Since the boycott of Bud Light seems to have been a rousing success, many people are shifting focus to retail giant Target and its years of supporting radical LGBT groups — one of which even advocates to “transition” children without parental consent. It is so outrageous that even Elon Musk felt compelled to begin asking some questions about it.
Musk, who is considered center-left in most things political was shocked by a recent Fox News article that reported that Target has been supporting the radical gay group GLSEN for years, even though the group “calls for gender ideology to be integrated into all classes, even math,” and spends its donations to get American schools to comply with that policy.
In its tweet, Fox News also noted that GLSEN “encourages secret gender changes among children in schools.”
TARGET TAKES AIM: The retail giant provides annual donations to GLSEN, which calls for gender ideology to be integrated into all classes, even math. https://t.co/f7g9yLDvuOpic.twitter.com/vCK6fqXepa
In its May 26 report, Fox News noted that Target is “partnering with a K-12 education group for which focuses on getting districts to adopt policies that will keep parents in the dark on their child’s in-school gender transition, providing sexually explicit books to schools for free, and integrating gender ideology at all levels of curriculum in public schools.”
Indeed, Fox even obtained a direct quote from Target saying how much they support the organization with their annual donations of tens of thousands.
“GLSEN leads the movement in creating affirming… and anti-racist spaces for LGBTQIA+ students. We are proud of 10+ years of collaboration with GLSEN and continue to support their mission,” the retailer told Fox.
Fox goes on to explain what GLSEN does: “GLSEN calls for gender ideology to be integrated into all classes, even math. It provides educators instructions on how they can make math ‘more inclusive of trans and non-binary identities’ by including ‘they/them’ pronouns in word problems.”
“We advise on, advocate for, and research comprehensive policies designed to protect LGBTQ students as well as students of marginalized identities,” the group itself describes on its own site.
This group that Target has supported urges schools to add “intersex,” “transgender,” “non-binary” and other such left-wing “choices” of sexual identity into all class work from math to science, per Fox.
GLSEN tells schools to keep confidential any information about students “transitioning” or self-identifying as the opposite or some fantasy gender, and to make sure parents are not told of any such information unless explicitly approved by the child.
The group pushes a policy that maintains that schools and faculty “shall ensure that all personally identifiable and medical information relating to transgender and nonbinary students is kept confidential… Staff or educators shall not disclose any information that may reveal a student’s gender identity to others, including parents or guardian… This disclosure must be discussed with the student, prior to any action.”
In a Saturday news release condemning “right-wing extremists,” GLSEN attempted to spin that little nugget of information as such: “Supportive educators are a lifeline to students who do not have the freedom to be exactly who they are safely, and GLSEN will always fight back against policies that force educators to jeopardize student safety.”
The group also seeks to force schools to allow boys who claim to be transgender girls to play in school sports with the girls.
“To date,” Fox added, “the retail giant has donated at least $2.1 million to GLSEN.”
Fox’s shocking report spurred Twitter chief Elon Musk to ask, “Is this true, @Target?”
A Twitter “community note” also appeared on the tweet, noting that, “Target has donated to GLSEN for more than a decade: ‘Target annually supports GLSEN and its mission to create…spaces for LGBTQIA+ students.’” The note also presented links to the radical policies for which GLSEN advocates.
One Twitter user blasted Musk for asking the question, carping, “Oh come on, this is Fox News. You question CNN, MSNBC, but not Fox News? Don’t you think that this is hypocritical?”
But Musk pointed out that he literally was questioning the claims, and tweeted back, “Maybe it’s not true, hence the question.”
So far, Target has not made any statement past its quote to Fox that it supports GLSEN.
This newest wrinkle in Target’s big-dollar support of the radical LGBT lobby comes on the heels of a boycott effort over its “pride” merchandise and for partnering with a company that embraces satanism along with its LGBT advocacy. Target is now hemorrhaging money, as is Anheuser-Busch, following Bud Light’s decision to partner with transgender social media influencer Dylan Mulvaney.
The bad news continues to mount for Target and Bud Light both, and conservatives must keep the pressure on these woke corporations. Examples must be made if we hope to reverse the wide trend in corporate America of donating billions to these organizations whose main goal is to groom our children for their disgusting sexual agenda.:
Warner Todd Huston has been writing editorials and news since 2001 but started his writing career penning articles about U.S. history back in the early 1990s. Huston has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business Network, CNN and several local Chicago news programs to discuss the issues of the day. Additionally, he is a regular guest on radio programs from coast to coast. Huston has also been a Breitbart News contributor since 2009. Warner works out of the Chicago area, a place he calls a “target-rich environment” for political news.
The way you can tell the media is going to move on from the shooting at a Chesapeake, Virginia, Walmart that claimed the lives of six people is that there’s absolutely no handle for them.
Race? Not a factor — accused shooter Andre Bing, who later killed himself, was black. The gun? Not an AR-15 or an associated long rifle — the handgun he used was legally purchased. His victims weren’t chosen for any other reason than that they were his coworkers at the store.
And there are four words you definitely won’t hear them talk about from the alleged shooter’s suicide note: “led by the Satan.”
The note, which Chesapeake police say they found on the phone of the 31-year-old Bing, was released in a series of tweets on Friday.
In the rambling screed, Bing said he was offended because his coworkers compared him to serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer.
“I would never have killed anyone that entered my home,” he said, calling his fellow employees “idiots with low intelligence” who tormented him with what he described as “evil twisted grins.”
“Sorry God I’ve failed you, this was not your fault but my own,” he wrote. “I failed to listen to the groans of the holy spirit which made me a poor representation of You.”
“My only wish would have been to start over from scratch and that my parents would have paid closer attention to my social deficits,” he continued.
“Sorry everyone but I did not plan this, I promise things just fell in place like I was led by the Satan.”
As the investigation has progressed, detectives conducted a forensic analysis of the suspect's phone, which was located at the scene. This note was located in the device. (1/3) pic.twitter.com/uCAvAZgYWP
So, guess how many times Satan was mentioned in CNN’s write-up of the suicide note? Zero.
Instead, we got this: “The note — found on his phone — talks about God, the holy spirit, and how the author felt his ‘associates’ were mocking him.”
Nowhere in the article is it mentioned how he was addressing God or talking about the Holy Spirit. One is left with the distinct impression he was inspired by God, not by the embodiment of sin and evil.
By ignoring Satan, the media ignores the fact very real spiritual evil exists. “We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one,” 1 John 5:19 reads. Even a CNN reporter can look at the outlet’s own homepage and realize how true the last part of that equation is.
Focusing on that, however, would lead too many readers to ruminate on the state of our fallen world and to blame individuals — not guns, politicians or religion — for the shooting.
With the shooting at a Colorado Springs, Colorado, gay nightclub, those scapegoats were too easy. It was the fault of religion. Of Tucker Carlson and Lauren Boebert. Of the so-called “assault weapon.”
This time, four disgusting words spell out what motivated this and so many other mass murderers: “led by the Satan.”
Expect the media to do everything to avoid talking about the inconvenient fact that good and evil are real, objective things. They’re going to avoid it because they want to exist in a godless bubble where good and evil are determined by manmade standards.
Tragically, shootings like the one in Chesapeake show exactly what happens when those concepts are left to human arbiters.
C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he’s written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014.
In late October, Carlson aired a segment about Cross that swiftly received criticism from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The Fox host told his audience that Cross was fomenting a “race war” against white people.
Carlson likened “The Cross Connection with Tiffany Cross” and MSNBC to the Rwandan media outlet Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines, which stoked the 1994 Rwandan genocide.“Do they know what’s happening on their channel? Are they OK with this?” Carlson asked of MSNBC’s corporate leadership.
Here’s the Carlson segment in question:
Tucker Carlson: MSNBC’s open race hate should worry you deeply youtu.be
Boboltz in her story said the “network did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s request for comment on Saturday.”
The HuffPost writer added that the ADL said Carlson had “again used his platform to stoke racial tensions, falsely and dangerously accusing a Black @MSNBC host of instigating a genocide against white people” and that the group tweeted: “His incitement and trivialization of the Rwandan genocide must be forcefully condemned.”
It seems there may be some disagreement — perhaps even at MSNBC — about the reason for Cross’ exit from the cable network. In fact, a source close to the situation told Fox News that Cross got canned for “repeated bad behavior on and off-air. Bad judgment.” The details concerning said “bad behavior” and “bad judgment” aren’t clear, but beyond Carlson’s scathing rebuke of Cross, she offered no shortage of nasty comments about conservatives during her time in front of the camera.
To wit: She once said there’s already a “civil war” raging in the United States, urged liberals to “pick up a weapon” in the fight for democracy, and called Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas “Justice Pubic Hair on My Coke Can,” Fox News said. Cross also ripped U.S. Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) as a “token” and suggested Harriet Tubman — who helped rescue slaves on the Underground Railroad — would have left Scott behind. She also has said she’d be willing to carry out the “the most radical” of solutions to fix what she sees as police brutality and racist criminal justice, which is to “burn it down.”
“HuffPost doesn’t see the racism they pretend to care about in Cross because it’s like looking into a mirror to them,” one commenter said.
“Ahhhh, so pointing out that she’s instigating racism herself is now considered ‘attacking’ her…” another commenter observed.
“Puffpost at its best,” another commenter quipped. “When did MSNBC ever do anything based upon a Tucker Carlson commentary?”
“I think Ms. Boboltz of HuffPost is going to have a very short journalistic career with a piece like this,” another commenter wrote. “Absolute nonsense. MSNBC thrives on Fox News hate; they certainly aren’t going to fire a host based on what a Fox News host has to say.”
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki fields questions at a White House news briefing on Monday, where she had to answer for a comment from President Biden on Friday that discouraged the prime minister of India from taking questions from the media. (Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)
On Jan. 24, just days after President Joe Biden took office, official CNN Democrat brown-noser Brian Stelter shared a chyron from his television show on Twitter.
“Psaki Promises to Share ‘Accurate Info’ (How Refreshing),” it read. The insinuation, of course, is that there wasn’t any accurate info from the Trump administration — but don’t worry, help was on the way!
Now, as it turns out, there’s a caveat to that refreshing promise: Psaki will be sharing “accurate info” (if often incomplete or misleading), but if President Joe Biden is going to be sharing information, your questions had better be “on point.” If they’re on a topic he doesn’t like, he’s not going to answer. (Psaki herself will probably promise to “circle back” to whatever the question was at a later date.)
On Friday, Biden met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Before their meeting, however, the president badmouthed the U.S. media and counseled Modi not to take any questions.
“The Indian press is much better behaved than the American press,”Biden told Modi. “I think, with your permission, you could not answer questions because they won’t ask any questions on point.”
WATCH: President Biden, during meeting with Indian PM Modi:
“The Indian press is much better behaved than the American press…I think, with your permission, you could not answer questions because they won’t ask any questions on point.” pic.twitter.com/VppL7973ma
That didn’t seem quite so refreshing, particularly after an incident with U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson earlier in the week when Biden’s staff shooed away reporters in the Oval Office.
During a meeting between Biden and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, staff abruptly order journalists to leave. pic.twitter.com/kJ4itX2kU4
Psaki was called on the carpet by the Washington press corps on Monday, given that reporters weren’t happy at the president telling the Indian prime minister to avoid taking questions. The White House press secretary tried to recontextualize — and made the problem worse in the process.
“I think what he said is that they’re not always on point,”Psaki said.
“Now I know that isn’t something that anyone wants to hear in here, but what I think he was conveying is, today he might want to talk about COVID vaccines, some of the questions were about that,” she continued.
Psaki was just confronted by two reporters about Biden asking Indian Prime Minister Modi to not take questions from the American press.
Psaki then embarrassingly justifies the remark by saying sometimes the Press doesn't ask about what Biden wants to talk about.
“Some of the questions are not always about the topic he’s talking about in that day. I don’t think it was meant to be a hard cut at the members of the media, people he’s taken questions from today and on Friday as well,” she added.
Another reporter — CBS News Radio’s Steven Portnoy — followed up, saying, “It happened that he was sitting next to prime minister of India, the world’s largest democracy, when he said that. It also followed the incident on Wednesday when he was sitting next to the prime minister of Great Britain. Is the president reticent to take questions when he’s sitting next to a foreign leader in the Oval Office? Can we expect him to do that in the future?”
“Steve, he took questions earlier that day on Friday. He’d already taken questions that day. I think that was the context of his comments,” Psaki said. “And he’s taken questions standing next to a foreign leader many, many times in the past, and will continue to.”
Good on @WSJ's @Catherine_Lucey & @CBSNewsRadio's @StevenPortnoy for repeatedly pressing Jen Psaki on the fact that Biden blew off the press last week with U.K. PM Boris Johnson & took a swipe at them last week behind their backs, telling Indian reporters not to ask questions. pic.twitter.com/dUS24W8X90
There was also one other problem with Biden’s remark, as Fox’s Jacqui Heinrich noted.
“The president said that the Indian press was better behaved than the U.S. press, but the Indian press is ranked 142nd in the world, according to Reporters Without Borders, for press freedoms,” she asked.
“How does he say that about the U.S. press compared to the Indian press?” she asked.
“Well, I would just say to you that, having now worked for the president, serving in this role for nine months, having seen that he’s taken questions from the press more than 140 times, including today and Friday, that he certainly respects the role of the press, the role of the freedom of free press,” Psaki said.
“We ensure that we have press with us, of course, when we travel, that we have press with us for sprays in foreign capitals, and we will continue to. I think that should speak to his commitment to freedom of press around the world.”
FTR, Fox's @JacquiHeinrich also asked: "The President said that the Indian press was better behaved than the U.S. press, but the Indian presence ranked 142nd in the world, according to Reporters Without Borders for press freedoms. How does he say that about the U.S. press[?]" pic.twitter.com/mhNwt4OwSD
It’s worth noting that Psaki had all weekend to work on her answer to this. She knew full well this was going to be one of the things she had to answer when she walked into the Brady Press Briefing Room in the West Wing of the White House. The best the press secretary and her team could come up with: You guys need to start asking the kinds of questions the president wants to hear. Talk about what he’s talking about. See, this is why he never takes questions from the press. Focus, people!
It was an embarrassment — to Psaki and the president. And even the shamelessly pro-Biden press corps had to know it.
For whatever reason, Brian Stelter hasn’t weighed in on how refreshing that answer was. Perhaps he missed it.
C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he’s written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014.
Imagine if someone had said these words in October:
“In the midst of everything COVID, people were sort of putting down that cause of death as COVID … It is important to go back and do this accounting to see if COVID was actually the cause of death.”
It would have taken five minutes for Snopes and PolitiFact to cancel this person entirely. They would have been branded a conspiracy theorist, a blackguard, a scoundrel. If they had any platform, it would be taken away posthaste. You could even make a case there would be Facebook and Twitter censorship involved — this being COVID-19 misinformation, after all.
But those words were spoken Friday by University of California San Francisco professor of medicine Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease expert. She was speaking to San Francisco’s KPIX-TV regarding the announcement that Santa Clara County, California, had revised its official COVID-19 death toll downward by 22 percent.
According to KPIX, the announcement was made after the county “refined its approach in reporting the data.”
Santa Clara County — home to San Jose in the heart of Silicon Valley — is the sixth-largest among California’s 58 counties in terms of population, with 1,927,470 residents, according to U.S. Census Bureau data compiled by Cubit.
This isn’t minor, in other words.
Before refining its approach, the county had recorded 2,201 COVID deaths. Now, that’s been reduced to 1,696.
“It is important to go back and do this accounting to see if COVID was actually the cause of death,” Gandhi said, according to KPIX.
“I think that transparent communication is an upside, I mean, in the sense that it’s true that if we did this across the nation, it would bring our death rate lower. A downside of that, could be that people will say, ‘Well, it wasn’t as serious as you said.’”
Gandhi added she thought this was going to encourage coronavirus vaccine holdouts to get vaccinated.
“Because a lot of people have kind of said, ‘I’ve heard people are dying anyway of COVID, what’s the point?’ And it is very important to say, ‘No, did they die of COVID or were they in the hospital for something else and they died of that?’” Gandhi said. “That helps people say, ‘Oh, the risk of breakthrough infection is so low I want to go ahead and get vaccinated.’ So I think it’s very good for vaccine hesitancy.”
Santa Clara County wasn’t the only county in California to reassess its data, either. According to KGO-TV, Alameda County revised its numbers downward in early June, saying it had an over-count of COVID deaths greater than 400 individuals. On June 4, the number of deaths in the Bay Area county attributed to COVID-19 dropped from 1,634 to 1,223. Alameda County, home to Oakland and Berkeley, is the seventh-largest in the state in terms of population with 1,656,754 residents.
“According to the Health Department, the 25% decrease was made to comply with the state’s definition of a COVID-19 death, which requires COVID-19 to be a direct or contributing factor or a situation in which it can’t be ruled out,” KGO reported.
“Alameda County previously included any person who died while infected with the virus in the total COVID-19 deaths for the County,” wrote Neetu Balram with the Alameda County Health Department in a news release dated June 4.
By way of example, Balram wrote:
“Using the older definition of COVID-19 deaths, a resident who had COVID-19 but died due to another cause, like a car accident, this person would be included in the total number of reported COVID-19 deaths for Alameda County. Under the updated definition of COVID-19 deaths, this person would not be included in the total because COVID-19 was not a contributing factor in the death.”
At the time, another doctor at the University of California San Francisco, epidemiologist Dr. George Rutherford, told KGO he was “betting it’s very specific to Alameda County, which had a lot of cases early on and had to do a lot of on-the-fly definitions and systems and now they are being brought into alignment.”
Gandhi apparently didn’t think that was the case after Santa Clara reported its revised total. KPIX reported that “Gandhi believes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may soon ask all counties to do the same as Alameda and Santa Clara Counties and that the nation could also see a drop in its COVID-19 death toll.”
This is what voices — mostly conservative voices — have been saying for over a year. Even raising the issue, however, got one branded as a conspiracy theorist.
Take the state of Washington. In May 2020, during a media briefing, Dr. Katie Hutchinson of the Washington State Department of Health announced that some people who obviously hadn’t died of COVID were being included in the state’s death totals.
“We currently do have some deaths that are being reported that are clearly from other causes,” Hutchinson said. “We have about five deaths — less than five deaths — that we know of that are related to obvious other causes. In this case, they are from gunshot wounds.”
If there were five deaths that they could identify as just being from gunshot wounds — out of 1,078 deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the state at the time — that still doesn’t speak well of the state’s reporting mechanisms. That means, as the conservative think tank Freedom Foundation pointed out at the time, there were likely individuals who died of other causes more anodyne than a gunshot wound who were being counted among COVID deaths.
Yet, Washington Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee blasted anyone who questioned whether there was over-counting going on.
“The problem is you got some people out there who are fanning these conspiracy claims from the planet Pluto,” Inslee said, according to KOMO-TV. “And it’s just disgusting what they’re trying to say of all these crazy deep-state malarkey. Who are kinda suggests that this not a problem in our state. I find that hard to accept with the number of dead in our state. So, that’s a problem. And I hope it gets resolved.”
This is such “deep-state malarkey” that jurisdictions now revising their COVID death toll downward include [checks notes] two famously liberal Bay Area counties in California, one home to Berkeley and the other the center of Silicon Valley. These stories were out there if you looked — individuals who died of gunshot wounds or motorcycle accidents that were counted as COVID victims. If you raised questions, however, you were branded a conspiracy theorist.
Even now, Gandhi seems to lament the fact Santa Clara County’s deaths have been revised downward: “A downside of that, could be that people will say, ‘Well, it wasn’t as serious as you said,’” she told KPIX.
Why would that be your reaction? And, perhaps more importantly, why would nobody with a brain be surprised to hear the same reaction from editors, politicians and members of the medical and scientific communities?
After a year of lockdowns based on an unholy alliance among untruthful media, scientists with zero sense and a power-hungry left, we’re left with the conclusion that big numbers drove public policy in a direction all of these entities wanted — in an election year when the left was tarring the sitting president with blame for all things COVID.
While the numbers weren’t ginned up to create a crisis that didn’t exist, it’s not as if politicians and scientists acted with alacrity to fix obvious deficiencies in reporting COVID deaths, either. Santa Clara and Alameda Counties are emblematic of how wrong some jurisdictions got it.
C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he’s written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014.
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas responded to MSNBC host Joy Reid’s racist remarks against him by questioning why the network permitted her to get away with it and saying that comments of the like were leading Hispanics to turn their back on the Democratic Party.
On Tuesday, Reid discussed the Texas senator with guests Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla of California and NAACP legal counsel Janai Nelson, and made a reference to the movie “Django Unchained” — comparing Cruz to a traitorous house slave in the film for not supporting the For the People Act, which aims at altering voting processes across the country.
Cruz’s rebuttal was swift, calling out the host of the MSNBC segment “The Reid Out” for “using overt racial slurs” to make assumptions concerning how Hispanic-Americans should vote.
“I appreciate MSNBC lecturing me on how people of ‘my race’ are supposed to vote,” Cruz tweeted on Wednesday. “This arrogant condescension is a big reason Hispanic voters are moving right in large numbers.
“Also, why is MSNBC ok with their hosts using overt racial slurs (‘Stephen from Django’)?”
Cruz called the For the People Act, officially known as House Resolution 1, “Jim Crow 2.0” — a reference to President Joe Biden’s remarks about Georgia’s new voting law, which the president called “Jim Crow in the 21st Century.”
“Jim Crow laws were bigoted, racist, and disenfranchised millions of people,”Cruz said in a Tuesday tweet. “Those laws were drafted by Democrats and implemented by Democrats to keep Democrats in power. Today, Democrats are doing it again. The Corrupt Politicians Act is Jim Crow 2.0.”
Reid was highly critical of Cruz and the GOP after his comment, alleging that the Republican Party was attempting voter suppression in his state of Texas.
“Ted Cruz says a lot of stupid things,” Reid said Tuesday. “He does a lot of stupid things. But I personally — as a person of color, as a black person — am beyond offended that he would dare use the word ‘Jim Crow’ when his party is literally a ‘Jim Crow’ party at this point, trying to suppress the votes of people, including in his home state.”
She later called Cruz “Stephen from Django Unchained.”
Reid continued with attacks on the Texas senator, saying that he “could give a d**n about Jim Crow,” and that he has “never raised once concern ever in his entire life … about Jim Crow or racism or discrimination.”
WARNING: The following video contains vulgar language that some viewers will find offensive.
Reid suggested Cruz was a traitor to Hispanics and defended HR 1, saying that if it fails to pass, America may never see free and fair elections again.
Republicans, however, have said that the act threatens election integrity and the rights of states.
“The legislation would strip states of their constitutional authority to run elections and allow the federal government to decree what’s best,” Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia said in a Fox News Op-Ed.
“It would ban voter ID laws, which maintain the integrity of elections in my state and a majority of others … To put it simply: states don’t need Washington, D.C., to strip them of their authority and impose burdensome requirements to fix problems that do not exist,” Moore said.
Reid has made racist comments about Republicans in the past. She has made an “Uncle Tom” reference, alluding to the Harriet Beecher Stowe novel, about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whom she called “Uncle Clarence.” She has also called Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina the token black person in the Republican Party.
Frequent Fox News guest Leo Terrell isn’t particularly happy at being called a “prop.”
The civil rights lawyer used to be the reliable voice of the left on the fair and balanced network (in particular on Sean Hannity’s show) but defected to the GOP during this election cycle.
He’s taken exception with how he and other black Republicans have been treated, particularly by partisans of the left who can’t understand why any melanated individual would vote for anyone but the Democrats.
Advertisement – story continues below
Sunny Hostin, co-host of “The View” and a lawyer, is the latest high-profile figure to register her disbelief.
Hostin and the rest of “The View” coterie were discussing Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s poll numbers last week, in particular his lagging support among Hispanic voters in Florida. This shouldn’t be astonishing, as Hostin alluded to; a goodly number of these voters are of Cuban or Venezuelan extraction and decided (or were forced) to extract themselves from those countries due to socialist/communist governments.
“I actually wasn’t surprised to hear it because Cubans in Florida typically do vote Republican,” Hostin said in a clip that went viral.
“That wasn’t a surprise to me. It wasn’t a surprise to me that black voters are overwhelmingly the backbone of the Democratic Party — 83 percent in favor of Biden.”
Advertisement – story continues below
“You hear all of this coming from the Trump campaign about how black people have nothing to lose and they are going to overwhelmingly vote for Trump, and you had all the black people props all over the RNC talking about all the stuff they’ve done for the black community. You heard [former White House press secretary] Sarah Sanders yesterday talking about all the things that have been done for the black community by the Trump administration.”
Terrell, appearing Thursday on Hannity’s show, tore into Hostin’s remarks:
“Sean, you just laid out some facts, and this is the problem: See, the D
The Nordic country defeated COVID-19 without seeming to break a sweat — fever-induced or otherwise. They effectively showed that Fauci & Co. were completely wrong about a shutdown being necessary to save civilization as we know it.
While that accomplishment should be lauded and their efforts duplicated around the world, the media has instead chosen to blast the Nordic state and paint a dismal picture that simply doesn’t exist. A few examples (among many, many others) are below:
CBS News declared: “Sweden becomes an example of how not to handle COVID-19.”
Taking a stab at prognostication, Newsweek said: “Sweden COVID-19 Deaths Linked to Failure to Lockdown as Country Prepares for Second Wave.”
Always eager to bravely embrace the status quo, The New York Times ran a piece headlined: “Sweden Tries Out a New Status: Pariah State.”
Finally, Business Insider reported: “Sweden’s coronavirus death toll is now approaching zero, but experts are warning others not to hail it as a success.”
Advertisement – story continues below
It’s all awfully prickly from a leftist media that used to adore Sweden’s welfare state. The reason for the barbed headlines is simple — Sweden dealt with COVID-19 in its own way.
The country didn’t truckle to the tyranny of over-educated, under-experienced experts. It didn’t implement authoritarian policies designed as much to break spirits as to break the pandemic. And it didn’t turn its voters into quasi-prisoners. In other words, Sweden responded more or less the way the rest of the developed world has responded to contagious diseases until 2020, which just happens to also be President Donald Trump’s re-election year.
What were Sweden’s results?
Well, first let’s consider American results brought to us courtesy of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci, the establishment media, government officials around the country and legions of panic-prone and morally superior “Karens.” All around the country, the U.S. tried just about every imaginable combination of mask, lockdown, quarantine, curfew and closures orders — up to and including literally refusing entry across some state lines to certain fellow Americans.
The results were, well, not what anyone wanted. As of Saturday, the U.S. coronavirus death rate was 3.35 new deaths per million per day (based on a seven-day rolling average), which ranks as the 11th worst rating on the planet,according to Our World in Data.
And remember, thanks in large part to the Andrew Cuomo nursing home/death camp model of virus containment, New York state accounts for more than a fifthof all U.S. COVID-19 deaths, according to Johns Hopkins data. So we’re probably getting dragged down a little in the ratings by the disproportionate number of deaths in that state.
What else has America’s scattershot, but mostly heavy-handed, response yielded? If you read The Wall Street Journal, you will learn it led to anywhere between 30 million and 40 million lost jobs.(Some of those workers have no doubt been rehired as parts of the economy reopen, but millions more haven’t. And economists don’t really know how many of those job losses are permanent.)
Advertisement – story continues below
So we destroyed constitutional rights, shed a few dozen million jobs and watched tens of thousands of people die. Oh, and we turned Americans against each other, all the way from the state to family levels.
But at least gross domestic product didn’t take it too hard, right? Not exactly. Commerce Department numbers released Thursday revealed that the U.S. economy shrank by a record 32.9 percent last quarter in what Bloomberg called the “sharpest downturn since at least the 1940s.”
So what about those rebellious Swedes? The ones who refused to play ball with all-knowing scientists and a ridiculously tunnel-visioned medical establishment?
While much of the rest of the developed world drowned themselves in hand sanitizer, locked ankle monitors onto their citizens and bought super cute masks on Etsy, the stalwart Swedes pressed on. They lived their lives. They didn’t mandate masks. They didn’t turn into NKVD-aspiring Karens, eager to publicly shame or quietly narc on neighbors, friends and family who dared bare an uncovered nostril.
Sweden defied the (dare we say) scientific consensus and has performed exceedingly well compared to the U.S. As of Saturday, Sweden had registered 0.65 deaths per million per day, based on a seven-day rolling average. Trading Economics projects a second-quarter GDP change of -4.2 percent (and a third-quarter growth of 2.4 percent). Depending on your preferred method of calculation, we could casually say that’s 7.8 times better than what the U.S. saw last quarter.
As of June 18, Statista forecast a 2.6 percent drop in Sweden’s employment rate for 2020. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, meanwhile, reported unemployment in the U.S. shot up 11.2 percentage points from 3.5 percent in February to 14.7 percent in April, before dropping a bit to 13.3 percent in May and 11.7 percent in June as parts of the economy reopened.
Now we’re not going to be like the dogmatic pro-mask Stasi here. There are lots of factors that impact the difference between U.S. and Swedish outcomes. We can’t say with 100 percent certainty that Sweden’s refusal to lock down saved their economy or is responsible for the miraculously low death rate. But it would also be foolish to say that the decision didn’t play some role in the different outcome.
We can all learn two significant lessons from how COVID-19 responses have played out in the U.S. versus Sweden.
First, it is clear that the expert class in America whom the left appeals to at every turn (aren’t you sick of hearing “scientists say” or “experts find”?) is worth substantially less than we pay them.
We’ve spent literally trillions of dollars as a result of this virus and have only managed to buy our own personal hell.
Second, Sweden succeeded using an approach that left people free. The response they got from the U.S. media complex, however, wasn’t celebration and an urge toward duplication. It was derision and aspersion.
That betrays what lays at the heart of everything COVID-19-related.
In America, COVID-19 has never been first and foremost a virus to fight. It has instead been a tool that the left, anti-Trumpers and the establishment could use to mercilessly kick Americans in our collective groin. With COVID-19, the left finally found a chink in Trump’s armor. The left knew exploiting it was vital, and they knew that Americans would have to suffer if they wanted to succeed.
As America continues to languish economically even as deaths drop, remember to thank the left for that. And when you walk into that voting booth on Tuesday, Nov. 3, remember to pay the left back for the hell they’ve just put us through — pay them back by voting for Donald J. Trump.
Josh Manning is deputy managing editor, assignment, at The Western Journal. He holds a masters in public policy from Harvard University and has a background in higher education.
As governments race to contain the spread of COVID-19, and citizens across the world deal with the health, financial and emotional tolls of the disease, CNN has found the silver lining: Cleaner air! The network’s early Saturday morning B-team went up to bat this past weekend as people slept and airports, which always seem to air CNN’s coverage, were ghost towns. Still, for anyone who might have been watching, the network paraded widespread, draconian lockdowns as an efficacious solution to climate change.
While you’d be hard-pressed to find a sane individual who is content with the current state of life on the planet, CNN gleefully used the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic to suggest social and economic reforms in order to deal with climate change.
CNN early morning anchor Natalie Allen welcomed meteorologist Derek Van Dam during a segment in the 5 a.m. block of the network’s Saturday coverage, according to the Media Research Center. Both Allen and Van Dam were a bit too cheerful in reporting that some folks in India can see the Himalayan mountain range from 100 miles away, due to the absence of smog with the country shut down.
“[India] has been under lockdown for more than two weeks, and that has dramatically improved the air quality and visibility,” Allen said.
Allen and Van Dam, who was reporting from his basement, didn’t stop at marveling at this phenomenon.
Speaking to Van Dam, Allen added, “This is often a topic we talk about here at CNN, and, finally, you know, this is a bright spot in this era of pandemic, like, bring on the electric cars and, you know, climate — solving climate change isn’t that hard.”
“Preaching to the choir right there, Natalie,” Van Dam replied. “You know, I like to consider myself an optimist, and I think you could probably relate to this — just on my daily run today across midtown Atlanta, where we live, the skies have never been this blue, in my opinion.”
“There’s virtually no car traffic, no airline traffic taking place out of Atlanta’s Hartsfield International Airport — of course a few planes, but virtually nothing compared to what it would normally be on any given day. And, yeah, there’s just less air pollution,”the meteorologist concluded.
Van Dam then essentially asked Allen to picture a world where people are forced to live under permanent government control in order to save the planet from climate change.
“Can you imagine if our response to the climate crisis equaled that of the robust nature of the COVID-19 response? Where would we be, Natalie?” he asked.
“I know. That’s a very good question that we all should ponder. And I’m with you,” Allen responded. “I’ve been marveling at the blue sky in Atlanta. It’s just been magnificent.”
Apparently, to CNN’s activist “journalists,” tens of thousands of Americans dead and millions more unemployed and living under lockdowns is a road map for pushing environmentalist policies. But the world has now gotten a glimpse at what life would be like if climate activists, like those working in the far-left establishment media, were to get their way. Streets would remain empty, air traffic would slow to a permanent crawl and the people whose lives depend on working would fall between the cracks. That’s all fine, just as long as CNN’s bench can see the Atlanta skyline with a little more clarity.
It’s probably safe to assume most people would take a hard pass at living life in its current state on a permanent basis. But when you look at the economic toll of the coronavirus, it is essentially what Democrats have pushed for when discussing Green New Deal legislation. Various models of the outrageously expensive environmental plan would essentially force people to use public transportation and do away with most commercial air travel. A Green New Deal would equate to food shortages, large-scale rationing, limited travel and a government takeover of the majority of the economy, as regulations would slowly strong-arm working people into becoming wards of the state.
If anything, CNN has made a strong case against sweeping climate change measures, because we’re essentially living under them already — and they’re no fun. It’s great that a few people in India got a chance to see the Himalayas for a while.
Hopefully, sooner rather than later, those people are going to have to move a bit closer if they want that same view.
Unlike CNN’s climate activists, Americans are ready to fire up the economic engine that has made this country so unique, because we want our lives back.
Johnathan has authored thousands of news articles throughout his career. He has also worked as an editor and producer in radio and television. He is a proud husband and father.
Picture this: A wire-service newshound finds out that a Republican congressman, now a candidate for Senate, was a member of a notorious hacking group. When asked about it, the congressman confirms that information on the condition that it not be released until after the election. What are the odds that this information somehow “leaks” to the media beforehand? One hundred percent? Two hundred percent? Eleventy-billion percent?
Reverse that and make it a Democrat. What are the odds that it doesn’t get shared?
Well, now we know the answer, thanks to the fact that a Reuters reporter knew Beto O’Rourke was a member of the hacking group the Cult of the Dead Cow and didn’t share that knowledge publicly despite the fact that he knew it in late 2017.
“While a teenager, O’Rourke acknowledged in an exclusive interview, he belonged to the oldest group of computer hackers in U.S. history,”Reuters‘ Joseph Menn reported on Friday. “Members of the hugely influential Cult of the Dead Cow, jokingly named after an abandoned Texas slaughterhouse, have protected his secret for decades, reluctant to compromise his political viability.
“O’Rourke’s membership in the group — notorious for releasing tools that allowed ordinary people to hack computers running Microsoft’s Windows, and also known for inventing the word ‘hacktivism’ to describe human-rights-driven security work — could explain his approach to politics better than anything on his resume,”Menn continued. “His background in hacking circles has repeatedly informed his strategy as he explored and subverted established procedures in technology, the media and government.”
The story went through O’Rourke’s early days of hacking, back when he used his Apple IIe to find “cracked” games — games that you could pirate free of any digital rights protections — on electronic bulletin boards. It also talked about his time running a board of his own, called “TacoLand.”
Part of TacoLand involved O’Rourke publishing his own writings, which Menn was able to uncover.
Here was one snippet from a 15-year-old Beto: “One day, as I was driving home from work, I noticed two children crossing the street. They were happy, happy to be free from their troubles…. This happiness was mine by right. I had earned it in my dreams.
“As I neared the young ones, I put all my weight on my right foot, keeping the accelerator pedal on the floor until I heard the crashing of the two children on the hood, and then the sharp cry of pain from one of the two. I was so fascinated for a moment, that when after I had stopped my vehicle, I just sat in a daze, sweet visions filling my head.”
Lovely. The story also noted that O’Rourke “pilfered long-distance service ‘so I wouldn’t run up the phone bill’”when he was connecting to bulletin boards, something that could have been a felony in Texas if O’Rourke pilfered over $1,500 of service. (The statute of limitations has long since expired, obviously.)
On a busy news day where the Christchurch massacre dominated the headlines, the story managed to get an enormous amount of traction, with Reuters noting that “(w)ithin minutes, (Menn’s) special report was the most popular story on Reuters.com here and was picked up by other news outlets.”
However, one thing that wasn’t so clear in the special report was that Menn had had the story since 2017.
“I decided to write a book about the Cult of the Dead Cow because they were the most interesting and influential hacking group in history. They illustrated a lot of the things that I think are fascinating about hacking and security work,”Menn said in an “interview” with his own wire service. (Wonder how they scored that navel-gazing bit of self-promotion?
“While I was looking into the Cult of the Dead Cow, I found out that they had a member who was sitting in Congress. I didn’t know which one. But I knew that they had a member of Congress.
“And then I figured out which one it was. And the members of the group wouldn’t talk to me about who it was. They wouldn’t confirm that it was this person unless I promised that I wouldn’t write about it until after the November election. That’s because the member of Congress had decided to run for Senate. Beto O’Rourke is who it was,” he continued.
“I met Beto O’Rourke. I said ‘I’m writing a book about Cult of the Dead Cow, I think it’s really interesting. I know you were in this group. This book is going to publish after November and your Senate race is over. And he said, ‘OK.’
“And he told me about his time in the Cult of the Dead Cow.”
And we didn’t find out about it until O’Rourke the Senate candidate became O’Rourke the presidential contender — and with considerable spin from Menn, who seems to put forth the argument that O’Rourke’s youthful indiscretions could actually help him in the 2020 presidential race.
“Arguably, there has been no better time to be an American politician rebelling against business as usual,” he wrote in the piece published Friday. “There is no indication that O’Rourke himself ever engaged in the edgiest sorts of hacking activity — breaking into computers or writing code that enabled others to do so. Still, it’s unclear whether the United States is ready for a presidential contender who, as a teenager, stole long-distance phone service for his dial-up modem, wrote a murder fantasy in which the narrator drives over children on the street, and mused about a society without money.”
Well, that’s certainly a pleasant way of putting things.
If Texas voters had known any of this before they went to the polls in November, we arguably wouldn’t be talking about this at all. O’Rourke’s appeal to liberals is that he came kinda sorta close to unseating a Republican in a red state during a race in which the media treated him as a skateboarding, livestreaming rock star.
An acknowledged membership in the Cult of the Dead Cow — once the Cult of the Dead Cow was properly explicated to voters — likely would have significantly curtailed the momentum O’Rourke enjoyed at the time. In fact, had it been revealed in 2017, when Menn first knew of his membership, it’s questionable whether Beto would have even been the nominee for the seat.
Now that the moral victory of the 2018 Texas senatorial election is under his belt (a belt no doubt replete with a belt buckle and holding up some worn denim just to prove how very Texan he is), O’Rourke and his supporters can try and file this one under the “cool Beto” heading.
See, he doesn’t just skateboard! He was a l33t hacker all the way back in the Apple IIe days! He used bulletin board systems! And now he livestreams his dental appointments! Please just don’t look at that stuff he wrote when he was 15 about running over kids, OK? Thanks.
I’m not certain that we should judge candidates based on what they did during their teenage years, but these are still facts voters should know in order to make a decision on their own. This isn’t just minor delinquency here. O’Rourke was a member of a notorious hacking group that not infrequently compromised an operating system. He may have committed a felony through theft of phone service.
The media loves to inform of us of just how important they are to us. To hear reporters tell it, they make sure we know the facts necessary to maintain a functioning democracy.
Yet, in what was arguably the biggest Senate race of 2018, a Reuters reporter sat on very pertinent information for roughly a year before the election because, well, why? Because he got an interview out of O’Rourke for his book? Because it would have compromised Beto’s chances? Because it would have compromised his book? There are many examples of media bias favoring Democrats in American politics, but not many are as sickening.
If only Beto had been a Republican. We would have all become privy to this fact the moment it became known to Menn.
During an appearance on a podcast last week, CBS News correspondent Lara Logan said, “This interview is professional suicide for me.”
Boy, she wasn’t lying. In a moment of bravery or serious miscalculation, Logan decided to tell the truth. And it wasn’t about anything salacious — an extramarital affair, fabricating a story, anything like that. Instead, she said what we all more or less know: The media is biased toward the left.
The CBS correspondent, best known for her reporting from war zones, had made the appearance on the “Mike Drop” podcast with former Navy SEAL Mike Ritland, who had said that the media was “absurdly left-leaning,” a “huge f—— problem” and a “disaster for this country.”
“I agree with that. That’s true,”Logan said.
“The media everywhere is mostly liberal, not just the U.S.,” she said, according to Newsbusters. “But in this country, 85 percent of journalists are registered Democrats. So that’s just a fact, right?”
“Visually, anyone who’s ever been to Israel and been to the Wailing Wall has seen that the women have this tiny little spot in front of the wall to pray, and the rest of the wall is for the men,” she said.
“To me, that’s a great representation of the American media, is that in this tiny little corner where the women pray you’ve got Breitbart and Fox News and a few others, and from there on, you have CBS, ABC, NBC, Huffington Post, Politico, whatever, right? All of them. And that’s a problem for me, because even if it was reversed, if it was vastly mostly on the right, that would also be a problem for me.
“My experience has been that the more opinions you have, the more ways that you look at everything in life — everything in life is complicated, everything is gray, right?”she continued. “Nothing is black and white.”
When it came to the liberal sameness of the media, Logan said it represents problems when it comes to trust: “How do you know you’re being lied to? How do you know you’re being manipulated?”
I would argue that most people, at this point, have realized that they’re being lied to, but that’s neither here nor there. And it wasn’t just media: Logan said that “creating one ideological position on everything throughout your universities, throughout academia, in school and college, in media, and everywhere else, that’s what concerns me.”
Logan also cast doubt on so-called “grassroots” political campaigns.
“We don’t even question if what we see on social media is real or not. We don’t even question if a grassroots movement is really grassroots,”she said.
“You know, there’s a way to start a grassroots movement. You write an algorithm, and you create all this outrage, and you’re basically throwing out all the sparks that light the fire, so then it becomes a grassroots movement because it takes nothing to set that in motion. But did it really begin as one? And if it didn’t begin that way, but was manipulated and paid for by someone and serves someone’s political purpose, is it really what we believe it is?”
And there were other truths to be served up: “We’ve become political activists, and some could argue propagandists, and there’s some merit to that,”she said, later adding that, “Responsibility for fake news begins with us.”
As for the president: “For example, the coverage on Trump, all the time, is negative,”she said.
“There’s no mitigating policy, or event or anything that has happened since he was elected that is out there in the media that you can read about, right?
“Well, that tells you, that’s distortion of the way things go in real life.”
She also went off on single-sourced stories: “We have a few conventions — because they are not really rules — but you need at least two first-hand sources for something, right? Those things help keep your work to a certain standard. Those standards are out the window. I mean, you read one story or another and hear it and it’s all based on one anonymous administration official, former administration official. That’s not journalism. That’s horses—. Sorry. That is absolute horses—.”
That’s also basically a compendium of ways to commit career suicide. The media is all supposed to say they’re objective. Democracy dies in darkness, right?
The facts are the facts, however. The media is almost uniformly left. Outlets like ours, The Daily Wire and Breitbart are outliers and act as correctives, but there’s only so much we can do when arrayed against broadcast networks, newspapers and cable channels. This is the unalloyed truth — and that’s why it’s going to get a lot of pushback at CBS and with other media outlets.
When gay black actor Jussie Smollett said he was attacked by white men who yelled some stuff about “MAGA,” it didn’t take long for the liberal rage machine to mobilize.
“The star of the tv show ‘Empire,’ Jussie Smollett, was attacked by two assailants early Monday morning in Downtown Chicago according to Chicago Police Department Spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi,” CNN reported.
“Smollett, 36, was walking on the 300 block of E. North Lower Water Street when two men approached him and ‘gained his attention by yelling out racial and homophobic slurs towards him,’ Guglielmi says in a statement.
Advertisement – story continues below
“Two unknown offenders — it is unknown if they were male or female — then attacked Smollett, hitting him in the face and then poured an unknown chemical substance on him.
“At some point during the scuffle, one of the offenders wrapped a rope around the victim’s neck and then both offenders fled the scene, the statement reads.”
Smollett took himself to Northwestern Hospital, where the incident was reported to police, according to CBS Chicago.
There was plenty of condemnation to go around, particularly after TMZ reported that the attackers had shouted “this is MAGA country.” Two of the outraged included black Democratic senators, who just by chance, happen to either be running for president or widely expected to be running for president.
There was one problem with this “modern-day lynching”narrative: None of that “MAGA country” stuff was originally mentioned to police and they’re having trouble corroborating the fact that the attack even happened.
Advertisement – story continues below
“According to the victim, the offenders’ faces were concealed,” a police spokesman said, according to Reason. “We have no record indicating that (they shouted ‘MAGA’), we only have record of them shouting racial and homophobic slurs at him.”
A statement from Chicago Police confirmed that, Reason reported.
“We have no record of the ‘MAGA Country’ comment,” the statement said, according to Reason. “We have racial and homophobic comments documented.”
CNN reported that when police heard about the accusation and called the actor, he “relayed it to detectives in a supplemental interview.”
But then again, there’s some doubt as to whether the attack even happened.
In an area that has a “very high density”of surveillance cameras, according to the police spokesman’s statement, there is not a single image of an attack like the one Smollett described.
“A Chicago police spokesperson tells CNN that investigators canvassed the neighborhood where the reported attack occurred on actor Jussie Smollett and have found no still images or video from security cameras of the incident,” CNN reported.
“The only image of Smollett police obtained from security cameras was inside Subway Sandwich shop near the location of the reported crime, the actor was standing alone.”
For all I know, Smollett really was attacked by bigots who shouted the phrase “MAGA country,” and ambitious, Democratic politicians who are calling this a “a modern-day lynching” are absolutely justified. But here’s the thing — I’m going to wait to see whether or not that’s the case, as everyone else should have.
It hasn’t even been a fortnight since the Covington Catholic incident, and the lesson we were should have taken away from that “teachable moment” — be careful dealing with stories that confirm your cultural narrative— has been lost.
No fewer than two senators with eyes on the 2020 Democratic nomination have taken this accusation as gospel because they can use it as an illustration of supposed Trump-fueled hate coursing through the country, even though no arrests have been made and the evidence is scanty. If this turns out to be a hoax, Sens. Booker and Harris own this,as do the legion of liberals who tweeted this out without waiting for a fuller investigation.
Even if this turns out to be true, what they did was supremely irresponsible. That these two individuals are in the Senate is bad enough. Just imagine one of them in the White House, backed by a legion of people who think Donald Trump supporters are irresponsible bigots, but are willing to blame white Donald Trump supporters for a hate crime without any charges or even direct physical evidence. It will make the Obama years look like pure reason.
Houston Police Officers’ Union President Joe Gamaldi slammed “dirtbags” who spread anti-law enforcement rhetoric after four Houston police officers were shot Monday night during a drug raid. The shootout took place while officers were investigating a drug case the southeast section of the city, according to ABC News.
They were met with gunfire as soon as they reached the door of the home they were targeting. Four were wounded immediately, with two shot in the neck, according to CNN. Two suspects were found dead at the scene.
Initial reports indicated five officers had been shot, but CNN reported that the five had suffered a knee injury.
Advertisement – story continues below
Speaking at the hospital, Gamaldi exploded on those who support anti-cop rhetoric.
“We are sick and tired of having targets on our back,” he said.
Police officers have been under fire from the left in recent years, especially with protests from so-called antifa thugs and NFL players like Colin Kaepernick. The media only fuels the left’s outrage by zealously reporting on alleged incidents of police brutality. But the media doesn’t report on police officers who’ve been brutalized with anywhere near the same level of interest.
In 2018, 144 police officers died. That’s a 12 percent increase from the 129 police officers who died in 2017.
“We are sick and tired of having dirtbags trying to take our lives when all we’re trying to do is protect this community and protect our families,” Gamaldi said. “Enough is enough.”
It’s obvious that Gamaldi was referring to antifa and the left-wing media. Liberals seem to have no respect for the law — they embrace illegal immigration, want to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and even criticize police officers at every opportunity.
Do you think the media is anti-cop?
Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Tribune news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
You’re logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out.
When NFL players were protesting “police brutality,” the establishment media rarely stopped to clarify that the overwhelming majority of police officers are good people dealing with some of the most dangerous elements in society. Because of the left’s blatant anti-cop rhetoric, tragedies are more likely to happen.
When the left-wing establishment media undermines the law, some criminals see a green light to do whatever they please. And Monday’s shooting in Houston is exactly the result to expect.
Malachi Bailey is a writer from the Midwest with a background in history, education and philosophy. He has led multiple conservative groups and is dedicated to the principles of free speech, privacy and peace.
After an incident involving Covington Catholic High School students following Friday’s March for Life in Washington D.C., an Native American activist and black supremacist protesters became emblematic of “fake news”complaints that have been lodged against the establishment media for decades.
Starting with a short snippet of video featuring the Native American activist — identified as Omaha tribe elder and Marine Corps veteran Nathan Phillips — banging a drum and chanting while locked in a standoff with a smiling young teen wearing a red MAGA hat, the media ran wild with accusations of racism and harassment against the elder by the students who had purportedly approached and surrounded him in an intimidating display of white privilege and social oppression.
Except, having rushed to judgment without waiting for all of the facts, much of the media was forced to walk back their initial reports by Sunday after other, longer videos emerged that painted an entirely different picture. It was the boys who had been harassed by the black supremacists and approached by Phillips, not the other way around, as had been implied at first.
The media had sought to demonize the students and portray Phillips as a victim, and countless outlets — including The Washington Post — reported that the abuse from the boys was extra terrible in light of the fact that Phillips was a combat veteran of the Vietnam War. Except, the media has had to walk back that claim as well, as it has now been revealed that Phillips never served in Vietnam, though it is still maintained that he served as a Marine during the same time period.
The Washington Post issued a correction on Tuesday about Phillips to the hit piece against the MAGA hat-wearing boys that was first posted on Sunday morning. That correction reads: “Earlier versions of this story incorrectly said that Native American activist Nathan Phillips fought in the Vietnam War. Phillips served in the U.S. Marines from 1972 to 1976 but was never deployed to Vietnam.”
This is yet another huge factual error within the larger array of mistakes in the story that the media got wrong at first glance. It doesn’t appear that Phillips ever specifically described himself as a combat veteran — though he certainly remains fair game for criticism for his distorted version of events in several interviews following the incident. Yet, despite Phillips having never specifically said he was a combat veteran of the Vietnam era, that was most definitely insinuated — both implicitly and explicitly by some — in countless reports and tweets from media outlets and reporters.
CNN transcripts from their interview with Nathan Phillips say that he said he was a Vietnam War veteran, but the video interview shows him saying he is a “Vietnam times veteran.”
The folks over at a veteran-focused blog known as This Ain’t Hell took a closer look at the circumstances surrounding the media’s portrayal of the self-described “Vietnamtimes veteran.”
Without Phillips’ military service records to verify — that have been requested — the blog nevertheless proceeded to display several screenshots of media chyrons and tweets announcing Phillips as a war vet, again clearly implying that he had served in the conflict.
The blog further dug into several interviews of Phillips and even looked into old media accounts of Phillips from prior incidents over the years and found no evidence that he had ever described himself as a combat veteran, but did find several instances where potentially “over-zealous” reporters had assigned that specific honor to him.
On top of that, the blog also looked closely at his age — reported to be 64 — and compared that to the actual timeline of the Vietnam War. Phillips would have turned 18 right around the tail-end of the war in 1972/73, so there is only an exceptionally small window with little margin for error to account for his having graduated from high school, enlisting in the Marines, as well as graduating from basic training and additional training schools prior to being immediately shipped off to the war zone, were he to have actually served in the war.
Again, without his actual service records to provide verification, there is really no way to know for sure, but odds are Phillips served in the Marines during what is called the Vietnam era — which officially ended in 1975 — without having served in the combat zone.
To be sure, we here at Conservative Tribune are not knocking Phillips for his military service. Indeed, we commend him for his service and sacrifice to the nation, regardless of whether he served overseas or at home, during a time of war or peace.
Instead, we are throwing a sharp elbow in the direction of the mainstream media — especially The Washington Post — and all of the reporters who perpetuated the implication that he was a Vietnam War veteran who had actually fought in the war, which appears to have not been the case at all.
This was a story made huge by the media in large part because it was deceptively framed to fit the preconceived notions of liberals by portraying a Native American activist as an oppressed victim and a bunch of white, MAGA hat-wearing Catholic school boys as privileged aggressors, which was pretty much the opposite of what actually happened. The media should be ashamed of themselves, and minor corrections and half-hearted apologies aren’t going to cut it in making things right this time.
As you wake up this morning, you’ll no doubt turn on your TV and hear a debate over the use of tear gas against caravan members by the Border Patrol as said caravan members tried to rush the border.
By debate, of course, I mean that one person will say, “How could they?” and another will say “How could they?” See, completely different positions — the stress is on a different word. Who’s to say that the media doesn’t allow an exchange of ideas?
Completely unmentioned, of course, will be any questions about why parents would bring their children on or near a manifestly illegal border incursion that was almost certainly going to end like this or what the authorities ought to have done in the first place. These seem like important questions, but the problem is that they’re Not Empathetic™, the same way enforcing any sort of border law isn’t, either.
Advertisement – story continues below
What you also won’t see is a lot of examination of this picture.
I’m sure you’ve seen it. As no less than Pulitzer winner Jason Szep of Reuters noted in his tweet, the picture is “(i)ncredibly moving and poignant.”
Advertisement – story continues below
If you look closely enough, it’s also a little odd.
Take a look at these tweets, which show that skepticism over the photograph isn’t just Infowarsy nonsense. Take a look at the five weird things in the background in the first one:
Advertisement – story continues below
As you can see, there are plenty of photographers who aren’t running anywhere (as well as other members of the caravan who seem perfectly willing to stay put in the face of the tear gas) while there seem to be individuals with the caravan doing things that are, for lack of a better description, darkly photogenic.
As The Daily Wire points out, there were also doubts expressed on Reddit, albeit of a different sort.
“We’re supposed to believe that this person dragged those poor, pant-less children 2888 miles in 45 days? Walking ~20 hours a day? And we’re supposed to believe it is a totally organic thing, not paid for by anyone?”one user wrote.
That’s not going to make the rounds on “Today,” particularly now that Megyn Kelly is unemployed and wallowing in her money. However, it’s something we need to ask ourselves as the coverage of the caravan continues. We’re treating this quote-unquote outrage as if it were something like Tiananmen Square, and we’ll continue to do so until we come across the next quote-unquote outrage and treat it the exact same way.
In the meantime, we’ll never question where this caravan came from, why they should be allowed to break immigration law and why parents are putting their children in situations where they might be exposed to tear gas. Some things, it seems, are just a bridge too far.
Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech. Exercising it there under his given name could put him in danger.
Far-left Democrats have made their general disdain for Christianity very well known. It’s no secret to anyone who has even remotely kept up with their narrative in recent years. Despite that, leftists like to bring up Christianity as some sort of barometer when criticizing conservatives — and especially when criticizing anyone who supports President Donald Trump.
To the surprise of nobody, many liberals and Democrats only seems to applaud the merits of Christianity when the faith can be used to attack conservatives and Republicans. In fairness, that line of liberal thinking has certainly befuddled some Christians. Do devout Christians sometimes struggle with supporting an organization or person who can at times do or say un-Christian things?
While that can certainly be hard for some to answer, it was no problem for White House press secretary Sarah Sanders. In fact, it may be the best response I’ve ever heard. In a recently published interview with the New Yorker, Sanders perfectly responded to any and all critics who claim Christians can’t work in or support the Trump administration.
“Frankly, if people of faith don’t get involved in the dirty process, then you’re missing the entire point of what we’re called to do,”Sanders said.
Honestly, had Sanders simply stopped right there, it would have been a simply great answer. Of course, she elaborated on the issue to further cement her point.
The New Yorker cited Trump’s alleged sexual encounter with a porn star as one of the reasons why many outsiders condemned Christians who hold high positions in the Trump administration. Sanders again had the perfect response
“I’m not going to my office expecting it to be my church,” she said. Again, this is a very valid point. For many Americans and Christians, work is a wholly separate place from church.
Even if work involves unsavory accusations, Sanders is 100 percent correct to say that believing in Christianity means she should be wanting to go into work to spread the good word.
“You’re not called to go into the places where everyone already thinks like you and is a believer — you have to go onto a stage where they’re not,”Sanders said.
Sanders did clarify that she was not speaking directly about the White House, but rather her mission as a Christian in general.
“You have to take that message into the darkest places, and the dirtiest places, and the most tainted and dysfunctional places. If you can influence even one person, that’s what you’re supposed to do,” she added.
When the New Yorker writer Paige Williams pointed out that she thought Trump specifically needed the most help, Sanders didn’t miss a beat.
“We all need help,”Sanders responded. “That’s the whole basis of Christianity. No one is perfect. We are all sinners.”
That, in particular, seems to be the biggest point the media is missing. Nobody is perfect, and Sanders clearly realizes that. The mainstream media that’s so intent on attacking the Trump administration that it seems blind to its own flaws ought to remind itself of that every once in a while.
If I could have two television shows and two movies on a desert island, they’d be “The Office,” (the American version) “Breaking Bad,” “The Dark Knight,” and “Die Hard.” I love sports, video games, comics, movies and television. And I guess my job, too.
Friday morning, as the Senate prepared to vote to advance Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, I took a field trip with some of our interns. It wasn’t anything intensive — just a lap around the Capitol to observe the anti-Kavanaugh protests.
One of our female interns carried a sign. It was a simple sign with four words: “I stand with Brett.”
I somewhat expected those words to attract attention — they are, after all, words so contrary to the sentiments expressed by the majority of individuals who held signs around the Capitol this week.
What I did not expect was the type of attention it would draw and from what type of people.
You see, we were mostly ignored by the large groups of screaming, borderline-hysterical, anti-Kavanaugh protesters. Occasionally, a lone individual would heap some abuse our way, often in the form of telling us we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. But overall, it appeared they had bigger fights to pick than with four fairly innocuous young adults who kept a respectful distance.
No, the attention we attracted was from people largely overlooked amid the shouting. And they were almost unanimously supportive.
Normal, everyday people — tourists from all areas of the country, couples pushing strollers, families with teenage daughters, middle-aged friends, elderly women out for a walk — all quietly, calmly approaching us for a word of thanks.
We could not go 50 yards without being stopped by someone expressing their gratitude or asking if we had any extra signs. I can’t tell you how many wanted to take pictures with the sign. I gave up counting the thumbs ups and smiles. I can’t tell you the number of ways we were thanked by different individuals.
What I do know is that the amount of encouragement received by people who would otherwise have stayed silent in the shadow of the larger anti-Kavanaugh mobs gave me hope.
More than anything, I was heartened by the women. For too many women, “I stand with Brett” is a phrase we’ve been told we mustn’t utter in public. It’s a conclusion we’ve been told we mustn’t reach. A rationale we’ve been told we mustn’t embrace.
And so many women have stayed silent. We’ve quietly absorbed the abuse aimed at us. Without retort, we have stood by and refrained from engaging in a prolonged ideological battle we fear we’ll fight alone.
But inside, we know. We know that there is not and has never been a shred of corroboration for the claims of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. We know that “Believe all women” is an irrational and untenable ideology that undermines every argument that we should be treated equally to men. We know that a good man has been forced to go to war for his honor and his family because he is being slandered on the altar of social justice run amok.
For dozens of women today, these four words printed on poster board were their voice, and they let us know it.
Reason and truth do not always belong to the loudest in the room. Sometimes, they belong to the whisperers the world barely acknowledges, and castigates when it does.
So let me unequivocally state today what so many of us have long known, but have too often refused to say publicly: Women, it’s OK.
It’s OK to not believe other women when the evidence is contrary to their claims.
It’s OK to adhere to basic concepts of rationality and fairness when making a judgment about a man accused of sexual misconduct.
It’s OK to stand with Kavanaugh if your reason so implores you.
These are things we need not only whisper in private. We can say them out loud, and boldly. Behind our whispers is a mighty roar to let others know they are not alone in thinking for themselves.
Amy Swearer is a legal policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
A version of this Op-Ed appeared Friday on The Daily Signal website under the headline “The Power of ‘I Stand With Brett.’”
Tampa Police DepartmentBrian Sebring of Tampa, Florida, was arrested last month for allegedly shooting a man after the two had a political argument on social media. The victim suffered non-life threatening injuries. (Tampa Police Department)
Perhaps when President Barack Obama, known for being divisive, left office, some held out hope for a more unified nation. Instead, there has been a ramping up of not only violent political rhetoric, but acts of violence, as well. Social media has been one place where that aggression has been seen surging. Take the example of a political disagreement on social media that resulted in a Florida man being shot.
According to the Tampa Bay Times, 44-year-old Brian Sebring — a registered Democrat— and Facebook friend Alex Stephens, 46, a convicted felon with no political registration, got into an online dispute last month involving politics. It ended with Sebring driving to Stephens’ home and shooting him.
“After receiving several explicit messages and threats, the defendant responded to the victim’s home to confront him (regarding) the messages,” according to a police report cited by the Tampa Bay Times. Sebring was arrested and told police that Stephens had threatened him, so he drove to his home in order to confront him.
However, Sebring took a Glock, in a waistband holster, and an AR-15 with him when he went to confront Stephens. After arriving at Stephen’s home, Sebring allegedly honked his truck horn and waited outside of the vehicle for Stephens. Stephens went outside and allegedly “charged at” Sebring. It was at this point that Sebring allegedly opened fire, hitting Stephens in the buttocks.
Despite Stephens fleeing and Sebring leaving the scene, police ultimately found and arrested Sebring for the shooting. He was charged with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and carrying a concealed firearm. His bail was set at $9,500.
“I’m not a bad guy,” Sebring said in an interview with the Tampa Bay Times a few days after the incident. “But I mean, this guy threatened to hurt my family, and I went off the deep end. I wasn’t thinking right. You know, after this I’m going to go see a therapist or something, man, because that’s some scary s—, that I could lose my temper like that and do something so stupid.”
The exact topic of the men’s dispute is not known, other than it had to do with politics. What we do know is that in the current political climate, violent rhetoric and violent acts are on the rise. And that makes it even more fool-hardy for anyone to make threats.
What we also know is that, overall, the violence is being perpetrated more heavily in one direction. And those violent threats and acts are leaning heavily against those on the right.
Breitbart has reported that instances of “violence against the right” are increasing as media outlets “amp up hate-rhetoric against Trump.” In July, Breitbart began documenting “acts of media-approved violence and harassment against Trump supporters.” The running total is now up to564.
In mid-July, The Gateway Pundit noted that Breitbart’s running total at that time was just over 300. This means that in approximately two month’s time, the number has almost doubled. And more reports of violence continue to pour in.
It has long-since gone beyond an increase in violent threats on social media to actual attacks in real life.
Meanwhile, few on the left have said anything to discourage such behavior. Some, such as Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters, have been blamed for amping up the hate and violence.
Some believe the incitement is intentional, with the ultimate goal being that of a civil war. Others point to mental disorders on a mass scale, with such tags as “liberalism” and “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”
While such labels are sometimes used in jest, the injuries sustained by victims of the violence is no laughing matter. Something needs to be done and it needs to include Democratic leadership and media taking responsibility.
Violent rhetoric and violent acts against political opponents are not OK. This should be something both sides of the political aisle can agree upon and commit to fighting against. What actually happens, as reports continue to pour in and public outrage continues to grow, is yet to be seen.
Specializing in news, politics and human interest stories, Kara Pendleton has been a professional writer and author since 2002. One of her proudest professional moments was landing an interview that even mainstream media couldn’t get.
The New York Times published an opinionated hit piece against President Donald Trump on Wednesday, but what else is new?
The anonymously written op-ed article, titled “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration,” was purportedly penned by a “senior official” in Trump’s administration. It asserted that a collection of other “senior officials” are part of a broader, right-leaning “resistance” inside the administration that is “thwarting” the president’s “misguided impulses” to save the country from Trump’s petty recklessness.
This, even as the supposed “senior official” author admitted that many of Trump’s policies “have already made America safer and more prosperous,” though the author insisted that was the case in spite of, and not because of, Trump himself.
Advertisement – story continues below
Unsurprisingly, the op-ed sparked plenty of controversy and outrage on all sides and provoked conspiratorial conversations about exactly who this anonymous “senior official” is.
Using clues such as linguistic mannerisms and specific words contained within the article, guesses have ranged from Vice President Mike Pence to a number of different cabinet-level officials to other truly “senior” officials in the top tier of the administration’s several agencies and departments.
But if Trump’s White House has engaged in a “witch hunt” of its own to identify the anonymous author of The Times’ hit piece, an op-ed in Townhall suggested the hunters avert their gaze from the cabinet and top tier of the administration and search a little bit lower on the totem pole to find the potentially seditious insider.
That Townhall piece noted that The Times has a history of inflating and over-exaggerating the stature or seniority of its anonymous sources from within the government, and pointed to a rather glaring example of the practice that occurred in 2011.
Advertisement – story continues below
At that time, the explosive growth in natural gas energy production was gaining steam in large part because of technological progress in a new method of drilling known as hydraulic fracturing. Better known as “fracking,” it was widely opposed by the left, to include the Obama administration and its liberal mouthpieces at The Times.
A writer for The Times published a series of anti-fracking articles in the paper, one of which anonymously cited emails from three “senior” insiders — an energy industry analyst, a federal analyst and a senior administration official — who were all opposed to the shale energy boom and the industry’s methods used to extract it.
A Senate investigation into the matter determined that the emails had all originated in the federal government’s Energy Information Agency, and even better than that, all the emails from the three “different” sources had actually come from just one person employed by the EIA.
On top of that, the one EIA employee was nowhere close to truly being a “senior” official of any sort. At the time he wrote the first email quoted by The Times, he was actually an intern with the EIA. He had been promoted one rung on the ladder to be an entry-level analyst when he wrote the others.
A deeper dive into that particular scandal was well documented in a 2011 article published by Energy In Depth, including a look at how harshly The Times’ own ombudsman judged the newspaper’s product.
Advertisement – story continues below
There’s no way of knowing who The Times’ source is in this case, but history suggests the possibility that The Times has similarly exaggerated or inflated the seniority of this anti-Trump “senior official” who is part of a resistance movement inside Trump’s own administration.
The Times editors — who stated in an introduction to the op-ed that they know who the author is — have refused to reveal that individual’s identity, ostensibly to protect the writer from potential blowback or career-ending punishment.
Perhaps just as likely is that they are protecting that person’s identity because it will be quite embarrassing for them if it is revealed that the “senior” official is in actuality some Trump-hating mid-level bureaucrat or low-level intern.
That’s if the op-ed was even written by a member of the administration at all, and wasn’t just some piece of fiction cooked up by The Times itself to smear Trump. (Hard as that might be to believe, it can’t be completely ruled out, given how fake some of the media’s “fake news” stories have been proven to be.)
Advertisement – story continues below
Keep this in mind the next time somebody tries to assert how credible The New York Times is, when in reality it’s staffed by narrative-driven, leftist hacks who care more about pushing an agenda than actually reporting the news.
By now it has become predictable old news to hear that Fox News Channel defeated their cable news rivals CNN and MSNBC in the weekly ratings, as they have finished number one out of the big three in total average viewers per day for 31 consecutive weeks, according to Adweek.
Nor is it a surprise to hear that Fox beat their rivals in prime time viewership either, as they have done so for 11 consecutive weeks now.
What is somewhat surprising, and incredibly laughable, is that CNN — the formerly vaunted crown jewel of the establishment media — has sunk so low in the ratings that they are losing out to other basic cable networks in terms of prime time viewers, networks with decidedly less important topics to air than the serious news of the day.
The Daily Caller noted that while Fox ranked number one in total prime time viewers for the week of August 6-12 — 2.18 million viewers on the average evening — and were followed closely by MSNBC — 1.75 million viewers — both were trailed significantly by CNN, which averaged only 992,000 viewers during the prime time hours.
That placed CNN at seventh on the list, behind such basic cable networks as Home and Garden Television (1.33 million), USA Network (1.25 million), the History Channel (1.06 million) and TBS Network (1.02 million).
Essentially, CNN’s prime time stars like Anderson Cooper and Chris Cuomo are drawing fewer viewers than History Channel shows such as “Pawn Stars,” “American Pickers,” “Counting Cars,” “Mountain Men,” and perhaps funniest of all, “Ancient Aliens.”
Indeed, it would appear that more Americans would prefer to watch people haggle over the price of obscure antiques and old cars — or dive into the conspiracy theory of intelligent aliens visiting ancient civilizations on earth to help build the pyramids and teach them other civilization-building knowledge — than watch Cooper or Cuomo prattle on about Russians or bash the Trump administration on a daily basis.
Some of our readers who frequent social media have likely seen the memes of “Ancient Aliens” crazy-haired star Giorgio Tsoukalos stating “I’m not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens.”
That meme has recently been transformed in light of the ratings news to now feature Cooper or Cuomo stating, “I’m not saying it was the Russians, but it was probably the Russians.”
It is worth noting that while CNN lost out to the History Channel during prime time hours, the media outlet did manage to beat the History Channel in terms of total day viewers — 674,000 to 548,000. That means that at least some day time viewers seem to prefer watching CNN compare the current administration to Nazis than watching documentaries on actual Nazis during WWII.
So there is that, I guess, that CNN has going for them. Now if only CNN can find a way to woo viewers away from Nickelodeon, HGTV and Investigation Discovery … but they’d still be trailing Fox and MSNBC during the day.
It is also worth pointing out that while Adweek had noted that number one Fox News had seen a slight decline in its total numbers over last year — down 4 percent in total day viewers and down 18 percent among the key 25-54 demographic — CNN saw an even greater decline in their viewer numbers over last year.
Indeed, CNN’s daytime total was off by 13 percent and they fell by 23 percent in terms of the key 25-54 demographic of viewers that advertisers are so fond of.
We are witnessing the slow death of the overtly biased liberal media — which isn’t confined simply to TV, as formerly widely-read legacy newspapers have also seen immense drops in their numbers. This decline has been brought about their own actions, and no amount of kicking and screaming about Russia, Trump is Hitler or racism everywhere is going to save them.
Reporting the news in a straight-forward and objective manner is the only remedy that will save them now, but that might as well be buried beneath an alien spacecraft hidden inside a pyramid or tucked away on the back shelf of a pawn shop, given the media’s continued lurch leftward in spite of their plummeting ratings.
Another day, another “we’ve got him now. No, really, we’ve really, truly, madly, deeply got him, now!” series of headlines from the establishment media about President Donald Trump.
This time the focus is on campaign finance.
And once again, voters are left to their own devices to figure out what the truth really is and if there actually is a crime involved. Add to that the way the establishment media addressed the topic when President Barack Obama was involved in similar “scandals,” and you have more evidence as to why the establishment media outlets are so often called “fake news.”
Advertisement – story continues below
The latest “Get Trump”establishment media feeding frenzy stems from a plea deal made by Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen. On Tuesday, Cohen pleaded guilty to eight criminal charges against him, including two alleged campaign finance violations. One involved a payment of $130,000 in 2016 from then-candidate Trump to porn star Stormy Daniels. The other involved coordinating a $150,000 payment by the National Enquirer’s publisher to former Playboy model Karen McDougal, according to The Wall Street Journal.
A great breakdown of the situation comes from radio and television personality Mark Levin, who is also a lawyer and worked in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration.
Advertisement – story continues below
Appearing on “Hannity,” Levin offered his “help” to the “the law professors, the constitutional experts, the criminal defense lawyers, the former prosecutors, and of course the professors”in regards to “what the law is”surrounding the campaign finance issue and Michael Cohen plea deal.
“The general counsel for the Clinton Mob Family, Lanny Davis, he had his client plead to two counts of criminality that don’t exist. These campaign finance violations that they are saying all over TV implicates the president directly.”
“First, let’s back up. It’s a guilty plea. It is a plea bargain between a prosecutor and a criminal. A criminal who doesn’t want to spend the rest of his life in prison. That is not precedent. That applies only to that specific case,” Levin said.
“Nobody cites plea bargains for precedent. That’s number one.
“Number two: Just because a prosecutor says that somebody violated a campaign law, doesn’t make it so. He’s not the judge, he’s not the jury. We didn’t adjudicate anything–it never went to court. That’s number two.
Advertisement – story continues below
“A campaign expenditure, under our federal campaign laws, is an expenditure solely for campaign activity. A candidate who spends his own money, or even corporate money, for an event that occurred not as a result of the campaign, it is not a campaign expenditure.”
Levin then gave some examples, one being a candidate for office having disputes with a vendor and not wanting the negative publicity. In this scenario, the hypothetical candidate instructs his private attorney to just pay the vendors and he (the candidate) will reimburse the attorney.”
Levin adds that this is “perfectly legal” and a “point” made that such an act would “influence an election”was “stupid.”
Earlier this year, Newsweek tackled the “the question of whether longtime Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s $130,000 hush money payment to adult actress Stormy Daniels was an illegal campaign contribution.” Ex-Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley Smith told Newsweek in March that, “It looks like Trump has made these kinds of payments to people before unrelated to his campaign or as a candidate. It’s hard to show this payment was made solely because he was running for election.”
Advertisement – story continues below
By way of comparison as to how the media handled a “campaign finance scandal”when it came to Trump’s predecessor, let’s first ask if anyone was aware there even was one.
In one of the few mainstream media reports about it, a U.S. News & World Report headline from 2013 announced, “Obama Campaign Fined Big for Hiding Donors, Keeping Illegal Donations.”
The article went on to note that, “The FEC levied one of its largest fines ever against Obama’s campaign committee, new documents show.” The Federal Election Commission fined his campaign $375,000 for “a failure to disclose or improperly disclosing thousands of contributions to Obama for America during the then-senator’s 2008 presidential run.”
More specifically, citing the FEC, the article stated that “the Obama campaign failed to disclose the sources of 1,300 large donations, which together accounted for nearly $1.9 million. Election Commission rules state campaigns must report donations of $1,000 or more within 20 days of Election Day.”
Advertisement – story continues below
“Obama for America was also fined for ‘untimely resolution of excessive contributions,’ according to the conciliation agreement, FEC says,”the report continues. “The campaign accepted more than $1.3 million in contributions that came from donors who had already given $46,000 — the maximum allowed by FEC rules. The campaign eventually refunded the excess cash but did not do so within the 60-day window allotted for resolving such cases.
“In addition to failing to report big donors and excess donations in a timely manner, the Obama campaign incorrectly dated the filings dealing with $85 million in funds, the FEC claims. This error appears to have been primarily the result of one transfer to the campaign committee from the Obama Victory Fund, a fundraising group that includes money raised by the Democratic National Committee that is earmarked for the presidential race.”
Do you remember the media having a field-day with the news and screaming for Obama to be impeached?
Was anyone sent to jail over actual mishandling of actual campaign funds? (No Russians were implicated in the commission of those violations of federal election law, either.)
The sharp contrast between the two situations is undeniable.
To anyone with eyes to read, there is a distinct appearance of the establishment media using extreme measures to smear a sitting president and build public pressure for impeachment. Neither of which is the duty of a free press or an honorable Fourth Estate.
The Paul Manafort case is now in the hands of the jury — and, if the people at CNN and other leftist news outlets have anything to do with it, that jury could be facing some serious intimidation. According to Breitbart, CNN and six other news outlets have sued to obtain the personal details of the individuals who will judge the merits of the government’s case against the former Trump campaign manager. Along with CNN, BuzzFeed, Politico, The New York Times, NBC and The Associated Press have filed a suit requesting the details of the jurors, including their names and home addresses.
Breitbart described the suit as “a move that is both disturbing and almost unprecedented.”
Writing at The Federalist, Bre Payton noted that the request by CNN and other left-leaning outfits suggested there was more going on that simple journalistic pursuit of information.
“Publicly outing the names and home addresses of jurors is considered ethically questionable, as outlined in this guidance sheet on the topic from the Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press,” Bre Payton noted at The Federalist.
This is doubly troubling when you take into account the fact that the judge in the case says he’s received threats due to his role in adjudicating the matter.
In rejecting the motion put forth by the news organizations, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III said that he’s currently being trailed by U.S. Marshals because of the threats made against him, according to Fox News.
“I can tell you there have been (threats), Ellis said, adding that “The Marshals go where I go.”
“I don’t feel right if I release (the jurors) names,”he concluded.
That would be bad enough, but CNN in particular has a long history of intimidating people that cross them. Last year, they threatened to dox an individual who created an anti-CNN .gif meme.
According to Breitbart, the network also doxxed an elderly Trump supporter who had promoted a pro-Trump event that may have been set up by Russians, leading to harassment and threatening.
With that kind of history in mind, CNN’s request to the court looks less like an act of journalists seeking information than it does the groundwork of a plan to attack the Manafort jury if it comes back with a verdict the media doesn’t like.
This is an absolutely farcical request that serves no legitimate journalistic purposes. It’s doxxing, plain and simple.
These jurors don’t deserve this. CNN shouldn’t be putting their thumbs on the scales of justice.,
There was great consternation and outrage among the media and Democrats — as well as some Republicans — following President Donald Trump’s summit in Helsinki, Finland, with Russian President Vladimir Putin. While the harsh criticisms and shouts of “treason” from the hard left and NeverTrumpright are more than a little disconcerting, they are not the least bit surprising as that sort of reaction has become rather predictable in this day and age.
Indeed, the stage was set ahead of the summit for just such a reaction by the media and Democrats, who displayed their “glaring hypocrisy”with regard to their coverage of Trump’s diplomatic meeting as opposed to the diplomatic meetings held by former President Barack Obama or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
That was the message delivered on “Fox & Friends” on Sunday morning by former U.S. Army Special Forces member and anti-terrorism expert Jim Hanson, who pointed out the disparate ways in which Trump, Obama and Clinton were treated by the establishment and media following their particular dealings with Russia.
Co-host Pete Hegseth began the segment by recalling Clinton’s embarrassing attempt in 2009 to hit the “reset” button with Russia, using a hokey red plastic button that actually had the wrong Russian word printed on it to symbolize the development in U.S./Russian relations.
“And Hillary walks into that meeting asking for nothing with her giant button that actually said ‘overcharge’ in Russian, and she’s telling them, ‘ok, you can have whatever you want from us,’” Hanson said.
“Even a more glaring example was when President Obama was talking to (then-President) Medvedev of the Russian Republic and tells him, ‘after my next election I’ll have more flexibility,‘” he continued.
“Now that is him admitting that he was lying to the American public during that election cycle, and afterwards he would give Russia what they wanted. But yet, where is the outrage? Where is the press saying we should investigate that?”Hanson asked.
Hegseth asked what sort of “flexibility” Obama was referring to in that particular remark, and if it meant allowing Russia to annex Crimea, invade Ukraine or even meddle in our elections.
“All of it, and that’s the problem Pete,”Hanson replied. “You know the entire focus and entire stature of the Obama foreign policy was cringing capitulation, it was ‘America last’ — ‘what do you guys want, what can we give you’ — and it ended up making the world a much more dangerous place.”
“In that case they were actually talking about missile defense, so the security of the entire free world for any attack by any crazed person with missiles — which could have included the Russians — is being put at risk because Obama was willing to go ahead and bow down,”Hanson said.
“And now, the media at that point in time had nothing to say, now President Trump wants to have a less antagonistic relationship with the Russians, maybe get them to stop hurting us with North Korea, stop hurting us in Syria, and all of the sudden it’s the worst thing that ever happened,”he continued.
“It’s glaring hypocrisy,” Hanson concluded, to which Hegseth could only reply, “Absolutely it is, every single day of the week.”
When Obama and Clinton reached out and tried to make nice with Russia, they were applauded by the liberal media and establishment politicians on both sides of the aisle, even as Putin and Russia took full advantage of the naïve good faith extended by Obama and Clinton.
Now Trump is seeking to tone down the harsh rhetoric and smooth out the rough relationship between the U.S. and Russia and he has been attacked and smeared as some sort of Putin puppet that has sold out his own nation by the same folks who cheered similar efforts by Trump’s predecessors.
Since President Donald Trump’s first day in office, the liberally biased mainstream media has perpetuated the narrative that Trump is largely despised both at home and abroad, and that in other nations he is almost universally viewed as an embarrassment to the American people.
Thus, it came as no surprise whatsoever when the U.S. media essentially ignored the reception Trump received from cheering supporters upon his arrival Sunday in Singapore ahead of a high-stakes summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. Coverage of the cheering crowds greeting Trump would directly contradict the “Trump is hated”narrative the mainstream media outlets push every day, so they simply ignore it and choose not to cover it.
According to a series of photos published by The Daily Caller, the president received a boisterous welcome from not just U.S. citizens who live in Singapore, but also from Singaporean citizens as well.
A couple photos show a pair of young American women wearing red MAGA hats and waving American flags, with one of the girls even wearing a pair of patriotic socks emblazoned with Trump’s name.
Other photos show citizens of Singapore, young and old alike, waving U.S. flags and holding signs expressing support for Trump and appreciation for his efforts at securing peace for the Korean Peninsula and broader Asian region.
Fans of the president had gathered at the airport to greet his arrival, and lined the streets of the route used to transport him via presidential motorcade to the Shangri-La Hotel, as well as the Singaporean prime minister’s residence, the Istana Palace.
According to The U.K. Independent, Trump landed in Singapore at about 8:20 p.m. local time, and proceeded directly to the hotel.
“It’s exciting, but I am also anxious,” a Trump-supporting woman, identified only by her first name as Kim, told the Independent. “Kim (Jong Un) can change his mind at any time. Mr. Trump also likes to get his own way.
“But if it works, it’s for the good of the whole world. It will make history,”she added.
That view was echoed by a 16-year-old U.S. citizen student named Christine McDougal, who lives in Singapore and cheered the president’s arrival with a friend.
“This is a such an important moment,” McDougal told the Independent, in what can only be described as an understatement.
Meanwhile, apart from the cheering crowds and pomp and circumstance of a major geopolitical summit, Christian leaders across Singapore were urging their church members and attendees to pray for God’s will to be reflected upon the high-stakes meeting,according to the Washington Examiner.
Anglican and Catholic church leaders alike asked that God provide wisdom and guidance to both Trump and Kim and prayed that they would find success as they sought to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and bring closure to a state of war that has been technically in effect since the 1950s.
Whether you fall into the category of those wildly cheering for Trump to emerge victorious from the meeting with a fierce communist rival or are praying that God’s hand will touch both leaders and guide them during the meeting — or both — there is no doubt that all eyes are on Singapore right now.
It would be nice if the U.S. media would cover all aspects of the summit — including the warm reception given to Trump — instead of not so subtly hoping for his failure, if only to rob the president they despise of yet another “win” he can tout with voters ahead of the 2020 election.
Timed to coincide with the Nakba, or “catastrophe,” of the anniversary of modern Israel’s founding — as well as the opening of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem — Hamas incited protests and violent riots near the security fence that separates Gaza from Israel. The liberal media wailed and moaned about the dozens of dead — many of whom were Hamas terrorists — and thousands wounded from Israeli counter-protest gunfire and tear gas.
As evidence of the cruelty of Israeli security forces toward innocent Palestinians in Gaza, the media focused on a dead Palestinian baby. The infant’s tragic death, however, turned into a propaganda win for the terrorist organization.
A prime example of what could easily have been written by the Hamas propaganda department itself was an article in the Los Angeles Times which lamented the death of the 10-month-old baby girl — Layla Ghandour.
But a former journalist for the L.A. and New York Times astutely noted that, buried midway through the blatant piece, it was revealed by a doctor in Gaza that the baby had died from a pre-existing heart condition.
The 16th paragraph of that report read: “A doctor at the hospital where Layla was treated said she had a preexisting heart condition that caused her death. He asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to discuss the child’s medical history.”
Left unstated is that he probably didn’t want to be identified so he could avoid suffering the wrath of Hamas for undermining their propaganda victory with the liberal American media.
The preceding paragraph even cited Israeli military spokesman Ofir Gendelman, who stated without elaboration, “We have evidence casting doubt on the truthfulness of reports about the death of a baby girl in the Gaza Strip.”
Nevertheless, even as the family acknowledged the pre-existing heart condition, they still blamed Israeli tear gas for the little girl’s death.
Even if that were the case, blame would appear to fall on the shoulders of the girl’s 12-year-old uncle Ammar, who was charged with watching the baby at home while the protests at the border took place. Still, he carried the baby there and proceeded all the way forward to the security barrier.
Several paragraphs later in that same article, it was noted that the dead baby’s mother and father had lost a baby boy just a year ago to the exact same heart condition, due to the fact that the father couldn’t afford or obtain the proper medication to treat the condition.
On a related note which reveals the sort of pure whitewashing propaganda this article was, the girl’s father was described as being unemployed after he lost his job smuggling “food, medicine, weapons, fuel and other goods”through the illicit tunnels that connected Gaza with Egypt, prior to the Egyptians shutting those tunnels down.
The girl’s mother was said to live with her grandmother and at least 12 other family members who all subsisted off a stipend provided by the Palestinian Authority because two of the grandmother’s sons had “died in previous hostilities” with Israel. In all likelihood, that means those two men were members of Hamas or another terrorist group who had been killed while committing a terrorist act.
Hamas and their allies in the liberal media thought they could use this dead baby as a propaganda coup against Israel, but the truth surrounding the baby’s unfortunate death reveals the Israelis were not to blame. Considering the false narratives and blatant lies that have been promoted by the media in regard to the Hamas-instigated conflict at the Gaza/Israel border, it is no wonder that the media has lost so much credibility among the American people.
Of the three major cable news networks, Fox News Channel obviously leans to the right but provides fairly balanced coverage of the news of the day. MSNBC, meanwhile, openly presents itself as left-leaning and provides equally left-leaning news coverage to their liberal viewers. CNN, however, has attempted to portray itself as unbiased and centrist as a media organization, but its news coverage quite obviously skews toward the left. It appears a significant number of viewers have taken notice and are no longer watching based on recent ratings numbers, according to Breitbart.
In fact, the highest-rated primetime program on CNN fell short of the lowest-rated primetime program on FNC, and even lost to a handful of Fox’s afternoon and morning programs.
Advertisement – story continues below
Those dismal numbers for CNN were revealed in Adweek‘s report of the ratings by Nielsen Media Research for the month of April, numbers that have Fox and MSNBC cheering while CNN looks on from afar.
The best-rated weeknight show for CNN — “Anderson Cooper 360” — placed a distant 24th on the list of most-watched cable news programs. Meanwhile, the lowest-rated Fox News program in the evenings was “Fox News at Night with Shannon Bream,” which came in at 13th on the list.
Much to the dismay of liberals, Fox’s Sean Hannity came in at No. 1 in both total viewers and among the coveted advertising demographic of adults aged 25-54. Hannity was followed by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow in both categories, and the top five in total viewers was rounded out by Fox’s Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, and MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell. Carlson and Ingraham swapped spots in the top five among the key demo.
Spots six through 10 for total viewers were filled respectively by Fox’s “Special Report with Bret Baier,”“The Five,” “The Story with Martha MacCallum,” MSNBC’s “All In with Chris Hayes” and “Hardball with Chris Matthews.”
Hilariously, morning programs for Fox like “America’s Newsroom” (12th), “Fox and Friends” (14th), “Outnumbered” (16th) and “Happening Now”(18th) all beat CNN’s top-rated show.
Even mid-afternoon Fox programming like “Your World with Neil Cavuto” (17th), “Shepard Smith Reporting”(20th), “Outnumbered Overtime” (22nd) and “Daily Briefing with Dana Perino”(23rd) ranked higher in total viewers than Cooper’s program on CNN.
Following Cooper for the most-watched CNN programs at all times of the day within the top 40 were “Erin Burnett Out Front” (27th) and “CNN Tonight” (28th), along with “The Lead with Jake Tapper” (32nd), “Situation Room” (33rd), “CNN Newsroom”(37), “Wolf”(38th), “Inside Politics” (39th) and “At This Hour”(40).
Advertisement – story continues below
The only Fox News Channel program that CNN beat in terms of total viewers was “Fox and Friends First,”which ranked 42nd on the list — and airs at 4 a.m. Eastern!
The only saving grace among this horrible news for CNN is that they did slightly better among the key 25-54 demo than among total viewers, as Cooper’s show ranked 12th, though he still lost out to Bream’s program — which airs late at 11 p.m. Eastern — which came in at 11th on the list among the demo coveted by advertisers.
In Nielsen’s tally of viewership of all cable networks, not just cable news channels, Fox still emerged as the most-watched cable channel both in primetime and the daytime.
Turner Network Television, which has been airing NBA playoff games since mid April, came in second for total primetime viewers, followed closely by MSNBC in third place. CNN ranked eighth in total primetime viewers for the month, losing out to cable networks such as TBS, HGTV, ESPN and the USA Network.
Advertisement – story continues below
So perhaps this should be a lesson to any network that purports to be unbiased in its coverage, but is blatantly left-leaning and caters exclusively to liberal Trump-haters with its news coverage. It quickly becomes irrelevant and loses out “bigly” to its competition.
Whenever there is a shooting in which three or more people are murdered, the mainstream media devotes ample coverage to the horrific crime in order to perpetuate the liberal agenda and push a narrative that guns are evil and must be strictly regulated, if not totally confiscated. However, when an equally heinous mass murder occurs with a weapon other than a firearm, the media stays stunningly silent, largely because wall-to-wall coverage of the incident does nothing to further the gun control narrative, and may even work against it by revealing how a gun in the hands of a victim could have changed the terrible outcome.
Such is the case with a recent mass murder in South Carolina, in which WCSC reported that 22-year-old Lovequawn Scott has been charged with four counts of murder for the deaths of four family members in their home. Astonishingly, police caught him attempting to flee the scene covered in blood when they arrived to check out a report from another concerned family member of a suspicious death.
The victims, who according to the county coroner all died of blunt force trauma, were identified as 72-year-old Joseph Manigault, 69-year-old Rose Manigault, 42-year-old Kenya Manigault and 15-year-old Faith Manigault. The weapon believed to be used to slaughter them was not an “assault rifle” or shotgunor even a handgun, but a pair of dumbbells, which the suspect allegedly used to beat the four members of his family to death.
Nor is this the first time that the quadruple murder suspect has been in trouble with the law, as WMBF reported that Scott, who had been enrolled at Coastal Carolina University, was arrested by campus police in 2017 and charged with trespassing, possession of marijuana, unlawful possession of a handgun and carrying a weapon on school property.
But Scott’s rap sheet didn’t begin there, either. WPDE reported in Nov. 2016 that Scott had been arrested on a golf course and charged with a litany of crimes after an altercation with police. In that incident, the burgeoning career criminal was charged with possession of Schedule IV drugs — Xanax pills, MDMA powder and marijuana — other drug offenses, four counts of receiving stolen goods, resisting arrest with a deadly weapon, breaking into a vehicle and the unlawful sale, delivery or possession of a handgun by a prohibited person.
When confronted by police in that incident, he attempted to flee the scene, then attempted to pull a loaded handgun on the arresting officer in the scuffle. He was later found to be in possession of stolen goods believed to have come from at least eight separate breaking and entering of vehicles.
With regard to the murders, Bearing Arms took note of the lack of national coverage of this tragic and brutal crime. Writer Tom Knighton pointed out that the media was most likely avoiding this story because it decisively runs counter to their standard anti-gun narrative.
Indeed, a semi-automatic rifle, shotgun or handgun in the possession of any of the four victims — whether the elderly grandparents, the suspect’s aunt or his young niece — could have saved some or all of the victims from their horrific fate at the hands of the much stronger career criminal who bludgeoned them all to death at his leisure. Moreover, it proves that mass murder occurs whether or not the murder possesses or has access to a firearm.
Had the perpetrator of this atrocity used a gun in the murders, the media likely would have been all over it — though they probably would just as quickly have dropped it once the suspect’s lengthy rap sheet entered the conversation. However, since he didn’t use a gun and doesn’t fit the profile of an angry National Rifle Association member, they have avoided it at all costs.
In the month since the high school shooting in Parkland, Florida, American television screens have been images of angry teenagers demanding that grown-ups do something about gun violence in the United States. But there’s a huge part of the young adult population who aren’t making it onto the mass media’s television screens, but have evidently decided to do something about gun violence on their own:
Arm themselves so they can be responsible for their own defense.
According to the Bellevue, Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation, the organization has experienced a massive surge in people aged 18 to 20 joining or supporting the organization — a spike of almost 1,200 percent.
In a news release, foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb attributed the spike to the fact that one of the most tangible results of the aftermath of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting has been a new gun law in Florida that bans purchases of rifles by those under 21.
“We normally don’t get that many members or donors in that age group, since the gun rights movement typically trends toward older Americans,” Gottlieb said in the release.
“But the 18- to 20-year-olds have never been specifically targeted before, and they are obviously alarmed. This influx of young Americans into the gun rights movement is important, not just to respond to the current gun control threat, but as the movement has gotten older, it is encouraging to see so many young adults getting involved in support of Second Amendment rights.”
That’s a side of the argument that isn’t being pushed by the mainstream media. Obsessed with the angry young people of Parkland — like the ubiquitous Douglas senior David Hogg – most reporters have ignored the constitutional question involved in gun control laws like Florida’s.
The Constitution states — and the Supreme Court has affirmed — that bearing arms is an individual right of American citizens. Florida’s new law — and the support it’s getting from the liberal media — make a mockery of that.
If the gun-grabbers are so careless about limiting the constitutional rights of those under 21, let’s see how Democrats (and their teary-eyed pawns in Parkland) feel about getting rid of the 26th Amendment and keeping 18-year-old kids from voting. That’s never going to happen, of course, but if it did, there might never be another Democrat elected to the White House.
The Second Amendment Foundation isn’t the only gun rights group reporting renewed interest since the country’s latest bout of anti-gun insanity began, though. According to Time magazine, gun rights groups and shooting organizations have reported a rise in membership since the Feb. 14 shootings in Parkland. The National Rifle Association keeps its membership information private, but Time reported that two sources familiar with the group’s data said membership and donations have risen even as the NRA has been demonized by the mainstream media and Democrat Party.
David Hogg and the other Parkland darlings have all done their share of attacking the NRA too (this bit on CNN on Monday was a good example), pretending to speak for all the nation’s young people in wanting to dismantle a constitutionally guaranteed right. But the numbers of 18- to 20-year-olds contacting the Second Amendment Foundation tell a different story:
The anti-gun campaign is blowing up in their faces.
“While the media has paraded high school students to push a gun control agenda, the age group that is now being targeted by that effort is energizing, and showing that there is another side to this controversy,” Gottlieb said.
And it’s a side the gun grabbers are going to hate.
In the wake of the Parkland shooting, the media has been more than happy to hand the spotlight to any gun owner who shows a willingness to rid themselves of their gun. Whether or not this will actually affect gun safety — or even if they actually managed to destroy the gun — is pretty much irrelevant. Just look like you’re destroying and/or handing in your gun, make an impassioned (if fact-free) commentary about the Parkland shooting, and bam: instant viral star.
One prominent conservative — The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh — has also offered to give up his firearms. However, in a short-but-pithy piece for the publication, Walsh says there are a number of conditions for this offer to be valid.
“To be more specific, I will get rid of my gun the moment my gun becomes self-aware and develops the ability to go off by itself and shoot people on its own initiative,” Walsh wrote.
“I will get rid of my gun as soon as I begin to feel the insatiable urge to become a mass shooter,” he continued.
“I will get rid of my gun if I ever lose half my brain cells and no longer possess the basic competency to store and handle it safely.
“I will get rid of my gun if someone can pull out a Bible and show me the verse that makes it a sin merely to own a weapon, or to use it for self-defense.
“I will get rid of my gun if my gun ever becomes possessed by the Devil, or if I ever become possessed by the Devil.
“I will get rid of my gun the very moment that all evil is vanquished from human society, and wickedness is purged from the hearts of men, and there is no longer any danger in the world and the whole of mankind can live in utter peace and harmony. When Christ returns in His glory I will certainly lay down my arms. I do not plan on bringing my gun to Heaven.
“But we aren’t yet in Heaven. And that is why I have a gun. And that is why I won’t get rid of it.”
This is, of course, the one thing that the media is unlikely to point out: the fact that the easiest way to combat evil of the violent sort is a firearm. Period. This is something that the media loves to ridicule. Just look how they received President Trump’s suggestion that teachers ought to be armed. Yet, it’s also something that’s an undeniable fact. Look at the numerous examples where guns have saved lives. Look at where they could save lives.
We don’t live in Heaven, we live upon a very imperfect earth. Our founders realized this, and they gave us the right to bear arms. When we can bring Heaven down to earth, we can all give up our guns. Until then, good luck.
Now that President Trump has received a clean bill of health both medically and mentally, the media is on to another narrative that could have some serious repercussions. The only problem, once again, is their narrative has some serious flaws.
An article published Wednesday by In Touch covers a 2011 interview with an adult film star, Stormy Daniels. In the interview, Daniels recounted an alleged sexual experience with Trump back in 2006, when he had recently married Melania Trump. After the encounter, Daniels claimed Trump told her, “I’m gonna call you, I’m gonna call you. I have to see you again. You’re amazing. We have to get you on ‘The Apprentice.’”
But the narrative doesn’t stop there.
Last week, The Wall Street Journal alleged that Michael Cohen, an attorney for The Trump Organization at the time, paid Daniels $130,000 to sign a non-disclosure agreement a month before the 2016 election. The Journal reported that she was paid the six-figure sum to prevent her from speaking out on the alleged affair.
Trump, however, is denying the affair ever took place. “This is now the second time that you are raising outlandish allegations against my client. You have attempted to perpetuate this false narrative for over a year; a narrative that has been consistently denied by all parties since at least 2011,”Trump’s lawyer Cohen wrote in a statement to The Wall Street Journal.
So, who’s telling the truth? Is there any evidence beyond “he said, she said”?
There is.
Evidence has come out that reveals Daniels has flip-flopped on her statements. In an article by The Hill, writer Rebecca Savransky pointed out that Cohen released a signed document from Daniels stating the affair never happened.
The letter reads:
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I recently became aware that certain news outlets are alleging that I had a sexual and/or romantic affair with Donald Trump many, many, many years ago. I am stating with complete clarity that this is absolutely false. My involvement with Donald Trump was limited to a few public appearances and nothing more. When I met Donald Trump, he was gracious, professional and a complete gentleman to me and EVERYONE in my presence.
Rumors that I have received hush money from Donald Trump are completely false. If indeed I had a relationship with Donald Trump, trust me, you wouldn’t be reading about it in the news, you would be reading it in my book. But the fact of the matter is, these stories are not true.
Stormy Daniels
And leftists news outlets haven’t showed this document. Why? Because it destroys their narrative that Trump had an affair while married to Melania. If their narrative is true, why don’t they explain this? Is there any wonder why President Trump refers to them as “fake news?”
Of course, Trump’s die-hard critics will just argue that Daniels provided the letter as part of the $130,000 agreement alleged in The Wall Street Journal report. But as the letter points out, if the story were true and verifiable, she could be making a lot more money by selling it in book form, then a movie, then who knows what in the current atmosphere of Trump hatred. Even for a lie these days, she could make more money — if it could be backed up.
Of course, if Trump did have an affair with Daniels, that would be a matter between him, and Melania and God. And Lord knows he wouldn’t be the first president to have done it. (He also hasn’t lied about it under oath, like a famous Democrat predecessor.)
But as things stand, and with the evidence this letter offers, it looks like the “get Trump” gang have come up empty again.
What makes this latest attack worse is that it’s not even news. This is actually an old narrative they tried to push before the 2016 election. As the White House put it, these allegations are “old, recycled reports, which were published and strongly denied prior to the election.”
I have a feeling though, that “old, recycled reports”won’t stop from the mainstream media. Facts don’t matter to them. All that matters to them is trying to bring the president down through smears, lies or whatever they can think of.
Strap in, folks. There’s still at least three more years of perpetual lies about Donald Trump that will continue to flow from the left wing media.
The mainstream media, which seems to have sided with Iran’s oppressive regime and against the crowds of protesters seeking to overthrow it, received some bad news Tuesday when U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley called on the United Nations to hold emergency sessions in support of the protesters.
“Dozens have already been killed, hundreds have been arrested,” she said during a news briefing, according to RealClearPolitics. “If the Iranian dictatorship’s history is any guide, we can expect more outrageous abuses in the coming days. The U.N. must speak out.
“In the days ahead, we will be calling for an emergency session both here in New York and at the Human Rights Council in Geneva,” she added. “We must not be silent. The people of Iran are crying out for freedom.”
Listen to some of the speech below:
Dovetailing back to the first paragraph, it would admittedly be disingenuous to claim everybody in the mainstream media supports Iran’s oppressive regime. But it would not be wrong to say some certainly do.
Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro took notice, taking The New York Times to task this week for defending Iran’s oppressive government. Not only did Times’ reporter Thomas Erdbrink falsely describe Iranian President Hassan Rouhani as a moderate (he’s not), Erdbrink and the rest of the leftists at the Times appeared to suggest the protesters were to blame for any violence they faced from the Iranian regime:
Notice how the Times framed what’s been happening in Iran.
“Yes, it’s the fault of the demonstrators, who have somehow merely refused to heed the decent calls for calm from the Iranian mullahs,” Shapiro sarcastically wrote at The Daily Wire.
But it’s not just the media that have acted improperly in response to the protests in Iran. A number of former Obama administration officials, including former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, have begged President Donald Trump to “be quiet” and not involve himself in the protests.
Yes, of course, because allowing the protesters in Iran to be trampled by their government just as they were during the Green Movement demonstrations in 2009 makes perfect sense.
“(I)n 2009 when the Green Movement demonstrators were marching through the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities, demanding freedom from the mullahs … (t)he students and others marching in the streets to overthrow these tyrants desperately wanted America’s help, specifically the support of our ‘oh-so-liberal-progressive’ president,” notes Roger L. Simon for PJ Media.
How did Obama respond? He was silent. But not Trump, nor Haley. Never that:
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what real leadership looks like.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has been on the front lines of the Democrat party’s war against President Donald Trump since his inauguration, except her outrageous statements have only hurt her more than the president.
During a CNN town hall on Monday night, Pelosi once again showed how completely clueless she is after she was asked by an audience member about the hypocrisy Democrats are showing over the firing of former FBI Director James Comey, The Daily Wire reported.
“Good evening, Madam Leader. Before the election on Nov. 8, your side of the aisle were asking for the former head of the FBI to resign,”said an audience member identified as small business owner Jake Lee. “Now that he has been let go, why the sudden and selective outrage from your side of the aisle?”
The question really threw Pelosi off guard. After initially denying that she ever wanted Comey fired, and stating that “Some people were asking to be let go,”(which we’re assuming was meant to state that some people wanted Comey let go) she started complaining about why Trump fired him,
“For the president of the United States to fire with his own self-admission that he didn’t like — he was tired of the Russia-Trump probe,”she said, before stumbling over her own words.
After spending a good five seconds looking around for the right word and stammering out “uh,” Pelosi finally decided upon “distressing.”
“It’s distressing. We believe in the FBI as being an independent law enforcement agency, to be respected, and not to be fired by president because he’s tired of an investigation they’re doing,”she stated.
Throughout the entire thing Pelosi was flailing her arms about, looking like some sort of bird that didn’t quite know how to fly.
Of course throughout her answer, Pelosi never actually answered the question. That’s because the Democrats have displayed their hypocrisy for the world to see, and they are counting on the liberal media to protect them from Americans demanding answers.
You can watch the moment here:
Right now, Democrats are too busy screaming about impeachment and demanding a special prosecutor to articulate why exactly they are upset about Comey being fired.
Maybe in a few weeks they will calm down and be able to form coherent sentences. I mean, as much as they were ever able to.
The predominantly liberal media are not adjusting well to the Trump era. Now it appears they are suffering an existential crisis, accompanied by jealousy, mood swings, and a lack of self-esteem. On Monday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer was asked by reporter Ronica Cleary, for Fox 5 D.C., if he thought the press was nice. Spicer said it’s not his job to judge the media. The odd question, asked by a local news reporter, seemed to almost mock the assembled front-row elites — those suffering an escalating crisis of identity.
President Donald Trump’s White House has steadily ratcheted up the discomfort for many members of the Old Guard media. Spicer has allowed questions at press briefings from conservative outlets shunned by the Obama administration. The White House even allowed some bloggers to attend the briefings. Spicer began taking questions from local media, via Skype. And in the last five days, the slow burn caught up with the fuse.
On Monday, the New Yorker uncorked a long story on Trump and Spicer’s relationship with the White House press corps. The New Yorker reporter, Andrew Marantz, who had been working his angle of new conservative faces at the briefings for weeks, turned a sympathetic ear to the prima donnas of the briefing room. Marantz suggested Trump is “trolling the media” by letting in new conservative faces. To his credit, Marantz yanked some truly snobby quotes from the White House press corps. It’s as if Rodney Dangerfield has shown up at Bushwood Country Club again, and Judge Smails is not amused.
Marantz even got one veteran reporter to admit some of the front-row reporters are a “smug little cartel.” And if you ever doubt the elite media are an entitled group of folks, those doubts vanish after reading Marantz’s piece in the March 20 edition. Marantz notes most of the correspondents at right-of-center outlets — the ones without assigned seats at the briefing room — are under 30. (LifeZette’s White House correspondent is 50.) Marantz lets the anonymous (and perhaps older) White House correspondents lather on the calumny.
“At best, they don’t know what they’re doing,”a radio correspondent told Marantz. “At worst, you wonder whether someone is actually feeding them softball questions.”
Marantz notes the New York Post got the first question at Spicer’s second briefing. And that LifeZette got the first question at Spicer’s third. These things still fascinate the media. It shows the pecking order has been disrupted. But a few things have so far not been disrupted. The elite media still feel entitled, that much is clear. They are still predominantly liberally biased — that is obvious, too. And they still have a herd mentality that has not helped the health of the U.S. media.
The carping at the White House will likely not drown out new voices. Just as liberal outlets The Huffington Post and Buzzfeed grew to great heights under President Obama, it’s likely the new conservative media will find its groove with a Republican in the White House.
Famed Hollywood actor Clint Eastwood has long been known to hold a different opinion than most of his peers, leaning more towards a libertarianish conservatism than the typical elitist liberalism. Not much has changed for Eastwood over the years, as the 86-year-old still stands apart from most of the other actors and directors he works with making movies.
Eastwood sat down not too long ago for a wide-ranging interview with Esquire magazine that touched on the topic of politics a bit, and he held nothing back in delivering a blunt assessment of young Americans and the media, as well as the two presidential nominees, Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Asked what he thought about people sort of adopting his classic film persona of being a tough guy that takes no guff from anyone, such as Trump, Eastwood replied, “But he’s onto something, because secretly everybody’s getting tired of political correctness, kissing up. That’s the kiss-ass generation we’re in right now.”
“We’re really in a p**** generation. Everybody’s walking on eggshells,”he continued. “We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren’t called racist.”
Pressed for more about Trump, Eastwood explained: “What Trump is onto is he’s just saying what’s on his mind. And sometimes it’s not so good. And sometimes it’s … I mean, I can understand where he’s coming from, but I don’t always agree with it.”
He made clear that he was not offering up an endorsement of Trump but nevertheless had a message for those who routinely accuse Trump of being a racist.
“He’s said a lot of dumb things. So have all of them. Both sides,”he stated. “But everybody — the press and everybody’s going, ‘Oh, well, that’s racist,’ and they’re making a big hoodoo out of it. Just f***ing get over it. It’s a sad time in history.”
Eastwood proceeded to reminisce about his famed “empty chair” address at the 2012 Republican National Convention and spoke about how he’d like to see everybody work harder and be more understanding of others’ differences instead of simply calling names or being intolerant.
Asked his opinion of Clinton, he replied, “What about her? I mean, it’s a tough voice to listen to for four years. It could be a tough one. If she’s just gonna follow what we’ve been doing, then I wouldn’t be for her.”
The interviewer pressed Eastwood to make a decision between Clinton and Trump.
Eastwood responded, “That’s a tough one, isn’t it? I’d have to go for Trump … you know, ’cause she’s declared that she’s gonna follow in Obama’s footsteps.”
“There’s been just too much funny business on both sides of the aisle. She’s made a lot of dough out of being a politician,”he added. “I gave up dough to be a politician. I’m sure that Ronald Reagan gave up dough to be a politician.”
Though Clint Eastwood’s answers to the interviewer’s questions were far from an endorsement of Trump, it is pretty clear that he was leaning toward the GOP candidate in this election, for many of the same reasons many other Americans are.
Dr. Paul R. McHugh, former psychiatrist in chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital, has an opinion about former Olympic athlete Bruce Jenner’s recent announcement that is sure to upset the many crusading for the transgender movement. McHugh not only believes that changing sexes is biologically impossible, he also believes those identifying themselves as transgender actually have a mental disorder.
McHugh, author of six books and over 125 peer-reviewed medical journal articles, wrote in a Wall Street Journal piece that surgery is not a solution for those wishing to live as the opposite sex.
McHugh wrote that these people believing they can choose their sex suffer from a “disorder of assumption.”
In the piece, he also quoted a study claiming that transgendered people undergoing reassignment surgery are 20 times more likely to commit suicide than non-transgendered people. (H/T BizPac Review)
McHugh also said that while Hollywood and the mainstream media promote transgenderism as normal, they are doing no favors to these people by treating their “confusions”as a right rather than treating them as a mental disorder that deserves treatment and prevention.
The doctor considers the transgendered person’s “assumption” that they are “different than the physical reality of their body “a disorder similar to someone suffering anorexia nervosa.
McHugh claims that pro-transgender advocates do not want to accept the fact that studies indicate between 70 and 80 percent of children who express transgender feelings lose such feelings over time.
Changing sexes is impossible, according to the doctor and all transgendered people do is “become feminized men or masculinized women.”
In addition, those who had sexual reassignment surgery and felt satisfied with the results of that surgery fared no better in their psycho-social adjustments than those who didn’t have surgery.
Because of these studies, Hopkins stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, the doctor said.
While certain people will disagree with Dr. McHugh’s statements, more will probably agree. But the liberal media will likely try to smother those who find such transitions troubling and embrace actions that add to the moral decay of our country.
President Obama issued a statement yesterday urging Americans to respect the religion of Islam before he even commented on a terror attack by an Islamic extremist in Chattanooga which killed four Marines, prompting widespread anger.
The White House tweeted out a statement wishing Muslims “Eid Mubarak!” as Ramadan came to a close, adding that, “the holiday is a reminder to every American of the importance of respecting those of all faiths and beliefs.”
The statement was tweeted hours after the Chattanooga shooting and after it had been established that the culprit was 24-year-old Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez, a Kuwaiti Muslim whose blog revealed that Islam played a central role in his ideology.
It was only after Obama had lectured Americans about respecting Islam that he paid tribute to the four dead Marines killed by an Islamic terrorist.
Reaction to the timing was brutal.
Obama has been widely criticized for his refusal to even use the term “Islamic” when referring to Islamist terror attacks, an illustration of the stifling political correctness that surrounds discussion of Islamic-inspired atrocities.
In the aftermath of the shootings, the leftist media, which immediately exploited the Charleston attack to collectively demonize all white Americans, is noticeably shy to discuss Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez’s motivation.
Salon.com, which said that “white America must answer for the Charleston massacre,”has as its top story this morning a piece about drafting Al Gore. There are no mentions of Chattanooga until you scroll well down the page.
Donald Trump also took Obama to task during a Fox News appearance last night, slamming his fear of using the term “Islamic terrorism.”
There has been a lot of hand-wringing over Jeb Bush’s seeming lack of readiness for a presidential campaign in the wake of his apparent inability to articulate a coherent response to Megyn Kelly’s Iraq War hypothetical question.
After days of hedging and backpedaling, Jeb finally landed on the “right” answer: “no, knowing what we know now, I would not have invaded Iraq.” It shouldn’t have taken that long or that many tries because, as Charles Krauthammer notes in Friday’s Special Report panel, the question answers itself:
While Megyn Kelly did not ask a difficult or tricky question, it’s a question that pops up pretty consistently for GOP candidates from interviewers on both the left and the right, and it is usually the liberal media who manages to flummox GOP candidates.
After police officer Darren Wilson fatally shot Michael Brown last summer in Ferguson, Missouri, the media erupted in terror at the prospect of young black men being gunned down by over-excitable white cops.
The New York Times’ Charles Blow wrote that the “central issue” of Ferguson was that an “officer shot an unarmed teenager who witnesses claim had raised his hands in surrender when at least some of the shots were fired, which the family and its attorneys called ‘a brutal assassination of his person in broad daylight.’”
Over at Salon, Brittney Cooper said the Brown shooting proved that black people “are prey” — a charge so moronic even a Starbucks barista wouldn’t discuss it with you.
In a TV segment The Huffington Post called “searing,” a few weeks after the shooting, MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry exposed the racism of contemporary America by quoting from Dred Scott — an 1857 Supreme Court opinion written by Roger Taney, appointee of the father of the Democratic Party, Andrew Jackson.
With pictures of Ferguson cops flashing on a screen behind her, Harris-Perry repeatedly quoted Taney’s statement — in 1857 — that black men have “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
Oh, to be there when Harris-Perry finds out about the 13th Amendment!
After two separate, wide-ranging, phenomenally expensive, months-long investigations, including one by Eric Holder’s Justice Department, it turned out: Brown had attacked Officer Wilson, he did not have his hands up, he was charging the officer when he was shot, and Wilson acted in justifiable self-defense. Instead of the “brutal assassination” of a black man, Holder’s big indictment of white America is that cops in Ferguson give blacks too many traffic tickets.
Even that feeble proof of racism is clearly false. The only two serious studies of driving habits by race ever conducted — one in New Jersey and one in North Carolina — found that blacks are far more likely to speed than whites, and at much higher speeds.Indeed, the entire country is snickering at any report that treats as news the fact that blacks are arrested at higher rates than whites, whether in Ferguson the Upper West Side of Manhattan or anyplace else. Blacks have a higher crime rate than whites, ergo, they have higher arrest rates. Ice skaters have more skating injuries than tennis players.
Even New York City’s liberal former mayor, Michael Bloomberg, responded to complaints about the city’s “stop and frisk” policy by saying that, based on witness and victim descriptions of the suspects, the police were stopping “whites too much and minorities too little.” In liberal Santa Monica, blogger Steve Sailer reports, blacks are arrested at about three times the rate as in Ferguson.
Frustrated at their inability to locate evidence of the endemic racism in America we keep hearing so much about, liberals have turned with a vengeance on the kids. Instead of armed policemen gunning down blacks, we got a secretly recorded video of few drunk 19- and 20-year-olds at the University of Oklahoma singing the n-word. (Everyone assumes the students were racists, but my theory is they were trying to record their own rap video.)
Apparently, the new national sport is destroying the lives of young people.
Today’s adults are held responsible for nothing. The president and attorney general aren’t held accountable for ginning up frenzied mobs based on a lie, leading to two cops being assassinated in New York City and two cops being shot in Ferguson, in addition to the $250 million in property damage.
Hillary Clinton isn’t responsible for Americans being murdered at our embassy in Benghazi as a result of her incompetence.
Democratic senators aren’t accountable for passing Obamacare without reading it, and Republican senators aren’t accountable for promising voters they’d stop Obama’s amnesty and then voting to fully fund it.
Even people who commit violent crimes are given a second chance — especially if they’re athletes at the University of Oklahoma, as the Daily Caller has reported.
But 19- and 20-year olds must be punished without mercy for their drunken song using an ugly word. To quote Hillary Clinton, WHAT DIFFERENCE, AT THIS POINT, DOES IT MAKE?
Mr. Third Chance, David Boren, president of the university, proudly rushed to violate the First Amendment rights of these students. Even observers who condemned Boren’s laughably unconstitutional move felt compelled to vilify the louts.
Protesters have shown up at the kids’ homes in Texas to rail against their parents. (As always, I marvel at the protesters’ ability to get so much time off of work.)
I don’t remember adults caring this much about what college kids said when we were trying to get their attention with pompous editorials, manifestos and lists of demands. This wasn’t a college thesis — and even a college thesis wouldn’t be worth so much national angst. This was drunk college kids singing on a bus.
Is this the kind of society we want to live in, where a student can record his intoxicated friends singing a nasty song, and the whole country applauds the Nazi block-watcher and joins in the denunciation of his marks?
Liberals were hopping mad about Linda Tripp secretly recording Monica Lewinsky, but at least she was exposing the wildly felonious obstruction of justice by the president of the United States in a sex discrimination case. She wasn’t recording Monica to prove the president had used a bad word.
But no one objects to the aspiring Stasi member recording his friends’ drunken song, then broadcasting it to the world, allowing us a joyous round of universal condemnation.
Instead of judging society by the inebriated songs of 19- and 20-year olds, perhaps we should judge it by how cultural and political elites treat their young people.
You can always tell the media are hiding something when they obsessively focus on Muslim atrocities someplace else in the world. Cable TV could cover Muslim atrocities 24 hours a day, seven days a week, from 632 A.D. to the end of time, without repeating themselves. For at least a year after 9/11, I used to turn on the TV, and if I saw a “Survivor” contestant, I’d think, “Good. No news.” These days, I turn on the TV, and if I see former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, I think, “Good. No news.”
By now, the public knows more about ISIS than they know about the Kardashians. But it has no idea that the very same Senate Democrats who claimed to oppose Obama’s amnesty when they were campaigning are currently filibustering a bill to defund it, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is ready to cave.
ISIS has killed four Americans — in Syria. We’re not exactly talking about another 9/11. Here’s a tip: If you don’t want to be killed by ISIS, don’t go to Syria.
Meanwhile, illegal aliens have killed, raped, and maimed thousands of Americans — in America. If you don’t want to be killed, raped, or maimed by illegal immigrants in your own country, I have no tips for you. There’s nothing you can do. You’re on your own. Good luck.
Our politicians don’t care. They are obsessed with cleaning up the rest of the world, while we’re getting our clock cleaned at home. Americans are at greater risk of being killed by Joran van der Sloot than by ISIS, since a lot more of us vacation in Aruba, as Natalee Holloway did, than in Syria. So why doesn’t Sen. John McCain drone on, day after day, Joran van der Sloot is winning. We’re neither degrading nor destroying Joran van der Sloot.
With the media’s Soviet-style censorshipabout immigrant crime, unless a member of your immediate family has been killed by an illegal alien, you might not have noticed the growing death toll, but here are some small, below-the-fold local news items just from the last two weeks;
On Monday of this week, Jaime Balam, an illegal alien from Mexico, appeared in court in San Francisco to face charges that he shot three American college students, one fatally, because they happened to be wearing the wrong colors. “I would never expect something like this to happen in my life,” the murder victim’s father said. “These guys, they destroyed my life, me and family, for nothing.”
Also this week, Juan Javier Mejia was captured in Mexico and returned to the U.S. to face charges that he and his half-brother, Abram Daniel Palacios, gunned down Ivan Carrillo in San Jacinto, California. Mejia has previous convictions in this country for rape and assault with intent to commit rape and burglary, while his half-brother Palacios has prior convictions for narcotics possession, criminal threats and spousal battery.
Also just this week, jury selection began in the trial of illegal alien Dora Ramirez, who, along with her illegal alien husband, Ulises Arturo Reyes Mercado, is alleged to have lured her lover to a rural area of Alabama, where they shot him in the head, execution-style, then fled back to Mexico. Ramirez later returned to live in Decatur, Alabama, with her illegal alien parents, while Mercado is presumably still in Mexico, eagerly awaiting his “family reunification” under Obama.
Last Friday, Feb. 21, Margarita Garabito was convicted in the brutal beating death of her 10-year-old stepdaughter. When the girl was found, she had an open 7-inch wound on her skull, all her ribs had been broken and her body was covered with bruises. Or, as Garabito said — through a Spanish interpreter — “God knows I have a good heart.” Well, I think that goes without saying, Margarita.
The day before that, on Feb. 20, Bassel Saad, the Lebanese immigrant who killed John Bieniewicz at a soccer game in Livonia, Michigan, last year, pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter.
Last Tuesday, Feb. 17, illegal alien Juan Ramon Garcia tried to run over a U.S. Border Patrol agent with his car, according to authorities. Garcia had five more illegal aliens in his vehicle. He’s charged with assault on a federal officer, human smuggling and impersonating Suge Knight.
The previous week, on Feb. 11, illegal immigrant Ricardo Picasso was sentenced to 139 years in prison for murdering 25-year-old Eric Reyes at a house party in Lindsay, California. His lawyer is pretty sure he can get that down to just a century.
On Feb. 6, the same day that ISIS killed Kayla Mueller — the most recent American to be killed in a country thousands of miles away from here — 17-year-old Jacob Koffman was stabbed to death in a residential area of Sherman Oaks, California. Police arrested Ennio Avolio and are still looking for two other Hispanic men who were seen fleeing the crime scene.
ISIS is notat our doorstep. Illegal immigrants arenot only at our doorstep, but millions of them are already through the door, murdering far more Americans than ISIS ever will.
Sometimes people don’t want to be cleaning up the rest of the world.
Lenin seized power from Russia’s provisional leader, Alexander Kerensky, in 1917, because Kerensky would not stop fighting wars. By promising peace, Lenin won such widespread support from exhausted Russians that the Bolsheviks were able to overthrow the government in less than a day.
That’s what a lot of Americans thought they were voting for last November.
Couldn’t we please focus on Americans for a bit?
Can’t a Republican Congress do anything to stop the surge of foreign criminals, viruses and parasites crossing our border?
Will politicians ever stop gassing on about what’s happening 7,000 miles away and worry about us?
But politicians and the media only want to give us war, while aiding the enemy in the war we’re already in, here at home.
COPYRIGHT 2015 ANN COULTER ~ DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
Since our Leftist media seem anxious to have a conversation about theology, I say we oblige. This week in their trolling of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker presents a panel discussion on whether or not President Barack Hussein Obama really is a Christian.
Although Mr. Walker is the son of a Baptist preacher, the Republican is not the most qualified individual to determine who is and isn’t a Christian. The “good news” (pardon the pun) is I know someone who is. Even better, he’s very much alive and kicking as we speak. And he’s so eager for his opinion to be known on such matters that he preserved a written record of all his thoughts and deeds, which has become the greatest best-seller in history.
Who is more qualified to consult on who is and isn’t a Christian than Jesus Christ? When I asked him what he thought, Jesus made it quite clear that President Obama is not a Christian. And he was also kind enough to give me some quotes I could pass on to ya’ll.
“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”(John 14:6)
Mr. Obama has referred to Islam’s Koran as “holy” (which means a state of completeness/perfection set apart from the sinfulness of man), and Muhammad as a “prophet” (which means truth-teller).
However, on the most important point of them all Islam and Christianity contradict each other. Islam teaches that Jesus wasn’t even crucified, which means he wasn’t resurrected. But the Bible teaches there is no Christianity without the crucifixion and resurrection (or what Christians celebrate on Good Friday and Easter). These are irreconcilable views. So right away these two religions are incompatible, and at least one of them is lying. Christianity and Islam could both be false, but they can’t both be true. No sincere Christian would elevate something that distorts and diminishes the fundamental moment of Christianity as “holy.” Nor would they bestow the title of “prophet” upon someone who has spread a false message about Christ.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”(Matthew 7:21)
Just because someone claims to be a Christian doesn’t mean they areone. It’s not like Mr. Obama would be the first politician to claim to be something he’s not.
“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ and you do not do what I say?”(Luke 6:46)
Jesus commands us not to lie, yet Mr. Obama has lied repeatedly (“if you like your current health care plan you can keep it,” as just one example). Jesus commands us not to murder, yet Mr. Obama is the most pro-murder president we have ever had (including voting against a bill to protect babies who survive abortions while in the Illinois State Legislature). Jesus says marriage is between a man and a woman, and we are created male and female. Yet Mr. Obama promotes redefining marriage and so-called transgenderism.
“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.”(John 13:34)
Jesus gave this commandment to his followers, yet under Mr. Obama we see Christians consistently targeted for their beliefs (Hobby Lobby, Chick-fil-a, Little Sisters of the Poor, military personnel, and numerous other Christians who refuse to comply with Obama-imposed immorality). Why would a president who’s a Christian use his power to consistently target other Christians?
“For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.”(Luke 9:26)
From excluding references to Christ on the official White House Christmas card, to referring to Jesus as “a son of God”(when Jesus claimed he was the only son of God), Mr. Obama has gone out of his way on numerous occasions to deny the supremacy of Christ. What kind of Christian would deny the power and glory of his own savior?
“So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”(Romans 10:17)
Mr. Obama’ spiritual mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was Mr. Obama’s pastor for 20 years. He baptized Mr. Obama and his daughters, and officiated his wedding to the first lady. Through the years, Mr. Wright taught many things from his pulpit like anti-Semitism, black liberation theology, racism, conspiracy theory, and Marxism. But what he didn’t teach was Christianity.
If you go back and watch Mr. Wright’s speech to the National Press Club in 2008 he openly shared his theological views. Glaring omissions included;
the sinfulness of man,
Christ’s atonement for our sins at the cross,
and Christ’s resurrection proving he was the one and only son of God.
In other words, the Gospel, which millions of martyrs down through the ages bled and died for, was missing from Mr. Wright’s theology.
Jesus says sincere faith comes only by the hearing of his words. With Mr. Wright preaching nearly everything but Jesus’ actual words, how could Mr. Obama come to sincere faith in such a church?
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.”(Matthew 7:15-20)
Given everything you’ve already read, would you say Mr. Obama’s tree bears good fruit or bad fruit? Besides, I’m mystified as to why our Leftist media, which bows at the altar of secularism, is so concerned about Mr. Obama’s religion?Unless they’re hoping to re-brand Christianity in Mr. Obama’s Marxist image.
Jesus has much more to say on this topic (and many others), but I’ve come to the end of available space in this publication to share them. Thankfully, he’s willing to share them with everyone reading this whenever they take the initiative to seek him. He’s not hard to find. He’s always around.
For now my work here is finished. On the other hand, the work of God-haters who will viciously demagogue what I just wrote, without supplying any rational basis for their assertions there’s anything remotely Christian about Obama (thus proving my point), I’m sure is just beginning. Why the same Leftists who vehemently loathe Christianity want their progressive hero to be labeled a Christian is beyond me. Regardless, Jesus has a final word for them as well:
“Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul, but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Hell.”(Matthew 10:28)
Each and every life matters – but, as the media cry “black lives matter,”they conveniently forgetthe millions of black babies destroyed in abortion.
The phrase “Black Lives Matter”surfaced in the news and on social media after a grand jury’s decision not to indict police officer Darren Wilson for the murder of 18-year-old Michael Brown last month. The mantra continued after a viral video showed Eric Garner’s death after a confrontation with New York police. From the beginning, the media pushed the phrase – while, at the same time, ignored a Nov. 27 CDC report revealing78 percent of the babies aborted in New York City in 2011 were black and Hispanic.
In correspondence with MRC Culture, pro-life leaders like Dr. Alveda King responded by claiming, “if [the media] really thought that black lives matter they would be protesting abortion on demand.”Former Rep. Allen West called out the “hypocrisy”of the “new leftist progressive soundbite” while The Radiance Foundation’s Ryan Bomberger asked, ““[H]ow sincere is the mantra that #BlackLivesMatter if the violent act of abortion and the disproportionate slaughter of unborn minority children is praised as ‘reproductive justice’?”
The Media Frame ‘Black Lives Matter’
During the broadcast network news shows, ABC, NBC and CBS reporters either incorporated “black lives matter” themselves or played clips of others using the phrase.
While reporting on the Garner story, CBS correspondent Jim Axelrod told an agreeing protester what was happening: “It’s a very diverse crowd, but a largely white crowd yelling ‘black lives matter!’” during “This Morning” on Dec. 5. That same day, during “Evening News with Scott Pelley,” CBS showed a Boston crowd chanting “black lives matter!”
The phrase cropped up in CBS’ report of Ferguson too. The day before the CDC released the abortion report, Nov. 27, CBS “This Morning” host Anthony Mason stressed how “The slogan ‘Black lives matter’ is a frequent chant among protesters after the Ferguson shootings.” “It’s a reminder,” he said, “that race relations in America are still a work in progress.”
ABC’s mention came from Ron Claiborne during “World News Tonight” on Dec. 4. Claiborne commented, “New York City’s mayor, speaking about telling his own son, Dante, who is biracial, about what he called the ‘dangers he may face’ from police” after Garner. “This is personal,” Mayor Bill de Blasio said in the clip cut by ABC. “People need to know that black lives and brown lives matter as much as white lives.”
NBC boasted the most mentions. The first showed New York’s Thanksgiving parade protesters chanting “Black Live Matter!” for the camera in response to Brown on Nov. 28 NBC’s “Today.”
In Ferguson on Nov. 28 – the night of the CDC report’s publication – Ron Allen reported for NBC’s “Nightly News.” He played a clip of a protester urging, “If black lives don’t matter, Black Friday shouldn’t matter.”That same clip played again Nov. 29 on “Today.”
Passing on the spotlight, NBC’s “Nightly News” on Dec. 3 featured NAACP Legal Defense Fund Litigation Director Christina Swarns as she declared, “[t]hese are people’s children that are being killed.” She continued:
And you cannot have that happen and have no response. And so it’s really a cry to be heard. There’s a cry to be recognized and understood that their lives, that black lives, matter.
On Dec. 4 with Stephanie Gosk reporting, NBC’s “Today” again played a snippet from a Mayor Bill de Blasio speech, as he said, “Our history sadly requires us to say that black lives matter.”
For the same show the next day, co-host Savannah Guthrie asked New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo about Garner. “We were just showing a sign of somebody saying ‘Black lives matter,’” she stressed. She probed:
“[W]hat people in the streets are saying is there’s essentially two justice systems here in this country, there’s one for African-Americans and there’s one for everybody else. Do you agree with that? Is it about race?”
Imagine a reporter asking that about abortion.
Pro-Life Leaders Respond to ‘Hypocrisy’
Black lives matter to the media – but not all of them, according to champions of the pro-life movement. Not once did the networks air the news that, in New York City, 77.56% of the abortions in 2011 destroyed black and Hispanic babies.
“The liberal media looks the other way on this,”Priests for Life Pastoral Associate and African American Outreach Director Dr. Alveda C. King told MRC Culture.
The niece of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. urged, “Pray that people will see right through their propaganda.”She continued, “The media has another agenda; if they really thought that black lives matter they would be protesting abortion on demand.”
She highlighted how the media “often stirs controversy to boost rating” and “support[s] abortion on demand.”“This media category ignores the fact that the abortion industry targets minorities,”she said.
“Even Planned Parenthood tweeted support for Ferguson using the Black Lives Matters hashtags,”she stressed, “and yet they abort more black and Hispanic babies than any other abortion provider in America.”
In correspondence with MRC Culture, Former Rep. Allen West also commented on the media’s behavior. “The left and their media accomplices have discovered a new empty slogan but there are those of us who recognize their hypocrisy and the shameful policy of the soft bigotry of low expectations,” he acknowledged.
He called the “black lives matter” motto the “new leftist progressive soundbite.” “But actually,”he emphasized, “only the black lives that serve the progressive socialist agenda matter.”
That not only excludes the “millions of little black babies who will never know Dr. King’s dream as a result of abortion”but also the “hundreds of young black men dead from gang violence in the failing inner cities” and the lack of a “quality education via the means of school choice,”he said.
The Radiance Foundation’s Ryan Bomberger (a pro-life advocate conceived in rape) told MRC Culture that, “Mainstream media does everything it can to protect the most racist institution in America that actually kills for a living—the abortion industry.”
“#BlackLivesMatter is a potent hashtag, but filled with false accusations and distorted context,”he said, and the “[m]ajor news media would rather foster hatred than healing.”
“There is racial injustice,” he admitted, “but the noise of the victim evangelists obscures the cases, like Eric Garner’s, that truly deserve justice.”
“[H]ow sincere is the mantra that #BlackLivesMatter if the violent act of abortion and the disproportionate slaughter of unborn minority children is praised as ‘reproductive justice”?’ he challenged.
LifeNews Note: Katie Yoder writes for Newsbusters, where this originally appeared.
The riot in Ferguson reminds me, I hate criminals, but I hate liberals more. They planned this riot. They stoked the fire, lied about the evidence and produced a made-to-order riot.
Every other riot I’ve ever heard of was touched off by some spontaneous event that exploded into mob violence long before any media trucks arrived. This time, the networks gave us a countdown to the riot, as if it were a Super Bowl kickoff.
From the beginning, Officer Darren Wilson’s shooting of Michael Brown wasn’t reported like news. It was reported like a cause. The media are in a huff about the prosecutor being “biased” because his father was a cop, who was shot and killed by an African-American. What an assh@le!
Evidently, the sum-total of what every idiot on TV knows about the law is Judge Sol Wachtler’s 20-year-old joke that a prosecutor could “indict a ham sandwich.” We’re supposed to be outraged that this prosecutor didn’t indict the ham sandwich of Darren Wilson.
Liberals seem not to understand that they don’t have a divine right to ruin someone’s life and bankrupt him with a criminal trial, just so they’re satisfied. The reason most grand jury investigations result in an indictment is that most grand juries aren’t convened solely to patronize racial mobs. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon was basically demanding an indictment of Wilson before Big Mike’s body was cold. It was only because of racial politics that this shooting wasn’t dismissed without a grand jury, at all.
Obama says anger is an “understandable reaction” to the grand jury’s finding. Why? And why — as almost everyone is saying — are we supposed to praise the “peaceful protests”?
There’s nothing to protest! A cop shot a thug who was trying to kill him. The grand jury documents make perfectly clear that Big Mike was entirely responsible for his own death. Can’t the peaceful protesters read?
The night of the riot, Obama said the law “often feels as if it is being applied in discriminatory fashion.” Maybe, but not in this case — except toward Officer Wilson. I know liberals were hoping they had finally found the great white whale of racism, but they’re just going to have to keep plugging away. They might want to come up with a more productive way to spend their time, inasmuch as they’re about 0:100 on white racism sightings.
Anyone following this case has seen the video of Big Mike robbing a store and roughing up an innocent Pakistani clerk about 10 minutes before being shot by Officer Wilson. They’ve seen him flashing Bloods gang signs in photos.
They know Brown’s mother was recently arrested for clubbing grandma with a pipe over T-shirt proceeds. They’ve seen the video of Brown’s ex-con stepfather shouting at a crowd of protesters after the grand jury’s decision: “Burn this bitch down!”
Liberals will say none of that is relevant in court, but apparently they don’t think actual evidence is relevant either. It’s certainly relevant in the court of public opinion that the alleged victims are a cartoonishly lower-class, periodically criminal black family.
TV hosts narrated the riot by saying it showed “the community” feels it’s not being listened to. Only liberals look at blacks looting and say, See what white Americans made them do?
That’s their proof of injustice — look at how blacks are reacting! (While I don’t approve of the looting part, I do approve of the whole throwing-bottles-at-CNN part.)
The looters aren’t the community!
The community doesn’t want black thugs robbing stores and sauntering down the middle of its streets. The community doesn’t want to be assaulted by Big Mike. The community didn’t want its stores burned down.
That community testified in support of Officer Darren Wilson. About a half-dozen black witnesses supported Officer Wilson’s version of what happened. One was a black woman, who saw the shooting from the Canfield Green apartments. Crying on the stand, she said, “I have a child and that could have been my son.”
And yet, she confirmed all crucial parts of Wilson’s account. She said “the child” (292-pound Big Mike) never had his hands up and the cop only fired when “the baby” was coming at him. “Why won’t that boy stop?” she asked her husband.
I always want to know more about the heroic black witnesses. They are put in a position no white person will ever be in and do the right thing by telling the truth — then go into hiding from “the community” being championed by goo-goo liberals.
White people don’t feel any obligation to defend some thug just because he’s white. Only blacks are expected to lie on behalf of criminals of their own race.
But real heroism doesn’t interest liberals. They only ooh-and-ahh over blacks with rap sheets. The only meaningful white racism anymore is the liberal infantilization of black people.
This is so disgusting. I don’t even know how to explain it without throwing up on my keyboard.
A school hosted a congratulatory event for its straight-A students, which would not normally be a controversial event… but the America we live in has changed. No longer do we push our children for excellence… now we make excuses for mediocrity.
I was a teacher for ten years before embarking on a career as writer. I can tell you that every school I’ve ever been associated with has events honoring those who excel in different areas – athletics, academics, clubs, extracurricular, etc. For these parents to complain that their kid who didn’t get straight A’s feels left out, is simply emblematic of our current cultural corruption.
“I can’t take it… Stop. Stop. Stop,” Glenn said exasperatedly. “Even the A-students didn’t think it was all that right. Probably because they have been indoctrinated from the very beginning in socialist tendencies, and beyond that they’ve got a reporter sticking a microphone in their face and going, ‘Do you think that’s right?’ They’re [sixth] graders… I don’t know!”
Beyond the unprofessional and leading questions posed by the reporter, there is a larger issue at play here. As Glenn explained, all students are not punished when one kid acts out and gets detention. So why would all kids be rewarded when one student performs better than everyone else?
“You know what’s so weird? If they continue to look into this, I’ll bet you that not all students are invited to be in detention. Isn’t that weird? Not everybody is allowed into detention. That’s weird,” Glenn quipped. “It’s called punishment… Or in this case it’s called incentive… Job well done… What a concept. What kind of nutty, outdated extremist, concepts is this school teaching? It’s pretty radical, isn’t it? If your grades are not up to snuff, you don’t get an invitation at all. You see what I’m saying?”
This mindset that everyone deserves a participation trophy just for showing up has crept into our schools as well. When it comes to the progressive goal of fundamentally transforming America, teaching our youth that equal opportunity and equal outcome are one in the same is dangerous:
This is progressive, Marxist, bull crap indoctrination. This is equal outcome indoctrination. This is your fundamental transformation of the United States of America… This is the secret of life: There are people who are willing to do things that you are not willing to do…
It is amazing that Leftist hero and Obama buddy Louis Farrakhan can talk about beheading and stoning gays to death and you won’t hear a word from the media.
Pastor Aubrey Shines hails from Chicago, much like our Fearless Leader, Barack Obama. But that’s where the resemblance ends. Unlike Obama, Pastor Shines has had the courage to point fingers in the deadly trend of “knockout” that is causing injuries and death across the country. In an opinion piece, published on The Blaze, Shines wrote:
“The more the media reports these attacks a few things become clear. First, the perpetrators are young black men. Second, the victims are white and most often Jewish. Because the victims are white, the game is also referred to as polar bear hunting. Third, there has been radio silence from black national leaders condemning the acts. Al Sharpton finally condemned the game at one of his weekly National Action Network meetings. But the outrage pales in comparison to the outrage that Sharpton and his fellow Race Warriors are able to muster when it benefits them financially and politically.”
Yep, you read that right. A black man is pointing out what the white mainstream media is failing to explain. Knockout is a racially motivated hate crime, but since it is black on white, everyone is dancing around the subject.
When researching these shootings, race is never mentioned. In the alternative media, much of our information comes from mainstream reports. Unless a photo is published of perpetrator and victim, we are generally unable to find out the races of the people involved. Why?
Because it’s politically incorrect to make members of minorities look like criminals, even when they are.
According to Shines’ essay, statistics show that race is a definite factor, whether it’s polite to mention it or not.
“You can be sure if those doing the knocking out were white and the victims were black, Sharpton and the Race Warriors would be demanding 24-hour news coverage. The truth is that while the knockout game is a rather new phenomenon, the problem of black-on-white crime is not. Statistics from all credible sources reveal that whites are the victims of crimes committed by blacks far more frequently than the reverse.”
The worst culprit of all, according to Shines, is President Obama, who famously said, “You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”
“As much as I would love to hear strong reproaches from these black leaders, the most deafening silence comes from President Barack Obama. Some people have argued that Obama should not weigh in on these issues of race because a white president would not. But Barack Obama is not a white president and we all would be wise to stop pretending that his race does not matter…’
“…The President has weighed in on issues of race that had far less global consequences in the past. Remember the beer summit with Black Professor Henry Louis Gates and James Crowley, the white police sergeant who arrested him as he entered his own home? Remember the recent response to a reporter’s question where President Obama said if he were the owner, he would change the name fromRedskins? Remember after the Trayvon Martin verdict, President Obama reminded us that if he had a son, he would probably look like Trayvon?’
“I can think of no better reason for him to talk about a race issue than in an attempt to speak directly to the young men who would look like his son, if he had a son.’
“When he speaks out, other black leaders will join the chorus and speak out. For that reason alone, President Obama must use his influence to create a ground swell against the immoral foolishness that comes with sucker punching a perfect stranger for sport. If he doesn’t speak out, Black America will be the ones that are sucker punched in the end.”
Shines is correct – black leaders have been resoundingly silent on this matter. Meanwhile, the criminals are getting younger and younger, and the attacks more brutal.
If this trend was reversed and white kids were punching out elderly black ladies, can you even imagine the hue and cry? The shouts of “hate crime”? The blistering essays on liberal news outlets? No one would say you were a racist for tweeting that a bunch of white thugs beat up an old man with a walker, but in this incidence, we’re supposed to ignore the race of the criminals and the victims. This is every bit as racist as a group of ignorant hillbillies in pointy white hats with a load of gasoline-doused crosses in the back of their pick-up, but we aren’t supposed to make that comparison.
I’m sure that the black leaders feel the same embarrassment that I feel when some white redneck yahoo goes and burns a cross in some decent family’s front yard because of the color of their skin. They probably feel the same cringe of discomfort that I feel when I overhear some bigoted idiot refer to people of other races by derogatory slurs. They most likely want to dissociate themselves from people who behave like uncivilized, sociopathic animals who hate and harm based on race, just like I want nothing to do with people like that.
But when you’re in a position of leadership and influence, you don’t get the luxury of turning a blind eye. Not if you’re truly a leader. By saying nothing and not denouncing it, you’re accepting this behavior. By silently accepting it, you’re saying – “This is acceptable. It is acceptable to punch someone as hard as you can, all in the name of fun, just because they’re white.”
Pastor Shines stands out as a real leader. He is calling out these criminals, and he is calling out these people who are failing to use their influence. He is using his own platform to bring awareness to this situation, and he’s embarrassing a lot of “important” people in the process.
Personally, I have nothing but scorn for the lack of courage shown by these black “leaders” who seem to be blithely oblivious of what these young people are doing.
Way to go, Obama, Sharpton, and Jackson. With your silence, you are just as guilty of the next assault as those participating in the “game”.
About Daisy Luther
Daisy Luther is a freelance writer and editor. Her website, The Organic Prepper, offers information on healthy prepping, including premium nutritional choices, general wellness and non-tech solutions. You can follow Daisy on Facebook and Twitter, and you can email her at daisy@theorganicprepper.ca
A finding in a study on the relationship between science literacy and political ideology surprised the Yale professor behind it: Tea party members know more science than non-tea partiers.
Yale law professor Dan Kahanposted on his blog this week that he analyzed the responses of a set of more than 2,000 American adults recruited for another study and found that, on average, people who leaned liberal were more science literate than those who leaned conservative.
However, those who identified as part of the tea party movement were actually better versed in science than those who didn’t, Kahan found. The findings met the conventional threshold of statistical significance, the professor said.
Kahan wrote that not only did the findings surprise him, they embarrassed him.
“I’ve got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected I’d be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the Tea Party and science comprehension,” Kahan wrote.
“But then again, I don’t know a single person who identifies with the Tea Party,” he continued. “All my impressions come from watching cable tv — & I don’t watch Fox News very often — and reading the ‘paper’ (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused internet sites like Huffington Post & Politico). I’m a little embarrassed, but mainly I’m just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken view.”
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
Notice how the Times framed what’s been happening in Iran.
Yes, of course, because allowing the protesters in Iran to be trampled by their government just as they were during the Green Movement demonstrations in 2009 makes perfect sense.
Famed Hollywood actor Clint Eastwood has long been known to hold a different opinion than most of his peers, leaning more towards a libertarianish conservatism than the typical elitist liberalism. Not much has changed for Eastwood over the years, as the 86-year-old still stands apart from most of the other actors and directors he works with making movies.
politics a bit, and he held nothing back in delivering a 
Convention and spoke about how he’d like to see everybody work harder and be more understanding of others’ differences instead of simply calling names or being intolerant.
Hopkins Hospital, has an opinion about former Olympic athlete 
What Did You Say? 
Written
on July 16, 2013