to have an affair.

        Corroborators:
        Marina Grasic, who has known Stoynoff for more than 25 years. She said she got a call from her friend the day after the alleged attack, detailing exactly how Trump pushed Stoynoff against a wall.
        Liz McNeil, at the time a reporter for People (she is now an editor). She said that she heard about the incident the day after Stoynoff returned from her assignment. “She was very upset and told me how he shoved her against a wall,” she said.
        Mary Green, another People reporter (now editor) who had just returned to New York. “In an early conversation we had in her office, she told me about what happened with Donald Trump,” Green said. “She was shaky, sitting at her desk, relaying that, ‘He took me to this other room, and when we stepped inside, he pushed me against a wall and stuck his tongue down my throat. Melania was upstairs and could have walked in at any time.’ ”
        Liza Hamm, part of a “tight-knit’ group of friends. “Natasha has always been a vivacious person who wants to believe in the best of people, and this experience definitely messed with that outlook,” she said.
        Paul McLaughlin, Stoynoff’s former journalism professor. He said Stoynoff called him at the time of the alleged incident seeking advice on how to handle it: “She didn’t know what to do, she was very conflicted, she was angry, she was really confused about how to deal with this.” After a discussion, he said, Stoynoff decided it would be best if she kept the incident to herself.

        Response: Anthony Senecal, Trump’s former butler, denied the incident: “No, that never happened. Come on, that’s just bull crap.” Trump said: “Why didn’t she do this 12 years ago? She’s a liar. … It never happened. It’s a lie.”

        Rachel Crooks
        Allegation: Trump in 2005 kissed her directly on the lips after she introduced herself and said she was a receptionist who worked for a company that did business with Trump.

        Corroborators:
        Brianne Webb, her sister. She said Crooks called her about the incident as soon as she returned to her desk. “Being from a town of 1,600 people, being naive, I was like, ‘Are you sure he didn’t just miss trying to kiss you on the cheek?’ She said, ‘No, he kissed me on the mouth.’ I was like, ‘That is not normal.’ ”
        Clint Hackenburg, her boyfriend at the time. After he asked her that evening how her day had gone, “she paused for a second, and then started hysterically crying.”

        Response: Shouting at the New York Times reporter who called for comment, Trump said, “None of this ever took place.” He then told the reporter, “You are a disgusting human being.”

        Cathy Heller
        Allegation: While having Mother’s Day brunch at Mar-a-Lago in 1997 or 1998, her mother-in-law introduced her to Trump. She extended her hand to greet him and he grabbed her and kissed her on the mouth. She did turn her head slightly and so he wasn’t able to “get my whole mouth.”

        Corroborators:
        Lloyd Heller, her husband. He said that she immediately told him. He said he told her that “you should have punched him” and he remembers being “puzzled” by why Trump would do something like that in a public space.
        A relative who was there, but wanted to stay unnamed. This person said Heller was immediately shocked and asked whether he or she had seen what happened. The two then talked about the incident asking, “Who does he think he is?”

        Response: Trump campaign spokesman Jason Miller told People Magazine: “There is no way that something like this would have happened in a public place on Mother’s Day at Mr. Trump’s resort.”

        One contemporary corroborator, one additional witness

        4:22
        Woman says Trump reached under her skirt and groped her in early 1990s
        Speaking to Washington Post reporter Karen Tumulty via a telephone earpiece, Kristin Anderson recalls Donald Trump groping her. (Alice Li, Brian Young/The Washington Post)
        Kristin Anderson

        Allegation: While she was at a Manhattan nightclub in the early 1990s, Trump slid his fingers under her miniskirt, moved up her inner thigh and touched her vagina through her underwear.

        Corroborators:
        Kelly Stedman, a friend. She said she was told about the incident at a women’s brunch a few days later. The women found themselves “laughing at how pathetic it was” on Trump’s part.
        Brad Trent, a New York photographer. He says he heard the story from Anderson at a dinner in 2007. “It was just girls saying stories about how they got hit on by creepy old guys,” Trent said of the conversation around the table.

        Response: The Trump campaign, in an emailed statement, said Anderson had fabricated the story: “Mr. Trump strongly denies this phony allegation by someone looking to get some free publicity. It is totally ridiculous.”

        One corroborator

        Summer Zervos

        Allegation: Trump kissed Zervos on the lips when he met her in his New York office, which upset Zervos, who had been a contestant on Season 5 of Trump’s “The Apprentice.” She then met Trump at the Beverly Hills Hotel in 2007 for what she thought would be dinner; instead, she was escorted to his private bungalow. “I stood up and he came to me and started kissing me open-mouthed as he was pulling me toward him,” she said. “He then grabbed my shoulder and started kissing me again very aggressively and placed his hand on my breast.” He kept pursuing her, she said, at one point “thrusting his genitals” against her as he tried to kiss her. She said she again rebuffed him.

        Corroborator:
        Ann Russo, friend: She said that Zervos told her in 2010 that Trump had been “verbally, physically, and sexually aggressive with her” but that she had rebuffed his advances. “It was apparent she was conflicted with what Mr. Trump had done to her,” she said, adding that Zervos was torn between her admiration for Trump and Trump’s behavior.

        (In her lawsuit against Trump, Zervos says that in 2007 she “spoke to a friend and her parents about [the initial kiss], all of whom concluded that this must just be the way that Mr. Trump greeted people.” She then told her father about the hotel incident, the lawsuit says.)

        Response: Trump issued a statement by John Barry, a cousin of Zervos’s: “I think Summer wishes she could still be on reality TV, and in an effort to get that back she’s saying all of these negative things about Mr. Trump. That’s not how she talked about him before. I can only imagine that Summer’s actions today are nothing more than an attempt to regain the spotlight at Mr. Trump’s expense, and I don’t think it reflects well.”

        Mindy McGillivray

        Allegation: McGillivray said she was groped by Trump at Mar-a-Lago in 2003, when she was 23, at a photo shoot during a concert by Ray Charles. “All of a sudden I felt a grab, a little nudge. I think it’s Ken’s camera bag, that was my first instinct. I turn around and there’s Donald. He sort of looked away quickly. I quickly turned back, facing Ray Charles, and I’m stunned.’’ She told the Palm Beach Post she was certain it was not an accident. “This was a pretty good nudge. More of a grab,’’ she said. “It was pretty close to the center of my butt. I was startled. I jumped.’’

        Corroborator:
        Ken Davidoff, photographer: He vividly remembers when McGillivray pulled him aside moments after the alleged incident and told him, “Donald just grabbed my ass!’’ He did not witness the incident himself.

        Jill Harth

        Allegation: In the early 1990s, Jill Harth and her boyfriend at the time, George Houraney, worked with Trump on a beauty pageant in Atlantic City, and later accused Trump of inappropriate behavior toward Harth during their business dealings. She said that Trump pursued her and groped her; she alleged attempted rape in a sexual harassment suit that was withdrawn as a condition for settling a contract dispute. (We are including her account here because she gave interviews making these charges even after the lawsuit was withdrawn.) Trump had “his hands all over me,” Harth told the New York Times. “He was trying to kiss me. I was freaking out.”

        Corroborator:
        George Houraney, her boyfriend and later husband. The two are divorced but he confirmed her account in an interview with Nicholas Kristof: “Houraney and Harth haven’t spoken in years, but they offered almost identical accounts when I interviewed them separately, and their stories match Harth’s deposition and her sexual harassment lawsuit from the time.”

        Response: Trump said it was Harth who had pursued him, and his office shared email messages in which Harth thanked Trump for helping her personally and professionally. The campaign said she was a “pawn” in a lawsuit created by her ex-husband.

        3:25
        ‘Trump just keeps merrily going along’: For Trump accusers, nothing has changed
        After Harvey Weinstein’s fall, Trump accusers wonder why not him too. (Video: Alice Li/Photo: Celeste Sloman/The Washington Post)
        Jessica Leeds

        Allegation: Trump attacked her while seated next to her on an airline flight. More than three decades ago, when she was a traveling business executive at a paper company, Leeds told the New York Times in 2016, she sat beside Trump in the first-class cabin of a flight to New York. They had never met before. About 45 minutes after takeoff, Trump lifted the armrest and began to touch her. Trump grabbed her breasts and tried to put his hand up her skirt. “He was like an octopus,” Leeds said. “His hands were everywhere.” She fled to the back of the plane. “It was an assault,” she said.

        Corroborator: Leeds told the story to at least four people close to her, who also spoke with the New York Times. But most appear to have heard about it more recently. Linda Ross, a neighbor and friend, heard about it six months before Leeds went public, for instance.

        Reaction: The Trump campaign offered the perspective of a British man who claimed to have sat near the two on the plane and three decades later remembered the incident in detail. “She was the one being flirtatious,” he said.

        Other accusers

        Temple Taggart McDowell: The 1997 Miss Utah USA said Trump kissed her directly on the lips, at a time he was married to Marla Maples and McDowell was 21. Later, when she visited Trump Tower to discuss a modeling contract, she says Trump again embraced and kissed her on the lips, this time in front of two pageant chaperones and a receptionist. The New York encounter made one of the chaperones so “uncomfortable” that she advised McDowell not to go into any rooms with Trump alone, McDowell told NBC News.

        Karena Virginia: A yoga instructor said Trump harassed and groped her during a chance encounter at the U.S. Open in 1998. Virginia said Trump, a total stranger, then grabbed her arm and touched her breast. “I was in shock,” Virginia said. “I flinched. He said, ‘Don’t you know who I am?’ I felt intimidated and powerless. I said ‘yes.’”

        Jennifer Murphy: A former Apprentice contestant said Trump in 2004 kissed her on the lips. “He walked me to the elevator, and I said goodbye. I was thinking ‘oh, he’s going to hug me,’ but … he pulled my face in and gave me a smooch.”

        Ninni Laaksonen: A former Miss Finland said Trump in 2006 grabbed her bottom shortly after he had married Melania. “Trump stood right next to me and suddenly he squeezed my butt. He really grabbed my butt.”

        Jessica Drake: A porn star and sex educator said that during a 2006 golf tournament in Lake Tahoe, Trump “grabbed” her and two other unnamed women tightly and kissed them on the lips “without asking permission.” He then offered Drake $10,000 and the use of his private plane, she said, if she would agree to come back to his room and accompany him to a party.

      • You DO know Trump won the election, don’t you? With all this crap easily available to anyone with a computer or cellphone or a friend who has one, he STILL managed to win. Ironic, isn’t it, given the woman be BEAT was (and as of this date still IS) MARRIED to ABUSER BILL, who has a MUCH worse record with women, including TWO RAPES. What’s more, HE was disbarred and censured for his behavior, whereas no court has gone after Trump for HIS unseemly actions.

        It’s also worth noting that Mr. Trump’s actions occurred in the environment of a beauty pageant, or several such. Beauty pageants ARE SEX SHOWS. I have it on authority of two “beauty queens” (one won the Miss America pageant in 1964) that the women (they’d rather call themselves and BE called GIRLS) — EXPECTED and generally ACCEPTED or even welcomed (though I don’t think that was universal) this kind of behavior. I personally think that’s obscene, but then I was never a beauty pageant contestant, so what do I know? YOU don’t know much about the “girls'” attitude, either. So shaddup and go peddle your endless diatribe elsewhere. I WILL NOT ANSWER ANY MORE OF YOUR
        POSTS.

    • Understand Slick Willy has had sexual allegations against him since leaving office. Sure wish they would investigate his frequent trips on the convicted pedophiles plane “Lolita Express” to “Orgy Island” which it is said Killary was on some of those trips with him. Guess she likes young girls too?

      • He has allegations since he left office and way before he ever got into politics – all the way back to 1969 when he was hiding out in England from the draft – he was accused while at Oxford by Eileen Wellstone – he left Oxford shortly after when him and Hillary ran to hide in Canada.

    • curmudgeon VN Veteran

      Cokie probably did them both a time or two. Typical liberal presstitute!

    • WELL he WAS a (D)erelict PERV … SO….

    • Yes but now they seriously want to do something. They (or satan) will eat their own to get Mr. Trump.

    • Disgusting …….. the whole lot

    • Now we all know about the rapacious sexual aggressiveness of the President from numerous sources, including his pXXXy-grabbing self. Is it not time that even his loyal dupes acknowledged this gross miscreant behavior?

  10. The fact that the female reporters? laugh and giggle while saying they have known about Conyers for decades is really pathetic. Just one of many reasons to not call them reporters. They are Democrats first and, maybe, Americans 3rd or 4th.

  11. Revolting that none of these people ever reported this guy.

    • its the way of political elite

      • NO, it’s NOT. It’s the way of SOME people who never learned right from wrong and wound up in politics, while others like them went into business or medicine or banking or law or journalism or just became BUMS. YOU call them the “political elite”; but they’re rightly called “jerks in politics”. There’s nothing ELITE about them. Meanwhile, you DISPARAGE and INSULT all the GOOD people — and there ARE MANY — who are in politics because they’re TRYING TO MAKE LIFE BETTER FOR ALL OF US — “MAGA,” if you like — or maybe even those whose ideas are WRONG but who STILL want to

  12. So, they are saying that “everyone knew about it for years”…….that most certainly does NOT excuse his actions!!! If the news media knew about it, and covered it up, they should be held accountable too!

  13. They’re making up lies to try to bring down a good man like Judge Moore. In the meantime they’ve been protecting this Conyers scumbag for years. And the mainstream media wonders why we don’t trust them????

  14. Well, we all know what an icon is: an idol as in false deity. And WHERE was the supposed “ethics” committee all those years “everyone knew about” him, in that case? Were they all UA all that time?

    • Yeah, the “Ethics Committees” of both House AND Senate (they’re separate, but supposedly do roughly the same job) is sometimes described as “THE PLACE THAT ETHICS AND EVEN CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS GO TO DIE.” Or maybe “to be buried” woulld be more apt, as they’re heard and then…buried.

      They DO occasionally do SOMETHING. Way back in 1995, Sen. Bob Packwood (R- or really RINO of Oregon) was almost EXPELLED from the Senate — for hitting on female staff (!). He resigned just days before the Ethics Committee was going to vote on his expulsion from the Senate. Packwood had been first elected in 1968, and reelected in 1974, 1980, 1986, and 1992. His voting record was “moderate” for the time — today we’d say he was a VERY liberal Republican or RINO.

      The House Ethics Committee (it was still called Committee on Standards of Official Conduct at the time) was also involved in forcing the retirement of HOUSE SPEAKER DAN ROSTENKOWSKI, whose sins had nothing to do with sex –“Rosty,” as he was known, was caught STEALING from his House operations account by sending a secretary to buy stamps at the House Post Office (it’s there only because there’s no outside post office anywhere NEAR the House) and then RETURNING THEM for CASH. Tsk, tsk! Rosty went to JAIL — a BIG deal because he WAS Speaker (the job
      Paul Ryan now holds) and a DEMOCRAT, too! — but at a time when the Speaker had REAL power. So bringing down Rosty was quite a coup for the Ethics people.

      But you’re absolutely correct that they seem to bury more cases than they resolve.

      • I remember those ousters; but what have they done in the past 2 decades about the mess?

        • As I think I said (although it might have been to someone else; if so, please excuse), the Ethics Committee(s) don’t do much. They’re generally considered to be the graveyard where ethics complaints go to die. I can’t give you a blow-by-blow of their actions in the last two decades, precisely for that reason. And I agree completely that it’s a mess, and that a REAL ethics committee ought to be assembled to do a more thorough job.

          That said, I repeat what I said about the vast MAJORITY of members of both House & Senate, on both sides of the aisle, ARE decent men and women who are TRYING, by their own lights and philosophies, to do a good job in behalf of the country. From those I’ve talked to, I have the impression THEY are as frustrated as WE are, maybe moreso given that they have to deal with it every day.

          All I ask is that you and others who share the “they’re all bums” attitude look at the numbers and keep in mind that only about ONE PERCENT of members of either house have been found (by the media, who usually go after House & Senate members with great enthusiasm, at least unless they’re favored Democrats (Clintons, Eliz. Warren, maybe Conyers — though they’re going after HIM now with vengeance!) haven’t found more than that paltry number getting into hot water. As I said, MOST are TRYING to do a good job in what they see as the public interest. Don’t tar them all with one brush.

          And if you really want change, BE the change. Work for candidates. Run for office yourself. Good luck!

  15. Stop calling them Elite call them what they are, evil and low life in society.

  16. We are seeing—- if democrat and misbehave you get a pass by the left leaning media—-Media is proving “Fake News” is designed to punish republicans and conservatives

  17. The double standard for operatives of the Democrat-Communist-Islamic Terrorist Organization.

  18. It’s interesting that the DemoRATS find Moore guilty without due process BUT find Conyers Innocent until PROVEN guilty!!! The drive by also seems to have this same take on the issue. Seriously, liberals open your eyes and see the trees for the forest,geeze could you be that stupid??????

    • The circumstances ARE a bit different. Moore is still just a CANDIDATE for the Senate, not yet elected (yes, he DID win the nomination but that’s not the same thing). He COULD have dropped out in favor of another candidate with no legal hassle. (He obviously chose not to, but he could have done it.)

      Franken, on the other hand, is ALREADY a Senator. He HAS been elected (twice, actually) by the voters of Minnesota (idiots that they are). That means the VOTERS of Minnesota arguably should be involved in his removal — but in the normal course of events he won’t have to face the voters until 2020. The Senate CAN expel him, but not until the opening of a new session of the Senate — the next will be Jan. 3, 2019. On the other hand, he COULD do the decent thing and resign. (I don’t expect decency from Franken, but you never know…)

      BTW, as Democrat leader in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Nancy Pelosi has NO part in Franken’s removal from the SENATE, whether it’s by choice or by expulsion. The House and Senate are separate bodies and jealously guard their separate prerogatives. So what Pelosi says about Conyers, for instance, or about Ruben Kihuen, the freshman from Nevada who has now been nailed for assault (yeah, I know — it hasn’t gotten much attention because nobody ever HEARD of Kihuen — he’s a freshman member from a small state), has NOTHING to do with what happens to Franken. Or vice versa.

  19. They have no morals in Washington ! Look at all the sex stories coming out now
    It’s just as bad as Hollywood.

    • “They have NO morals” is an absurd statement. Of 435 Members of the House, exactly THREE are “stories coming out now” about bad moral behavior. THREE. Of 100 Senators, Just ONE (Al Franken, who incidentally came to politics OUT of the entertainment industry!) is in hot water — plus one not-yet-elected candidate who may or may not have done anything improper.

      The ratio of misbehavior in Hollywood is WAY higher than that! And if someone took surveys of, say, DOCTORS, or lawyers, or insurance agents, or people who work in supermarkets (none of whom ever get SURVEYED — if someone gets in trouble, he/’she is seen as an INDIVIDUAL getting in trouble, not as a member of a particular profession — the ratio of bad behavior would be JUST as high, maybe higher. We HEAR about the politicians because their lives are PUBLIC; the media (what about bad behavior THERE?) write about them, and people like YOU hear about them and say, “Tsk, tsk!” But WHAT ABOUT ALL THE MISBEHAVIOR IN OTHER, LESS PUBLIC PROFESSIONS? We don’t even HEAR about it, because let’s face it, the people who work in the supermarket aren’t famous, or even well known, and maybe not even INTERESTING.

      And has it occurred to you that by constantly slamming people who are NOT doing anything wrong, but just trying to serve their communities, you are DISCOURAGING good people from RUNNING for office — and leaving public service ONLY to the BAD ONES? We end up with GOOD people REFUSING to run, leaving only BAD people to serve — and then we wonder WHY ALL THE PEOPLE IN CONGRESS SEEM TO BE BAD GUYS or GALS! Well, LOOK IN THE DAMNED MIRROR — YOUR attitude is making a contribution to the problem.

      And if you’re so fed up with all the people (the ones you know about, anyway) in politics, WHY DON’T YOU RUN FOR OFFICE? You’re a good person, or at least you obviously THINK you are, so WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH YOUR LIFE THAT’S SO IMPORTANT YOU CAN’T GIVE A FEW YEARS TO PUBLIC SERVICE? You want good people in politics? Fine. BE ONE — or quit complaining.

      • Wow, are you coming to the defense of the corrupt people in Washington? Just think these three are only the tip of the iceberg,and many more will follow suit as now people are being made aware of the actions in Washington.
        Right now this seems to be the new normal to expose the new pervert of the week not only in Washington but among other industries also.
        On your comment that I should run for office , well that’s impossible as I believe to to a job I was assigned to do I would have to care about it and put in 110% to get it done right. That doesn’t happen in Washington , of course there are a few exceptions but then the liberals like you try to delay or obstruct any action initiative put on the table.

        • No, I’m coming to the defense of the vast majority of people in official Washington who are NOT corrupt and NOT immoral. You can think what you want, but if you really think they’re all like John Conyers or Al Franken, you’re just plain WRONG. And your misperception is dangerous because it invites NON-democratic “solutions” to our problems — that’s how HITLER got started.
          I’m assuming the job you were “assigned to do” is military, or something like that, and I wouldn’t dream of suggesting you put that aside to run for office. I DO get tired of hearing people who complain and complain and complain about all the “bad” people in Washington and won’t do anything about it — like bringing new blood. Don’t talk, ACT.
          “Liberals like ME”? I’m probably the MOST CONSERVATIVE person you’ll MEET here or anywhere else. I’ve been fighting for CONSERVATIVE causes and candidates since 1960, for heaven’s sake, and I will continue doing so until the day I die. I’m not trying to delay or obstruct ANYTHING, and I am working to bring those who have erred to justice — BUT I ALSO KNOW THOSE WHO HAVE ERRED ARE A SMALL MINORITY. There are GOOD people here, too, and if you can’t see that perhaps YOU are in the wrong profession. How can you defend a country you think is ALL BAD?

          • I defended my country because it was my duty and our government sent us into battle for a unjust war. While I saw some of my friends die because of the nightmare we were sent into I never stopped loveing my country. What really gets me is the politicians controlled the war , but they never got out from behind their bad decision desks to come join us.
            Now I still love my country and I vote! That’s how I help.
            I admit some of the people in Washington do the job they were asked too do by the people, and of course I do respect them. But after the last administration,it almost makes me ashamed to be an American.
            I hate to say that as I’m the 4th generation of my family to have put on a uniform for our country

          • OK, I get it — and thank you for your service. Vietnam was “my” war in terms of age-bracket, too, and a lot of my friends went and served.
            As to the men (all) who caused the Vietnam war not getting out from behind their desks, true enough: but would you have WANTED those 50-something desk warriors on the front lines? Wouldn’t it have just given you MORE work and MORE danger to keep THEIR butts out of trouble?
            i admit I misjudged your age bracket: it’s these young ‘uns who don’t HAVE to serve who seem unwilling to recognize the good in our nation as well as the bad.
            All I meant was that it’s wrong to assume, on the basis of discovery of a handful of bad apples, that EVERYONE in Congress (both houses) is either stupid or dishonest. Less than ONE PERCENT have even been ACCUSED of either financial or moral wrongdoing. Maybe the total is higher: what? Two percent? Three? Still NOT a large proportion of the total.
            And they DO get caught. A Congresswoman from Florida who had a sweet deal going with a local non–profit org., where SHE got a percentage of every dime they raised, was sentenced yesterday to five years. And of course you’ll know by now that Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.), who has been in the House for 53 years (!), is now a FORMER member. Even Nancy Pelosi was ready to kick HIM out the door.

          • What kills me is the phrase ( thanks for your service) when I returned home people hated me called many names . It’s to bad some of
            The congressmen weren’t with me perhaps they would have taken
            Some of my friends places in body bags.
            The worst soldiers I met were men that went to OCS . And your right
            They didn’t know their heads from their asses.
            Any way do what you can to help our country , it’s a good thing some
            People care. I care but have great mistrust in Washington as they
            have never done much good for people like me . They have only
            Shown me the greed that they have.

          • Well, when I say “thank you for your service” — in whatever war, or in between wars — I mean it. But I agree: it HAS become a catch-phrase, not unlike “have a nice day.” (I don’t blame anyone in particular for that, it’s just that almost no one uses English creatively any more!)
            I don’t know if you’ve noticed, though, that there’s a surge in concern about veterans’ issues in the current Congress and under President Trump. Yeah, I know he didn’t serve, but he is VERY impressed by those he’s met who DID, and he’s determined to rebuild the military and treat vets decently. He’s cleaned out the swamp at the VA, and has a new Secretary who seems to be truly committed to providing MUCH better services to the vets. Not much will (CAN) happen overnight, but hopefully you’ll see some improvement.
            You’re better positioned than I am to measure the relative merits of enlisted personnel, OCS grads, or graduates of the military academies, so I will leave that judgment to you.
            But PLEASE try to judge your senators and congresspeople individually, on the basis of what EACH ONE does for (or against) your interests, and NOT judge them all as greedy, or stupid, or by any other adjective. They’re MOSTLY trying to do the best they can to serve the American people, in circumstances that can be pretty tough (not combat, to be sure, but separated from families, working 14-16 hour days, etc.) And only a few of them are “serving” in the hopes of making more than their salaries. Nearly all could do MUCH better in the private sector. Believe me, after 40 years working with a LOT of them, I know.

          • You’re right ,President Trump is actually doing some good with the
            VA, that I do appreciate very much. I’m glad he got elected. He has
            made some excellent choices in the people he’s appointed.
            I would love to see him appoint Trey Gowdey into head of the
            FBI or an office like that.
            Keep up the work you’ve been doing ,it sounds like you are one
            that cares.

  20. He got away with it for years because he’s a NIGGER!!!

  21. I’m not a Cokie Roberts fan, but she’s right about Conyers’s reputation on the Hill. I started working (for a Republican member of the House) in 1970, and one of the first things a coworker told me was “DON’T GET ON AN ELEVATOR ALONE WITH JOHN CONYERS! He has ‘wandering hands.'” Every woman alive in those ancient times knew what THAT phrase meant — we’d all run into various men like Conyers. I didn’t even know who he WAS, and had to look him up in the members’ director that included photos. But even then — he was in just his THIRD TERM — he had a reputation for hitting on WHITE (only, as far as I know) women. Forty-eight terms later, he’s still at it — but now even Nancy Pelosi has turned against him.

    Expect Conyers to “recover” from the “nervous ailment” that has him in the hospital right now, come back to DC, clean out his desk, and submit his resignation. All before Christmas!

  22. Nice try Rexie Mac…..ABC is fake news….right? So why would you minions believe this story? FAKE NEWS!!! FAKE NEWS!!!

  23. Cokie, Raddatz et.al. Liberal wacko’s where were you on so many situations whereby your ilk has been taking down America? Even hitting home your clueless.

    • I’m not a Cokie Roberts fan, but you’re being unfair. She was a JOURNALIST, not a member of Congress and she hadn’t PERSONALLY experienced Conyers’s …er, overtures, just HEARD about them. . Her mother, who WAS then a member approximately when this happened, undoubtedly told her there was nothing “the women” could do (there were VERY few in Congress then!) — that was just the way some men behaved.

      All Cokie COULD do, and DID do, was tell every woman she knew, or met, to keep out of John Conyers’s way. (I started working on Capitol
      Hill, for a conservative Republican member, about that time, and I remember being told to “AVOID GETTING ON AN ELEVATOR WITH CONGRESSMAN CONYERS.” I never had the need to do so, but I never forgot the advice.

      But women — even with the support of one of the RARE women members like Lindy Boggs — really DID NOT have the power to DO anything except avoid the man’s “wandering hands.” Which we all DID.

      • Journalist ???? She hasn’t the right to act like a Commie, taking shots at our country, as well as venting the junk she has for the past 40 years. Her whole family are the same Bad for Louisiana and Bad for America. Your have a good heart, Cokie wouldn’t take your back as long as you are Conservative.

        • 1) i SAID (right at the start) that I’m no fan of Cokie Roberts, and although I never lived in Louisiana I encountered her mother while she was in Congress and didn’t think much of HER politics, either.
          2) She was NOT acting “like a Commie.” If you have ANY knowledge of what Communism was all about, you MUST be able to understand THAT. There was NO doctrine whatever in Cokie’s comments. She didn’t take shots at our COUNTRY, she didn’t even take shots at John Conyers — she MERELY commented that a LOT of people knew about Conyers’s habits (that’s a STATEMENT OF FACT: I was a young aide to a conservative Republican member of Congress and I HEARD ABOUT CONYERS. If I heard about his habits, so did everyone else.)
          3) Repeating a story (40 years later) that is ESTABLISHED FACT isn’t acting like a Commie OR speaking ill of our country. (And what does the bad behavior of ONE MAN (even if he was serving in Congress) have to do with speaking ill of OUR COUNTRY? When did ANY one man get to be “OUR COUNTRY”?
          4) I AGREE COMPLETELY that the Boggs family had mainly negative influence on Louisiana. Cokie was MARRIED and OUT of Louisiana at the time I’m talking about, but again, I SAID I WASN’T A FAN OF HERS.
          5) Cokie couldn’t “take me back” because SHE NEVER HAD ME. We just happened to live and work in the SAME CITY (Washington) and I heard her speak at a couple of meetings. END OF STORY.

          Thanks for saying I “have a good heart,” but I am at a total loss to understand WHAT THAT HAS TO DO WITH ANYTHING — with Cokie Roberts, with John Conyers, or even sexual molestation.

      • Hello Righty, Thanks for your total update and I see where you are coming from and probably agree. I’m just into the Dem’s name calling but that is as far as I go because Commie does fit the Dems. I understand Communism and have suggested our high schools teach it, Socialism and Capitalism before we expose them to the Communist Professors. Socialism to me is just Communism without the strong arm and eventually if they succeed that is the outcome. (Alinsky) You certainly have had an up close view of all of this, I just know what I read and believe half.

        Have a great Holiday, and lets lift one for Conservatism.

  24. Kooky Roberts has always been a left wing loony p.o.s.
    And Martha (I’m crying too) Radass?
    These people are such phone two faced specimens of humanity.
    It really surprises me that Martha was able to put together a quality mini series that seems to support the troops “the long road home”. I haven’t seen the finale but the first couple episodes we’re well done.

    • In Cokie Roberts’ defense, she was always a straight-arrow journalist, NOT a left-winger (at least not in her journalism: she’s entitled, as we all are, to her own political views. I think hers are moderately left, but not nutty: she’s a LOUISIANA girl, after all, not from New York or California!)
      I agree about the Radditz “Long Road Home” series, too.

  25. Then why didn’t you do something you Cokie Roberts-beyotch? I am ashamed that you are from Louisiana. You are and have been a disgrace from the time you entered the world as a “reporter.”

    • I’m not a big Cokie Roberts fan, but I’m gonna take her part here. I’m the same age as she is, and I know from my own early experience on Capitol Hill THAT THERE WAS NOTHING A WOMAN COULD DO IF SHE WAS “ANNOYED” OR “HARASSED” BY A MEMBER OF CONGRESS. There WAS no system for reporting such problems. If someone was actually RAPED, she could of course go to the police, and she MIGHT get satisfaction in court — though that was NOT a sure thing; she might well be BLAMED even by a jury with a bunch of women on it. But LESS than rape? Touching? Harassing? Copping a feel? Someone (male) would have patted your hand and told you “Boys will be boys” and that if you did’t like it, you’d better go find a job without a lot of MEN around.” In other words, sister, buzz off.

      Cokie Roberts was a JOURNALIST, not a member of Congress. Her mother, who WAS then a member, undoubtedly told her there was nothing “the women” could do — that was just the way some men behaved. She had HEARD about Conyers’s behavior, but she hadn’t been a target, so there was no LEGAL recourse. All she COULD do, and DID do, was tell every woman she knew, or met, to keep out of John Conyers’s way. (When I started working on the Hill in 1970, a colleague told ME the same thing, specifically: “DON’T GET ON AN ELEVATOR ALONE WITH CONGRESSMAN CONYERS.” I never had occasion to need the advise, but I never forgot it!)

      • Thank you for the education. And, I am sorry you had to experience such unwelcomed advances. Concerning Cokie Roberts it is more from being from Louisiana and not liking either of her parents. Of course finding any politician in Louisiana to trust is a thankless job.

        • Glad to oblige! And thank you for well-mannered post (there’s so much vitriol flying around here I’m finding it hard to mind MY manners!)
          I didn’t mean to imply I was bothered by John Conyers, just that a colleague (or friend of a colleague) warned me against him (“Advice to a New Hill Employee”). I met Cokie Roberts a few times, and her mother once, but neither would know/have known in Lindy’s case) from … I was going to say “Adam,” but “Eve” would obviously be more appropriate. I”m not crazy about Democrats, period, so none of the family would have made my invitation list if I’d had one, but I do think Cokie is — at least compared to most other reporters — a decently straight arrow.
          I do understand your problem in Louisiana, and having lived in a number of political cesspools — New York, New Jersey, Washington, DC and, of late, even Virginia — which used to be a pretty good state for politicians :0( I have friends who lived in NO, who had been very active in politics when they lived up north (he went to law school in DC, she was from Connecticut), but after a couple of years back in NO, pretty much GAVE UP. Regrettable, but I can’t say I blamed them. 🙁

  26. low lives

  27. For leftists: everybody knew = acceptable, if our guy
    (Same as hildog’s, “Well, it was a long Time ago!” = OK for us, not for any of our political opponents )

  28. Does anyone have any respect for Congress? I sure in the hell do not. If these Congress people had any decency, morals, instead of being corrupt low life criminals themselves they should: 1) remove these degenerates from Congress not ask them to step down. 2) take away their pensions. 3) pursue criminal charges & have them put in jail. What do they propose? Ethics Hearings & Sexual Awareness Classes. What a bunch of BS. Talk about FUBAR.

    • Since there are members (both Senate and House) on EVERY SIDE of EVERY ISSUE, saying you don’t have respect for ANY of them is just STUPID. Do you not respect your own House member or Senators? Likely you live in an area where most people have political views DIFFERENT from yours. NO member can please everyone, because every question comes down to voting “Yes” or “No”: so everyone who was on the other side will always be angry.

      Or maybe you’re pissed because you disapprove of your member’s moral conduct. Fine, but surely you can see that doesn’t mean ALL 100 Senators or 435 Members of the House are DOING THE SAME THING. So why do you disapprove of ALL of them?

      AND DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE IN ANOTHER PART OF YOUR STATE, OR ANOTHER STATE, WHO VOTES EXACTLY THE WAY YOU WOULD IF YOU WERE THERE? Do you not respect him or her, either? What the hell do you WANT?

      Do you realize that out of 435 House members you hear bad stories about personal behavior about, maybe, 20? And out of 100 Senators you hear similar news about maybe 10? WHAT ABOUT THE OTHERS? Can’t you assume that if you’re ONLY hearing how badly A FEW behave, it’s at least POSSIBLE many of the others are BEHAVING WELL? If they were ALL behaving badly, wouldn’t there be MORE stories like the recent reports about Conyers or Franken?

      When a Senator or Congressperson gets caught doing something wrong, whether criminal (stealing office funds — no less than a SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, Dan Rostenkowski of Illinois, WENT TO PRISON for just that offense not many years ago) or moral (the current revelations about Conyers and Sen. Franken and others you may not have heard of) IT MAKES THE NEWS (digital or old-fashioned newspapers) — whereas if a doctor or businessman or woman or lawyer in some city somewhere DOES EXACTLY THE SAME THING it will probably NOT make the news because HARDLY ANYBODY KNOWS THOSE PEOPLE, while everyone knows (or is assumed to know) his/her Senator or Congressperson!

      There ARE members of the Senate and House who behave badly, and they SHOULD receive whatever punishment is appropriate according to what they’ve done. NO QUESTION. But I have worked for members who never stole a DIME, whose personal conduct was exemplary — WHY SHOULD YOU NOT ASSUME PEOPLE LIKE THOSE ARE WORTHY OF YOUR RESPECT? They ARE.

      There is also the problem that if people like you spread around your attitude of disrespect, even contempt, for EVERY member, it will help DISCOURAGE good people from RUNNING for office and MORE BAD ONES will be elected (not because people LIKE them but because there’s NOBODY ELSE RUNNING). So it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy: you see only the bad, tell everyone you know that your observation means there’s NOBODY who is GOOD, and pretty soon the GOOD people STOP SAYING THEY’RE WILLING TO RUN, and the BAD ones will win by DEFAULT.

      (Imagine a football team where the last, oh, five…quarterbacks have all been fired, maybe some fans think wrongly. Pretty soon NOBODY wants to play quarterback for that team, and they end up digging deep into the barrel of second-raters, or third-raters, to find a QB. And it spreads: if the team is known for third-rate quarterbacks, will they be able to attract good pass receivers? Don’t look for this gang win the Super Bowl any time soon!)

      One last thought: HAVE YOU TRIED TO HELP SOME GOOD PERSON GET ELECTED TO CONGRESS (or the Senate)? I’m not talking about writing a modest check — any fool can do THAT — but getting out there and WORKING in the campaign? HAVE YOU RUN FOR OFFICE YOURSELF? (What’s STOPPING you, assuming you’re an American citizen, 25 years old for the House or 30 for the Senate)? What’s going on in YOUR life that is more important (better paid, yeah, THAT is true, but not more important) than BEING an ADMIRABLE PUBLIC SERVANT? THE BEST WAY TO BE SURE OF A CANDIDATE YOU APPROVE OF IS TO BECOME THAT CANDIDATE!!!!

      So stop dissing everyone who DOES make the effort, and maybe make it YOURSELF (or at least HELP SOMEONE who is doing so!)

      • RightWriter Hey windbag did you get diarrhea of the fingers & mouth? Ever hear of the KISS principle which is Keep It Simple Stupid? Just skimmed over your diatribe & could reply & make you look like the fool you are, but will not get in a pissing match with you.

        If you have any reading comprehension, my post dealt with Congress as a whole (hole) & the way they are handling these sexual predators, & the way a responsible Congress should handle the situation. Simple as that. If you agree with the way this is being handled, better pull your head out of where the sun does not shine.

        You are dismissed & have a good night.

        • Any one who sends posts to a stranger that drip with as much vitriol (go look it up!) and hatred as yours must be insane. NO MORE POSTS FROM YOU: you’re hereby consigned to IGNORE, which I hate using but in your case will make an exception. Go to HELL.

  29. angelo cucuzza,jr

    SURPRISED? THESE ‘NEWS’ PEOPLE ARE JUST AS GUILTY, LIKE KILLERY.

  30. Richard Bagenstose

    well if you haven’t figured out politicians are the lowest form of life, just look how they lie year after year, while bleeding the tax payers dry , 90% of the money they spend , they have no business spending ,where in the constitution does it say taxes payers have to support the poor and the lazy, where does it say tax payers have to send their money over seas to support the lazy over there, our tax dollars should be used here , if they want to send money over seas let them do fund raisers and let the none profits do it, why are these politicians making millions of dollars every year, seems to me they are over paid, just like government workers who have nothing to do but search for porn every day

    • Does it OCCUR to you that when everyone DESCRIBES them as “the lowest form of life,” you are DISCOURAGING GOOD PEOPLE from even RUNNING, ENCOURAGING the good people already there (and there ARE some) to QUIT, and making DAMNED SURE NOBODY RUNS EXCEPT THOSE WHO ARE “THE LOWEST FORM OF LIFE”? You do it for long enough and NOBODY except FELONS will be willing to run at all.

      Of 435 Members of the House and 100 Senators, probably 20% ARE low life-forms (I’m not sure about “lowest,” even for them!), but MOST are decent people TRYING to do a good job representing the people who elected them. AND THEY DO NOT COMMIT LEGAL OR MORAL OFFENSES. Really. The reason you HEAR/READ about the ones who DO is that THEY ARE A SMALL MINORITY — maybe 20 of 435 in the House and half a dozen in the Senate. You’d find JUST as high a ratio of bad apples among, say, insurance agents or doctors — but when THEY get caught there’s a small item on Page 32 of the newspaper or a tiny squib on some Internet site. When a CONGRESSMAN does the SAME thing (caught speeding, for example) it’s FRONT-PAGE NEWS and the internet is ALIVE with the story.

      Another problem that people not in politics DON’T have is that NOBODY can please EVERYONE: a Senator or Congressperson can make the liberals happy, or they’ll make conservatives happy, but THEY CAN’T PLEASE BOTH AT ONCE (and those who AREN’T pleased will describe the Senators or House members as “the lowest form of life,” which certainly DOES NOT help them find ways to please MORE people).

      MAYBE if we didn’t ASK THE IMPOSSIBLE (please everybody, for instance) of these people, or make the least little infraction of some rule or law (speeding, for instance) into a major news story, they’d be ABLE to DO THEIR JOBS and NOT become objects of ridicule. KEEP THE “LOWEST FORM OF LIFE” nonsense for KILLERS or actual RAPISTS and remember that Congresspeople and Senators are HUMAN BEINGS, and thus NOT PERFECT. Nor are they there to represent JUST YOU: they’re there to represent about 650,000 people (for House members) or the WHOLE POPULATION of your State for Senators. So they WON’T always do what YOU want, because other people MIGHT want the opposite.

  31. The media then in this case was aiding & abetting John Conyers & anyone else that they covered up for. Clinton was known about clear back to his days at university in England. When he was asked to leave. Then he went from there to Russia, Did any of the media ever report that & why he went. JFK the Whit House was like a revolving door from all the ladies friends that security brought in for JFK. No FBI investigation then or reporters to do anything. This is what America needs to wake up to creeps who pray on women or organizations in government who cover up for them then at the taxpayers expense. Conyers a couple years ago tried to get himself a big raise in congress because he said he could not live on his salary. Term limits is needed now with no federal pensions. It could be written & passed this week NO EXCUSES

    • Well, all Congressmen make the same salary (the Speaker gets a couple thou more per annum, but not much more), so Conyers wasn’t trying to get HIS salary increased. What happened was that he wanted more financing for the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, of which he was then Chairman, to hire MORE staff or possibly give some senior staffers a salary boost.

      It actually wan’t Conyers’s idea: the whole Committee pushed it because they were having trouble paying the lawyers on the committee staff enough to get them to stay — private law firms paid MUCH more — and there hadn’t been a general pay raise on Capitol Hill in 3-4 years. The additional funds went to top STAFF salaries (those were the young, bright lawyers who were getting offers of DOUBLE the money from law firms), not to the Members. (It’s tough, if you’re a young man or woman with, maybe, a young family and law school tuition bills to pay off, and your employer’s wage rates have been FROZEN for 3-4 years, and some law firm offers you DOUBLE the salary you’re getting — you may not be willing to sacrifice that much to stay put.)

  32. REPORTERS Investigate this OFA. Sounds like an organization that wants to bring America down. find out who is on its rolls & who is funding it. It smells of Ex-President Obama

    • It DOES smell of Obama, who STARTED it as his PAC (political action committee, a PERFECTLY LEGAL means of raising campaign money — in fact, it’s the ONLY legal way to raise funds). It was originally called Obama For America. After he became President he kept the PAC going (also perfectly legal) under the name Organizing For America, became Obama For America again during his re-election campaign, and then reverted to “Organizing for America.”

      There’s NOTHING to INVESTIGATE. It’s LEGAL, and EVERY candidate has one. PACs file quarterly financial reports showing EVERY DIME they take in or spend, and there is a limit on the amount any individual can contribute in one year. Yes, people make mistakes — usually because some inexperienced staff member doesn’t know the rules, or the donor might slip up and exceed the annual maximum. But as a whole the system works VERY well and, since nobody can contribute HUGE sums, there’s no real chance for buying influence by giving a LOT. (Ironically, it’s what OBAMA was PROTESTING when, as President. he spoke out against the Supreme Court’s ruling on campaign financing.)

      Not EVERYTHING is a crime, even when Obama does it!

  33. …and we are supposed to trust the MSM news? Why on God’s green earth should we even listen to these lying idiots?

  34. CONYERS IS YOUR TYPICAL SLIME POLITICIAN, POWER CORRUPTS,ABSOLUTE POWER. CORRUPTS ABSOLUTE. NEED TERM LIMITS
    NOW, THIS BOTTOM-FEEDER HAS BEEN IN CONGRESS TOOOOO LOG.

  35. If Cokey Roberts knew about Conyers, why didn’t Cokey say something? This and all others like Cokey should be ashamed, very ashamed of themselves, and perhaps considered just as guilty.
    What kind of name is “Cokey”. I suppose it should go along with Hokey Cokey?

    • It’s actually “Cokie,” not “Cokey”, not that it matters. It’s a nickname, which is probably obvious: her real full name is Corinne Morrison Claiborne Boggs Roberts. (Hey, you’d want a nickname, TOO, with that moniker!). I think I heard her say once that “Cokie” came from her, or maybe a brother or sister, mispronouncing “Corinne” when they were kids, but I may not have that right.

      Cokie really WAS (I say “was” because she’s retired, though still around) a straight-arrow journalist, not a partisan, despite the fact that BOTH her parents served in Congress as Democrats (from Louisiana, which in those days meant CONSERVATIVE Democrats — a now-extinct breed). Her father, Hale Boggs, was a long-time member and Democrat leader who was killed in a plane crash; her mother then ran for his seat and served several terms on her own (back when women in Congress were still pretty rare).

      I’m not surprised she knew about Conyers (I’d be surprised if she HADN’T — as a very young staff member in a REPUBLICAN office on Capitol Hill in 1970, I remember being told by a colleague NOT to get on an elevator with Congressman Conyers (he was only in his THIRD TERM back then!) I think there were two reasons Cokie didn’t say anything (and I didn’t either)
      1) we’d HEARD about Conyers, but had no personal experience with his behavior. HEARSAY is inadmissible in ANY legal proceeding; 2) if we HAD had personal experience and reported it, we’d have been told — as women WERE told back in those days — “Look, sister, if you want to work in politics, or anywhere else with men, you’ll find out soon enough: SOME MEN SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT BEHAVIOR. Don’t make waves, or YOU will end up on the losing team.”

      And you know what’s awful? THEY WERE RIGHT: if we HAD said anything, even to report an actual assault, NOTHING would have been done. Maybe for RAPE, but not “touching” or “copping a feel.”

      • That’s so sad. I’m glad to see things changing. But, I’ll really be impressed, when I see Bill Clinton charged and taken to trial.

  36. If the Main Stream media has any questions or doubt as to why the American public has little or no confidence in them this is a perfect example! Biased reporting is not reporting at all it is “PROPAGANDA” , it it all of you in the media believe the American public is stupid? This attitude which has been adopted by the MSM only serves to degrade their already unreliable information stream. What ever happened to REAL JOURNALISM? HONESTY, INTEGRITY, RELIABILITY?
    I am 80 and have been around the block as well as the World several times and find the current state of events DISGUSTING! Look around you and see the results this has created, don’t doubt that you the MSM hasn’t had a major hand in creating it!
    You are NOT ALONE, the DNC has also been a major contributor to the current status as well. Greed,corruption, and the loss of integrity, honesty, compassion, and common sense, these have all been abandoned!

    • I’m 75 (well, almost) and I agree with you — but I must point out that as long as I’ve been reading newspapers (starting, say, 1950 or so), most papers and “news” magazines HAVE been just as biased as they are TODAY. My father and I used to go thru the New York Times looking for articles that gave only one side of an issue (it took forever: there were LOTS) or unfairly attacked one side of a political debate (ditto). TIME despite ownership by a leading Republican, Henry Luce, and his once-Congresswoman (R-Conn.) wife, Clare Boothe Luce, was ALWAYS skewed toward the Democrats, and Newsweek was even WORSE.

      I lived in Arizona while I was in high school and was delighted to find that the Phoenix papers (the Arizona Republic and Phoenix Gazette, both owned by the same company) were biased in the pro-Republican direction (much moreso then than now). But then I got to Washington DC and met up with the Washington COMPOST (er, sorry, Post)…which NEVER had a good word to say about ANY Republican except maybe RINO-Supreme Nelson Rockefeller (Gov. of NY, ran for President in 1964 and 1968 but didn’t get the nomination EITHER time, despite all the money he had at his disposal AND friends he had in the media).

      Go back and look at newspapers from the 19th century, or even earlier — you can probably find a lot online. They’re ALL biased, just not all biased in the same way. But I suspect the problem has existed as long as newspapers have existed. 🙁

  37. Possibly so, yet they all colluded. And so it is with the people’s Elected Things.

  38. I say…open the list of who got payments from that “slush fund” that we the tax payers have been paying for to the tune of millions of $$$$….open up that list and expose them all! R or D

    • That’s going to happen soon, but you’ll be disappointed: most of the people who got money from the fund — and it wasn’t all for their misbehavior — are LONG GONE from Congress, and unless what they did was out-and-out RAPE the statute of limitations has long since expired, so they can’t be prosecuted. If they go to court, juries are going to say “Where the HELL have you BEEN? You say this happened TWENTY (or THIRTY) YEARS AGO? It took you until NOW to decide to sue? Don’t make me LAUGH.”

      Speaking of which, where HAVE they been? Whatever happened to that brave, assertive generation of women the feminists told us we were bringing into the wold THIRTY YEARS AGO? Whatever happened to “I AM WOMAN, HEAR ME ROAR!”? These babes were so traumatized by being TOUCHED (gasp!) that they went into a FUNK that’s lasted for 30 years????

      As to the more recent “victims,” THEIRS is the generation whose women want to be allowed into COMBAT ROLES in the Armed Forces – and they’re traumatized by a TOUCH or an “unwelcome GESTURE”? How on EARTH do they think they’ll SURVIVE if they wind up in the hands of the TALIBAN or ISIS? Just “touched”? They’ll be lucky if they keep their HEADS on their shoulders. Brave? Assertive? Don’t make me LAUGH!

  39. The victims should be suing the media too when they say they knew it for not exposeing these dirtbags for not protecting the public

  40. NBC Has also known ALL about Matt LAUER Their BIGGEST PERV but Congress being Made up of PIMPS and Hookers let’s their Equal get away with it,,,heck BAWNEY FWANKS ran a House of prostitution for gays….. and was allowed to stay in CONGRESS .. he was a(D) after all

  41. The main stream media is the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. Is this really a surprise?

  42. Wow, the media is only 20-30 years behind in their reporting.

  43. I’m pretty sure that you have to let Conyers go without fault…after all he is a man of color…the racist card always excuses any and all shameful behavior…just ask the liberal news media…right?

  44. all I can say is that those folks “who knew all about it” must have LIKED IT!!

  45. I would bet Cokie Roberts didn’t get where she’s at now by being a nice girl so why should she say anything.

  46. Complicit because they were democrats. Just like they support all of the fake news directed at republicans

  47. The entire state of Arkansas knew about Slick Willie. That’s how he got his nick name in the first place. Ad he used the State Police to help him with his quest for victims. That is the really unbelievable thing about the Clintons.

  48. If everyone knew and the press did nothing and the congress did nothing then they should all resign……shame on all of them and shame on all those that have voted for him all these years and covered for him. You are guilty too….

  49. they’re democrats, therefore the sitting democratic law makers accept it as just another day in the “life of Riley” they live in. if it was a republican, he’d be held behind bars for years waiting for the Democratic kangaroo courts that abound, to hang him with a guilty verdict. as long as the democrats still run the judicial system, it will remain biased in their favor. justice is blind because the democrats won’t let her see.!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*