A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!
Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!
A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!
Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!
Hannity issued a statement vehemently denying her claims:
“LET ME BE CLEAR THE COMMENTS ABOUT ME ON A RADIO SHOW THIS WEEK by this individual ARE 100% false and a complete fabrication. This individual is a serial harasser who has been lying about me for well over a decade. The individual has a history of making provably false statements against me in an effort to slander, smear and besmirch my reputation. The individual has not just slandered me over the years but many people who this individual disagrees with.”
He vowed to retain the finest and toughest lawyers in the country to proceed with the proper legal course of action.
Schlussel heard him loud and clear.
In an interview with LawNewz, Schlussel has now denied that she was ever sexually harassed by Hannity.
Hannity, livid not only at Schlussel but also because the media ran with these claims without fact checking. The background of the accuser is very shady, so the idea the media never vetted the claims — one media outlet printed a false claim that the accuser hadn’t even made — shows this was a target on Hannity’s character.
Now, making good on his promise, the FOX News host has gathered an army of attorneys ready to fight this scandal to its death.
In a released statement Sean said he “retained a team of some of the finest and toughest lawyers in the country who are now in the process of laying out the legal course of action we will be taking against this individual.”
One tweeter suggested “they” are trying to pull a Bill O’Reilly on Hannity, who was recently dropped the network following charges of sexual harassment. To which Hannity offered some details of his army, saying: “They have no idea…”
Whomever targeted him they better be ready to get bloody, because Hannity is coming out ready for war!
The segment focused on the political divide in America and the role partisan news programming played in driving liberals and conservatives further apart. During a sit-down interview, Hannity called on Koppel to “give some credit” to people’s ability to differentiate between a news show and an opinion show.
“You’re cynical,” Hannity said.
“I am cynical,” Koppel responded.
“Do you think we’re bad for America? You think I’m bad for America?” Hannity asked.
Koppel didn’t miss a beat. “Yeah,” he said, and continued over multiple interruptions from Hannity:
Koppel: “In the long haul I think you and all these opinion shows —”
Hannity: “Really? That’s sad, Ted. That’s sad.”
Koppel: “No, you know why? Because you’re very good at what you do, and because you have attracted a significantly more influential —”
Hannity: “You are selling the American people short.”
Koppel: “No, let me finish the sentence before you do that.”
Hannity: “I’m listening. With all due respect. Take the floor.”
After the segment aired, Hannity responded with a series of tweets calling the show “Fake Edited News” and accusing CBS of leaving out parts of his answers that discussed media bias. He asked CBS to release the raw recording of the interview, which he said ran about 45 minutes.
In the decade-plus since he stepped down as host of ABC’s “Nightline” after 25 years, Koppel has lamented a changing media landscape that he says “celebrates the opinions” of overtly partisan news hosts at the expense of neutral reporting. He has criticized journalists on the right and the left for biased coverage, particularly those at Fox News and its liberal-leaning rival MSNBC.
“The commercial success of both Fox News and MSNBC is a source of nonpartisan sadness for me. While I can appreciate the financial logic of drowning television viewers in a flood of opinions designed to confirm their own biases, the trend is not good for the republic,” Koppel wrote in a Washington Post column in 2010.
“Beginning, perhaps, from the reasonable perspective that absolute objectivity is unattainable, Fox News and MSNBC no longer even attempt it,” he said. “They show us the world not as it is, but as partisans (and loyal viewers) at either end of the political spectrum would like it to be. This is to journalism what Bernie Madoff was to investment: He told his customers what they wanted to hear, and by the time they learned the truth, their money was gone.”
In the same column, Koppel called then-MSNBC host Keith Olbermann the “most opinionated” among the network’s “left-leaning, Fox-baiting, money-generating hosts. More than a million viewers flocked to his nightly program because Olbermann was “unabashedly and monotonously partisan,” he said.
Koppel lumped MSNBC host Rachel Maddow into the same category, along with Glenn Beck, who was a Fox News host at the time.
He waded into the issue of media partisanship during the 2016 election as well. In a March 2016 appearance on Fox News’s “O’Reilly Factor”, Koppel scolded host Bill O’Reilly about the political debate surrounding then-candidate Trump, who had just triumphed in the Super Tuesday primaries. O’Reilly told Koppel he had interviewed Trump on many occasions. “Not an easy interview,” he said. “How would you do it?”
“It’s irrelevant how I would do it,” Koppel fired back. “And you know who made it irrelevant? You did.”
O’Reilly, seemingly unfazed, asked him to elaborate. And Koppel did — in an exchange not unlike his discussion with Hannity on Sunday.
“You have changed the television landscape over the past 20 years. You took it from being objective and dull to being subjective and entertaining,” Koppel told O’Reilly. “And in this current climate, it doesn’t matter what the interviewer asks him. Mr. Trump is going to say whatever he wants to say, as outrageous as it may be.”
URL of the original posting site: http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/watch-julian-assange-gives-full-disclosure-blows-russian-narrative-pieces/
Julian Assange: “Our source is not the Russian government.”
Sean Hannity: “So in other words, let me be clear, Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC?”
Julian Assange: “That’s correct.”
Sean Hannity: “Can you confirm whether or not you have information involving hacked info from the RNC?”
Julian Assange: “We received about 3 pages of information to do with the RNC and Trump, but it was already public somewhere else.”
He’s been saying this over and over again. How many times will it take before people will listen?
H/T: Young Cons
After host Sean Hannity explained that he was conflicted about supporting Assange and WikiLeaks but that he did appreciate their efforts to bring transparency to the government, the conversation quickly moved to Hillary Clinton’s many crimes.
The entire interview is well worth listening to, but there was one particular segment that I believe will get the most airtime moving forward. About halfway through their conversation, Assange explains to Hannity how we can know for certain that Hillary Clinton lied to the FBI… and it really doesn’t leave any room for doubt.
“In the FBI report released Friday. Hillary Clinton says that she can’t remember what a (C) in brackets stands for. Everyone in positions of government, and in WikiLeaks, knows it stands for Classified/Confidential.’
“In fact we have already released thousands of cables. By Hillary Clinton, here she is. See, that is her signature. With a “(C)” in bracket right there. Thousands of examples where she herself has used a (C) in brackets by herself. And more than 22,000 times where she has received cables from others with this (C) in brackets. So it is absolutely incredible for her to lie.’
“She is lying about not knowing what that is. But it is a bit disturbing that Comey goes along with that game.”
You can see the full interview below: //cdn.playwire.com/bolt/js/zeus/embed.js
Onan is the Editor-in-Chief at Liberty Alliance media group. He’s also the managing editor at Eaglerising.com, Constitution.com and the managing partner at iPatriot.com. Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in Atlanta with his wife and their three wonderful children. You can find his writing all over the web.
URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/05/dear-hillary-trump-just-called-bill-rapist-will-rebut/
Donald Trump hit Bill Clinton with his hardest charge yet on Wednesday evening during a sit-down interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News.
Trump brought up a rape accusation against the former Democratic president when talking about Clinton’s past behavior with women with the Fox News host. The two were discussing a recent New York Times article that was supposed to expose Trump’s own treatment of women and how several of the sources had come out and said the newspaper twisted their words.
Trump labeled the story a ‘con job’ and called it a ‘disaster’ for the newspaper.
Hannity then asked why the Times hadn’t dug into Bill Clinton’s past.
‘Are they going to interview Juanita Broaddrick? Are they going to interview Paula Jones? Are they going to interview Kathleen Willey?’ Hannity asked, ticking off the names of women who have accused Bill Clinton of inappropriate behavior through the years.
‘In one case, it’s about exposure. In another case, it’s about groping and fondling and touching against a woman’s will,’ Hannity continued.
‘And rape,’ Trump inserted.
‘And rape,’ the television host repeated.
Read more: Daily Mail
Here on her website, Hillary claims to be a champion of women:
Hillary Clinton believes that issues that affect women’s lives are not just “women’s issues”—they are family issues, they are economic issues, and they are crucial to our future competitiveness. She has been a champion for women and girls her entire career:
After graduating from law school, Hillary worked at the Children’s Defense Fund, where she helped expand access to education for children with disabilities.
As First Lady of Arkansas, she helped start the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families.
As First Lady of the United States, Hillary led the U.S delegation to the U.N Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, where she proclaimed that “women’s rights are human rights.” She also advocated for the Family and Medical Leave Act, and successfully worked to expand Head Start.
As Senator from New York, she championed the Paycheck Fairness Act to close the pay gap between women and men once and for all. She cosponsored the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to help achieve equal pay and close the wage gap. Hillary also fought for legislation to guarantee paid sick leave and she called for expanding paid parental leave for all federal employees. Additionally, Clinton co-sponsored the Family And Medical Leave Expansion Act twice and in 2007 she announced a paid family leave plan.
As Secretary of State, Hillary made women’s rights a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. She created the now-permanent position of ambassador-at-large for global women’s issues. She also advanced women’s economic empowerment and spearheaded public-private partnerships to improve the status of women and girls across the world. (Source)
But here’s what she did to the women that Bill had affairs with, claimed he molested and or raped:
Hillary Clinton is not only an “enabler,” she is a “terrorist” who “terrorizes” her husband’s alleged lovers and women who accuse him of sexual assault, says former Dallas lawyer Dolly Kyle, who says she had a long-running affair with Bill Clinton.
In an interview, Kyle claimed that “Billy” Clinton, as she called him, once boasted to her that he had had sex with about 2,000 women. She described Clinton as a “sex addict” who has some “sick, sick need” to “control women.”
“Aaron, Hillary is an enabler is about the nicest thing you can say about her,” stated Kyle when asked about a statement last Friday from Donald Trump, who slammed Hillary Clinton as an “unbelievably nasty, mean enabler” who “destroyed” the lives of her husband’s mistresses and alleged victims.
Continued Kyle: “The fact of the matter is Hillary is a terrorist. I invite you to look up the definition of terrorism. It is the use of violence, threats, or intimidation to achieve a political aim. … That’s what terrorism is. It changes people’s lives by changing their decisions about what they would otherwise do. And these women who might otherwise speak up are so afraid that they won’t say anything.”
Read more: Breitbart
Bill is now being accused of ‘manspreading’ to assert his masculinity:
He is vying to become second fiddle to his wife as she runs for president.
But former President Bill Clinton has been identified as a ‘manspreading’ culprit.
To manspread is to spreads one’s legs to assert one’s masculinity.
The male habit has been lambasted – there are even signs on the New York City subway system telling men not to take up too much space.
However, it seems Clinton quite enjoys a good manspread.
Read more: Daily Mail
Thanks to Sean Hannity, though, we now have a four-minute supercut of President Obama’s greatest hits when it comes to Islam:
It includes such smash hits as,
Look, if Obama wants to engage in Islamophilia, that’s fine. He can treat Islam as a hobby or an interest of his, the same way some people are inexplicably passionate about cars, the movies of Woody Allen, anime or the band Phish. (The last one, in my opinion, is particularly unfathomable.) If that’s his bag, hey — far be it from me to stop him.
However, if his silly obsession with the “religion of peace” and the Muslim world is conducted with such self-imposed blinders on that he fails to see the myriad problems arising from Islamist thought — whether they be terrorism, despotism, the subjugation of women or the abrogation of human rights — that’s where my problem begins.
My problem becomes even greater when his delusions form the basis for public policy.
Whether it’s our ineffective intervention in the Syrian civil war, his taking in of 10,000 Syrian refugees (and refusing to revisit the policy after the Paris attacks), his refusal to use the phrase “Islamic terrorism” or his nonexistent stand on human rights abuses in Muslim countries, it’s clear Obama’s romance with the Islamic faith has skewed his views.
His dangerous ignorance has cost lives. It’s time we took a long, hard look at the president’s relationship with the Muslim world and made sure that our voices were heard.
“It’s their flag,” Steyn continued. “Hillary Clinton had it campaign bumper stickers when she ran for president in 2008. You mentioned Robert C. Byrd, Bill Clinton was doing Klu Klux Klan jokes at Robert C. Byrd’s funeral!”
Despite their racist past, the Democratic party has thrived for over 150 years, there’s simply nothing like it in the planet, Steyn noted. “People talk about apartheid Africa, the national party came to power in 1948 and they were gone 45 years later, that’s how long they lasted and they’re nothing now.”
“The Democratic party has never come to terms with the evil of its past,” said Steyn.
While I refuse to argue the Confederate flag should be a state symbol (it should not), the fact that Democrats chose to exploit mental illness and tragedy to pretend the entire South (which happens to be solidly Republican) is racist, is perfectly illustrative of egregious historical ignorance.
Sean Hannity believes Americans now have “cold, hard evidence” of a White House cover-up of the Benghazi terrorist attack.
“The smoking gun is out,” Hannity said about a newly released document dated three days after the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that resulted in the deaths of four Americans.
The document, obtained by Judicial Watch, is an email prepared by Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, for use by Susan Rice, then the Obama administration’s ambassador to the U.N. and now national security adviser.
“There you have it,” Hannity said on his Fox News show Wednesday. “Cold, hard evidence that a high-level White House aide instructed Ambassador Rice to blame Benghazi on a YouTube video.”
Rice’s use of talking points blaming the attack on an anti-Muslim video was widely seen as dooming her prospects of succeeding Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.
During a news briefing yesterday, reporters asked White House press secretary Jay Carney why the Rhodes email wasn’t released earlier. ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl was especially insistent, peppering Carney with a series of questions:
Why were you holding back this information? Why was this email not turned over to the Congress? Why was it not released when you released all the other emails? This is directly relevant. Why did you hold it back? Why did it take a court case for you to release this?
The Heritage Foundation’s Helle Dale said the latest disclosure is fresh evidence of “a cover-up of the awful policy choices that led to Benghazi.” Dale added, “As a consequence, Americans have lost their trust in the administration, the families of the victims continue to suffer, and none of the guilty have been punished.”
This story was produced by The Foundry’s news team. Nothing here should be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation
It’s striking how much the media control people’s political opinions without people realizing it. Just a few years ago, only an “isolationist” would be opposed to U.S. military intervention in a foreign country for the sole purpose of “humanitarianism.”
Way back in 2007, this is one of the very few interviews Sean Hannity did with Ron Paul. This particular exchange took place after one of the presidential debates:
Hannity: Are you saying then that the world has no moral obligation, like in the first Gulf War, when an innocent country’s being pillaged, and people are being raped and murdered and slaughtered, or in the case of Saddam, he’s gassing his own people, are you suggesting we have no moral obligation there? Do you stand by and let that immorality happen?
Paul: We have, on numerous occasions.
Hannity: You support that?
Paul: We have, on numerous occasions. If we feel strongly about it, why don’t we declare war —
Hannity: If a woman’s being raped do you stand by and do nothing there either?
Alan Colmes: We’re almost out of time, but the fact is the Reagan administration stood by while the Kurds were being gassed, it happened in 1988, we didn’t do anything —
Hannity: We didn’t do anything about it, for how many years?
Paul: And what did we do with Pol Pot, what did we do with Moscow, what did we do at the time? We stood by while they did it to their people.
Hannity: We got it, Ron, you would stand by and do that, I would not.
Paul: No, you —
Hannity: I think that’s immoral.
Hannity’s of course singing a much different tune nowadays, since being opposed to unconstitutional military interventions is kind of “cool” now. But Ron Paul was opposed to such interventions long before it was cool, and he’s remained steadfast for decades in his opposition.
A couple days ago, on his Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity website, he wrote that intervening in Syria would be a reckless and immoral use of the military:
“President Obama announced this weekend that he has decided to use military force against Syria and would seek authorization from Congress when it returned from its August break. Every Member ought to vote against this reckless and immoral use of the US military. But even if every single Member and Senator votes for another war, it will not make this terrible idea any better because some sort of nod is given to the Constitution along the way. Besides, the president made it clear that Congressional authorization is superfluous, asserting falsely that he has the authority to act on his own with or without Congress. That Congress allows itself to be treated as window dressing by the imperial president is just astonishing. The President on Saturday claimed that the alleged chemical attack in Syria on August 21 presented ‘a serious danger to our national security.’ I disagree with the idea that every conflict, every dictator, and every insurgency everywhere in the world is somehow critical to our national security. That is the thinking of an empire, not a republic. It is the kind of thinking that this president shares with his predecessor, and it is bankrupting us and destroying our liberties here at home.”
He hasn’t changed one bit. But people’s foreign policy views change depending on what their media channel of choice is feeding them. And the media narratives are written depending on which party holds the White House.
If Bush had decided to attack Syria because the leader was gassing his own people, then conservatives, fed by Fox News, would be all for it; and the liberals, fed by all the other networks, would be denouncing it.
I’m glad that conservatives are coming out in opposition to a war with Syria. What concerns me is that people don’t have any discernment, and that they’ll believe whatever their favorite media network tells them.
What if a Republican becomes president next, and he’s no better than Obama when it comes to foreign policy or the preservation of the 2nd and 4th Amendments (and all the rest) here at home? Will conservatives see through the propaganda that will most certainly be used by the media to sell tyranny to us? They’ll use the same excuses of “security and safety.” And I fear that most people who identify themselves as conservatives will swallow it, hook, line and sinker.
The sooner people get away from this phony “republican vs. democrat” dichotomy, the better off we’ll all be. We should be electing people who want to do the right thing, not the “Republican” thing. Think Rand Paul, Ted Cruz or Justin Amash. Sure, they’re Republicans. But to them, party affiliation is secondary to the Constitution.