Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for the ‘Opinion’ Category

Ann Coulter Alert: Why the New York Times Is Unreformable and Must Die


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Aug 21, 2019 4:00 PM

Why the New York Times Is Unreformable and Must Die Source: AP Photo/Mark Lennihan

Even before The New York Times launched its “All Slavery, All the Time” project, no one could accuse that paper of skimping on its race coverage, particularly stories about black males killed by white(ish) police officers.

Here’s one you haven’t heard about. I happened upon it by sheer accident.

Antwon Rose II was a 17-year-old boy shot by an East Pittsburgh police officer in June 2018 after he bolted from a jitney car that had been stopped by the officer. The Times published about a half-dozen stories on Antwon Rose — or as the Times calls him, “Antwon, who was unarmed.”

After the officer was acquitted on all charges in March of this year, the Times ran an article by Adeel Hassan on the verdict.

Here’s what you would learn from the Times:

— Antwon was unarmed.

— Antwon “was in his high school’s honors program.”

— Antwon “played basketball and the saxophone.”

— Antwon “volunteered for a local charity.”

— In 2016, Antwon wrote a poem titled, “I Am Not What You Think!” which included these lines:

I see mothers bury their sons

I want my Mom to never feel that pain.

— A policeman stopped the gold Chevy Cruze Antwon “was riding in” because it “matched the description” of a car “involved” in a drive-by shooting minutes earlier.

— The jury consisted of nine whites and three African Americans.

If you read the Times piece, all you would know is that an honor student who loved his mom…was KILLED for the crime of riding in a car similar to one that had just been used in a crime.

Wow. Just wow.

Here are some of the facts the Times left out:

— The gold Chevy Cruze Antwon fled did not merely “match the description of” a car used in a drive-by shooting: It was the car used in the drive-by shooting, as proved by surveillance video posted online days after the shooting and shown to the jury.

— The video shows 13 shots being fired from the back seat of that exact car, with — according to the prosecutor — Antwon riding in the front seat.

— The backseat passenger, Zaijuan Hester, later pleaded guilty to the drive-by shooting.

— One of the victims of the drive-by shooting told police it was Antwon who shot him. “The beef was between me and him,” William Ross told a Pennsylvania State Police officer. “That car came by, he shot me, I ran to the store.”

— The jitney driver told police that, right before the shooting started, he heard the backseat passenger ask, “Is that him?”

— The gun used in the drive-by was recovered in the back seat of the car.

— A stolen gun was found under Antwon’s seat, an empty magazine in Antwon’s pants pocket, and there was gunpowder residue on Antwon’s hands.

— The car stopped by the officer was riddled with bullet holes.

— The jury that unanimously acquitted the officer was led by an African American foreman, who stoutly defended the verdict.

None of that made it into the Times story on the trial’s conclusion.

I’m glad that Antwon did charity work, but isn’t it rather more important that he had participated in a drive-by shooting of two other black guys 13 minutes before being stopped by a police officer?

That’s not conjecture or speculation. Hassan wasn’t writing about the case the day after the shooting. These are facts that were presented in court and copiously reported by the local media — even in the British press.

Normal Person to The New York Times: Why did you say the car “matched the description” of the car used in a drive-by shooting — but not say that it WAS the car used in the drive-by shooting?

NYT: I’m sorry, who are you and do you have a press pass?

Normal Person: You didn’t mention that a stolen gun was found under Antwon’s seat and a matching cartridge in Antwon’s pocket???

NYT: We only have so much space and I needed room for Antwon’s poem.

Normal Person: You didn’t have space to say that gun residue was found on Antwon’s hands?

NYT: I could have run more of the poem. It was a good poem.

Normal Person: Or that one of the victims of the drive-by said Antwon was the one who shot him?

NYT: The officer didn’t know that.

Normal Person: Did the officer know about Antwon’s A.P. classes? It goes to the likelihood of his behavior being perceived as threatening. The officer could certainly see that the car’s back window had been shot out.

NYT: You’re a white supremacist and white nationalist and, yes, I know they’re different, but you’re both.

There’s no reason to think this isn’t standard operating procedure at the Times. The editors can’t say, OK, OK, that one got past us! 

The Times has told wild lies about the racist shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri (false), the racist arrest of Freddie Gray in Baltimore (false), the racist shooting of Trayvon Martin in Florida (false), the racist gang-rape of a black stripper by a Duke lacrosse team (false) and so on.

Antwon Rose’s shooting wasn’t even a flood-the-zone, hair-on-fire story. But the Times lied about it, too.

This is a newspaper that cannot be trusted on anything touching on race. They’re liars and ideologues, not reporters and editors.

Ann Coulter’s Latest Book Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind is available on Amazon

Ann Coulter Letter: Mueller Has a Reputation…


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jul 24, 2019 4:50 PM

URL of the original posting site: https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2019/07/24/mueller-has-a-reputation—p–n2550571

Mueller Has a Reputation...

Source: AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

It is apparently part of Robert Mueller’s contract with the media that he must always be described as “honorable” and a “lifelong Republican.” (After this week, we can add “dazed and confused” to his appellation.)

If it matters that Mueller is a “lifelong Republican,” then I guess it matters that he hired a team of left-wing zealots. Of the 17 lawyers in Mueller’s office, 14 are registered Democrats. Not one is a registered Republican. In total, they have donated more than $60,000 to Democratic candidates.

Congressman Steve Chabot listed the Democratic political activism of nine of Mueller’s staff attorneys at a December 2017 House hearing.

Here are a few from Chabot’s list:

— Kyle Freeny contributed to both Obama campaigns and to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
— Andrew Goldstein donated $3,300 to both Obama campaigns.
— Elizabeth Prelogar contributed to both the Obama and Clinton campaigns.
— Jeannie Rhee donated $16,000 to Democrats, contributed $5,400 to the Clinton campaign — and represented Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation in several lawsuits.
— Andrew Weissmann contributed $2,000 to the Democratic National Committee, $2,300 to the Obama campaign and $2,300 to the Clinton Campaign.

None had donated to the Trump campaign.

The media brushed off the conspicuous anti-Trump bias in Mueller’s office with platitudes about how prosecutors are, “allowed to have political opinions,” as Jeffrey Toobin said on CNN. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein assured the public that their “views are not in any way a factor in how they conduct themselves in office.”

Obviously, no one believes this — otherwise “lifelong Republican” wouldn’t be spot-welded to Mueller’s name.

In a fiery rebuke at the hearings this week, Mueller denounced complaints about all the diehard Democrats on his legal team, saying, “I’ve been in this business for almost 25 years, and in those 25 years I have not had occasion once to ask somebody about their political affiliation. It is not done.”

No kidding. He’s been director of the FBI. He’s been acting U.S. deputy attorney general. He’s been a U.S. attorney. He’s never been an independent counsel investigating the president before.

But lawyers on a special counsel’s investigation of the president of the United States aren’t supposed to be hungry. They’re supposed to be fair.

As for Mueller being “honorable,” Steven Hatfill and the late Sen. Ted Stevens might beg to differ.

After the 2001 anthrax attacks, the FBI, under Director Mueller’s close supervision, spent SEVEN YEARS pursuing Hatfill, a U.S. Army biodefense researcher. Year after year, the real culprit went about his life undisturbed — until he committed suicide when, at last, the FBI zeroed in on him.

Mueller was deeply involved in the anthrax investigation, recruiting the lead investigator on the case and working “in lockstep” with him, according to a book on the case, “The Mirage Man” by David Willman.

During this multi-year investigation of the wrong man, Mueller assured Attorney General John Ashcroft, as well as two U.S. senators that Hatfill was the anthrax mailer. Presciently, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz asked then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey if he was sure Hatfill wasn’t another Richard Jewell, an innocent man who, a few years earlier, had been publicly identified by the FBI as the main Olympic bombing suspect. Comey replied that he was “absolutely certain that it was Hatfill.”

Recommended

Good Riddance To Bob Mueller

Kurt Schlichter

The hounding of Steven Hatfill finally ended in 2008, with the bureau paying the poor man millions of dollars. In open court, a federal judge, Reggie B. Walton, assailed Mueller’s FBI for its handling of the case. Far from apologizing, the director stoutly defended the bureau’s relentless pursuit of the blameless Hatfill, saying: “I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation.” He said it would be incorrect “to say there were mistakes.”

Maybe he can use that line to defend the similarly monomaniacal zealots he put on the Russia investigation.

Eight days before the 2008 elections, the government convicted Sen. Stevens of failing to properly report gifts on his Senate financial forms. The longest-serving Republican in Senate history lost his re-election by less than 2 percent of the vote.

Months later — too late for Stevens’ political career — Obama Attorney General Eric Holder moved for a dismissal of all charges against Stevens after discovering that the government had failed to turn over crucial exculpatory evidence. The trial judge not only threw out the charges, but angrily ordered an independent counsel to investigate the investigators.

Unlike the disastrous Hatfill case, the extent of Mueller’s oversight of the Stevens investigation is less clear. Was he aware of the bureau’s malicious pursuit of a sitting U.S. senator on the eve of his re-election? Either he was, which is awful, or he wasn’t — which is worse.

In addition to “honorable,” another way of describing Mueller is: “Too Corrupt for Eric Holder.” 

Ann Coulter’s Latest Book Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind is available on Amazon

I Stand With Rush: Time To Take Action


Written by Lloyd Marcus on July 8, 2019

Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh passionately responded to a column which warned of a growing anti-Americanism in our country. Rush told his millions of listeners, “We are facing it right now, not 10 years from now.” Rush said do not misinterpret his concern to mean he has lost hope and given up on saving America. He said to view his rant as a clarion call for all who love our country to take action. Rush explained that he is not encouraging violence, but to simply start saying, “No!”

In essence, Rush is saying to stop passively permitting spoiled brat anti-American leftists to trash our flag, pull down historical monuments, demonize patriotism and our Christian founding. Stop allowing leftists to poison the minds of our youths with hatred for their country.

I share Rush’s frustration, particularly as it relates to my fellow black Americans.

Due to their criminal activities involving illegal drugs, two beloved black millennial relatives are in the hospital. One was severely beaten and the other is fighting for his life. Both young men live in Baltimore which is one of the cities controlled by Democrats, plagued with record levels of black on black crime.

Frustratingly, both young relatives are infected with Colin Kapernick’s, Democrats’ and fake news media’s bogus negative view of America. They believe being black in this awful racist country justifies them doing whatever necessary, legal or illegal, to survive.

Both young men were raised with Christian principles and values. If my dad, Dr Rev Lloyd E. Marcus was still alive, they would be too ashamed to look him in the eye. While I hold my relatives accountable for their bad behavior, it is unarguable that allowing Democrats, public education, entertainment and social media to fill our youths heads with hatred for their country has reaped devastating consequences.

Unfortunately, several members of my family are infected with leftists’ anti-Americanism and hatred for Republicans and Trump. At a family gathering, I was tempted to stand in the middle of the room and proclaim, “Do y’all know Democrats want to kill babies, especially black babies, even after they are born? Do y’all know blacks are experiencing historic financial prosperity thanks to President Trump?

Along with allowing leftists to infect our youths with anti-Americanism, we are passively watching the swift transformation of our culture away from biblical morality. LGBTQ enforcers are abusing our children while cramming their evil agenda down our throats.

Many Christians still do not comprehend the tyrannical aggressiveness of the LGBTQ movement. A Christian minister friend of 30 years stopped speaking to me for writing articles about LGBTQ aggression. He is deceived by leftists’ manipulative false narrative that says not embracing the LGBTQ lifestyle means we hate them. The truth is not embracing their sin means we love them.

Christian relatives instructed me not to post my articles exposing the LGBTQ war on gender and Christianity on their Facebook pages. Meanwhile, a shocked relative approached me at a family picnic. The relative said when they offered a 7-year-old boy at the picnic a toy motorcycle, he said he didn’t want it because he is a girl. The relative noticed the lad was wearing a girl bracelet. Apparently, his parents are complicit in his gender confusion. I told the relative, “This is what I have been warning you guys about. This is the outrageous child abuse allowed to happen in our public schools.”

When my wife Mary read me this headline, I assumed it was fake. Sadly, it is not. “Kids Can Handle the Kink.” A deranged sex therapist said not only can children handle witnessing explicit sex acts during gay pride parades, but it is also beneficial to their healthy development. 

A devastated gentleman emailed me: “My granddaughter, who is not yet 15…began displaying the LGBT banner on Facebook, declared herself transgender, erroneously said the Bible is a bunch of myths written by bored old men, erroneously said the Catholic Church condemns all gay people to hell, literally told me to get my head out of my ass, and then unfriended me on FB. Gee, I wonder where she got those ideas.” His granddaughter’s mother also ended her relationship with him.

The evening of July 4th, our nation’s birthday, I watched a Youtube video of the Statue of Liberty song. Sadly, the lyrics are not embraced by far too many young Americans today.

“I’m so proud to be called an American

To be named with the brave and the free

I will honor our flag and our trust in God

And the statue of liberty”

I stand with Rush Limbaugh, folks. It is time that we take action to take back our country. It is time that we say no to anti-American traitors and anti-biblical cultural assassins.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American

The UK Guardian declared prolific writer, singer and songwriter Lloyd Marcus the Tea Party Movement’s most prominent African American; seen on Fox News, CNN and more. Rejecting hyphenating, Marcus is renowned for proclaiming, “I am NOT an African-American! I am Lloyd Marcus AMERICAN!!!” Marcus is Chairman of Conservative Campaign Committee PAC. It’s mission is to elect conservative candidates across America.

Was Thomas Jefferson On The Duke Lacrosse Team?


Commentary by Ann Coulter | Posted: Jul 03, 2019 6:15 PM

While tearing down everything that’s great about our country, the left has always permitted us to celebrate patriotic holidays. But this year, on the week that we commemorate the unveiling of the Declaration of Independence, Nike yanked a Betsy Ross tribute sneaker off the market because the American flag didn’t sit well with Colin Kaepernick.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is telling wild, provable lies about America’s border agents.

This Fourth of July, let’s look at the tactics used by the left to blacken the reputations of American heroes. To wit, the lie that the principal author of the declaration, Thomas Jefferson, fathered a child with his slave, Sally Hemings.

The charge was first leveled in 1802 by a muckraking, racist, alcoholic journalist, James Callender, who had served prison time for his particular brand of journalism. He had tried to blackmail Jefferson into appointing him postmaster at Richmond. When that failed, Callender retaliated by publicly accusing Jefferson of fathering the first-born son of Sally Hemings — or, as the charming Callender described her, “a slut as common as the pavement.”

No serious historian ever believed Callender’s defamation — not Dumas Malone, Merrill Peterson, Douglass Adair or John Chester Miller. Not one. Their reasoning was that there was absolutely no evidence to support the theory and plenty to contradict it.

The Jefferson-Hemings myth was revived by feminists trying to elevate the role of women in history. Modern pedagogy requires that no period of our past be taught without turning it into a lecture on racism, sexism or homophobia.

Fawn M. Brodie got the ball rolling with her 1974 book, “Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History,” which used Freudian analysis to prove Jefferson kept Hemings as his concubine and fathered all six of her children.

Brodie’s book was followed by Barbara Chase-Riboud’s 1979 novel “Sally Hemings,” a work that imagines Hemings’ interior life. When CBS announced plans to make a miniseries out of the novel, Jefferson scholars exploded, denouncing the project as a preposterous lie. The miniseries was canceled.

Finally, a female law professor, Annette Gordon-Reed, wrote “Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy,” which accused professional historians of racism for refusing to defer to the “oral history” of Hemings’ descendants.

She said “racism,” so the historians shut up.

In 1998, a retired pathologist, Dr. Eugene Foster, performed a DNA test on the Y-chromosomes of living male descendants of Sally Hemings, as well as those from Jefferson’s paternal uncle. The Y-chromosome is passed from male to male, so, if the story were true, Hemings’ male descendants ought to have the Y-chromosome of the Jefferson male bloodline.

Foster’s study did establish that Hemings’ last-born son, Eston, was the son of some Jefferson male, but could not possibly say whether that was Thomas Jefferson or any of the other 25 adult male Jeffersons living in Virginia at the time, eight of them at or near Monticello.

For Eston to be Jefferson’s son, we have to believe that five years after being falsely accused of fathering a child with Hemings, Jefferson decided, What the heck? I may be president of the United States, but I should prove Callender’s slander true by fathering a child with my slave!

It would be as if five years after the Duke lacrosse hoax, one of the falsely accused players went out and actually raped a stripper — in fact, the same stripper.

Nonetheless, Nature magazine titled its article on the study “Jefferson Fathered Slave’s Last Child.” Hundreds of newspapers rushed to print with the lie, e.g.:

“Study: Jefferson, Slave Had Baby” — Associated Press Online, Nov. 1, 1998

“DNA Study Shows Jefferson Fathered His Slave’s Child” — Los Angeles Times, Nov. 1, 1998

“Jefferson Exposed” — Boston Globe, Nov. 3, 1998

Two months after these false “findings” had been broadcast from every news outlet where English is spoken, Foster admitted that the DNA had not proved Jefferson fathered any children by Sally Hemings, merely that he could have fathered one child. Only eight newspapers mentioned the retraction.

The science alone puts the odds of Thomas Jefferson fathering Eston at less than 15% — less than 4%, if all living Jefferson males are considered, not just the ones at Monticello.

All other known facts about Jefferson make it far less probable still.

There are no letters, diaries or records supporting the idea that Jefferson was intimate with Hemings, and quite a bit of written documentation to refute it, including Jefferson’s views on miscegenation and his failure to free Hemings in his will, despite freeing several other slaves.

In private letters, Jefferson denounced Callender’s claim — a denial made more credible by his admission to a sexual indiscretion that would have been more shameful at the time: his youthful seduction of a friend’s wife.

None of the private correspondence from anyone else living at Monticello credited the Hemings rumor, though several pointed to other likely suspects — specifically Jefferson’s brother, Randolph.

Eston was born in 1808, when Thomas Jefferson was 64 years old and in his second term as president. His brother Randolph was 52, and Randolph’s five sons were 17 to 24 years old. All of them were frequent visitors at Monticello.

While Jefferson was busy entertaining international visitors in the main house, Randolph would generally retire to the slave quarters to dance and fiddle. One slave, Isaac Granger Jefferson, described Randolph in his dictated memoirs thus: “Old Master’s brother, Mass Randall, was a mighty simple man: used to come out among black people, play the fiddle and dance half the night.”

There is not a single account of Thomas Jefferson frequenting slave quarters. Nor did Jefferson take any interest in Hemings’ children. Randolph did, teaching all of Hemings’ sons to play the fiddle.

Randolph was an unmarried widower when Eston was conceived. After Randolph remarried, Hemings had no more children.

In response to DNA proof that only one of Hemings’ children was related to any Jefferson male — and her firstborn son was definitely NOT fathered by any Jefferson — the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, the Monticello Association and the National Genealogical Society promptly announced their official positions: Thomas Jefferson fathered all six of Hemings’ children! Guided tours of Monticello today include the provably false information that Jefferson fathered all of Hemings’ children.

So now you, at least, know the truth — not that it matters in the slightest. Happy Fourth of July!

Ann Coulter’s Latest Book Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind is available on Amazon

OPINION: Here’s What Tolerance For Sexual Deviancy Has Reaped


Last Sunday on Fox News’ “The Next Revolution,” referencing the effluvia of slander and histrionics being doled out by prominent leftists, host Steve Hilton stated that the Washington, D.C., political and media establishment have “lost their minds.”

While this may sound like hyperbole, some of the rhetoric coming from the left does have elements of clinical insanity. The insistence on the part of prominent Democrats that President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election despite having been cleared of this charge certainly qualifies. Claims that restrictions on abortion being considered in some states will kill black women (an abject fallacy in itself) whilst ignoring the black babies being killed by abortion in the absence of such measures also qualifies.

The most bizarre and incoherent ideas currently being advanced by the left have to do with gender. Only 20 years ago, the idea of same-sex “marriage” was considered ridiculous by a majority of Americans. Similarly, biological males competing in sporting events as females would have been considered not only absurd, but grossly unfair to biologically female athletes.

Today, these “institutions” are practically commonplace, and they’ve become so largely because those who considered them ridiculous remained silent rather than being labeled as bigots.

The most recent incarnation of the left’s efforts to promote sexual ambivalence has to do with the nature of gender itself. Not only does a segment of the tiny but extremely vocal LGBTQ lobby advocate for biological males and females being able to “choose” a preferred gender with which to identify, this bunch also contends that there are multitudes of genders, perhaps even hundreds.

Who knew?

I remember quite well during the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s and ’70s, when the political left was pushing sexual permissiveness with all the urgency of avoiding the next planetary extinction-level event, catty, mincing liberals accused those who resisted going along with the program of being prudes. As far as they were concerned, a prude was just as bad as a segregationist – and if you ran afoul of their budding doctrine, they certainly let you know it.

Also during this period, court cases and discussions in the public square arose with regard to how these “new sensibilities” would be represented in media and education. Oh, the controversy over sex ed in schools! Many will recall the liberal argument that sexual function and reproduction were “only knowledge,” and that keeping this valuable knowledge from our youth was simply wrong. Further, that argument added that an ignorance of sexuality and reproduction would lead to young people getting into trouble should they become sexually active.

There was a great deal of concern about sexuality being represented in films and TV, and particularly its effect on children, as well as concern over the proliferation of pornography and its effects on society at large.

In November of 1968, the first voluntary Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) film rating system took effect, not so much because the public was concerned about sexual content in movies, but because the MPAA brass deemed the Hays code (in place since 1930) archaic. Movie makers had been increasingly pushing the envelope in this area anyway; the new ratings code actually gave filmmakers more license to produce explicit material.

While millions of Americans possessing traditional values were alarmed at these emergent sensibilities, there was a certain congruity in the disposition of courts and regulatory agencies, which decided that if a segment of the population wished to expose themselves to smut, it was not the role of the Christian majority or those or secular folks who held to traditional values to dictate mores to them.

Unfortunately, like our Constitution itself, this has become a double-edged sword. Fast-forward 50 years and any child with a computer, tablet or smartphone can navigate to the most aberrant and disgusting pornographic fare ever conceived. American consumers are hard-pressed to find movie and TV offerings that do not aggressively promote leftist sexual orthodoxy, and even TV shows featuring comic book superheroes are peppered with gratuitous pro-LGBTQ messages.

As is occurring today, back in the ’60s and ’70s, the perceived “rights” of individuals to engage in sexually deviant behavior superseded any consideration of how propagating sexually deviant behavior might impact society at large.

Well, at this point, I think that the jury is in, and it’s apparent that we’ve pretty much screwed ourselves (pun intended).

An interesting perspective comes from Christine Caine, an Australian activist who has firsthand experience with sexual abuse and trauma. Caine founded A21, a global anti-trafficking organization that operates in 15 countries and aids in prosecuting sex traffickers and rescuing victims.

Now, one could claim that the increasing incidence of sex trafficking, especially that involving children, has nothing whatsoever to do with the phenomenon of an increasing sexual permissiveness in Western culture – but I think that most reading this will know better. Ms. Caine asserts that the proliferation of pornography and other sexually ambivalent materials has fueled human trafficking, and I tend to agree. We’re human beings, and, by our nature, the only ones who’ll find themselves immune to morally ambivalent materials of any kind are those who do not partake in them.

So, we have confirmation that the atmosphere of sexual permissiveness we’ve cultivated has severely compromised us culturally. Also, we can now see that the left (via the LGBTQ lobby) has no intention of exhibiting the same tolerance to people who hold traditional values as was shown them. Indeed, having been extended an olive branch, they continue to cry “oppression” amidst calls for traditional values to be relegated to criminal status.

So much for tolerance.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR/COMMENTATOR:

Erik Rush

Erik Rush is a New York-born columnist, author and speaker who writes sociopolitical commentary, and host of the FULL-CONTACT With Erik Rush LIVE! streaming radio show. He is also the Founder and Chief Editor of the Instigator News Network. In February of 2007, Erik was the first to break the story of Barack Obama’s ties to militant Chicago preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright on a national level. His book, “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal ~ America’s Racial Obsession,” has been called “the definitive book on race politics in America.”

Is The President Causing Hate Crimes?


Written by Allan Erickson on April 30, 2019

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson says President Trump’s rhetoric is hateful, causing violence, resulting in an increase in hate crimes.

Eugene wrote a brilliant column right after 9/11, but haven’t seen the like since.

This President is a fighter. He is tough. Playing to win is in his DNA. He took on this responsibility and he is serious about restoring the country to greatness, saving it from the malaise of the Obama years. In order to take on and prevail against the vast forces marshaled against him (Democrats, Leftists, Communists, Jihadists, assorted anti-Americans, and the MSM) he has to confront every lie and every attack, head on.

He believes, as do about half the voters, that this country will go under unless we fight hard to restore some measure of traditional values and founding principles of the Republic.

I for one am glad we have a fighter in the White House. I’m glad he is keeping our enemies off balance, redoing trade deals, aggressively fighting the war on terror, doing all he can to secure the border, stoking the economy, and putting an end to various collectivist schemes as well as the tiresome and counterproductive apology tours.

People who criticize him for being aggressive are just looking for a way to undermine him and that is because he is so successful it irks them no end.

Eugene and others never said boo when Obama was talking about bringing a gun to knife fight and other such nonsense. Nobody objected when he urged people to get up in our faces. Did you ever hear a Democrat complain when Obama encouraged street demonstrations based on lies, goading BLM and ignoring the resulting violence? But now, some flimsy allegation about hate crime increases is sufficient to attack this President as an instigator. BS.

The vicious Left never relents and now an aggressive conservative is beating them at their own game without being vicious and all they can do is double down on viciousness. Not smart. Not effective. Not acceptable.

ABOUT THE AUTHTOR:
Allan Erickson

Allan Erickson—Christian, husband, father, journalist, businessman, screenwriter and author of The Cross & the Constitution in the Age of Incoherence, Tate Publishing, 2012, serves on the board of http://www.RestoreAmerica.org. He is available to speak in churches addressing the topics of faith and freedom. Register & Vote! Contact: allanlerickson@gmail.com

This Weeks Ann Coulter Letter: Hold the Pulitzers


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Mar 27, 2019 7:27 PM

Hold the PulitzersSource: AP Photo/Chris Pizzello
The only people surprised that the special counsel’s investigation of Russian collusion did not confirm a lunatic conspiracy theory are consumers of the modern American media. For two years, our constitutionally protected guardians of the truth put out a stream of misinformation, promising viewers that Robert Mueller was going to reverse the outcome of the 2016 election.

Everyone at fake news MSNBC, marginally less fake news NBC, and totally fake news CNN — hosts, guests, legal experts and national security analysts — should be told, Clean out your lockers. Put all your things in cardboard cartons. If you need to go back, you will be escorted by security.

Instead, they are adamantly refusing to take back their years of lies about Trump and Russian collusion. This is not a time to let bygones by bygones. The boot should not be lifted from the media’s throat.

In case you’ve forgotten what needs to be taken back, here is a random selection, from a single network for simplicity:

“Hi Nicolle, and if it is Monday, the Russian conspiracy is so much worse than we knew … The Russian conspiracy to help get Donald Trump elected was apparently wider, deeper, dirtier, more sophisticated and more pervasive than we thought.”

— Katy Tur, MSNBC, Dec. 17, 2018

“Well, this demonstrates that Robert Mueller is focusing on exactly what he is supposed to be focusing on, and that is Russia … We already have clear evidence of collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russian agents.”

— Richard Painter, lawyer, MSNBC, May 1, 2018

“You see all of these Russian connections — there’s a new one every single day, and increasingly benign explanations for what the Trump, for what they’re up to, benign explanations are just not credible.”

“We have the most immoral president perhaps in American history particularly because of the foreign influence of Russia … it is hard to believe that a prosecutor of Mueller’s testing and experience would come to the end of this and not have something to say about these terrible offenses.”

— John Flannery, lawyer, MSNBC, March 18, 2019

“I’ll tell you something, if (Russia’s ‘inside man’ is) not George Papadopoulos, then we’ve got a mystery person inside the Trump campaign who theoretically could still be in place.”

— Frank Figliuzzi, former assistant director for counterintelligence, FBI, MSNBC, Jan. 9, 2018

“I believe that what we have here is a very broad-based criminal conspiracy. … And Donald Trump is a walking example of how any intelligence officer can turn someone against their own nation. As John Brennan said, most of the time, they don’t even know that they’re committing treason.”

— Malcolm Nance, counterterrorism intel analyst, MSNBC, Nov. 30, 2018

“This is the linkage between Donald Trump and Russia in crimes.”

— Jill Wine-Banks, assistant Watergate prosecutor, MSNBC, Dec. 7, 2018

“It’s going to be so clear that this has been a criminal enterprise from day one with the Russians and Trump …”

— Rep. Steve Cohen, MSNBC, Dec. 7, 2018

“Were these gun rights folks potentially a conduit for Russian money alongside other forms of Russian government influence on our 2016 campaign?”

— Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, July 25, 2018

“And what about Trump’s ring leadership of his people, including family members and their efforts to win this award of a foreign power, Russia, to win the presidency?”

— Chris Matthews, MSNBC, March 8, 2019

“And the Russians’ investment in (Trump) goes back decades. … It may have been the situation where (Trump) decided, look, what Russia is giving us in terms of political help here and undermining Hillary Clinton’s candidacy may be way bigger than any deal we could ever get in Russia.”

— Natasha Bertrand, The Atlantic, MSNBC, Nov. 30, 2018

“So, with this whole real estate deal and the claws that the Russians had into (Cohen), and what he was doing with that in terms of dealing with the Russians was all part and parcel of this conspiracy that resulted in their assistance in the campaign.”

— Nick Akerman, assistant Watergate prosecutor, MSNBC, Nov. 30, 2018

“An American president who has been compromised by the Russians faces the world.”

— Chris Hayes, MSNBC, Nov. 30, 2018

 

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: