Barry's take...

Hate crime. Kills 9.

The Confederate flag needs to come down. His crime demands the complete removal of our Southern history. Statues of prominent Confederate generals  across the country need to be removed as well as street names such as Robert E. Lee Blvd need to be changed because we are so offended by our Southern heritage we simply can't survive... although we have survived quite well since the Civil War. I'm not defending this guy. Just an observation. Who comes off as the bigger threat. A red neck racist or a Muslim terrorist? 

Hate Crime. Kills 50 (so far)

Can't bring himself to call this dog a Muslim terrorist although he singlehandedly killed more people in a terrorist attack than anyone else since 911! After all, he's just practicing his religious freedom, Sharia Law, which requires the killing of homosexuals. The... "confusion" over what bathroom to use may have been the last straw'. 

BTW... Why is the answer to terrorism always gun control but they never address who pulls the trigger. When did guns start walking into nightclubs and firing by themselves?

Brace yourself for the onslaught of Muslims racing to the nearest news network to denounce this latest attack.

This is the way the liberal mindset works: 

Barry's take...

3rd time a charm? San Francisco to try yet again to give illegal immigrants voting rights

This entire article could be summed up in one sentence. If you are against illegals voting it's because you're a racist. 

After reading the article why would anyone not want to come here illegally? What is the deterrent? Why be frustrated standing in line when you can just walk right in?

Another example of out-and-out insanity:

Tempers Flare When Huntington Park Appoints Undocumented Immigrants To City Commissions

----------------------------------

After two failed bids to grant voting rights to illegal immigrants, some San Francisco officials believe they have found the man who can make it happen: Donald Trump.

A proposed charter amendment drafted by Board of Supervisors member Eric Mar would give illegal immigrants with kids in the public school system the right to vote in school elections. Voters have rejected two previous ballot proposals, but Mar is betting on anti-Trump sentiment to carry the pro-illegal immigrant proposal if he can get it on the November ballot.

“With Donald Trump’s racist and anti-immigrant sentiments, there is a reaction from many of us who are disgusted by those politics," Mar said. "I think that’s going to ensure there is strong Latino turnout as well as other immigrant turnout.”

A key promise in Trump's campaign for the Republican nomination for president has been to build a wall on the Mexican border. This week, Trump claimed a federal judge overseeing a lawsuit against Trump University wouldn’t be impartial because he is of Mexican heritage.

Mar staffers confirmed the measure will go before the rules committee within weeks, and could then be presented to the full board of supervisors. If a majority support it, the charter amendment will be on the ballot Nov. 8 when the city and nation votes for president.

“The time is right for San Francisco to make history, to pave the way for immigrant parents to have a say in the policy decisions that impact their child’s education and who gets to sit on the Board of Education,” Mar said in a written statement.

In 2004, voters narrowly rejected the same proposal. A similar measure, introduced by California Assemblymember David Chiu, D-San Francisco, failed in 2010 with just 46 percent of the vote. 

just 46 percent!!!

Chiu believes Trump's presence on the ballot, and the fact that one of every three children in the system is now the child of an immigrant parent could make the third time a charm.

(This is an extremely serious situation which Californians are too stupid to realize. You see in their mind there is no distinction between illegal/immigrant. They will probably have to run it up to 9 out of every 10 in the system is illegal before they realize they just surrendered their own country to foreigners) 

Name me another country that even thinks about giving illegals the right to vote?

“With the anti-immigrant rhetoric from Donald Trump, it is more important than ever that we come together as San Franciscans to stand up for our immigrant communities and support their civic engagement,” Chiu said in a written statement.

The plan is “bad public policy,” according to Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation and former Federal Elections Commission member.

“It is wrong to extend the vote to individuals who have not entered the American social compact or made a commitment to the our Constitution, our law, and our cultural and political heritage by becoming citizens,” von Spakovsky said. “It is even worse to extend the franchise to illegal aliens whose very first act is to violate our laws; that encourages contempt for the law.”

While laws in all 50 states bar noncitizens from voting in state elections, and federal law makes it a felony for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, there is an opening in local elections, von Spakovsky acknowledged.

Seven jurisdictions - including 6 in Maryland and one in Chicago – afforded voting rights to noncitizens, Ron Hayduk, a political science professor at Queens College of the City University of New York, told the Chronicle.

3rd time a charm? San Francisco to try yet again to give illegal immigrants voting rights

Muslim massacres 50 in Orlando

Barry only spoke for a handful of minutes, but reminded the country of his position on gun control, though didn't bring up 'radical Islamic terror'.

Why acknowledge the significance of the person's ideology who perpetrated the crime? I mean... it's not like he was as bad as this red neck George Wallace/David Duke protégé which demanded the total destruction of our Southern heritage.



It could have been worse. Had this bastard been working at the Pulse nightclub. 

It would have been deemed workplace violence.

Muslim massacres 50 in Orlando

Pay to Play

Another sign Hillary Clinton's State Department was for sale

In the latest case of donors to Hillary Clinton's personal causes winning favor from the Clinton State Department, meet Rajiv Fernando.

The head of a Chicago-based high-frequency-trading firm, Fernando got a seat on the International Security Advisory Board, a group of nuclear scientists, ex-Cabinet secretaries and other experts that looks at the risks of nuclear war.

That puzzled his new fellows: "We had no idea who he was," one ISAB member told ABC News during its investigation.

Thanks to e-mails uncovered by the watchdog group Citizens United after a years-long Freedom of Information battle, we now know that Fernando was put on the board at the direction of Cheryl Mills, Clinton's chief of staff at State (and now her personal attorney).

ABC actually started asking questions about Fernando back in 2011. The e-mails show regular State staffers were themselves puzzled about how he'd gotten the job — and were told by Clinton's flunkies to "stall" on answering ABC.

Before any answer went out, Fernando quit, and the story died.

In advance of getting the prestigious position, he'd been a big Hillary donor, maxing out donations to her presidential PAC in 2007 and 2008, and bundling over 100 grand. He'd also given more than $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation — later rising that to at least $1 million. He's also bundled for her current White House run. And he'll be a Hillary superdelegate at the Democratic Convention.

(But it's not rigged)

In unrelated news, Clinton this week doubled down on her promises to clean up Wall Street once she becomes president. Right.

Pay to Play

So much for “security inquiry”

White House confirms 'criminal' probe over Clinton emails, 'shreds' campaign claim

Perhaps it was an unguarded moment, but the White House has seemingly confirmed that the Justice Department is conducting a “criminal investigation” regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email use – despite persistent claims from the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee that investigators are pursuing a mere “security inquiry.”

Press Secretary Josh Earnest used the term at Thursday’s briefing, after being asked by Fox News about whether President Obama’s newly unveiled endorsement of Clinton might apply pressure to investigators assigned to the Clinton case.

Earnest rejected the premise, saying the job of career prosecutors is to follow the evidence to its logical conclusion.

“That's why the president, when discussing this issue in each stage, has reiterated his commitment to this principle that any criminal investigation should be conducted independent of any sort of political interference,” Earnest said. 

The Republican National Committee seized on the use of the term “criminal investigation.”

“The White House’s admission that the FBI is investigating Hillary Clinton’s email server as a ‘criminal’ matter shreds her dishonest claim that it is a routine ‘security inquiry,’” RNC spokesman Michael Short said in a statement. 

Asked Friday to clarify his comments, Earnest said he hasn’t been “briefed” by the Justice Department and had no particular “insight” to give. 

In fact, FBI Director James Comey had already shot down the Clinton campaign’s terminology last month. Asked at the time by Fox News about Clinton's characterization of the bureau's probe, Comey said he doesn’t know what "security inquiry" means -- adding, “We’re conducting an investigation. … That’s what we do.”

Yet days earlier, Clinton in an interview had downplayed the probe as a “security inquiry.”

And her campaign website still asserts there is no criminal investigation.

On a campaign ‘factsheet’ about the email controversy, the website includes this Q&A:

“Is Department of Justice conducting a criminal inquiry into Clinton’s email use?

No. As the Department of Justice and Inspectors General made clear, the IGs made a security referral. This was not criminal in nature as misreported by some in the press. The Department of Justice is now seeking assurances about the storage of materials related to Clinton’s email account.”

Clinton has voiced confidence all along that, no matter what it’s called, the probe will not result in an indictment.

She said so again on Wednesday during an interview with Fox News. 

“That is not going to happen. There is no basis for it, and I'm looking forward to this being wrapped up as soon as possible,” she said.

The Wall Street Journal reported overnight that investigators handling the “criminal probe” are focusing on emails that discussed drone strikes in Pakistan.

So much for “security inquiry”