'cookieChoices = {};'

The Right of the People to be Secure in their Persons, Houses, Papers, and Effects,
Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures,
Shall Not Be Violated


Saturday, April 16, 2016

Knock Knock, who's there?
- One time senator
- Foreign born
- Wall Street funded
- Harvard lawyer
- Never created a job in his life
- Lies all the time
- Does not care about the will of the people
Obama? No...

Bookmark and Share
posted by Nicoenarg at permanent link# 5 Comments

WHO ARE THE REAL THUGS?… Lewandowski Tried Calling Michelle Fields But She Never Returned His Calls

Bookmark and Share
posted by Nicoenarg at permanent link# 2 Comments

“The GOP is the party of Jesus”

Someone named Bob Smetters in answer to the question as to why Jews are liberal


Check comments for the answer to the question.

Extremely discouraging for the nation
Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 26 Comments

Minnesota college students vote against honoring 9/11 victims, saying it’s offensive to Muslims


Students at the University of Minnesota killed a proposed moment of silence for 9/11 victims due to concerns that Muslim students would be offended
The resolution in no way referred to Islam or to whether Islam itself is to blame for global terrorism. It did not require anyone to contemplate the fact that the terrorists responsible for 9/11 were Muslims. “It merely stated that 9/11 has had a lasting effect on many students, and ought to be reflected upon for a single moment, once a year.”
But according to the Minnesota Republic, the resolution proved oddly controversial. MSA Director of Diversity and Inclusion, David Algadi, voiced “severe criticism” of the resolution.
he said. Algadi expressed concerns- in an email to the Washington Post – that efforts to recognize 9/11 are sometimes “thinly-veiled expressions of Islamophobia.”

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 1 Comments

What British Muslims Really Think

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 0 Comments

Tommy Robinson: "When I Spoke Out About Islam, I Was Prepared For The Violence (from Muslims), What I Wasn't Prepared For Was The Destruction and the Attack On My Life and My Family BY THE STATE"

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 1 Comments

San Diego, California: Muslim Couple Charged With Slavery

A couple originally from Iraq, later domiciled in Dubai, moved to the San Diego suburb of El Cajon and brought with them their “servant” they had acquired in Dubai.  The woman, identified by police as W.M., managed to smuggle out a handwritten note asking for help, which resulted in arrest of the couple on charges of  “labor trafficking.”  But an agent who helped bust them was not so indirect.  Via the San Diego Union Tribune:
“Today’s arrests bring to light the sad reality of modern day slavery,” Dave Shaw, special agent in charge for U.S. Homeland Security Investigations in San Diego, said in a statement. “… Forced labor, which often involves individuals who are held in isolation, degraded, and most alarming — stripped of their basic human freedom — has no place in a modern society.”
The couple charged, Firas Majeed and his wife, Shatha Abbas, have pleaded not guilty.  The story told to police by W.M. is heartbreaking:
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 2 Comments

If She Would Have Identified As a 15 Year Old Boy, All Would Be Forgiven


From Inside Edition:
English Teacher Charged With Sexual Assault of a Student: 'You're My Baby Boo!' 
A Wisconsin high school teacher is facing charges of sexual assault following an alleged sexual relationship with a student, including on the night of her husband's bachelor's party. 
Sara Domres, a 29-year-old former teacher at the New Berlin West High School, was charged last week for sexual assault of a student by school staff following an alleged relationship with a 16-year-old lasting approximately ten months. 
According to the criminal complaint, the sophomore was in Domres' English class, where they became fast friends, and texted each other frequently, the police report stated.   
During their relationship, lasting between April 2015 and January 2016, they reportedly exchanged over 1,100 messages. 
One of the many text messages said, "I love being your baby boo. (heart emoji) run away with me!!! I want you forever," according to the criminal complaint. 
According to the police statement, the boy was allegedly "a virgin prior to having sexual intercourse" with the teacher. 
One of the counts she is being charged with was for an encounter in Domres' car in a park-and-ride lot in July, according to the criminal complaint. 
The boy was 16 at the time. The other count she is being charged with responded to their encounter in a Motel 6, where she had paid for a single bed with cash, and it was discovered that the boy's phone was connected to the WiFi on the same day, authorities said. 
According to police, a message was sent the night before: "You're extremely attractive to me!!! I can't wait for our night we are doing it no matter what!!!"
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 5 Comments

I've Got An Idea Of Something We Could Do With a Gun

I got an idea of something we can do with a gun 
Sink load and fire 
Till the empire reaps what they've sown 

Shoot shoot shoot till their minds are open 
Shoot shoot shoot till their eyes are closed 
Push push push till we get some motion 
Push push push till the bombs explode 

I got an idea 
We can do it 
All on our own
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 1 Comments

Limo Wreck


When the whole thing comes crashing down, don't ask me why ...
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 0 Comments

I Want Candy

Bow Wow Wow

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 0 Comments


Suburban Lawns

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 0 Comments

Friday, April 15, 2016

What It's Like

So Long

I Can't Move

Sleepin' Alone

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 3 Comments

Alleged Brussels Suspect Was Star Of Documentary About Successful Integration Of Immigrants

From Breitbart:
The Syrian-origin Swedish passport holder arrested in Belgium last week for his involvement in the Brussels bomb attacks is a former poster boy for Sweden’s efforts at integrating migrants into their society. 
Now accused of murder, and captured on CCTV cameras carrying bags which contained the explosive devices which killed 32 civilians, Islamist Osama Krayem had once been hailed as a model of integration. 
A former employee of the city of Malmo, at the age of 11 Osama starred in a documentary about migrants in Sweden. 
Both of Osama’s parents are Syrian migrants to Sweden, and have told tabloid Aftonbladet they wanted to see their son integrate into Swedish society. 
The family featured in a 2005 documentary called ‘Without Borders — A Film About Sport And Integration’, in which football-mad Krayem demonstrated how the Malmo football team had helped him settle into Swedish society.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 1 Comments


"Almost" counts in horseshoes, handgrenades and UNDERBOOB!!!

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 5 Comments

Five UK terrorism arrests in Birmingham and at Gatwick Airport 'linked to attacks on Brussels and Paris'

The Muslims Are Restless

From the Telegraph:
Five people have been arrested by British anti-terror police as part of an operation with Belgian and French authorities following attacks in Europe. 
Counter-terror officers in the West Midlands said they were working with MI5 and international partners to "address any associated threat to the UK" after militants struck in Brussels and Paris. Whitehall sources described the arrests as “significant”. 
Four people - three men aged 26, 40 and 59 and a 29-year-old woman - were arrested in Birmingham on Thursday night, while a 26-year-old man was arrested at Gatwick Airport early on Friday morning. 
They were held on suspicion of being involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 0 Comments

The very idea that Presidential Candidates Cruz and Kasich would even entertain let alone actively pursue (and especially in Kasich's case bet their candidacy on) a Convention Fight to take delegates away from a clear front runner with majority voter support to secure the spot for themselves is anathema to everything America stands for and, as candidates, so should they. That they are not should be vile and reprehensible to every intelligent patriotic American who still understands the principles upon which this nation was founded. It speaks volumes to their true character and a window into what their administration might be like.


Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 3 Comments

Wall Street Journal:

Let Me Ask America a Question

How has the ‘system’ been working out for you and your family? No wonder voters demand change.

On Saturday, April 9, Colorado had an “election” without voters. Delegates were chosen on behalf of a presidential nominee, yet the people of Colorado were not able to cast their ballots to say which nominee they preferred.
A planned vote had been canceled. And one million Republicans in Colorado were sidelined.

In recent days, something all too predictable has happened: Politicians furiously defended the system. “These are the rules,” we were told over and over again. If the “rules” can be used to block Coloradans from voting on whether they want better trade deals, or stronger borders, or an end to special-interest vote-buying in Congress—well, that’s just the system and we should embrace it.
Let me ask America a question: How has the “system” been working out for you and your family?
I, for one, am not interested in defending a system that for decades has served the interest of political parties at the expense of the people. Members of the club—the consultants, the pollsters, the politicians, the pundits and the special interests—grow rich and powerful while the American people grow poorer and more isolated.
No one forced anyone to cancel the vote in Colorado. Political insiders made a choice to cancel it. And it was the wrong choice.
Responsible leaders should be shocked by the idea that party officials can simply cancel elections in America if they don’t like what the voters may decide.
The only antidote to decades of ruinous rule by a small handful of elites is a bold infusion of popular will. On every major issue affecting this country, the people are right and the governing elite are wrong. The elites are wrong on taxes, on the size of government, on trade, on immigration, on foreign policy.
Why should we trust the people who have made every wrong decision to substitute their will for America’s will in this presidential election?
Here, I part ways with Sen. Ted Cruz.
Mr. Cruz has toured the country bragging about his voterless victory in Colorado. For a man who styles himself as a warrior against the establishment (you wouldn’t know it from his list of donors and endorsers), you’d think he would be demanding a vote for Coloradans. Instead, Mr. Cruz is celebrating their disenfranchisement.
Likewise, Mr. Cruz loudly boasts every time party insiders disenfranchise voters in a congressional district by appointing delegates who will vote the opposite of the expressed will of the people who live in that district.
That’s because Mr. Cruz has no democratic path to the nomination. He has been mathematically eliminated by the voters.
While I am self-funding, Mr. Cruz rakes in millions from special interests. Yet despite his financial advantage, Mr. Cruz has won only three primaries outside his home state and trails me by two million votes—a gap that will soon explode even wider. Mr. Cruz loses when people actually get to cast ballots. Voter disenfranchisement is not merely part of the Cruz strategy—it is the Cruz strategy.
The great irony of this campaign is that the “Washington cartel” that Mr. Cruz rails against is the very group he is relying upon in his voter-nullification scheme.
My campaign strategy is to win with the voters. Ted Cruz’s campaign strategy is to win despite them.
What we are seeing now is not a proper use of the rules, but a flagrant abuse of the rules. Delegates are supposed to reflect the decisions of voters, but the system is being rigged by party operatives with “double-agent” delegates who reject the decision of voters.
The American people can have no faith in such a system. It must be reformed.
Just as I have said that I will reform our unfair trade, immigration and economic policies that have also been rigged against Americans, so too will I work closely with the chairman of the Republican National Committee and top GOP officials to reform our election policies. Together, we will restore the faith—and the franchise—of the American people.
We must leave no doubt that voters, not donors, choose the nominee.
How have we gotten to the point where politicians defend a rigged delegate-selection process with more passion than they have ever defended America’s borders?
Perhaps it is because politicians care more about securing their private club than about securing their country.
My campaign will, of course, battle for every last delegate. We will work within the system that exists now, while fighting to have it reformed in the future. But we will do it the right way. My campaign will seek maximum transparency, maximum representation and maximum voter participation.
We will run a campaign based on empowering voters, not sidelining them.
Let us take inspiration from patriotic Colorado citizens who have banded together in protest. Let us make Colorado a rallying cry on behalf of all the forgotten people whose desperate pleas have for decades fallen on the deaf ears and closed eyes of our rulers in Washington, D.C.
The political insiders have had their way for a long time. Let 2016 be remembered as the year the American people finally got theirs.


Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 2 Comments


Why the GOP can't take the nomination from Donald Trump

Is it me, or does the argument that the Republican nomination can be taken from Donald Trump at a contested convention make almost no sense?
It's not that it would be unfeasible for Ted Cruz or some other candidate to win a majority of delegates after the first ballot is cast at the convention. If anything, it seems more and more likely that Cruz, given his shrewdness at delegate selection, would be able to pull this off as early as the second ballot.
However, if Trump arrives in Cleveland having won the most votes, the most contests, and the most delegates -- all of which is very likely -- depriving him of the nomination would be an unprecedented move in the modern political era. And doing so would likely end in disaster not only for the GOP as a whole but its anti-Trump wing in particular.
The argument we're seeing out of the Cruz camp and the Republican National Committee essentially boils down to this: convention delegates choose the nominee, and that this is how it's always been done. This argument has the benefit of being technically true because a majority of delegates do, of course, select the nominee at the convention.But the major reason conventions have been such bloodless affairs over the last few decades is that we've always known how the delegates were going to vote -- that they have, in practice, been virtually powerless, and are just reflecting the will of the primary voters.
Since 1976, the nominee chosen by the respective parties has always been the candidate that wins the most contests and/or the most number of votes. The Republican nominee has always been the candidate who won both, while the Democrats nominated Walter Mondale in 1984 even though he won fewer contests than Gary Hart (Mondale had the most votes and a plurality of delegates) and nominated Barack Obama in 2008 even though he had won slightly fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. Still, both of these outcomes broadly reflected the will of primary voters, and both eventual nominees had won the most number of delegates.
Should the Republican nomination be awarded to Cruz or John Kasich, it would be wildly out of step with the tradition of letting primary voters decide in practice who their candidate should be. Moreover, explaining this outcome would be enormously difficult to explain to the already dwindling number of voters willing to register Republican.
Trump's argument, in this scenario, will be simple, clean, and easy to understand: I won the most delegates, the most votes, the most contests, and they stole the nomination from me.
The argument from the other side will be much more complicated and obtuse: You may not have known this, but the guy who wins the most of everything is ultimately at the mercy of a faceless mass of delegates, some of whom can be essentially bribed, and therefore giving the nomination to another candidate is fair game.Millions of Republicans will be told that their vote did not matter, and that the GOP, in its wisdom, has settled on a candidate that has been rejected by its electorate.
The obvious result of such a strategy will be that Trump and many of his supporters will reject the GOP nominee as illegitimate -- according to an AP poll out his week, 58 percent of Republicans think the person with the most delegates should get the nomination. That GOP nominee, most likely Cruz, will limp out of Cleveland as the leader of a severely divided party, and will probably lose the election in November.
So the nomination will have been taken from Trump, in part because he is widely seen as unelectable, and given to someone else who loses. Who would the blame naturally fall on in such a catastrophe? Why, the people who "robbed" Trump and his supporters, a group that would conceivably include everyone from grassroots anti-Trump conservatives to local party bosses to Paul Ryan, who's made his anti-Trump sympathies known, and Reince Priebus. The entire infrastructure of the party, in other words, would be implicated in an undemocratic scheme that ended in failure.
Then there will be the rumors that this or that delegation was bribed by Cruz or Karl Rove or the Koch Brothers; the convention itself might actually end in a Chicago '68-style riot. And after all that, the GOP will be left with Cruz as their nominee, a man much of the party leadership despises, who most of the GOP electorate didn't vote for, and who probably can't win the general.
This outcome will also vindicate a central thesis of the pro-Trump wing of the party: that a GOP establishment exists, that it works against the interests and desires of GOP voters, and that it is fundamentally incompetent, having won the popular vote in a presidential election only once since 1988. In fact, it would be hard for anyone, be they pro-Trump or anti-Trump, to disagree with that analysis, and the GOP will spend the next few years not only at war with itself, but trying to justify its very existence in a two-party system where it seems unable to compete at a national level.
This is all a long way of saying that if Trump, as expected, goes into the convention with the most votes, the most delegates, and the most contests won, it will be in the ultimate interest of the GOP to hand him the nomination regardless of whether he's secured a majority.
It's important to remember here that Trump is, in so many ways, his own brand, one separate and distinct from the wider Republican Party. And this is a distinction the rest of the party could strive to emphasize should he become the nominee; Mitch McConnell has reportedly already authorized senators in tight races to attack Trump should that become necessary. Doing so will allow the anti-Trump wing to concentrate on maintaining its control of congress and contain the damage should he lose in November. And such a loss would likely be lethal to Trump's existence as a political entity, allowing the anti-Trump wing to resume their control of the party come 2017.
There are a number of caveats here worth pointing out. Neither Trump nor Cruz are necessarily doomed in a general election. Hilary Clinton is a flawed candidate in many ways, and some dramatic external event - a terrorist attack, a financial collapse -- could maybe sway the election toward the Republicans. But either candidate would be facing significant headwinds coming out of Cleveland, and would need to quickly scramble together a ground game that could compete with a united Democratic Party.
And then of course there's the argument frequently made by traditional conservatives opposed to Trump, which is that by nominating him the Party has surrendered to thuggery and embraced white-identity politics. Fair enough, but again, if Trump goes into Cleveland as the front-runner, it would be proof that Trump's rough tactics and message has already resonated with what amounts to a plurality of the party's voters. For Republicans interested in purging Trumpism from the GOP, the best way of doing that is not through parliamentary tricks in Cleveland, but to let Trump and his backers fail on their own.
Should he somehow win in November - and, if polling we're looking at the polls, it's safe to say that he probably won't - a decision then can be made about whether the rest of the GOP will work with him or against him.
Until then, Republicans should abandon the idea that depriving Trump of the nomination will do anything but help him and damage their party, perhaps irrevocably.


Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 0 Comments

an imperfect messenger carrying a vital message

New York Post:

The Post endorses Donald Trump

Donald Trump is a rookie candidate — a potential superstar of vast promise, but making rookie mistakes. The nominee Republicans need for the fall campaign is often hard to make out amid his improvisations and too-harsh replies to his critics.
New Yorkers vote Tuesday. What to do?
Here’s how we see it.
Should he win the nomination, we expect Trump to pivot — not just on the issues, but in his manner. The post-pivot Trump needs to be more presidential: better informed on policy, more self-disciplined and less thin-skinned.
Yet the promise is clearly there in the rookie who is, after all, leading the field as the finals near.
Trump has electrified the public, drawing millions of new voters to the polls and inspiring people who’d given up on ever again having a candidate who’d fight for them.
That’s the work of the Donald Trump we know — a New Yorker, born and bred.
Trump is now an imperfect messenger carrying a vital message. But he reflects the best of ‘New York values’ — and offers the best hope for all Americans who rightly feel betrayed by the political class.

A plain-talking entrepreneur with outer-borough, common-sense sensibilities.
Trump is a do-er. As a businessman, he’s created jobs for thousands. And he’s proven how a private-sector, can-do approach can rip through government red tape and get things done.
These last 10 months, he’s ripped through a different morass — the nation’s stale, insider-driven politics.
And he’s done it by appealing to the public’s anger at a government that’s eternally gridlocked when it comes to serving the people — but always able to deliver for the connected.
He’s slammed the system for being rigged — and he’s right.
To those fed up with the rule of lobbyists and an insular political class, to those who’ve seen their government ignore their needs — seen it continually degrade the quality not just of their economic lives, but of their plaace in society — Trump offers hope.
But then there are those rookie mistakes.
Start with policies that seem made on the fly.
No, pulling US troops out of Japan and South Korea — and pushing both countries to go nuclear to defend themselves — is not remotely a good idea. American commitments may need rethinking — but careful rethinking.
Yes, controlling the border is one of Washington’s fundamental duties — but “Build the Wall” is far too simplistic a policy for a nation of immigrants.
By all means, get the best trade deals for America — but remember that trade means cheaper goods for the less well-off, and challenge US industries to improve.
Trump’s language, too, has too often been amateurish, divisive — and downright coarse.
But what else to expect from someone who’s never been a professional politician and reflects common-man passions?
Indeed, his political incorrectness is one of his great attractions — it proves he’s not one of “them.” He’s challenging the victim culture that has turned into a victimizing culture.
In the general election, we’d expect Trump to stay true to his voters — while reaching out to those he hasn’t won yet.
Trump is now an imperfect messenger carrying a vital message. But he reflects the best of “New York values” — and offers the best hope for all Americans who rightly feel betrayed by the political class.
He has the potential — the skills, the know-how, the values — to live up to his campaign slogan: to make America great again.
For those reasons, The Post today endorses Donald Trump in the GOP primary.


Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 0 Comments


From Judicial Watch:
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it has obtained new documents from the Department of State containing the telephone transcripts from the evening of September 11, 2012, in which then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton informs then-Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil that the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi “had nothing to do with the film.” 
The documents include previously unreleased telephone transcripts with world leaders about the Benghazi attack. Clinton’s admission to Kandil was first produced to the Select Committee on Benghazi on October 13, 2015 and publicized on the day of Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, October 22, but court filings in Judicial Watch litigation show that the record was only produced after two federal court judges ordered the State Department to produce more Benghazi-related records to Judicial Watch. 
Similarly, Judicial Watch litigation also forced the release of the September 11, 2012 email in which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton informed her daughter by email that the attack had been staged by an “Al Qaeda-like group,” rather than as the result of “inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” as Mrs. Clinton had claimed in her official public statement one hour earlier. 

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 2 Comments

Video - Germany: Merkel allows trial to go ahead over satirical Erdogan poem


Merkel should be hanged by the neck until dead.

From DW:
German broadcaster ZDF defends Böhmermann satire as 'legally permissible' German comedian Jan Böhmermann has not signed a "cease and desist" letter, increasing the likelihood that the case may be taken to court. 
German broadcaster ZDF has defended his controversial poem to prosecutors. German comedy show host Jan Böhmermann on the set of his ZDF show NEO Magazin Satire show host Jan Böhmermann is letting the clock run out on signing a declaration of discontinuance, the German lawyer of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan confirmed. 
Erdogan's council, Michael-Hubertus von Sprenger, told news agency AFP that he is now preparing to file an injunction against the German comedian within the month. 
When asked by news agency AFP whether or not the matter will, in the end, be settled in court, von Springer replied: "Yes, I assume." 
Two weeks ago, Böhmermann read out a so-called "Defamatory Poem" about Erdogan on his show "Neo Magazine Royale" where he purposefully used insulting language. The declaration of discontinuance called for the 35-year-old comedian to never repeat the poem or start circulating it again. 
In a letter rejecting the terms of the cease and desist order, Böhmermann's lawyer, Christian Schertz, wrote that that the context of the poem "has been obviously overlooked," quoted the German newspaper "Süddeutsche Zeitung." 
The satirical poem was not broadcast or circulated as a singular item, explained Schertz, "but rather as part of an overall view on what is allowed in Germany and what is not."

Germany To Strip Job Protections From Citizens To Have Migrants Compete For Jobs

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 3 Comments

Revolution Time: Labor Is a Product - H1B Visas Are an Anti-Product

America is a Government of the people, for the people and by the people.

We are the People.

We are the Government.

The Government is "of" us.  It is made up of us.

The Government is "for" us. The Government serves our needs.

The Government is "by" us. We make the laws, and we run the Government.

The Government does not tell us what to do. We tell the Government what to do.

This is as it should be.

To the extent that we no longer tell the Government what to do, the Government has STOLEN that power from the people.

What is the purpose of the Government? The purpose is to protect the Property of the People.

The Property of the people is the Private Property of the People. The Government does not own the Property.

To the extent that the Government does manage Property, it does so with the consent and tolerance of the People. The People can take away the Management rights any time the People see fit.

The Government's only job is to protect it's People and their Property.

The People own themselves as Property. We own our bodies and the contents of our minds as Property. We own the products of our minds, our ideas, as Property.

Ideas are products of the minds for the purpose of organizing the world around us.

The purpose of organizing the world is to make the world more habitable, more comfortable, a more happy place.

The process of making the world more habitable, comfortable and happier is called Labor.

We Labor in order to make the world a better place for ourselves. We do not Labor to make the world a better place for the Government.

Our Labors are for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  We feed our bodies, and nourish our souls. That is the point of Labor. There is no other point to Labor.

We get to decide what to feed our bodies, and we get to decide how to nourish our souls. Because we own our bodies and our minds as Property, it is our Right to decide what to do with them, and how to feed them and nourish them.

It is our Right to decide the definition of "the Pursuit of Happiness." The Pursuit of Happiness is our own Individual Pursuit of Happiness. We choose. The Government does not Choose for us.

So, now we have established the Purpose of Labor, and that there is no other Purpose to Labor.

Any counter-purpose to Labor serves only to decrease Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. No Individual in his right mind would choose to decrease his Life, his Liberty, or his Happiness.

We own our Labor, and we own the Products of our Labor.

Our Labor itself is a Product. We choose what to Labor for, in order to increase our Life, Liberty, and our Happiness.

Our Labor is the Production of our bodies and minds. We choose how to use our bodies and minds.

We choose our Labor. The Government does not choose our Labor.

These ideas, themselves, are an Organization of the world. These ideas are American ideas. These ideas do not exist as the Organizing Principles of any other Nation in the world.

In other nations in the world, the people exist for the benefit of the Government, not the other way around.

To introduce the ideas or Organizing Principles of any other nation of the world into our system here in America would only serve to decrease Life, Liberty, and the the Pursuit of Happiness for the Individuals who make up the United States of America.

There would be no purpose to it. No one in their right mind, would consciously choose to decrease his Life, Liberty, or Happiness.

So, why would we give our Labor away for Free? Why would we deactivate our Labor?

H1B Visas allow employers to import Labor from other nations to replace our Labor, to replace our Products.

H1B Visas exist under a law granted by the Government of the United States of America.

H1B Visas are an example of Government choosing to give our Products away for Free. An H1B Visa is a replacement of our Labor with the Labor or another nation. This is the giving away of our Labor; it is the deactivation of our Labor.

If We the People are the Government, and yet the Government has chosen to give away our Labor for Free, there are only two choices in how to understand what is going on here. Either,

1) We the People are not in our Right mind,


2) as the Declaration of Independence says, the Government has "become destructive to these ends (Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness)",

OR, in other words,

the Government is no longer of the People, by the People, and for the People.

To the extent that we no longer own the Government, the Government, then, has grown into an entity of it's own will, and has STOLEN the power from the people.

"And, whenever Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter, or abolish it, and institute new Government."


BuckWheat comments:
The first restraint upon government is by a limited budget, and thus by limited funds. But when government gives itself power to create near-infinite money out of thin air, then it has near-infinite funding of near-infinite bureaucracy by which to create and enforce near-infinite regulations each having the weight of law.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 9 Comments

Enclaves harboring terror

Former INS agent Michael Cutler wrote about the Muslim no-go zones plaguing much of Europe, and how even the USA has some neighborhoods where foreign interlopers are shielded, enabling terrorists to operate.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Avi Green at permanent link# 0 Comments

Russia will have made its point(?)

‘Analysts’ are claiming Russia was sending a ‘message’ to the USA (Obama?) by making a practice attack run about 30 feet off the surface with ATTACK BOMBERS, on the USS Cook.


The Cook was 70 miles from Kaliningrad, which is actually an oblast of Russia enclosed on three sides by NATO nations, Poland and Lithuania. The red 70 mile circle is centered on that city,
As one can see, since the Cook was engaged right at that time in exercises with Poland’s helicopter forces (presumably anti-submarine), she was probably on the upper left quadrant of that circle, in other words, closer to the BOTH the center of the Baltic, and Poland, a NATO nation, than she was to the Russian enclave between NATO nations.

So that analysis fails, assuming a message was being sent.

Since these incidents have occurred in international waters in the Black Sea when NATO ships were visiting Romania, the Baltic, when operating WITH NATO nations, and in the MID ATLANTIC when Backfire and Bears were intercepted running (possibly nuclear) attack mission profiles, any damn person can figure out what Russia is doing.


Not defense.



If they think this weakness they THINK they observe is in the people as opposed to the present leadership, this is what as know as a CIVILIZATIONAL LEVEL ERROR.

You know, like when you think a surprise attack which destroys the American offensive power, and ability to respond will drive them to the negotiating table because they really don’t want a war.

You know, like that.

And instead, you get something else.

Obama, take note, an ounce of prevention….
Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 4 Comments

Culturism introduced to Alt-Right

Culturism (cǔl-chər-ǐz-əm) n. 1. The philosophy, art, and science that values, promotes and protects majority cultures. 2. The opposite of multiculturalism.

Culturist (cǔl-chər-ǐst) n. 1. An advocate of culturism. 2. One who engages in the arts or sciences of managing and protecting majority cultures. 3. One who judges cultures. 4. Adj. Of or pertaining to culturism, culturists or culturist policy.

In introducing the philosophy of ‘culturism’ to the Alt-Right community, I need to make a confession: the section on race, in the first chapter of the book, ‘Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future,’ is disingenuous.  I knew it was at the time.  In the introduction, I briefly argue that race is not a biological category.  In denouncing the book, ‘The Bell-Curve,’ I wrote, “there is no reliable evidence that there are any mental differences between groups of humans.” I was trying to distance ‘culturism’ from ‘racism’ as much as possible, (fearing that any association with racism could blunt the spread of the memes ‘culturist’ and ‘culturism’).

In fairness to myself, I gave the savvy reader two clues that I was being disingenuous.  One is that my very dismissal of ‘The Bell-Curve” meant that I had read, “The Bell-Curve.”  Anyone familiar with this book knows there are mounds of reliable evidence showing different mental differences between races.  Moreover, I purposely backed up the statement saying there is no reliable evidence with an insubstantial footnote.  While the cited authors (Boyd and Richerson) are giants in their field, the actual reference is to a throw away line. At the time I thought, discerning readers would pick up on such clues. 

But, more importantly, I still stand by my larger point: whereas racism gives you no useful policies, culturism provides a multitude of practical policies.  As I wrote in the book’s introduction, people cannot change their race.  And, if you think my nation, the United States of America, is going to become white again, you’re dreaming.  That can only happen through the horror of a race war.  It’s a bad idea. On the other hand, culturism gives you ample workable policies, such as stopping Muslim immigration and promoting a positive view of American history inside and outside of schools.  We can identify and protect our culture.

 One further salvo from the book’s introduction on this front: a problem with racism (as well as nativism) is that can easily lead to the simplistic fallacy: black is bad, white is good.  First of all, white culture is in big trouble (check our divorce rate). White race pride demands no refinement. In this vein, white racial pride actually retards needed cultural self-scrutiny. Secondly, the racist point of view ignores the fact that there are many great non-white American patriots and western citizens. Any movement that fails to acknowledge them can only lead to a partial reclamation of America.

To read the rest and reactions, click here!

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by john press at permanent link# 0 Comments

Crony Capitalism Is Socialism

I get so tired of hearing people bash Capitalism for the evils of Crony Capitalism, and then propose Socialist fixes, when the truth is Crony Capitalism IS Socialism.

From the Valley Patriot:
Circles can’t be squares and squares can’t be circles. For something to meet the requirements of both definitions is a logical impossibility. Just as square circles and circular squares don’t exist, I can assure you that crony capitalism doesn’t exist. 
And if you knew and understood the meaning of the word capitalism you would immediately understand the logical impossibility of such a creature. 
The term crony capitalism is a purposeful contradiction that seeks to undermine the meaning of capitalism while laying at capitalism’s doorstep the evils of socialism. 
What image comes to mind when you hear the term crony capitalism? Do you picture excessively wealthy businessmen raking in gobs of additional, undeserved wealth because they have special political connections? 
The emotional response that is provoked proceeds from a rational distaste for injustice: Why should these individuals benefit from special privileges when these same privileges are not available to me or to others? It makes you mad, and rightfully so! 
After your initial anger dissipates, the concluding emotion is intended to be a visceral hatred for the wealthy and specifically for the wealthy businessmen who are the icons of capitalism. 
The elixir that socialists want you to embrace is bigger and more powerful government. In simple terms you are supposed to conclude: The wealthy are evil. Capitalism is evil. Government is good. And government is the proper instrument for setting things right. 
This is quite an accomplishment for a two-word lie. 
So why is crony capitalism a logical impossibility … a square circle? Because the special, government-granted privileges that are at the core of this problem contradict the very essence of capitalism and would never exist under capitalism. 
Ayn Rand defined capitalism as “… a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.” She goes on to say, “The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force.” 
Finally, Ayn Rand writes, “In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, as their individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate. They can deal with one another only in terms of and by means of reason, i.e., by means of discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit.” 
And later in the same paragraph, “It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree – and thus keeps the road open to man’s most valuable attribute (valuable personally, socially, and objectively): the creative mind .” 
How in a capitalist society are government-granted special privileges possible? 
They are not. 
In a capitalist society, individuals have the right to deal with others or not based on their own rational judgment. The government would have no power to transfer one individual’s wealth to another just because the other is connected. It would have no power to interfere with a private commercial transaction nor to dictate that any such transaction be concluded when both parties do not consent. 
So how did the “crony capitalist” end up with his unearned wealth? Did the government hand him property expropriated from individuals via taxation? Did the government provide special monopoly power or restrict competition through licensing or tariffs? Did the government give special tax advantages or burden his competitors with onerous regulations? 
If so, he is a thief and a beneficiary of socialism. 
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 1 Comments

Kid Rock

American Bad Ass

Only God Know Why

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 1 Comments

Michelle Fields. Agent Provocateur - UPDATED

I have begun to believe Michelle Fields is not a real Conservative. I believe she is possibly an undercover agent of sorts, hoping to write a tell-all book about the Conservative movement in the future. I think it is possible she is in on this with her boyfriend Jamie Weinstein, who is a Hollywood writer, and "Conservative" himself.

I have been unable to find an article or quote anywhere from either one of the two of them which articulates a true Conservative principle. The writings I have found are either simple reports, or even sometimes critical of "the Republican establishment", or figures like Newt Gingrich.

Of course, I don't know for sure. But I am suspicious.

In the case of this latest act of attempted Character Assassination by Michelle Fields against the Trump Organization, the latest news shows that Fields penetrated into a space which reporters were warned to stay out of as Trump was exiting. Also, there were no apparent bruises, though she later produced a photo which did include bruises.

There's this thing called Photoshop, I hear.

Anyway ...

Florida Prosecutors: Michelle Fields WAS WARNED But Broke Into Trump’s “Protective Bubble” Anyway 


FL ATTORNEY on MICHELLE FIELDS: She Had Taken a Photo that Evening “And There Was REALLY NOTHING THERE”


FL Prosecutor Aronberg: No Charges Against Corey Lewandowski “Her Phone Did Not Show Any Bruising”


THESE MICHELLE FIELDS PHOTOS Made It IMPOSSIBLE for Florida Prosecutors to Charge Corey Lewandowski

Florida State Attorney Dave Aronberg, a Hillary Clinton supporter, announced today that his office would not charge Trump Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski with battery assault charges.

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 4 Comments

Thursday, April 14, 2016

This Week On The Gathering Storm

Listen to The Gathering Storm Radio Show, hosted by WC and Always On Watch.

The show broadcasts live for 30 minutes every Friday beginning at noon, Pacific Time.

The call-in number is 646-915-9870. Callers welcome!

Our scheduled guest this week is IQ al-Rassoli.

Listen to the April 15, 2016 edition of The Gathering Storm Radio Show, live or later, by CLICKING HERE.

Read more »

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch at permanent link# 0 Comments

About The No-Case Against Lewandowski

Commenter Truth Serum opined as follows at Weasel Zippers:
So when are the following ladies, and Michelle Field's supporters, going to publish their en masse written apology to Lewandowski and Trump?

Dana Loesch (Radio America, Blaze TV); Katie Pavlich, (Townhall, Fox News); Meghan McCain, (America Now Radio, Cosmopolitan, Fox News); S.E. Cupp, ( New York Daily News, Glamour, CNN); Mary Katharine Ham, (CNN, The Federalist); Christine Rosen, (New Atlantis, Commentary); Christina Hoff Sommers, (American Enterprise Institute).

Bethany Mandel, (The Federalist, Acculturated); Emily Zanotti, (American Spectator); Elisha Krauss, (AM 870 The Answer); Karol Markowicz, (New York Post); Kristen Soltis Anderson, (Washington Examiner); Mona Charen, (Ethics and Public Policy Center, Creators Syndicate); Sarah Rumpf, (freelance); Brooke Rogers, (National Review); and Mary Chastain, (Breitbart).
So far, I haven't heard any apologies. Have you?

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch at permanent link# 8 Comments

America vs Iran: A Comparison for Frustrated Voters

This is interesting because right now, I have no one to vote for, so this is not to favor or whack any candidate.

In Iran, the Guardian Council is charged with interpreting the Constitution of Iran, supervising elections of, and approving of candidates to, the Assembly of Experts, the President and the Majlis, and “ensuring … the compatibility of the legislation passed by the Islamic Consultative Assembly [i.e. Majlis] … with the criteria of Islam and the Constitution”.

The Council has played a central role in allowing only one interpretation of Islamic values to inform Iranian law, as it consistently disqualifies reform-minded candidates—including the most well-known candidates—from running for office, and vetoes laws passed by the popularly elected Majlis.

In America, the Republican and Democratic parties, SERVING IN POSITIONS OF POWER, have BY ACTIONS, not words demonstrated a singular dedication to growth of central power (one party differentiating itself favoring slower rate of growth of this power), and have shuttled among govt, TBTF business and ‘hedge funds’, and certain elite academic institutions finally forming an inchoate/choate guardian council to safeguard this system.

They actively subvert open democratic processes with internal club (and therefore legal) rules designed to buffer the will of the people as expressed by vote, VETOING the people’s choice for leaders if it is not ‘consistent’ with what they regard as best for their club, which they think (self arrogatingly) is best for the nation.

Imagine, given what we have just seen in Colorado, and with the so called superdelegates defying the votes for Bernie, WHAT WE DO NOT SEE.

They disallow and bury laws in process they deem unfit, even though these laws may have wide popular support, and pass laws damaging to the nation and its workers, and are UNPOPULAR, but benefit their class (TPP anyone?)

Now no one is getting hung from a crane, and so far there is no American Evin.

But we can see how VIGILANT the people must be in order to fulfill this experiment and GOVERN OURSELVES…as opposed to dully accept (not consent) governance by a self commending, self congratulating, arrogant elite, who mistake ability to hold power for EXPERTISE IN DEMOCRATIC RULE.

So if an image is worth a thousand words…

A caucus demonstrates effort to choose. Closed primaries are better. But the current system must be replaced…

Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 9 Comments

Finally: Putin retreats after Josh Earnest admonishes him in public!

Ok, so the SU-24 Fencer is not the world’s most modern attack aircraft.

But I do have a feeling this is a little awkward, and a few questions.
Was the firing solution set?
Were the Phalanxes pivoting and following with the Fencers?
Was IVAN bathed in Aegis microwave radiation as he passed?
Or maybe there was a sign painted on the quarterdeck under the new Obama rules of engagement.

Here is my contention.

IVAN should be SO WORRIED we are liable to fire, being unpredictable and occasionally hair triggered, on aircraft running practice attack profiles, that they NEVER DO THIS.


Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 6 Comments

US European Command Releases Video Of Russian Jet Buzzing US Ship…

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 0 Comments

Trump Campaign Mngr, Corey Lewandowski, Will NOT Be Charged - The Gateway Pundit Video Helped Expose Michelle Fields Accusations Against Trump Campaign as COMPLETE HOAX

On Wednesday night Politico reported that Donald Trump Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski will not be charged for a hoax assault on reporter Michelle Fields.

She made it up.

Unfortunately, a lot of Cruz supporters stood with the liar.

Michelle Fields is a fucking liar, IMO. Fuck her.

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 4 Comments

Humpday Blues

Memphis Slim
I'm Lost Without You

T-Bone Walker
Don't Throw Your Love On Me So Strong

Otis Rush
I Can't Quit You Baby

Lonnie Johnson
Another Night To Cry

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 0 Comments

NY Post:

ISIS puts out hit on Huma

ISIS on Wednesday put out a hit list targeting moderate Muslims — including top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
The list — in the latest edition of the terror group’s magazine Dabiq– targets several other prominent Muslims including US Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota and British pols Sayeeda Warsi and Sajid Javid.
Abedin, the wife of former rep. Anthony Weiner, and other targets are branded “overt crusaders” and “politically active apostates,” who “involve themselves in the politics and enforcing laws of the kufr [disbelievers].”
Clinton spokesman Glen Caplin told The Post he had no comment about ISIS’ hit list.

the rest here


Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 7 Comments

I'm going to let Pastorius add whatever graphics he feels necessary here...


Mother Jones (oh just get over it)

The Time Ted Cruz Defended a Ban on Dildos

His legal team argued there was no right "to stimulate one's genitals."

In one chapter of his campaign book, A Time for Truth, Sen. Ted Cruz proudly chronicles his days as a Texas solicitor general, a post he held from 2003 to 2008. Bolstering his conservative cred, the Republican presidential candidate notes that during his stint as the state's chief lawyer, in front of the Supreme Court and federal and state appellate courts he defended the inclusion of "under God" in the "Pledge of Allegiance," the display of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the state Capitol, a congressional redistricting plan that assisted Republicans, a restrictive voter identification law, and a ban on late-term abortions. He also described cases in which he championed gun rights and defended the conviction of a Mexican citizen who raped and murdered two teenage girls in a case challenged by the World Court. Yet one case he does not mention is the time he helped defend a law criminalizing the sale of dildos.
The case was actually an important battle concerning privacy and free-speech rights. In 2004, companies that owned Austin stores selling sex toys and a retail distributor of such products challenged a Texas law outlawing the sale and promotion of supposedly obscene devices. Under the law, a person who violated the statute could go to jail for up to two years. At the time, only three states—Mississippi, Alabama, and Virginia—had similar laws. (The previous year, a Texas mother who was a sales rep for Passion Parties was arrested by two undercover cops for selling vibrators and other sex-related goods at a gathering akin to a Tupperware party for sex toys. No doubt, this had worried businesses peddling such wares.) The plaintiffs in the sex device case contended the state law violated the right to privacy under the 14th Amendment. They argued that many people in Texas used sexual devices as an aspect of their sexual experiences. They claimed that in some instances one partner in a couple might be physically unable to engage in intercourse or have a contagious disease (such as HIV), and that in these cases such devices could allow a couple to engage in safe sex.
But a federal judge sent them packing, ruling that selling sex toys was not protected by the Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and Cruz's solicitor general office had the task of preserving the law.
In 2007, Cruz's legal team, working on behalf of then-Attorney General Greg Abbott (who now is the governor), filed a 76-page brief calling on the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to uphold the lower court's decision and permit the law to stand. The filing noted, "The Texas Penal Code prohibits the advertisement and sale of dildos, artificial vaginas, and other obscene devices" but does not "forbid the private use of such devices." The plaintiffs had argued that this case was similar to Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down Texas' law against sodomy. But Cruz's office countered that Lawrence "focused on interpersonal relationships and the privacy of the home" and that the law being challenged did not block the "private use of obscene devices." Cruz's legal team asserted that "obscene devices do not implicate any liberty interest." And its brief added that "any alleged right associated with obscene devices" is not "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions." In other words, Texans were free to use sex toys at home, but they did not have the right to buy them.

The brief insisted that Texas, in order to protect "public morals," had  "police-power interests" in "discouraging prurient interests in sexual gratification, combating the commercial sale of sex, and protecting minors." There was a  "government" interest, it maintained, in "discouraging…autonomous sex." The brief compared the use of sex toys to "hiring a willing prostitute or engaging in consensual bigamy," and it equated advertising these products with the commercial promotion of prostitution. In perhaps the most noticeable line of the brief, Cruz's office declared, "There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one's genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship." That is, the pursuit of such happiness had no constitutional standing. And the brief argued there was no "right to promote dildos, vibrators, and other obscene devices." The plaintiffs, it noted, were "free to engage in unfettered noncommercial speech touting the uses of obscene devices," but not speech designed to generate the sale of these items.
The brief by Cruz's office compared the use of sex toys to "hiring a willing prostitute or engaging in consensual bigamy," and it equated advertising these products with the commercial promotion of prostitution.

In a 2-1 decision issued in February 2008, the court of appeals told Cruz's office to take a hike. The court, citing Lawrence, pointed to the "right to be free from governmental intrusion regarding 'the most private human contact, sexual behavior.'" The panel added, "An individual who wants to legally use a safe sexual device during private intimate moments alone or with another is unable to legally purchase a device in Texas, which heavily burdens a constitutional right." It rejected the argument from Cruz's team that the government had a legitimate role to play in "discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex and the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation." No, government officials could not claim as part of their job duties the obligation to reduce masturbation or nonprocreative sexual activity. And the two judges in the majority slapped aside the solicitor general's attempt to link dildos to prostitution: "The sale of a device that an individual may choose to use during intimate conduct with a partner in the home is not the 'sale of sex' (prostitution)."
Summing up, the judges declared, "The case is not about public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex. It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the State is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct. This is an insufficient justification for the statute after Lawrence...Whatever one might think or believe about the use of these devices, government interference with their personal and private use violates the Constitution."
The appeals court had rejected the arguments from Cruz's office and said no to Big Government policing the morals of citizens. But Abbott and Cruz wouldn't give up. Of course, they might have initially felt obligated to mount a defense of this state law. But after it had been shot down, they pressed ahead, relying on the same puritanical and excessive arguments to justify government intrusion. Abbott and Cruz quickly filed a brief asking the full court of appeals to hear the case, claiming the three-judge panel had extended the scope of Lawrence too far. This brief suggested that if the decision stood, some people would argue that "engaging in consensual adult incest or bigamy" ought to be legal because it could "enhance their sexual experiences." And Cruz's office filed another brief noting it was considering taking this case to the Supreme Court.
Cruz and Abbott lost the motion for a hearing from the full court of appeals. And the state soon dropped the case, opting not to appeal to the Supreme Court. This meant that the government could no longer outlaw the sale of dildos, vibrators, and other sex-related devices in the Lone Star State—and in Mississippi and Louisiana, the two other states within this appeals court's jurisdiction.
The day after the appeals court wiped out the Texas law, Cruz forwarded an email to the lawyer in his office who had overseen the briefs in the case. It included a blog post from legal expert Eugene Volokh headlined, "Dildoes Going to the Supreme Court?" and a sympathetic note from William Thro, then the solicitor general of Virginia. "Having had the experience of answering questions about oral sex from a female State Supreme Court Justice who is also a grandmother," Thro wrote Cruz, "you have my sympathy. :-) Seriously, if you do go for cert [with the Supreme Court] and if we can help, let me know." But for whatever reason—Cruz certainly doesn't explain in his book—Abbott and he did not take the dildo ban to the Supreme Court. And Cruz, who was already thinking about running for elected office, missed out on the chance to gain national attention as an advocate for the just-say-no-to-vibrators cause. Imagine how his political career might have been affected had Cruz become the public face for the anti-dildos movement.


Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 12 Comments

Older Posts Newer Posts