Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us


The Russian Briar Patch



When Br’er Rabbit was caught by being glued to a tar baby, then tied to a pole by Br’er Fox, he pleaded, “Oh, do anything you want but please don’t throw me in that briar patch!” Convinced this was the worst thing he could do to Br’er Rabbit, the foolish Br’er Fox did just that. Br’er Rabbit used the briars to scrape off the tar and escape.

For a month the fake news media and Democrats have been mumbling “special prosecutor” or “special investigator” and most on the right (though not Donald Trump himself) have been recoiling, thinking it would be the beginning of the end.

Well, it is . . . for the Democrats and their fake news Russia meme. But also, possibly, for a host of other baddies, including James Comey, John Podesta, and even Hillary Clinton.

The appointment of Robert Mueller as a special investigator—a career Washington guy, but one that pretty much both sides agree is a no-nonsense, by-the-book investigator—led many on the left to celebrate their end times scenario. Except this is looking like “Left Behind.”

Trending: Lisa Page Confirms: The Chinese, Not The Russians, Hacked Hillary’s Emails

Mueller almost immediately confirmed that his investigation has a broad scope, implying he would be looking at the leaks as well as the “Russian” stuff. But once those doors open, the leaky trail will lead to the DNC, Podesta, and Clinton, and possibly even Seth Rich. Meanwhile, Mueller (to the shock of the left) requested the Congressional/Senate committees to stand down. From a pragmatic perspective, it was idiotic to have three or four (everyone has lost count) Congressional investigations going on, trying to interview the same witnesses, get the same documents, and otherwise stepping on each other’s, er, Johnsons. Mueller’s stand down request will be very hard, even impossible to ignore. Congress and the Senate cannot even appear to want to “get to the bottom” of this if they are actively standing in the way. My guess is they will comply. This was nearly the worst possible news for several reasons. First, the Democrats just lost control of the evidence. Mueller and his team now control that. One may suspect Mueller for some of his swamp ties, but there will be no Adam Schiffs or Maxine Waters involved, squashing unpleasant documents or denying the appearance of troublesome witnesses.

Second, the Mueller request now means that Congress, freed from these investigations, must actually do its damned job! That won’t sit well with many, but they have no excuse now. Mueller just may have re-elected the GOP House in 2018 against their will.

Third, by taking over the investigation, Mueller stopped 99% of the leaks. Special investigations are not known for their leaks. Regardless of which side these investigators are on, they are extremely protective of their vaunted power, and use it ruthlessly against anyone who dumps documents—and that includes indictments. Now, to be sure, Trump must play along and stay off Twitter in regards to the investigation itself, but he handled that issue well in his first post-Mueller-appointment question: “Next question.” If Team Trump sticks to “no comment,” the fake news media will be hard pressed to keep asking the same thing after 100 “no comments.”

Then there is Comey, who said he would testify before the Senate. Bad move, Jim. He will certainly have willing little orc-allies in the Senate who will ask setup questions, but sooner or later he will get a question on the memo.

Senator Foghorn Leghorn: “Was there a memo?”

Think, very hard, Jim, before you answer. If you say “yes,” Leghorn will demand you produce it. Then it better say what you said it said.

Say he did have a memo and say it did record that Trump said “I hope . . .” Next question from Leghorn:

“Did you take that as obstruction of justice?” Welcome to the tar baby.

If Comey says “Yes,” he is himself guilty of obstructing justice by not reporting. “Hello Mr. Mueller. Oh, is that an indictment in your hand?”

Yes, but what about Trump? Trump’s response would be “When I said ‘I hope’ I was just expressing the hope that we could get the investigation finished, wrapped up, and move on. I wasn’t referring to stopping the investigation.” Really, really hard to prove obstruction on that. Rather, damn near impossible. Meanwhile, Comey is being fitted for the orange jumpsuit.

But if Comey says, “No I did not take Trump’s words as obstruction” he is free—but Trump is totally off the hook.

And Comey will be asked if he told Trump that he was not the target of the investigation. If he says “no” and Trump has tapes, hello orange jumpsuit. If he says “yes,” once again Trump is totally cleared.

Throughout all this, Mueller has the authority to go after leaks, which will inevitably end up at the DNC. It’s possible that a Carter Page or Mike Flynn will end up with a really low Dinesh D’Souza type charge, but nothing will attach to Trump because after a year of the FBI and CIA investigating Trump under Obama, they got zilch. But when Mueller digs into the DNC stuff, there may be a thread leading to Seth Rich. Then it will be the Democrats and Hillary Clinton screaming for the briar patch.


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


CNN: Hurricanes Kill People Because of Sexism



CNN headline news: Hurricanes kill people because THEY’RE SEXIST.

In the wake of Hurricane Harvey ripping through Texas, a 2016 CNN article has resurfaced on my feminist Twitter feed, titled: “Female hurricanes are deadlier than male hurricanes, study says.” Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, I guess.

It would make more sense if they believed female hurricanes were actually more violent than male hurricanes — women being the more vengeful and vindictive of the sexes — but no, femininity is absolved, because it’s sexism that justifies female meteorological aggression.

According to this dubious study, female-named hurricanes result in more death and destruction than male-named hurricanes, because people prepare less for them. And this all has to do with our sexist notion that women are weaker than men:

“Feminine-named hurricanes (vs. masculine-named hurricanes) cause significantly more deaths, apparently because they lead to a lower perceived risk and consequently less preparedness,” a team of researchers wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“In other words, a hurricane named ‘Priscilla’ probably wouldn’t be taken as seriously as a hurricane named ‘Bruno,’ which might spark more fear and prompt more people to flee.”

Either CNN must take the general human population for complete idiots, or their newsroom is ideologically brainwashed and braindead. This study is just a sad waste of tax money.

By Brant Kelly – _DSC9079.jpg, CC BY 2.0,

I never thought I would see the day when I have to spell out to feminists that hurricanes are not people. They possess no sentient or sexual characteristics. They’re freaking CLOUDS. Hurricane names are picked from a predetermined list, the names have nothing to do with the severity of the storm. Everybody knows this.

Meteorologists aren’t mulling in their laboratories, going “gee, this hurricane on the gulf coast has windspeeds of 100 mph; sounds like a Butch, what do you think? Oh, but the next one over in California is only at 80mph; let’s name it Sally!”

How utterly dumb must someone be to dismiss a deadly hurricane and stay at home just because it’s named Katrina instead of Kevin? Virtually nobody, or they are hopelessly stupid and deserve to be drowned under a flooding attic.

That’s right — all of those poor, dead people? They all died just because they hate women. It is the fate feminists want to befall on all those who dare question the superiority — I mean, equality, er um, equity — of women.

Of course, this isn’t what feminists are actually saying. In reality, their theory is much more absurd.

They say gender bias is unconscious. Our sexist notions are so deeply ingrained in our instincts, that even though we “know” that a hurricane is just a hurricane, whether named Christopher or Christina, our preconceived notions about the sexes are so deeply rooted in our minds that they taint our judgments and actions without ourselves realizing it. In order to undo this instinctual sexism, our minds must be constantly on the alert for “wrongthink,” purified with the ideology of feminism.

CNN’s so-called “study”? This is the drivel that passes these days as the scientific method:

“In one experiment, participants predicted the intensity of 10 hurricanes — five with female names and five with male names. The male hurricanes were deemed more intense — regardless of the gender of the participant.

That’s right. Researchers literally just questioned participants in the experiment to judge the severity of several hypothetical storms, only given their names. No other information.

Side note: the male hurricanes were deemed more intense regardless of the gender of the participant. Men are not the exclusive perpetrators of sexism here. Ah, but they’re not let off the hook. I’m sure each of those female participants was just a victim of “internalized misogyny” — which means women can only hold prejudice towards other women by learning it from a male-dominated society.

“In another test, participants were asked to judge the risks of a hypothetical “Hurricane Alexander” and a “Hurricane Alexandra.” Despite being told both had uncertain intensity, respondents considered Hurricane Alexander to be riskier.

Of course people are going to judge female storms as milder than males storms — you’ve given them no other information to go on. It’s a rigged experiment.

“A third experiment tested whether participants would be more likely to evacuate due to a “Hurricane Christopher” vs. a “Hurricane Christina.” As expected, more people would flee their homes if Hurricane Christopher came barreling toward them compared to an impending Hurricane Christina.”

How convenient that another study has already debunked this entire concept.

The government-subsidized study confirming implicit sexism in hurricane fatalities relies completely on restricted data that’s sensitive to the study’s conclusion. If there’s an implicitly sexist reaction to hurricane names, there should also be a sexist response to tropical storm names. Guess what? There isn’t! Hurricane Alberto in 1994 caused 30 deaths and $1 billion in damage, and from 2010-14, 18 tropical storms off the Atlantic wreaked 235 deaths.

What about hurricanes that didn’t make landfall? They would have seen that male-named storms such as hurricane Bill in 1991 were also not taken seriously, not because of sexism, but because of real-life circumstances.

They also excluded fatalities outside of the United States (how ethno-centric of those feminists!). In 1980, Hurricane Allen racked 269 deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border and $1 billion in damage.

Once the hypothesis is applied to a broader or entirely different data sets, it doesn’t appear to apply anymore. Color me surprised.

This claim of implicit sexism is just another way that feminists are belittling these disasters, blaming fairytale sexism instead of dysfunctional government responses and a lack of human charity and foresight for increased damage and destruction.

Storms used to be only given female names — but that changed when feminists complained that such a practice was sexist. Roxcy Bolton was noted as stating: “Women are not disasters, destroying life and communities and leaving a lasting and devastating effect.”

I don’t know about that — when you let women vote, be single mothers, hold elected positions, rob men in divorce courts, open the borders to hostile populations, and practice unrestrained sexual liberation, they’re worse than hurricanes. Women destroy entire civilizations.

And with that, I’ll hunker down and wait out the coming storm, because it looks like there’s nowhere to run from the rising flood of feminism.



Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×

Thanks for sharing!

We invite you to become a Big League Politics insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend