Stories about
Brett Kavanaugh


Brett Michael Kavanaugh (born February 12, 1965) is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He was Staff Secretary in the Executive Office of the President of the United States under President George W. Bush.

Homeland Security

Published  15 hours ago

If the presidential election were held today?

Donald Trump would win again, by defeating Democrats on the same battlegrounds that secured for him the Oval Office in 2016. Lots of people believe that. Many others think Trump’s reelection chances are 50/50 at best. Democrats and Never-Trump holdouts hoping and praying that he’s already toast have convinced themselves that there is no way in hell a majority of voters in key states will elect him to a second term.

But one factor in the debate is undeniable. Trump’s chances have gotten a lot better recently. His State of the Union address was magnificent. Rasmussen has his approval rating hovering around 50 percent. What promises he has not yet fulfilled or policy goals he has not yet achieved he is earnestly trying to fulfill and achieve, against opposition that would have withered most garden-variety politicos—you know, the people Trump defeated.

He’s working hard and succeeding in many areas. But significant credit for Trump’s improved outlook can be placed directly at the feet of and on the plate of the extremist left, that is, the Democratic Party. The stories being driven relentlessly home by conservative media—the unconscionable treatment of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, the Covington Catholics, the embarrassment of the Green New Deal, Virginia’s governmental minstrel show with sex abuse on the side, and late-breaking Deep State coup d' etat revelations from former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe—are grafting onto 2020 Democratic hopefuls the onus of cognitively dissonant un-American insanity.

The big story of the last week centered around the pathetic Jussie Smollett, which, while being a repulsive item, represents a net positive for the Trumpservative cause. Every time the left and its media propagandists get within striking distance of a salient message that might resonate with the populace, some malcontent crawls out of the woodwork and gives pause to fence-sitting independents and wavering Republicans who may be pondering a change in course. The vandals who defaced the iconic statue of the homecoming WWII sailor exuberantly sweeping a wartime nurse off her feet are only the latest exhibits in the case against the social justice-incensed, identity politics-obsessed blame-America-first transformers.

The supply of irresponsible and reprehensible leftist actions and positions is inexhaustible; there will be some new egregious offense in the news next week.

Smollett will soon be consigned to the status of disreputable asterisk and vanish into the oblivion of leftist mercy bookings, his fifteen minutes of ignominy and politico/media/celebrity enablement only having served to strengthen a growing perception of the true nature of leftist designs, bias, bigotry, and hate.

The Green New Deal (and similar socialistic proposals) and McCabe’s potentially self-incriminating revelations have real narrative staying power, however, and provide excellent utility for Republicans and Trumpservatives preparing to mount a no-holds-barred campaign to hold the White House. The truth of what Democrat ascendancy means for our constitutional republic is playing out with unprecedented overreach and bold-facedly subversive clarity. It is a truth revealed that argues well for the prudent decision to not switch horses in the middle of a swamp.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  16 hours ago

Charles Barkley torched race attack hoaxer Jussie Smollett on the NBA on TNT Thursday night. Video clips posted online show Barkley cracking up co-hosts Shaquille O’Neal, Kenny Smith and Ernie “E.J.” Johnson. At one point Shaq laughed so hard he choked, doubled over and appeared to do a spit take (third screen image below). Best […]

TheHill

Published  1 day ago

President Trump’s decision to declare a national emergency in order to circumvent Congress and secure funds to build a wall on the Mexican border puts him on a collision course with lawmakers from his own party. 

dailycaller

Published  1 day ago

An analyst with the Internal Revenue Service was charged Thursday with leaking the financial records of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen.

An affidavit submitted in the case reveals that John C. Fry, the analyst, placed several phone calls to attorney Michael Avenatti before and after he accessed Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) that had been filed by Cohen’s banks with the Treasury Department.

Avenatti, an attorney for Stormy Daniels, had posted a dossier of Cohen’s financial reports on May 8, 2018. The records showed that Cohen received payments from several companies, including Novartis and AT&T, as well as a company associated with Viktor Vekselberg, a Russian oligarch. (RELATED: Michael Avenatti Accuses To Wrong Michael Cohen Of Making Illegal Payments)

The documents released by Avenatti also contained financial records of a different Michael Cohen.

According to an FBI agent’s affidavit, Fry first accessed the IRS’s database of SARs on May 4, 2018 and downloaded five documents related to Cohen. “Immediately” after downloading the reports, Fry called a phone number associated with Avenatti, the agent said.

Minutes after that phone call ended, Fry conducted several more searches of Cohen’s records.

Avenatti denied doing anything wrong by having contact with Fry.

“That is absurd and ridiculous. I did nothing wrong just like reporters do nothing wrong when they receive and report information,” he told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The affidavit, signed by Special Agent Linda Cielsak, also detailed contacts between Fry and New Yorker reporter Ronan Farrow, who wrote an article on May 16, 2018 about Cohen’s financial records. Farrow quoted Fry anonymously, and asserted that the IRS agent leaked the Cohen records out of concern that they had been improperly removed from the IRS’s databases as part of what he believed to be a cover-up.

It was later reported that Cohen’s records had been removed from the general database because they were part of ongoing investigations, not because of a cover-up.

Cohen was sentenced to 36 months in prison on Dec. 12 on charges related to tax evasion, bank fraud and making illegal campaign contributions. He pleaded guilty to paying Stormy Daniels $130,000 to keep her quiet regarding an alleged affair with Donald Trump.

The legal battle between Cohen, Trump and Daniels pitted Cohen and Avenatti against each other in the press.

Once a media darling because of his aggressive approach to Trump and Cohen, Avenatti has since had a series of stumbles. In addition to financial problems with his law firm, Avenatti was referred to the Justice Department for investigation over claims he made while representing Julie Swetnick, a woman who accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misdeeds. Republican Senators have accused Swetnick of fabricating the allegations.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 day ago

Nicholas Kamm / AFP / Getty Images

There is virtually no disputing the fact that the predominately liberal mainstream media has been exceptionally negative toward President Donald Trump in their coverage of his presidency and the various issues of the day.

Yet, in spite of the media’s overt animosity toward Trump and decidedly negative coverage of him, the president still draws support from a significant portion of the American people, in greater numbers than former President Barack Obama did at the same point in the first term of his presidency.

First of all, there is no need to take our word for the tone of the media’s coverage of Trump and his administration, nor do you have to rely on what you’ve seen and heard for yourself, as the media’s negativity has actually been quantified by folks who spend their time studying everything said and done by the media.

An op-ed from Investors Business Daily in Oct. 2018 cited a survey that had been conducted by the Media Research Center which viewed more than 1,000 hours of network news coverage — ABC, CBS and NBC — from June to September of that year.

The study found that 92 percent of the coverage related to Trump during that period was negative in tone, as compared to a mere 8 percent that was positive toward the president.

TRENDING: Disturbing Video Surfaces Shows NY Abortion Clinic Assuring Woman Baby Will Be Killed If Born Alive

Further, the study revealed that more than two-thirds of the network’s coverage — or more than 660 of the 1,000-plus hours — was devoted to only five main topics: the Russia investigation, the debate over illegal immigration, the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, as well as the state of U.S. relations with enemies and rivals like North Korea and Russia.

Noticeably absent from that list was reports on the booming economy — which all the media analysts and experts had predicted couldn’t be revived after Obama’s dismal eight years of economic stagnation, though they framed it as the “new normal” — which accounted for a mere 0.7 percent of the coverage, or about 14 minutes total out of 1,000-plus hours.

Despite those dire and dismissive predictions, Trump’s efforts to cut taxes and roll back regulations resulted in a surge of economic activity that has led to historically low unemployment rates, rising wages and median household incomes, a strong and growing gross domestic product rate and jobs, jobs, jobs and more jobs.

To be fair, there was a bit of economic news that the media did focus a bit of attention on — trade tariffs — albeit, only 80 minutes total during that period, of which 88 percent was negative.

Nevertheless, in spite of the incessantly negative coverage by the media and their narrow focus on Trump’s “scandals” — some real, most not — President Trump’s approval ratings have remained fairly steady for the most part, and are higher than his predecessor’s approval ratings were at the same point in his presidency.

The Rasmussen Approval Index History for Trump, which provides the spread between those who “strongly” approve and disapprove of the president, as well as his total approval and disapproval rating, had an approval index rating of -7 for Trump on Feb. 21, 2019.

That -7 index is the difference between the 35 percent who “strongly approve” and 42 percent who “strongly disapprove” of Trump, while his overall rating was 49 percent approved to 50 percent disapproved of his job performance.

In comparison, the Rasmussen Approval Index History for Obama on Feb. 21, 2011, the equivalent point in Obama’s first term, showed he had approval index of -18 points.

Obama was “strongly approved” by only 23 percent of Americans, while 41 percent “strongly disapproved” of him. In total, Obama had an overall approval rate of 44 percent as compared to a disapproval rate of 55 percent.

RELATED: AOC Bashed Luxury Housing During Election, But Look What Her New Apt. Complex Offers the Rich & Famous

Of course, we don’t have to remind you of the overwhelmingly vast disparity in the tone of media coverage between those two presidents, as while most coverage of Trump is decisively negative, the media’s coverage of Obama was nearly a constant glow of positivity and thinly veiled support.

The media can and will slam Trump for every real or perceived misstep — and Trump has certainly earned negative coverage from time to time, to be fair — but the incessant negativity appears to have had little effect on the American people, who it would seem are able to see past the media’s overt anti-Trump bias and judge the president by his accomplishments and policies, rather than simply accept the biased media’s negative version of events in order to form their own opinion.

Barack ObamaDonald Trumpliberal mediamainstream mediamedia biasObama administrationpollsTrump administration

www.theepochtimes.com

Published  1 day ago

An analyst with the Internal Revenue Service was charged Thursday with leaking the financial records of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen.

An affidavit submitted in the case reveals that John C. Fry, the analyst, placed several phone calls to attorney Michael Avenatti before and after he accessed Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) that had been filed by Cohen’s banks with the Treasury Department.

Avenatti, an attorney for Stormy Daniels, had posted a dossier of Cohen’s financial reports on May 8, 2018. The records showed that Cohen received payments from several companies, including Novartis and AT&T, as well as a company associated with Viktor Vekselberg, a Russian oligarch.

The documents released by Avenatti also contained financial records of a different Michael Cohen.

According to an FBI agent’s affidavit, Fry first accessed the IRS’s database of SARs on May 4, 2018 and downloaded five documents related to Cohen. “Immediately” after downloading the reports, Fry called a phone number associated with Avenatti, the agent said.

Minutes after that phone call ended, Fry conducted several more searches of Cohen’s records.

Avenatti denied doing anything wrong by having contact with Fry.

“That is absurd and ridiculous. I did nothing wrong just like reporters do nothing wrong when they receive and report information,” he told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The affidavit, signed by Special Agent Linda Cielsak, also detailed contacts between Fry and New Yorker reporter Ronan Farrow, who wrote an article on May 16, 2018 about Cohen’s financial records. Farrow quoted Fry anonymously, and asserted that the IRS agent leaked the Cohen records out of concern that they had been improperly removed from the IRS’s databases as part of what he believed to be a cover-up.

It was later reported that Cohen’s records had been removed from the general database because they were part of ongoing investigations, not because of a cover-up.

Cohen was sentenced to 36 months in prison on Dec. 12 on charges related to tax evasion, bank fraud and making illegal campaign contributions. He pleaded guilty to paying Stormy Daniels $130,000 to keep her quiet regarding an alleged affair with Donald Trump.

The legal battle between Cohen, Trump and Daniels pitted Cohen and Avenatti against each other in the press.

Once a media darling because of his aggressive approach to Trump and Cohen, Avenatti has since had a series of stumbles. In addition to financial problems with his law firm, Avenatti was referred to the Justice Department for investigation over claims he made while representing Julie Swetnick, a woman who accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misdeeds. Republican Senators have accused Swetnick of fabricating the allegations.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Big League Politics

Published  2 days ago

President Donald Trump laid out a strong Oval Office defense Tuesday for his “absolute right” to declare a national emergency to finish building the southern border Wall. Partisan lawsuits will probably lead us to the Supreme Court, where Barack Obama protected his health care takeover in 2012, and where Trump has a pretty good chance […]

Townhall

Published  2 days ago

“Jussie” (verb): To promote a bigoted lie about conservative Americans that faithfully supports the liberal narrative while being so transparently false that only the stupidest of the people pushing it actually believe it. Our society keeps getting jussied, and I’ m frankly getting tired of it. It’s not only annoying but it’s evil. It is naked prejudice disguised as fussy outrage directed toward groups who the social justice whiners have decreed are exempt from the standard ban on racial, sexual, religious

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 days ago

Chicago Police held a press conference Thursday morning on the Jussie Smollett hate hoax after the actor’s arrest. The Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said he’s “offended and angry” over Jussie Smollett’s hate hoax crime while he delivered an emotional press conference. Mr. Johnson blasted Smollett’s staged attack as “shameful” then ripped into the Democrat […]

Breitbart

Published  2 days ago

With the arrest Thursday morning of Empire star Jussie Smollett, the actor’s defense team put out a statement celebrating the fact that he was afforded the “presumption of innocence” like any other citizen. But last, year Smollett himself insisted that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was guilty until proven innocent.

Jussie Smollett turned himself in early on Thursday morning, and the Chicago Police processed him into the system. Concurrent with his arrest, the actor’s team put out a statement reasserting Smollett’s “presumption of innocence” and slamming the Chicago Police for “leaking” information about the investigation to the press.

“Like any other citizen, Mr. Smollett enjoys the presumption of innocence, particularly when there has been an investigation like this one where information, both true and false, has been reportedly leaked. Given these circumstances, we intend to conduct a thorough investigation and to mount an aggressive defense.”

But last October, Smollett was not so willing to give Brett Kavanaugh the benefits of any presumption of innocence. Smollett tweeted out his support for the unproven claims of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford against Kavanaugh.

As Mediaite’s Julio Rosas pointed out:

Jussie Smollett in September: Kavanaugh does not get to enjoy presumption of innocence.

Jussie Smollett today: I get to enjoy presumption of innocence. pic.twitter.com/eB7TJbXlgb

In January, Smollett claimed that two men beat him, called him homophobic slurs, and cast Donald Trump slogans at him in an attack in downtown Chicago. The Chicago Police immediately launched a weeks-long investigation into the claim, but evidence that it really happened was sparse.

Eventually, police tracked down the two men that Smollett claimed attacked him, but police say the men had a personal relationship with the actor and that he was the ringleader of the attack, not the victim.

Meanwhile, Smollett was allowed to remain free for weeks to go on TV shows to plead his case while being supported by the entire Hollywood community and the mainstream media.

POLITICUSUSA

Published  2 days ago

In the latest sign that Donald Trump’s fake and illegal national emergency declaration is in trouble, Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said on Wednesday that she will vote to block the move if it comes to a vote in the Senate.

According to The Hill, Collins told reporters “that she would support a resolution of disapproval that was focused on the emergency declaration,” saying that she believes it’s constitutionally “dubious.”

“If it’s a ‘clean’ disapproval resolution, I will support it,” she said, according to the report.

Earlier in the week, Collins said she is “strongly opposed to the president invoking his national emergency powers.”

She added, “I don’t believe that’s what the law was intended to cover.”

As The Hill notes, Collins is the first Republican to go on the record saying she will vote to block Trump’s declaration, but in the weeks leading up to the president’s emergency decree, a handful of GOP lawmakers have expressed their concern or opposition to such a move to fund Trump’s fantasy border wall.

It’s unclear how many Republicans will put their money where their mouths are and vote to block Trump’s fake emergency. And even if they do, Trump is sure to veto the move once it reaches his desk.

In other words, it’s fine and well for Susan Collins to cast a vote that would block Trump’s emergency declaration, but it could very likely come down to the Supreme Court, where Brett Kavanaugh – who Collins helped confirm – will have a chance to weigh in.

As I noted earlier in the week, Democrats at the state level aren’t taking Trump’s fake emergency lying down. Sixteen states filed a lawsuit on Monday challenging the constitutionality of the move.

At the national level, as PoliticusUSA reported a short time ago, 92 lawmakers have signed onto a resolution that will be introduced Friday to “end President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration on border security.”

Congress has the power to end Donald Trump’s unconstitutional emergency declaration, and Democrats are trying to use it. But given the fact that too many Republicans have given up their power in order to appease Donald Trump, this matter is likely to be settled in the courts.

dailycaller

Published  2 days ago

Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax accuser, Vanessa Tyson, released a statement Thursday condemning the Virginia General Assembly for its failure to act meaningfully regarding her allegations against the governor.

Despite calls from both Fairfax accusers, Tyson and Meredith Watson, legislative leaders have failed to pursue appropriate action, according to an official statement from the law firm Katz, Marshall & Banks, which is representing Tyson.

The law firm represented Christine Blasey Ford in hearings regarding allegations brought against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

“[T]he Virginia General Assembly has remained silent and has taken no action whatsoever in response to her allegations, even after a second woman, Meredith Watson, came forward to report that Lt. Governor Fairfax raped her while they were students at Duke University in 2000,” the statement reads.

While lawmakers in both parties have responded with words of concern, they have utterly failed to act and have stood idly by as Lt. Governor Fairfax has impugned Dr. Tyson’s actions as being politically motivated; verbally attacked Dr. Tyson and Ms. Watson; [and] threatened to file criminal charges against Dr. Tyson if she pursues criminal charges against him. … It now appears that the Virginia General Assembly lacks the political courage to establish a process by which Dr. Tyson and Ms. Watson’s serious allegations of sexual violence suffered at the hands of Lt. Governor Fairfax will be fully investigated. We ask the members of the Virginia General Assembly to consider what message such inaction sends to victims of sexual assault and rape.

Tyson alleges that Fairfax assaulted her while they were at a Democratic National Convention in 2004. Fairfax has vehemently denied the allegations and maintains their encounter was consensual.

Watson alleges that Fairfax raped her in 2000 while they were both students at Duke University. Fairfax has also denied Watson’s allegations. (RELATED: Second Fairfax Accuser Slams Calls For An ‘Investigation,’ Wants To Testify Publicly)

Thursday’s statement comes two weeks after Tyson first went public with allegations against Fairfax. Tyson has “made clear that she is willing to cooperate in any investigation by the Virginia General Assembly or other appropriate authorities,” the statement also says.

Virginia’s General Assembly is scheduled to adjourn Friday.

“It is unfathomable that the Virginia General Assembly appears intent on ending its current session without addressing this issue in any meaningful way. We call on the General Assembly to hire experienced independent investigators to conduct a prompt and thorough inquiry of these matters. Credible allegations of sexual assault must not be ignored,” the statement reads.

The assembly must act immediately because Tyson and Watson deserve better than supportive words, according to the statement. The statement also calls for “a credible, transparent process in which all sides have the opportunity to be heard.”

More than 150 alumnae of Watson’s alma mater, The Bryn Mawr School in Baltimore, Maryland, have signed a statement supporting Watson.

Virginia House Delegates Todd Gilbert and Tim Hugo did not immediately reply to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Breitbart

Published  3 days ago

Lara Logan criticizes the media and is shown none of the deference that would normally be demanded for a courageous rape survivor.

Breitbart

Published  3 days ago

The Green New Deal blueprint introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was crafted by three far-left organizations and is being pushed by a coalition of well-funded professional progressive groups and known leftist agitators. | Politics

Daily Wire

Published  3 days ago

How many betrayals from Republican-nominated Supreme Court Justices will it take to finally convince conservatives that the judicial deck is systemically stacked against us in such a wa

Fox News

Published  3 days ago

Venezuela was once the wealthiest country in South America, but in recent years millions have fled the country amid mass starvation and violence after socialist policies were enacted and government seized private industries.

I Love My Freedom

Published  3 days ago

The recent revelations from the Chicago Police are now showing that the Jussie Smollett “attack” was a total hoax that was staged by Smollett himself.

After the two suspects in the case told the Chicago Police Department that they were paid by Smollett to stage the attack, liberals all across America started deleting their tweets where they were defending Smollett and have since then been pretty quiet about the whole situation.

SPECIAL EDITION Trump/Reagan Coin – Limited Time Offer

However, there is one liberal who still believes Smollett.

MSNBC contributor and former federal prosecutor Paul Butler thinks that Smollett is telling the truth even though the evidence is stacked against him.

Butler gave his flaky analysis twice on Sunday — appearing once on Up with David Gura, and again later on MSNBC Live with Ayman Mohyeldin.

Shortly after 9:00 a.m., after Gura asked for his reaction, Butler began: “So Jussie’s story has been consistent from the beginning. It’s the police who have shifting accounts. On Friday, they said that they had probable cause to believe that these two men had committed the crime, and now apparently they don’t.”

He continued: “I think we are probably never going to know exactly what happened, which makes this more like other cases.”

If Smollett is so innocent, then why was he so reluctant to hand his phone over and sit down to have an interview with the police?

Does Butler actually think that Smollett’s trainer, who told the police that he was paid to stage the attack, was lying?

PETITION: Tell Mueller To STOP Wasting Our Taxpayer Dollars On The Phony Russia Probe!

It’s also highly unlikely that two Trump supporters just happened to be strolling through Chicago at 2 a.m. in negative four degree weather, just waiting for their opportunity to attack the gay black man.

After recalling that law enforcement fails to solve most crimes, he pivoted to encouraging audience members to trust people who claim to be victims, and recalled FBI reports that hate crimes have increased in recent years.

As Butler appeared again later in the day, he gave similar analysis: “For the record, Jussie Smollett — his statement stayed the same, so he has been consistent, so it’s really the police department that has had shifting versions of what they think happened.”

The new trend that the Left is promoting which is to “believe all survivors” is a very dangerous road to go down. Remember Christine Blasey Ford, the Kavanaugh accuser?

She had absolutely zero evidence to back up her claim that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her. Yet if we “believed the victim” at all costs, Kavanaugh’s entire career would have been destroyed because of a baseless allegation.

The same idea applies here. If we believe Smollett just because he is a “victim,” we suddenly have to forget about all of the evidence that is stacked up against him and just take him for his word.

The more we “believe all survivors” the more people who will come out with false allegations and more innocent lives will be ruined.

Instead of pushing a false narrative to deceive the public, Butler should listen to the facts and tell the truth.

Fox News

Published  3 days ago

Despite the massive amount of evidence against "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett, you have to assume he's an innocent man until convicted in a court of law. That is standard for anybody.

But this is about so much more than an overpaid, attention seeking, wanting a raise, Trump-hating actor. The Smollett case represents another example of what I have been saying since 2007 and 2008: Journalism in this country is dead.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM SEAN HANNITY.

In case after case after case, the mainstream media, they devour any story that just fits their radical, extreme extension of the Democratic socialist party agenda. If it advances the narrative that Donald Trump is evil and his supporters are bad and America is scary and racist and sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, the media mob will shift into full gear without performing any due diligence -- without even picking up the telephone, without any kind of investigation, not even five minutes worth.

Look at what they did to the 16-year-old Covington high school student, Nick Sandmann. Off a 15-second blurb, they accused him of being a racist, harassed him, accused him of assaulting a 65-year-old activist and getting in his face. They tried to ruin this kid's life with slander, smearing, besmirching, character assassination.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE ENTIRE EPISODE.

They accused Justice Brett Kavanaugh of gang rape, saying that every other weekend, he and his friends were drugging teenage girls and literally, you know, lining up in the hall for gang rapes that nobody ever reported. They tried to ruin his life, tried to call him an alcoholic. We know how that ended. He is now a Supreme Court justice.

The media mob's disgusting bias, it is obvious, both from what they obsess over and what they choose to sweep under the rug.

Remember, they falsely accused UVA students of rape. Remember the Duke Lacrosse players? They accused them of rape. Eighty-some-odd professors at Duke bought the story hook, line, and sinker without any evidence. They falsely accused Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. Remember, he used to be a police officer. His career is now over.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP.

George Zimmerman, everybody saying he was guilty but there was an eyewitness that showed up. Several police officers in Baltimore, everybody was assured they were going to get guilty pleas. None of them did.

And guess what? As we speak, they're falsely accusing President Trump of Russia collusion. That, too, is a hoax, while simultaneously ignoring what is now a mountain of evidence of the single biggest abuse of power, corruption scandal in history where they tried to rig an election, and then undo the election of the duly-elected president of the United States. In the era of Trump, far-left hoaxes, are way too common. The media are way too complicit.

But they buy these stories again and again -- hook, line, sinker -- vilifying innocent people in the process over and over again. When the stories are exposed, when the lies are revealed, so-called journalists and so-called news organizations, they move on. They just pretend like it never happened.

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh summarized the state of the media pitch-perfectly. He said the following: "The left is nothing but phony. Hate crimes, phony alleged hate crimes, phony charges, made up stories, they know these things probably aren't true but they want them to be and that's why they report them as true. They think this is what America is."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"In the mind of the American left, these crimes are happening everywhere," Limbaugh continued. "Even if the Smollett case isn't real, it's real elsewhere and we must raise consciousness. The media is signing onto it, the celebrities are signing on, presidential candidates are signing onto it, and tweeting what a rotten place America is because of it."

Rush is right. The media mob's disgusting bias, it is obvious, both from what they obsess over and what they choose to sweep under the rug.

Adapted from Sean Hannity's monologue from "Hannity" on February 21, 2019.

Sean Hannity currently serves as host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) Hannity (weekdays 9-10PM/ET). He joined the network in 1996 and is based in New York. Click here for more information on Sean Hannity.

The Political Insider

Published  3 days ago

When Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced her “Green New Deal” plan this month–a full blown socialist scheme to radically transform America–many Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls immediately supported it. Now we are […]

Breitbart

Published  3 days ago

The Green New Deal blueprint introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was crafted by three far-left organizations and is being pushed by a coalition of well-funded professional progressive groups and known leftist agitators. | Politics

NPR.org

Published  3 days ago

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the oldest, tiniest, and possibly the most well-known justice, returns to her perch on the Supreme Court bench Tuesday.

The 85-year-old liberal feminist icon underwent surgery for lung cancer in late December, and since then has been recovering at home. In January, for the first time in her 25-year tenure, she missed being in court for oral arguments, but participated in the decision of those 11 cases, based on the written briefs and transcripts of the arguments.

As luck would have it, after the January arguments, the court had scheduled a month-long "writing break," allowing Ginsburg extra time to recuperate from home. Last Friday, Ginsburg returned to the Supreme Court building for the first time in order to participate in the justices' private conference, the first such conference scheduled since mid-January.

Ginsburg has been working hard to regain her strength. Friends say she is walking more than a mile a day and is once again working with her trainer twice a week.

Tuesday, all eyes will be on her, but the diminutive justice can be hard to see behind the tall structure that towers above those mere mortals in the courtroom who are not up there on "the bench." Indeed, she is so tiny that spectators often can hear her voice but can just see the top of "The Notorious RBG's" head.

Doctors at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center operated on Ginsburg Dec. 21, removing one of the five lobes of her lungs. Days later she returned to Washington, D.C., to recuperate. Doctors reported that the pathology report on her lung found no further evidence of disease and they said no further treatment is planned.

While this is Ginsburg's third bout with cancer in 20 years, statistics indicate that patients with a lung cancer found early, as this one was, have a recovery rate of 70 to 80 percent. Ginsburg's cancer was found incidentally, when doctors noticed an abnormality in CT scans taken after she fell and fractured her ribs last November.

Ginsburg has made no secret of her desire to serve on the nation's highest court until someone more to her liking, not President Trump, is in the White House. She has no plans to retire any time soon. But she is 85 years old, and she can see the current Supreme Court moving decidedly to the right.

The hard-right ideological turn is taking place in the wake of Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement last summer. Kennedy, a centrist conservative, often cast the deciding vote in closely divided cases. He was replaced by Brett Kavanaugh, a far more conservative judge, and the second Trump appointee to the court. That single appointment means that conservatives now occupy five of the nine seats on the Supreme Court; any further vacancy among the court's four liberals would mean not a 5-to-4 conservative majority, but a 6-to-3 majority. In other words, room to lose one vote and still prevail in any given case.

Conservatives at the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation have been planning and hoping for this ideological turn for decades.

Indeed, Washington legal circles are rife with rumors these days that Justice Clarence Thomas, the court's most conservative member, is pondering retirement, the theory being that were he to retire, Trump could nominate someone in his or her 40s to replace the 70-year-old Thomas, thus guaranteeing a longer-term grip on the Supreme Court seat Thomas now occupies. Trump has in fact hosted Thomas and his wife for dinner at the White House, and met with Ginni Thomas and some of her conservative activist friends. Press reports of that meeting indicate that the president seemed surprised by some of the ideas espoused by some in Ginni Thomas' group, including the notion that women are not qualified to serve in the military.

Trump may hold some unorthodox political views, but he clearly understands that the people he places on the nation's federal courts, not just the Supreme Court, will have an impact that lasts far longer than his presidency. He has achieved a record-high number of appointments to the federal appeals courts, the courts that rank just below the Supreme Court. He has appointed 30 of those judges, more than any other president at this point in his first term of office.

National Review

Published  4 days ago

The Jussie Smollett debacle shows, yet again, that the media are more interested in pushing a left-wing agenda than sticking to facts.

This week, the story of the Jussie Smollett hoax gripped the national media. The story, for those who missed it, went something like this: The Empire actor, who is both black and gay, stated that on a freezing January night in Chicago, in the middle of the polar vortex, he went to a local Subway store to buy a sandwich. On his way back, he was accosted by two men wearing red hats who called him the f-word and the n-word. They then tossed a clothesline around his neck, poured bleach on him, and shouted, “This is MAGA country!”

There were some obvious problems with the story. First, Chicago is not exactly MAGA country — Trump won 12.5 percent of the vote in the city precincts. Second, it seems unlikely that people would stake out Smollett in the middle of the night in below-freezing temperatures. Third, Smollett somehow retained hold of his sandwich after the alleged assault. Fourth, he strolled through his apartment complex without notifying the doorman of the incident. Fifth, he waited 40 minutes to call the police. Sixth, when the police arrived, he was still wearing the clothesline around his neck. Seventh, Smollett claimed that his manager had been on the phone with him at the time of the alleged hate crime; when asked to turn over his phone to the Chicago Police Department to verify this, he refused to do so.

Initially, the media ran with the story without taking such questions seriously. The Washington Post’s Eugene Scott stated, “To many, the Smollett incident — and the political nature of the assault — is yet another reminder for many black gay Americans that this president’s vision of a ‘great America’ does not appear to include them.” Jamil Smith of Rolling Stone tweeted, “The brutal attack on him in Chicago appears to be yet another example not just of further moral decay, but of the brand of terrorism that still doesn’t seem to spark enough response by Americans.” CNN’s Brooke Baldwin simply lamented, “This is America in 2019.”

Celebrities weighed in, too. Actress Ellen Page went on Stephen Colbert’s late-night show where she blamed Vice President Mike Pence for the attack. Cher tweeted, “VILLAINY, RACISM, HOMOPHOBIA, PROMOTED BY MOST INFAMOUS [clown emoji] IN [world emoji], IS THE POISON THAT KILLS [American flag emoji].” Singer Katy Perry tweeted, “Standing with and sending love to @JussieSmollett today . . . this is a racist hate crime and is disgusting and shameful to our country.” Director Rob Reiner added, “The horrific attack on Jussie Smollett has no place in a decent human loving society. . . . No intolerance! No DT!”

Then there were the Democratic politicians. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi tweeted, “The racist, homophobic attack on [Smollett] is an affront to our humanity.” Senator Cory Booker (D., N.J.), who is running for president, called the Smollett incident a “modern-day lynching.” Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez slammed anyone willing to question Smollett’s account, stating, “The attack was not ‘possibly’ homophobic. It was a racist and homophobic attack.”

Why did so many on the political Left buy into the obviously incredible story from the moment that it broke? Because it perfectly fit narratives that the Left loves: the narrative of America as racist, homophobic hellhole; the narrative of Trump supporters as violent bigots; the narrative of Trump himself as an inspirational figure for such violent bigots. The story was too good to be true. So no one cared whether it was or not.

That phenomenon doesn’t exist only on the Left. Confirmation bias is a universal human concern. But in the past six months, we’ve seen the media run with uncorroborated, unverifiable accounts of sexual assault by Judge Brett Kavanaugh decades ago; false accounts of Trump-supporting high-schoolers harassing an elderly Native American man; and now the Smollett case. This isn’t a coincidence. The real message of the past few months is that the media are dominated by those who align with the political Left. That doesn’t mean that everything the media report is fake news. But it does mean that they themselves are too often fake newspeople. They’re actually motivated actors willing to put aside the strictures of journalistic objectivity in order to run with stories that back a preferred narrative. Then, when called on their bias, they run stories about conservatives “pouncing” — as though the story isn’t media bias itself but conservatives’ anger at media bias.

That’s absurd. But so was Smollett’s story from the outset. Either our media will learn to fact-check themselves, or they’ll continue to lose credibility. And either political partisans will learn to stick to the facts, or they’ll continue to tear the country apart on behalf of the narratives they prefer to truth.

Daily Wire

Published  5 days ago

Report AdxReason: --Select please--

She said it was a modern-day lynching; she said it without evidence; now that the evidence disproved her assumptions, she has nothing to say.

2020 presidential candidate Kamala Harris was literally speechless when confronted by reporters about recent revelations that "Empire" star Jussie Smollett may have staged a hate crime in order to allegedly gain attention. Upon initially hearing about the alleged hate crime, Harris accepted it at face-value despite the obvious holes in Smollett's initial story.

"Jussie Smollett is one of the kindest, most gentle human beings I know. I’m praying for his quick recovery," she said on Twitter. "This was an attempted modern day lynching. No one should have to fear for their life because of their sexuality or color of their skin. We must confront this hate."

Since then, evidence shows that Smollett may have paid two Nigerian brothers to pull off an elaborate hate crime hoax allegedly because the actor did not appreciate the lack of media attention over a racist letter he received in the mail. When confronted by a reporter on Monday if her opinions regarding the Smollett incident have changed in light of the new evidence, Kamala Harris struggled to utter a phrase before side-stepping the issue.

"Which tweet? What tweet?" Harris asked as the reporter questioned her about the "modern day lynching" comment.

"Um ... I ... I ... Okay, so I will say this about that case, the facts are still unfolding, and, um, I’m very, um, concerned about obviously, the initial, um, allegation that he made about what might have happened," she said. "And it’s something we should all take seriously whenever anyone, um, alleges that kind of behavior, but there should be an investigation. And I think that once the investigation has concluded then we can all comment, but I’m not going to comment until I know the outcome of the investigation."

It is important to note that Harris has not deleted her poorly-aged tweet in support of Smollett as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did. The California senator's deflection echoes that of Cory Booker over the weekend; he told people to withhold judgment until more facts came out.

"The information is still coming out. I'm going to withhold until all the information actually comes out from on the record sources," Booker said over the weekend.

Like Kamala Harris, Cory Booker took Smollett's allegation at face-value without waiting for all the facts to come out.

"The vicious attack on actor Jussie Smollett was an attempted modern-day lynching. I'm glad he's safe," Booker tweeted in response to the attack. "To those in Congress who don't feel the urgency to pass our Anti-Lynching bill designating lynching as a federal hate crime– I urge you to pay attention."

While it's nice that both Harris and Booker believe that evidence and due process should decide someone's guilt, they were singing a completely different tune during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing, during which they immediately believed Christine Blasey Ford's accusation of sexual assault against the judge without a shred of evidence or a corroborative witness.

Conservative Tribune

Published  6 days ago

During the contentious confirmation hearings of then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in October 2018, countless officials and pundits on the left played the role of judge, jury and executioner in regard to vague and uncorroborated allegations of sexual assault lodged against the nominee.

One of Kavanaugh’s many outspoken critics was the Democratic mayor/city council member of West Hollywood, John Duran, who was sharply critical of the judge’s behavior during the confirmation hearings and seemed to have uncritically accepted at face value the unconfirmed allegations of sexual misconduct that had been made public.

West Hollywood media outlet WEHOville reported in Oct. 2018 that Duran had joined with the rest of the city council to officially condemn Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the high court. Duran said, “Brett Kavanaugh’s display of rage and belligerence at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings proves that he does not have the temperament to be a judge — much less on the Supreme Court.”

“It is abhorrent to think we are placing our future, our equality, and our liberty in the hands of a drunken frat boy who sexually assaulted a teenage girl while his friend Mark Judge stood by and laughed. This is a sad moment in the history of our nation,” Mayor Duran added.

Fast-forward just four months and now the openly gay mayor of West Hollywood is singing an entirely different tune when it comes to the credibility of sexual misconduct allegations against individuals in positions of power, as he has come under fire in his own “#MeToo” scandal.

TRENDING: Man in MAGA Hat Has Incredible Reaction to Trump-Hater Pointing Gun at Him

The Los Angeles Times reported that Duran stands accused of having sexually harassed at least three current or former members of the Gay Men’s Chorus in L.A. — of which Duran serves as chairman of the board — which consisted of his sticking his hand down their pants or making sexually suggestive comments.

The mayor also stands accused of using the gay dating app Grindr during public meetings, including in at least one instance of using the app’s messaging service to repeatedly make unwanted and inappropriate sexual advances toward an aide for a fellow council member.

On top of that, Duran has also been linked to the scandalous deaths of two gay black men at the home of prominent Democratic donor Ed Buck. Duran, who is also an attorney, used to represent Buck.

Despite calls for him to resign from several of his fellow council members, the unashamedly homosexual mayor stands defiant, and told the Times that it was all just a “culture clash,” and that, “If somebody expresses himself or herself sexually, that doesn’t make it harassment, per se.”

As to the use of Grindr to pursue sexual acts with the council member’s aide, that aide’s boyfriend — city events service coordinator Mike Gerle — filed a formal complaint against the mayor. Gerle said, “It’s about consent. … He has this sense of entitlement that because we’re gay, ‘I can do whatever I want with you because that’s our culture.’ He’s decided that’s our culture. He doesn’t understand that every gay man gets to decide what interactions he has. You don’t get a pass.”

For his part, Duran hypocritically sought to demand the due process he had denied Kavanaugh and defend himself from the accusations lodged against him in a lengthy statement posted to Facebook, a post that concluded with a vehement “HELL NO” in response to the demands that he resign.

Duran wrote, “SEXUAL HARASSMENT is a serious issue. Accusations must be taken seriously and addressed. This has been extremely painful for women for decades and decades. But once the allegations are made and received, there MUST be an investigation before conclusions are reached.”

“This is DUE PROCESS of law in the courts. And I know those rules do not apply in the court of public opinion,” he continued. “It’s much easier in this social media world for people to read something, ‘like’ it, retweet it and then move on.”

“But none of us (including me) wants to ever be accused falsely and have people jump to opinion and conclusion without any process in between. That is contempt prior to investigation,” he added, apparently oblivious to how differently he treated Kavanaugh versus how he demands to be treated.

RELATED: Charlie Daniels Calls Out Leftist Hypocrisy over All-White Wardrobe: Believe All Women, Except Fairfax Accuser

After playing up all of the work he had done over the years on behalf of the gay community, Duran noted, “Now, I understand that the ground has shifted in a tectonic way with the ‘Me Too’ movement. I get that. But the pendulum swings too far when accusation is treated as truth, and mobs swirl around rumor and conclusions are drawn based on someone’s race, gender or sexual orientation and accusation alone. That leads to injustice.”

Too bad Duran didn’t apply that same standard to Kavanaugh just four months ago, while he hypocritically now demands it be applied to himself.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

America First with Sebastian Gorka

Published  6 days ago

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) has announced that she will be officially running to become the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee in 2020. To say that the Democratic field has become oversaturated with candidates is an understatement. At present, there are 11 Democrats who have officially announced their intentions to run for the White House. But, behind those confirmed candidates is an eclectic host of Democrats–and one independent, former Starbucks CEO, Howard Schultz–who are all vying to be the kind (or queen) of an increasingly radical political hill.

As time progresses, the winnowing out process will begin. Unfortunately, with presidential campaigns starting earlier and earlier, the American people will be inundated with an increasing array of radical and, frankly, fantastical ideas posited by the Democrats, all in an effort to appeal to the most fringe elements of the increasingly-radical Democratic Party. Each one of these candidates have proven themselves to be hypocritical–in many cases backpedaling on previously reasonable policy positions, such as support for a border wall. To prove that the 2020 Democratic Party’s presidential primary will be nothing more than the theater of the absurd, several confirmed candidates have had to march before the TV cameras, to engage in a litany of apologies for their previous, somewhat-reasonable, stances on issues ranging from gay marriage to immigration.

In order to be in the good graces of both the party leadership and most of the Democratic Party’s Leftist base, like the Communists of old, the candidates seeking high office must pass an ideological purity test. If they are found wanting–such as Howard Schultz, who was so frightened by the radicalism of the Left that he chose to forego the primary process entirely and contemplate running as an independent–they will be castigated as ideological deviants threatening the hive-like integrity of the all-important party, and cast aside before even being allowed to reach out to voters.

For example, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), has had to beg for forgiveness for her previous support of the Clintons. She had positioned herself as the rising star of the “Me Too” movement but now cannot have former President Bill Clinton’s past history of philandering interrupt her rise. Additionally, she accepted sizable campaign donations from the noted, serial sexual predator, Hollywood mogul, Harvey Weinstein for years. And, she previously supported sensible border controls! Now, however, she is attempting to airbrush her history in order to sanitize her past associations with the Clintons, and is calling to abolish the Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) bureau, so as to look “extra” hard-Left.

Another prime example is Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). After having benefited for years by claiming Native American heritage in order to gain a prestigious teaching position at Harvard University, it was recently revealed that she also lied on her Texas Bar application in the 1980s by–yet again–claiming Native American ancestry. She has none. And, Warren has gone to great effort to hide the fact that she was a staunch Republican for most of her adult life. Now, instead, she parrots the correct political line about respecting LGBTQ issues, abortion (infanticide), and unfettered taxation upon “the rich.”

Then, there is Senator Corey Booker (D-NJ), a.k.a. “Spartacus.” Here is a man possessed seemingly of modest intellect and infinite means. The scion of a wealthy family, Senator Booker also has a tenuous relationship with the truth. Before he ran for the United States Senate, in 2013, it was Booked who claimed that he had a “good friend” who went by the name of “T-Bone” from 2002-08. According to Booker’s long-time mentor, Clement Price, a professor of history at Rutgers University, Booked confided to him in 2008 that T-Bone, the drug-addled junkie who, at one point had threatened Booker with physical harm, and at another point, hugged him, was a “composite of multiple people” who Booker knew in Newark. Offended, Professor Price warned Booker against using that reference publicly again, and so after 2008, “T-Bone” was scrubbed from Booker’s speeches. The biggest complain that Clement Price had about Booker’s depiction of a poor, African-American drug user from the inner city was that it had a “southern-infected name,” thereby compounding negative stereotypes against black people.

During the outrageous Supreme Court nomination hearings of Brett Kavanaugh, Senator Booker was one of Kavanaugh’s fiercest critics. Booker was so filled with hatred for Kavanaugh, that he helped promote vicious fabrications about the renowned district judge turned-Supreme-Court-nominee, such as claims that a young Brett Kavanaugh was a serial rapist who used his “white privilege” and power as a man to coerce young women into forced sexual encounters. Senator Booker promulgated these vicious lies, along with his partner-in-slime, Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), in a bid to be made captain of the raging “Me Too” movement.

Then, there is the aforementioned Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA). A woman who was also born to upper-middle-class minority parents. Senator Harris also aspired to be the commanding of the new “Feminist” movement that had been pushing for the destruction of heteronormative masculinity and traditional American values. Harris viciously attacked Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in order to qualify her bona fides to the increasingly uber-radical Left. But, like her senate colleague, Kirsten Gillibrand, Harris’ sincere support for the nostrum underpinning the Feminist cause–that women are exactly equal to men and do not need special treatment from them–is questionable at best.

You see, in order to catapult her career to the stratospheric heights Senator Harris has achieved, she slept with a married man 30 years her senior, who was also the mayor of San Francisco when Harris was just starting out as an assistant district attorney in San Francisco. Whatever merits Senator Harris may possess, they were colored by the fact that her year-long tryst with the former San Francisco mayor, Willie Brown, in 2002 led to her making critical personal contacts with wealthy Liberal political donors, and resulted in Harris’ nomination to a highly lucrative position on the city commission.

These are just a few of the Democratic Party’s frontrunners who’ve announced their intentions to run for the presidency in 2020. They are proven liars, chameleons, and panderers. More disturbingly, though, these individuals are “democratic socialists.” In other words, they’re both your classic archetypal politicians (in terms of their disposition) while acting as the most destructive radicals this country has ever seen in Congress. Meanwhile, President Donald J. Trump has offered an alternative vision that has already yielded historic gains for all Americans; he has resoundingly defeated ISIS and continues to rely upon American strength to rollback strategic rivals, like China and Russia, while holding the line in the ongoing Culture War against the radical Left.

The President has also helped to usher in an economic renaissance, that has seen the return of almost five percent GDP growth, has the lowest unemployment rates in recent history–especially for minorities–and in which the stock market continues to soar to historic highs (benefiting everyone).

The divide going into 2020 is clear: do you want a clear track record of reason, strong leadership, and continued success of the sort that President Trump has given us? Or, do you want to support the Democratic Party which espouses the most radical positions on everything from race to infanticide to sexual politics–whilst insisting that the United States isn’t great?

Mediaite

Published  1 week ago

Minutes after President Donald Trump‘s White House Rose Garden speech in which Ann Coulter was deemed to be “off the reservation” by the president, the conservative commentator fired back.

Appearing on KABC radio in Los Angeles, Coulter — who recently surrendered support for Trump over his slowness to fulfill his border wall promise, said signing the congressional bill is a mistake that would ensure no wall would be built: “not a wall, not a prototype, but some bollard fencing with the approval of local officials.” The right-wing pundit added the President had the authority to build a wall all along and didn’t need Congress to do it.

“Forget the fact that he’s digging his own grave,” Coulter said. “The only national emergency is that our president is an idiot.”

But not to dunk on Trump’s entire base, Coulter did acknowledge Trump did follow through on some of his other promises.

“In defense of Trump supporters and those who fell for his b.s., Trump has been competent on a much more complicated subject: The judiciary,” she said, referring to Trump’s appointment of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

On Thursday night, Coulter said Trump was only declaring a national emergency to pose for his voters who still believe in him. “The goal is to get Trump’s stupidest voters to say ‘HE’S FIGHTING!’ No he’s not. If he signs this bill, it’s over,” she tweeted Thursday evening.

The goal is to get Trump's stupidest voters to say "HE'S FIGHTING!" No he's not. If he signs this bill, it's over. https://t.co/6DQSkqxV8h

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) February 15, 2019

President Trump had mentioned Coulter in his Friday speech, saying he “hardly know[s] her,” and hasn’t “spoken to her in way over a year.” Coulter told Phillips she was going to change the title on the paperback version of her book “In Trump We Trust” to “In Trump We Trusted.”

“This is the worst open borders the country has ever had under the president who ran against open borders,” she said.

Listen above, via KABC radio.

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

WSET

Published  1 week ago

FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) - Kentucky lawmakers heard the beating heart of a woman's unborn baby before voting Thursday to advance a bill to ban most abortions in the state once a fetal heartbeat is detected.

April Lanham, who lives in the district of the bill's lead sponsor, let them hear it via an electronic monitor while she was at the witness table in the committee room at Kentucky's Capitol complex.

"That child in her womb is a living human being," Republican Sen. Matt Castlen, the bill sponsor, said later. "And all living human beings have a right to life."

A short time later, a Senate committee advanced the bill. It would require anyone seeking an abortion to first determine if a fetal heartbeat is detectable. If it is, the abortion would be banned. A fetal heartbeat can be detected about six weeks into pregnancy.

Kentucky is among several states where lawmakers are considering similar bills. Abortion opponents are pushing such proposals in an effort to challenge the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that established a nationwide right to abortion.

Anti-abortion groups believe their cause has been strengthened by President Donald Trump's appointments of conservatives Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Abortion-rights supporters warned Kentucky lawmakers on Thursday that enactment of the fetal heartbeat bill would trigger another legal fight over abortion.

"Each of you took an oath to uphold the Constitution," Kate Miller, with the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, told the Senate panel. "This law is patently unconstitutional. The second it is signed, the ACLU of Kentucky will file a lawsuit. And much like the other laws you have passed, we expect that you will be held up in litigation unsuccessfully for years."

The state already is defending three abortion-related laws in court. Republican lawmakers in Kentucky have aggressively pushed bills to restrict abortion since consolidating their hold on the legislature starting in 2017.

Dr. Susan Bornstein, an obstetrician-gynecologist, said Thursday the fetal heartbeat bill would essentially eliminate abortions in Kentucky. The measure would provide narrow exceptions for abortions, such as when the mother's life is endangered. Bornstein told the Senate panel that the bill also would impose "unnecessary political interference in the practice of medicine."

"No woman intentionally becomes pregnant in order to have an abortion," she said. "The decision about whether to end a pregnancy or become a parent is one of the most important life decisions that we make. However, circumstances do occur under which women feel that they need to terminate their pregnancies. And history has shown that they will do so, whether it's legal or not."

Nicole Stipp, who also testified against the bill, said it would be "forcing women back into the shadows for back-alley abortions that will kill them."

The most powerful moment during presentations by the bill's supporters came when Lanham came forward to allow people in the packed committee room to hear her unborn baby's heartbeat. Lanham said afterward she did so because the heartbeat would be a "powerful noise" for lawmakers to hear before the vote. She said her pregnancy is 18 weeks along.

"Every life matters," she told reporters.

www.theepochtimes.com

Published  1 week ago

Commentary Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), chairman of the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, announced Feb. 6 ...

Washington Examiner

Published  1 week ago

President Trump has received an early Valentine’s Day kiss from America’s biggest pollster with an approval rating just one point below his “personal best.”

According to Gallup, Trump bounced off his lowest rating of 37 percent to a high of 44 percent approval since he decided to reopen the government.

The survey even suggested that all those pundits were wrong when they judged that the president lost the first government shutdown fight with Congress. The Gallup poll suggests a different verdict. He had his biggest shift from low to high after he opened the government, and also gave his annual State of the Union address.

“The recent political brinksmanship harmed Trump's ratings when he eagerly used the government shutdown as a strategy to force funding for a border wall. At that time, Trump's approval rating fell, while Congress' already low rating held steady. But by reopening the government — something widely seen as evidence of failure — Trump may have won praise from the public, something both sides should bear in mind as they negotiate to avoid a repeat shutdown,” said Gallup.

It is the latest survey to show a positive shift for Trump, who apparently is ready to agree to another deal to keep the government open and one that gives him some money for border security.

Polling analyst Ron Faucheux, who issues a daily newsletter called Lunchtime Politics with Trump’s average polling, put it at 46 percent today, among the president’s highest.

“As we get new polls, it shows President Trump’s approval rating rising in the aftermath of the SOTU address. Today’s average is based on five polls, ranging from 42 percent (The Economist) to 50 percent (Rasmussen). Without these two extremes, it would be 45 percent,” he said in the emailed newsletter Wednesday.

And in an even better result, the latest Gallup survey showed that Trump’s approval rating is twice that of Congress, which sits at 21 percent.

“Trump's overall approval rating, which had slumped to 37 percent amid the shutdown, hasn't been this high since October, after his nominee Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in as a Supreme Court justice. His current approval is just one percentage point shy of his personal best, achieved twice in his presidency — in the first week of his term and in June 2018, after his meeting with North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un,” said Gallup.

Gallup said that the surge in approval was because independent voters have shifted in Trump’s direction.

What’s more, other recent surveys, including one from Gallup, have found that Americans feel good about their personal finances.

Big League Politics

Published  1 week ago

Two corroborating witnesses who could have verified Dr. Vanessa Tyson’s sexual assault allegations against Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax (D) told Big League Politics that The Washington Post never contacted them after Tyson made the allegations.

Remember, The Post’s official reasoning for not running the story was that the allegations against Fairfax were uncorroborated. But just four days after Big League Politics first reported Tyson’s sexual assault allegations against Fairfax, The New York Times spoke with five corroborating witnesses, all of whom told The Times that Tyson had confided in them about her alleged sexual assault.

Two women named in The Times’ report, Dr. Susan J. McWilliams of Pomona College and Nadia E. Brown of Purdue University told Big League Politics via email that The Washington Post never reached out them to try to corroborate Tyson’s allegations.

“The Washington Post never contacted me in 2017 or 2018 to try to corroborate Vanessa’s story,” McWilliams said.

Similarly, Brown confirmed that WaPo never contacted her.

“No, I have not,” she said when asked if she had ever been contacted by The Post.

Big League Politics reached out to the other corroborating witnesses who spoke with The New York Times, Elizabeth Armstrong of The University of Michigan, Jennifer Freyd of The University of Oregon, and Diane Rosenfeld of Harvard Law. None of them responded to multiple comment requests.

Executive Editor of The Post Martin Baron released the following statement following a flurry of media questions about why the paper ran Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, but not the allegations brought forth by Tyson against Fairfax:

“We always take allegations of sexual harassment or assault seriously, and we thoroughly investigate accusations involving public officials and other prominent individuals. Certain standards must be met prior to publication. We launched thorough investigations of both the allegations brought by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford against Brett Kavanaugh and Dr. Vanessa Tyson against Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax. In cases like these, we take into account several factors in determining whether to publish: Is the accuser willing to go on the record? Are there individuals who can confirm that they were told of the harassment or assault well prior to the allegations being brought to our attention? Is there a verifiable pattern of harassment or assault that involves more than the one accuser who has brought allegations to us? Our reporting on Dr. Blasey Ford documented that in 2012 she told others of the alleged incident. Her husband learned of it during a couples therapy session, and he said he was told the name of Brett Kavanaugh at that time. Moreover, notes from therapy sessions that we reviewed showed that Dr. Blasey Ford spoke of a sexual assault by students “from an elitist boys’ school.” With that corroborating evidence, we proceeded to publish her account because it met our standards for publication. We had no such corroborating accounts or evidence in the case of Dr. Tyson. She said she had told no one what happened. Moreover, we could find no similar complaints of sexual misconduct against Lt. Gov. Fairfax. Without any independent confirmation, our standards for publication were not met, and therefore we did not publish a story.”

But The Post’s claim that Tyson “told no one what happened” is directly conflicted by a Feb. 6 New York Times piece.

“Late Wednesday night, aides to [Virginia Democratic Rep. Bobby Scott] confirmed that in late December 2017 or early January 2018, Dr. Tyson told him that she had made an allegation of sexual assault against Mr. Fairfax, in the course of giving Mr. Scott notice that she had given his name as a character reference to The Washington Post, which was investigating the allegation,” the piece said.

According to The Times’ report, The Post even reached out to Scott.

“The congressman received “limited information” about the assault from The Post, but did not learn the full details until Dr. Tyson released her statement on Wednesday, the aides said,” the report said.

It remains unclear whether Tyson actually told The Post about any of the other potential corroborators, including McWilliams and Brown. Neither could confirm for Big League Politics whether Tyson had given their names to The Post.

BLP reached out to a senior level communications official at The Post, but she did not return our comment request. We also reached out to Deborah Katz, Tyson’s attorney, but did not hear back.

POLITICUSUSA

Published  1 week ago

GOP Sen. Susan Collins may claim – still – to be a pro-choice moderate who will vote to protect women’s rights, but MSNBC host Ari Melber destroyed that myth on Wednesday.

According to Melber, Collins’ vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court was the final straw that sealed her legacy as an anti-abortion right winger.

“She still claims, even now, that she’s doing her part to keep the court pro-choice against all this evidence,” the MSNBC host said, adding that Collins can claim she’s pro-choice all she wants, but “facts matter.”

Ari Melber delivers a strong takedown of Republican Sen. Susan Collins. #ctl #p2 pic.twitter.com/38Dn2lHh8h

— PoliticusUSA (@politicususa) February 14, 2019

Melber said:

Note that Sen. Collins has some experience with a pattern here. We’re going to show it to you. Because she backed Trump and voted to confirm Gorsuch as well as Kavanaugh, just like she voted to confirm Alito. As for Thomas, the fourth vote, well she wasn’t even in office yet. Now, there are potential legitimate arguments for that kind of voting record. For pro-life candidates, their answer is, yeah, these are the pro-life judges they want. And for some traditionalists, to be fair, the answer is yeah, but the Senate vets judges and shouldn’t try to pre-engineer their future votes on the court. That’s a different defense. Sen. Collins claims neither of those defenses. She still claims, even now, that she’s doing her part to keep the court pro-choice against all this evidence. Responding to Kavanaugh’s new opinion, she cites this as a, quote, very careful dissent, as proof the idea he would still repeal Roe is, quote, absurd. Is it? We asked Sen. Collins’ office whether point blank she views Kavanaugh’s ruling as a limitation on abortion access, which it is, and a narrowing of Roe’s protection or not. She did not reply to those questions today. But if last fall anyone was unclear how then-Judge Kavanaugh would approach abortion laws on the Supreme Court, the answer is now clear. Facts matter.

It’s not just Collins’ vote to confirm the anti-choice Kavanaugh that makes her a fraud. Her record was clear well before she sold out and confirmed him to the Supreme Court last year.

As Ari Melber pointed out, Collins also voted in favor of Trump-appointed Neil Gorsuch and George W. Bush-appointed Samuel Alito.

Both of those Supreme Court justices joined Kavanaugh last week in voting to restrict a key abortion protection. Luckily, Bush-appointed Justice John Roberts sided with the majority of the court and blocked the restrictive law from taking effect.

Ultimately, one thing is clear: Sen. Collins is neither moderate nor pro-choice. If the Supreme Court justices she voted to confirm had their way, they would overturn abortion rights in a heartbeat.

In 2020, the voters of Maine have a chance to replace Susan Collins with a Senator that will mean it when they say they’ll protect women’s rights.

American Greatness

Published  1 week ago

In September 2016, the Claremont Review of Books published Michael Anton’s essay, “The Flight 93 Election,” which became one of the most controversial and discussed essays of that most extraordinary election year. This month, Encounter Books published After the Flight 93 Election: The Vote that Saved America and What We Still Have to Lose. The book is a reconsideration of that argument and a look at where we go from here.

American Greatness is happy to publish, with kind permission of Encounter, an excerpt of this important book.

This volume contains two previously published essays, preceded by one new one. The central piece—“The Flight 93 Election”—is, so to speak, the reason we’re here. It was written in two days in August 2016 and published online by the Claremont Review of Books on September 5, 2016—Labor Day. At first, it received little notice, in line with my expectations. It was (somewhat infamously) published pseudonymously. I assumed—and still believe—that half the reason anyone reads anything is because of who wrote it. Conceal an author’s identity, lose half your potential readers. Second, those few who recognized my pseudonym (“Publius Decius Mus”) would have been readers of a by-then defunct blog, the Journal of American Greatness, to which I contributed under the nom de net “Decius.” Such readers, I further assumed, would consider (as I did) the new piece to be little more than a rehash of my old JAG posts.

Two days went by without a peep. Then on September 7, Rush Limbaugh read “The Flight 93 Election” in its entirety on the air. The CRB’s website instantly crashed—as did that of American Greatness (a successor of sorts to JAG), which published the piece concurrently with the CRB.

My intent in writing “The Flight 93 Election” was to impress upon those who consider themselves principled conservatives the urgency of the moment and the stakes of the 2016 election, not just for conservatism but for the country. I cannot say to what extent I succeeded, except to note that numerous people have contacted me in the intervening two years to tell me that the piece changed their vote or steeled their resolve. Many others have told me that it “woke them up” to the dangers that militant leftism poses to our country and our civilization. To all those who have thanked me for writing it and wished me well, I here return your thanks.

Of course, “The Flight 93 Election” was (and still is) attacked far more than praised. The substance of those attacks crystallized immediately as the piece gained fame, and I responded to them in a follow-up, entitled “Restatement on Flight 93,” published on the CRB website on September 13, 2016 (and here republished as the final part of this volume). While the criticism keeps coming, very little is beyond the scope of that initial response. Most of it echoes charges already made during the hectic first few days of the original essay’s viral notoriety.

Most, but not all. Over time, a deeper criticism (friendly and otherwise) has emerged. “The Flight 93 Election” is accused of being bereft of any positive vision—a vivid jeremiad, perhaps, but all nightmare, no dream.

In fact, “The Flight 93 Election” was inspired and informed by exactly such a positive vision—or, more precisely, by an account of America, how and why it is good, whence that goodness derives, and why it deserves to be conserved. I feared that this account—and a fortiori the underlying principles and institutions of which it gives account—were at grave risk from the relentless malevolence of their enemies and the fecklessness and errors of their supposed defenders. That fear has abated but little.

Defending America and the West is thought to be the province of “conservatism.” Yet the behavior of conservatism’s leading spokesmen in 2016 and beyond has cast significant doubt on whether it or they are capable of fulfilling that mission. Certainly, one must wonder what understanding of conservatism would make its adherents so willing to hand our country over to conservatism’s, and to America’s (at least as we have known her), avowed enemies.

In my view, the urgent task in September 2016 was to demonstrate the folly of that position and shine a spotlight on what we needed to prevent. Going forward, we will also need a clearer statement of what we are for—and a better awareness of the specific ways it is threatened. In this spirit of positivity, I here offer a “Pre-Statement on Flight 93.” This new essay is placed first for what Aristotle might call its “ontological priority.” Though written last (in August 2018, substantially revised in October), it comes first in the logical order of the argument.

Its first two-thirds say nothing I have not believed for at least two decades. But the last third reflects a growing alarm at the Left’s intensifying radicalization. I wrote the first draft after President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court but before the Democrats and the Left launched their disgraceful calumnies against him, aiming not merely to sink his nomination but to destroy his good name. I always expect the Left to behave badly—very badly—but their treatment of this fine man shocked even me. “The Flight 93 Election” was and continues to be widely ridiculed for its alleged apocalypticism. The following passage struck many as particularly overwrought:

A Hillary presidency will be pedal-to-the-metal on the entire progressive-Left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is even that the worst. It will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most “advanced” Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England. We see this already in the censorship practiced by the Davoisie’s social media enablers; in the shameless propaganda tidal wave of the mainstream media; and in the personal destruction campaigns—operated through the former and aided by the latter—of the social justice warriors. We see it in Obama’s flagrant use of the IRS to torment political opponents, the gaslighting denial by the media, and the collective shrug by everyone else.

It’s absurd to assume that any of this would stop or slow—would do anything other than massively intensify— in a Hillary administration. It’s even more ridiculous to expect that hitherto useless conservative opposition would suddenly become effective. For two generations at least, the Left has been calling everyone to their right Nazis. This trend has accelerated exponentially in the last few years, helped along by some on the right who really do seem to merit—and even relish—the label. There is nothing the modern conservative fears more than being called “racist,” so alt-right pocket Nazis are manna from heaven for the Left. But also wholly unnecessary: sauce for the goose. The Left was calling us Nazis long before any pro-Trumpers tweeted Holocaust denial memes. And how does one deal with a Nazi—that is, with an enemy one is convinced intends your destruction? You don’t compromise with him or leave him alone. You crush him.

Given what the Left has done—and pledges to continue to do—to Justice Kavanaugh, and indeed to anyone who stands in the way of their lust for unchecked power, can anyone seriously argue that this assessment was wrong? To answer a different question that I’m still occasionally asked: no, I don’t regret a word.

These are dangerous times. The Left has made them so and insists on increasing the danger. Leftists hold virtually every commanding height in our society—financial, intellectual, educational, cultural, administrative—and yet they affect the posture of an oppressed and besieged “resistance.”

Nonsense. The real resistance is led by President Trump. It is resistance to the Left’s all-consuming drive for absolute power, its hostility to all American and Western norms—constitutional, moral, prudential—and its boundless destructive enmity. If I have been persuaded by any criticism of “The Flight 93 Election,” it is that I was ungenerous to Trump. The president stands clearly and firmly against these virulent attacks on America and firmly for the protection of life and liberty, and the promotion of the good life for the American people. Those are the core responsibilities of any American president. May President Trump continue to fulfill them until the end of his constitutionally won second term.

What the Kavanaugh affair has made clearer to me than ever is that the Left will not stop until all opposition is totally destroyed. The harm they do to people, institutions, mores, and traditions is, in their view, not regrettable though unavoidable collateral damage; it is rather an essential element of the project. It’s a bit rich to be accused by nihilists of lacking a positive vision. But such is life in 2018. To stand up for truth, morality, the good, the West, America, constitutionalism, and decency is to summon the furies.

America cannot long go on like this. Something’s gotta give, and something will. What that “something” will be depends in no small part on the actions of men and women of good character, good judgment, and goodwill. Among the most heartening things I’ve seen in my lifetime was the way the president, the Republican establishment, and most of the conservative movement stood together in the face of what a few took to calling “the Flight 93 Confirmation.” In that instance, justice was done. Many more tests are coming. Victory will require not just spirit and spine but the right arguments that explicate the right principles.

For all that lies ahead, let us fortify ourselves with a keener awareness of what we still have left to lose. Which is exactly what inspired me to write “The Flight 93 Election” in the first place.

Michael Anton is a lecturer and research fellow at Hillsdale College, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, and a former national security official in the Trump Administration. He formerly wrote under the pseudonym Publius Decius Mus when he was a senior editor of American Greatness.

We Love Trump

Published  1 week ago

The Black Sphere

Published  1 week ago

DC is subtle at times. But the subtlety of Pelosi in cleaning up her latest mess has all the subtlety of speaking through a bullhorn at a cocktail party.

Mail Online

Published  1 week ago

DailyMail.com is picturing Beth Inabinett, 63, for the first time. She faces a March trial in Maryland for second-degree assault. Inabinett could also face a federal felony charge, according to a DOJ official.

Update America

Published  1 week ago

In a CNN interview released on Friday, President Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway revealed details of an assault on her while she and her teenage daughter dined at a Mexican restaurant.

The incident took place in D.C. shortly after the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, according to The Hill.

“I was standing next to my daughter and many of her friends at dinner...and somebody was grabbing me from behind, grabbed my arms, and was shaking me to the point where I felt maybe somebody was hugging me," Conway told CNN’s chief political correspondent Dana Bash as she held her arms behind her back to illustrate what happened.

At first Conway thought it was one of the parents of the teens hugging her, but she turned around because it felt too aggressive to be friendly.

“I turned around and the woman had grabbed my hands,” she continued.

“She was just unhinged. She was out of control.”

“Her whole face was terror and anger...she was right here” Conway explained, placing her hand just an inch from her own face. “And my daughter was right there.”

“And she ought to pay for that, because she has no right to touch anybody.”

“She put her hands on me,” the Trump advisor continued. “I said, ‘Get your hands off me!’ She put her hands on me and was shaking me and was doing it from the front with my daughter right there, who then videotaped her.”

Conway said the woman refused to leave the restaurant until she followed them outside. She was screaming “shame on you” and shouting other political comments at her for eight to 10 minutes. Conway called 911, but the woman, later identified as Mary Elizabeth Inabinett, left before they arrived.

With the help of the video footage, police caught up with Inabinett later and charged with her with second-degree assault and disorderly conduct. Her lawyer says she will plead not guilty in an upcoming court appearance and claims Conway gave a false account.

And then, Bash had the gall to suggest that Trump’s “incendiary rhetoric” and his calling “the press the enemy of the people” was to blame for the “toxic atmosphere” that may have led Inabinett to allegedly assault Conway.

Conway shot back, saying the only person responsible for Inabinett’s conduct is Inabinett.

The Hill noted that senior White House advisor Stephen Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen were also confronted in a Mexican restaurant in the recent past by a group of angry liberal protesters who screamed at them, disrupting the entire eatery. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders says she was also shouted out of a restaurant, this time by the owner herself.

The Resurgent

Published  1 week ago

This week in 2016, I declared I would be “Never Trump.” A friend suggested I use a hashtag that had started circulating on Twitter, i.e #NeverTrump. The piece exploded and pushed me into a whirlwind of coverage. Despite lots of pressure, protestors literally on my front porch, and harassment directed towards my family, I did not vote for Donald Trump in 2016. I voted third party.

Some of my concerns about President Trump remain. I still struggle on the character issue and I understand Christian friends who would rather sit it out than get involved. But I also recognize that we cannot have the Trump Administration policies without President Trump and there is much to like.

President Trump delivered on tax reform. He delivered on regulatory rollbacks. He delivered on undermining Obamacare. He delivered on moving the embassy in Israel. He delivered on withdrawal from the Paris Accord. He delivered on withdrawal from the Iranian agreement. He delivered on shifting American foreign policy focus to the Western Hemisphere to deal with Venezuela, Cuba, and other hotspots. He delivered on solid executive appointments, including to the judiciary.

I have ongoing concerns on tariffs, the national direction on North Korea, and other issues, but even with George W. Bush I had issues. No President is perfect. Some are badly flawed. In 2020, we’ll be asked to choose between a set of sinners and must decide which direction we want to go as a nation.

I chose a third path in 2016 and the nation decided otherwise. Now, as we head into 2020, it is clear the paths forward are still between the Republicans and Democrats. The path of opting out or protesting now to me seems irrelevant as we have a President who is no longer a hypothetical against any of a host of Democrats who too extreme for the nation.

We have three years on which to judge President Trump’s administration and vision for the country. We also have lots of real world examples of where the Democrats want to head.

We have a party that is increasingly hostile to religion and now applies religious tests to blocking judicial nominees. We have a party that believes children can be murdered at birth. We have a party that would set back the economic progress of this nation by generations through their environmental policies. We have a party that uses the issue of Russia opportunistically. We have a party that has weaponized race, gender, and other issues to divide us all while calling the President “divisive.” We have a party that is deeply, deeply hostile to large families, small businesses, strong work ethics, gun ownership, and traditional values. We have a party that is more and more openly anti-Semitic.

The Democrats have increasingly determined to let that hostility shape their public policy. They are adamant, with a religious fervor, that one must abandon one’s deeply held convictions and values as a form of penance to their secular gods.

On top of that, we have an American media that increasingly views itself not as a neutral observer, but as an anti-Trump operation. The daily litany of misreported and badly reported stories designed to paint this Administration in a negative light continues to amaze me. Juxtapose the contrast in national reporting on the President and race or Brett Kavanaugh and old allegations with the media dancing around the issues in Virginia. Or compare and contrast the media’s coverage of the New York and Virginia abortion laws with their coverage of this President continuing the policies of the Obama Administration at the border, including the Obama policy of separating children from adults. Or look now at how the media is scrambling to cover for and make excuses for the Democrats’ “Green New Deal,” going so far as to suggest that maybe, just maybe, the outline of policy initiatives was an error or forged.

In fact, many of my center-right friends who, like me, continue to have concerns with this Administration, are driven in part by the bad reporting on this Administration. There are certainly concerns. I have written often about my concerns, including on the character issue. I will not now be silent even in expressing my support. But I also recognize the media has done an amazing job of fraudulently amplifying those concerns and, frankly, the younger the reporter the worse and more unfair the coverage.

At this point I can head into 2020 knowing several things. First, the behaviors this President routinely engages in are not going to change. He is who he is. Second, the pretty smiles and calm demeanors the other side will probably work through the media to contrast with the President will not hide the fact they think children can be killed at birth, Christians should be removed from policy making positions, and the economy should be bankrupted to implement environmental policies that will not actually mitigate climate change.

My friends in the center-right coalition who are flirting with Democrats are, more often than not, not really socially conservative. But I am. That party offers me no home and is deeply hostile to people of faith. The President has shown himself to not share my faith convictions any more than the other side, but the President has shown he is willing to defend my faith convictions and is supportive of them.

I could stay home or vote third party as I did in 2016. But what will that get me? The ability to say “not my problem” or the self-assurance that I didn’t get dirty in having to choose? I have many Christian friends who, when I have discussed this, tell me I should just stay home and turn my back. Both parties, they tell me, are profoundly corrupt. And they’re right. But I am not looking for a messiah in politics and don’t have some religious sentiment tied to my vote. While I understand and accept the sincere conviction of some of my friends who have decided they will just sit out the process, I have decided otherwise. In 2016, we knew who the Democrats were and were not sure of who Donald Trump was. Now we know both and I prefer this President to the alternative.

I will vote for Donald Trump and Mike Pence. And, to be clear, it will not be just because of what the other side offers, but also because of what the Trump-Pence team has done. They’ve earned my vote.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 week ago

Remember when Kavanaugh was brutally attacked by almost every Democratic Senator when he was falsely accused of sexual assault? Almost every Democrat in Washington, with no hard evidence, was willing to believe a baseless allegation against Brett Kavanagh. These same Democrats seem to have nothing to say about the recent sexual assault allegations against Virginia Democratic Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax.

Let’s also not forget about the “Believe all Women” movement that started in response to the Kavanaugh accusation. Democrats from all over America made it clear that we had to believe every woman’s sexual assault allegation, no matter how insane it was. So the same standard applies to Justin Fairfax, right? I guess not.

Check out what happened when the Daily Caller asked Diane Feinstein about the situation:

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and helped Kavanaugh’s accuser hire a legal team, told TheDCNF, “I don’t know Justin Fairfax.” When asked if the two should be compared she said, “No,” adding, “It’s really up to people in the area.”

Get Your “Build The Wall” Coin For 50% Off And We’ll Send Nancy Pelosi A Foam Brick!

Seriously? This is the same woman who took Christine Ford, the Kavanaugh accuser, under her wing and did anything and everything to destroy Kavanaugh’s life. Feinstein’s lack of action strongly shows that she doesn’t care about sexual assault allegations unless they are made against a Republican.

Feinstein wasn’t the only one who was confronted by the Daily Caller:

Other senators who were against Kavanaugh’s confirmation said they do not see the comparison between a lieutenant governor and a Supreme Court Justice, despite the allegations.

“I don’t know how you can apply to somebody that’s in office now with somebody who is trying to get a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. What I said though is consistent that accusers like that need to be heard, they need to be listened to, and those grievances need to be aired and something needs to be acted on in one way or another. That’s it,” Alabama Democratic Sen. Doug Jones said to TheDCNF.

How pathetic! It’s pretty concerning that Doug Jones thinks that we should hold a different standard for Fairfax because he isn’t a potential Supreme Court Justice. Shouldn’t sexual assault be treated equally no matter who is blamed?

POLL: Do You Think CNN Is The Enemy Of The People?

It gets worse. When Senator Bernie Sanders was asked about Justin Fairfax, he pretended to be on a phone call to avoid the question. Don’t believe me? Watch the video below.

Bernie is back and and this time he is taking fake phone calls to dodge questions about if he believes Lt. Gov Justin Fairfax’s accuser… WATCH THIS: pic.twitter.com/y6n83qPKit

— Henry Rodgers (@henryrodgersdc) February 5, 2019

During the Kavanaugh confirmation process, Sanders said “I listened to Dr. Ford, and I listened to Judge Kavanaugh. I believe Dr. Ford. Brett Kavanaugh does not belong on the Supreme Court.” So why isn’t Sanders open to listening to the facts presented in the Fairfax case? Does he only care about sexual assault allegations that involve Republicans?

The recent sexual assault scandal involving Virginia Democratic Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax has brought out the Democrats’ true colors. The same people who viciously attacked Justice Kavanaugh over a weak allegation, seem to have nothing to say about the Fairfax allegations.

VOTE NOW: Does Trump have your vote in 2020?

Trump Train

Published  1 week ago

Photographs show Dr. Christine Blasey Ford with George Soros, Harvey Weinstein, and Bill Clinton.

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford publicly alleged on 16 September 2018 that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a party when both of them were high schoolers in 1982, she has been the target of a relentless campaign to try to discredit her and cast aspersions on her motivation for coming forward.

One of the most common smears directed at women to discredit them personally in such situations is try to paint them as “loose” and promiscuous. One of the most common ways to discredit them politically is to attempt to link them to the bogeyman of the right, billionaire hedge fund manager and Open Society Foundations founder George Soros.

Predictably, someone dug up and circulated a photograph claimed to be a picture of Christine Blasey Ford posing with George Soros and suggesting some form of relationship between the two:

However, the pictured woman is not Dr. Ford, but rather Lyudmyla Kozlovska, a Ukrainian human rights activist seen below with her husband Bartosz Kramek at an anti-government protest in Warsaw in 2017:

Another pair of photographs were claimed to show Dr. Ford posing with former film producer Harvey Weinstein (against whom multiple allegations of sexual harassment have also been made) and former president Bill Clinton:

But the woman seen in these pictures is actually Kirsten Gillibrand, the junior United States Senator from New York:

As #DemsInPhilly gather to nominate our next Pres. @HillaryClinton, kicked off #DNCinPHL w/former Pres. @BillClinton pic.twitter.com/nZ1uE18oRp

— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) July 25, 2016

Someone later clumsily attempted to replace Senator Gillibrand’s face with that of Dr. Ford in the photograph with Bill Clinton:

newsobserver

Published  1 week ago

President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans have prioritized the judiciary. Now Trump has three vacancies to fill on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers five states including NC and SC.

Conservative News Today

Published  1 week ago

Henry Rodgers, DCNF

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dodged questions Friday about the sexual assault allegations that have emerged against Virginia Democratic Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax, after the New York Democrat previously protested Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Ocasio-Cortez invited a sexual assault survivor, who made news after protesting Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address Tuesday. The representative said she has not looked into the allegations against Fairfax in a hallway interview on Capitol Hill.

“I have not looked at all into the situation,” Ocasio-Cortez said when asked if she believed Fairfax’s accuser.

This comes as five Democratic senators who condemned Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct allegations refused to acknowledge the allegations against Fairfax when asked by The Daily Caller News Foundation Thursday. The senators all dodged the question or acted like they had not heard about it when asked if the same standard should be applied to Fairfax as it was applied to Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings in 2018.

Fairfax was hit with his second allegation of sexual misconduct Friday afternoon.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Erick Erickson, editor of the Resurgent and a leading Never Trumper who voted third-party in 2016, announced Monday in a column that he would throw his full support behind President Trump in 2020.

“I will vote for Donald Trump and Mike Pence. And, to be clear, it will not be just because of what the other side offers, but also because of what the Trump-Pence team has done. They’ve earned my vote,” he wrote.

Erickson argued that the president is not perfect but that the president has delivered on his promises. He wrote:

Some of my concerns about President Trump remain. I still struggle on the character issue and I understand Christian friends who would rather sit it out than get involved. But I also recognize that we cannot have the Trump Administration policies without President Trump and there is much to like.

President Trump delivered on tax reform. He delivered on regulatory rollbacks. He delivered on undermining Obamacare. He delivered on moving the embassy in Israel. He delivered on withdrawal from the Paris Accord. He delivered on withdrawal from the Iranian agreement. He delivered on shifting American foreign policy focus to the Western Hemisphere to deal with Venezuela, Cuba, and other hotspots. He delivered on solid executive appointments, including to the judiciary.

Erickson said he had “ongoing concerns” on tariffs, North Korea, and other issues, but that even with George W. Bush he had issues.

“No President is perfect. Some are badly flawed. In 2020, we’ll be asked to choose between a set of sinners and must decide which direction we want to go as a nation,” he said.

Erickson called the host of Democrats running “too extreme” for the nation.

We have a party that is increasingly hostile to religion and now applies religious tests to blocking judicial nominees. We have a party that believes children can be murdered at birth. We have a party that would set back the economic progress of this nation by generations through their environmental policies.

We have a party that uses the issue of Russia opportunistically. We have a party that has weaponized race, gender, and other issues to divide us all while calling the President “divisive.” We have a party that is deeply, deeply hostile to large families, small businesses, strong work ethics, gun ownership, and traditional values. We have a party that is more and more openly anti-Semitic.

Erickson also slammed the media as one that increasingly views itself “not as a neutral observer, but as an anti-Trump operation.” The younger the reporter, the worse it was, he said.

“The daily litany of misreported and badly reported stories designed to paint this Administration in a negative light continues to amaze me,” he said.

He wrote:

Juxtapose the contrast in national reporting on the President and race or Brett Kavanaugh and old allegations with the media dancing around the issues in Virginia. Or compare and contrast the media’s coverage of the New York and Virginia abortion laws with their coverage of this President continuing the policies of the Obama Administration at the border, including the Obama policy of separating children from adults. Or look now at how the media is scrambling to cover for and make excuses for the Democrats’ ‘Green New Deal,’ going so far as to suggest that maybe, just maybe, the outline of policy initiatives was an error or forged.

In fact, many of my center-right friends who, like me, continue to have concerns with this Administration, are driven in part by the bad reporting on this Administration.

There are certainly concerns. I have written often about my concerns, including on the character issue. I will not now be silent even in expressing my support. But I also recognize the media has done an amazing job of fraudulently amplifying those concerns and, frankly, the younger the reporter the worse and more unfair the coverage.

“Pretty smiles and calm demeanors” from Democrats will not “hide the fact they think children can be killed at birth, Christians should be removed from policy making positions, and the economy should be bankrupted to implement environmental policies that will not actually mitigate climate change,” he said.

“That party offers me no home and is deeply hostile to people of faith. The President has shown himself to not share my faith convictions any more than the other side, but the President has shown he is willing to defend my faith convictions and is supportive of them,” he wrote.

“While I understand and accept the sincere conviction of some of my friends who have decided they will just sit out the process, I have decided otherwise. In 2016, we knew who the Democrats were and were not sure of who Donald Trump was. Now we know both and I prefer this President to the alternative.”

American Greatness

Published  1 week ago

The Indecent Inquisitors

02/09 2:56 pm

Post by @theamgreatness.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

No matter what comes of the racial scandals involving Virginia’s Democratic governor and attorney general – and of allegations of sexual assault against the Democratic lieutenant governor – we know this: Democratic claims to be the champions of women and minorities have been exposed as a blatant lie.

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus took several swipes at President Donald Trump and his agenda on Friday during the Television Critics Association Winter Press Tour in Los Angeles.

“I am a patriot and I am very unhappy with our current political situation. And this, by the way, has nothing to do with Veep, this is me talking right now,” Julia Louis-Dreyfus told the crowd, speaking about her hit HBO comedy series.

Telling the audience that she’s “not a fan” or the current president, Dreyfus said, “I have no idea who I am going to support in 2020 except to say that it will be a Democrat, and that’s for goddamn sure.”

Increasingly politically outspoken in her disdain for President Trump, the longtime Seinfeld star shocked fans in September 2017 when she endorsed universal healthcare while announcing that she had been diagnosed with breast cancer.

The actress also starred in a political ad, dropped just days before the midterm elections, that warned viewers that American is heading toward a Nazi Germany style political reality under President Trump.

Dreyfuss was also among the Hollywood leftists who launched a smear campaign against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Dreyfuss signed a letter in support of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who made unsubstantiated claims that she was sexually assaulted Kavanaugh while they were teenagers in the 80s.

Follow Jerome Hudson on Twitter @jeromeehudson

True Pundit

Published  2 weeks ago

A number of Democrats who called for further investigations into Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh refused to answer questions about sexual assault allegations that have emerged against Virginia Democratic Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax. Fairfax has been accused of forced oral sex. Democrats do not see a comparison between the accusations.  Democratic senators who condemned Supreme Court Justice…

Raw Story

Published  2 weeks ago

After Justice Brett Kavanaugh was condemned on Thursday for declaring “war” on Roe v. Wade by dissenting against the Supreme Court’s decision to block a Louisiana anti-abortion law, reproductive rights groups quickly turned their ire toward Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) for casting the decisive vote to confirm the right-wing judge—and ramped up their efforts to oust her in 2020.

“Paging Senator Collins—this is on you,” UltraViolet declared on Twitter after the high court’s 5-4 decision.

A grassroots fundraising effort to unseat Collins after her decisive vote last year to confirm Kavanaugh has already raised millions of dollars, and the advocacy group Demand Justice announced in an email to supporters on Friday morning that it will run digital ads in Maine highlighting the judge’s dissent in the Louisiana case as yet another reason the Maine Republican should be ousted in 2020.

“Brett Kavanaugh has declared war on Roe, and Susan Collins is the one who made it possible,” Demand Justice director Brian Fallon said. “Even as it was obvious to everyone else that Kavanaugh was a partisan warrior committed to rolling back abortion rights, Collins defended her vote for him by promising that he would follow Supreme Court precedent. It only took four months for Kavanaugh to prove Collins’ promises were a sham.”

Highlighting new reports that Collins received more donations from Kavanaugh supporters than Mainers in the last quarter of 2018, Fallon declared that the Republican senator “now owns every decision” the right-wing judge makes.

“We will make sure the people of Maine don’t forget Collins’ vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh,” he concluded.

Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, wrote on Twitter that all of the senators who voted to confirm Kavanaugh as complicit in the judge’s attack on reproductive rights.

“Trump justices—Kavanaugh and Gorsuch—dissented in this case that would have ended legal abortion in Louisiana,” Hogue wrote. “We were called hysterical for expressing concern they would rule against Roe v. Wade and our fundamental freedom but here we have it.”

“Senator Susan Collins, Senator Cory Gardner [R-Colo.], and every single one of you that climate Kavanaugh was no threat to Roe v. Wade or precedent: You own this,” Hogue concluded.

Rantt

Published  2 weeks ago

Democrats probe Trump's corruption, Nancy Pelosi claps back at the State of the Union, Jeff Bezos makes a consequential accusation, and more in week 107.

Fox News

Published  2 weeks ago

We are reaching a turning point that will forever determine our future -- how we live our lives and how our children will live theirs. The gap between the ever-widening left and right has never been wider, and yet amazingly it continues to widen. 

Chicks On The Right — Young Conservatives

Published  2 weeks ago

While some national Democrats have called on Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax, many national Democrats have been doing everything they can to avoid commenting on the imploding Democratic scandal in Virginia.

This of course was a marked difference from how they approached the uncorroborated allegations against Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Then they had no problem commenting, saying that Kavanaugh should withdraw, not be confirmed or have an FBI investigation.

And now with a second woman coming out and accusing Lt. Gov Justin Fairfax of rape, America Rising tried to track down Democrats in Washington, D.C. to get them on record.

The most notable person that they cornered was Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

She, like others, refused to stop to answer the questions and kept running, saying, “Haven’t looked at all into the situation,” despite being a national story for a week.

“As Special Counsel, Brett Kavanaugh proposed a series of totally inappropriate + sexually explicit questions about Monica Lewinsky,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted the day after the Kavanaugh allegations surfaced. “Today he stands accused of sexual assault. How could any Senator allow his nomination to proceed without investigation?”

Other Democrats that America Rising confronted included Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Ted Deutch (D-FL), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Lucy McBath (D-GA), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), and Cedric Richmond (D-LA).

All of them either ignored the question or said they didn’t know anything.

To be fair, Ocasio-Cortez is likely still working on the question of how to use rail to eliminate the need for air travel.

Lawyers for the second accuser, Meredith Watson, said they had evidence that Watson had told people immediately about the rape in 2000.

Dr. Vanessa Tyson, the first accuser, claimed that Fairfax had forced her to perform oral sex.

Fairfax is denying both allegations and refusing to resign.

Big League Politics

Published  2 weeks ago

A Washington Post reporter personally squashed Dr. Vanessa Tyson’s sexual assault claim against Virginia’s Democratic Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax, according to another reporter within the organization.

Big League Politics spoke to WaPo reporter Fenit Nirappil, who covers local politics for the Jeff-Bezos-owned paper. When asked who specifically spiked the story about Tyson’s allegations, brought to the paper in late 2017, Nirappil said the following:

“I would just, like, look at the original story and who wrote it.”

By the “original story,” Nirappil confirmed that he was talking about a Feb. 4 story written by Theresa Vargas, titled “Va. Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax denies sex assault allegation from 2004.”

“Yeah,” Nirappil replied when asked directly if he was talking about Vargas’ story.

In her Monday story, Vargas, who describes herself as a “columnist” at the paper, said that WaPo did not publish Tyson’s claim because the claims were “uncorroborated.” Fairfax had claimed that the paper squashed the story because of “red flags” and inconsistencies.”

“Fairfax and the woman told different versions of what happened in the hotel room with no one else present. The Post could not find anyone who could corroborate either version,” the piece said. “The Post did not find ‘significant red flags and inconsistencies within the allegations,’ as the Fairfax statement incorrectly said.”

The necessity for corroborating evidence of such claims appears to be a new standard for the The Post, who provided wall-to-wall coverage of uncorroborated claims of sexual misconduct made against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Republican, in September.

The paper simply let Tyson’s allegations fade away into the darkness, where democracy dies.

When asked whether WaPo ever went to authorities with Tyson’s claims, Nirappil explained that that is not standard procedure for reporters, which is reasonable.

Big League Politics reached out to Vargas, but received no response to the specific question of whether or not she was on the team responsible for squashing the story.

dailycaller

Published  2 weeks ago

Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax is embroiled in a #Metoo controversy and now a second woman has come forward who is accusing him of rape.

We can’t ignore how the #Metoo allegations against Justice Brett Kavanaugh were handled compared to the allegations against Fairfax — the hypocrisy is stunning.

Initially Democrats were very silent about the accusations against Fairfax when they first surfaced.

Some claimed they didn’t know about Fairfax’s #Metoo controversy, while others dodged questions regarding the matter when asked about it by The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Henry Rodgers. (REALTED: Democratic Senators Refuse to Acknowledge Virginia Lieutenant Gov. Fairfax Sexual Assault Accuser.)

The Democrats want us to “believe all women” when it is politically convenient for them, but when a woman comes out against their own, Democrats all of a sudden believe in due process for those accused.

Now some Democrats are calling on Fairfax to resign, but my question is: where are the Women’s Marchers, the riots, mass protests, the tears, drama and wall-to-wall news coverage?

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.

NOW CHECK OUT The Daily Caller’s most popular shows:

‘Trophy Culture’ Hijacks New Jersey High School Cheer Squad

Fact Checking White House ‘Truth Seekers’ On North Korea

Democrats’ New Campaign Message: ‘Drain The Swamp’

‘Fake News’ Defends Brutal MS-13 Gang

MarkPantano.com

Published  2 weeks ago

John Roberts is the new Anthony Kennedy. There is simply no doubt. He lacks any discernible principles. Rather, as was clear in his 2012 Obamacare opinion, he decides cases on the basis of politics and then tries to craft a legal rationale to justify his decision. This of course, is the exact opposite of how cases are supposed to be decided. But such is the nature of liberals. And on an increasing number of legal issues, John Robert is a liberal. Keep this in mind the next time you hear someone tell you that we have a “conservative” Supreme Court. We most certainly do not. Not yet.

From the Washington Times:

A divided Supreme Court stopped Louisiana from enforcing new regulations on abortion clinics in a test of the conservative court’s views on abortion rights.

The justices said by a 5-4 vote late Thursday that they will not allow the state to put into effect a law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s four liberals in putting a hold on the law, pending a full review of the case.

President Donald Trump’s two Supreme Court appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, were among the four conservative members of the court who would have allowed the law to take effect.

Mark Pantano is a Constitutional Conservative writer, lawyer and political analyst. Host of the Declaring Liberty podcast.

I Love My Freedom

Published  2 weeks ago

Candace Owens is not playing around with Chelsea Clinton or her "racist parents." It all started after the "miserable" former first daughter responded to a tweet... Get Your "Build The Wall" Coin For 50% Off And

dailycaller

Published  2 weeks ago

The Supreme Court barred enforcement of a Louisiana law called the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act on a five to four vote Thursday night.

Chief Justice joined the high court’s liberal bloc to prohibit the law’s implementation, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh led the conservatives in dissent. The act was scheduled to take effect on Friday.

The Louisiana measure provides that physicians who perform abortions must have admitting privileges at a local hospital. Abortion advocates say the law is identical to a Texas regulation which the Supreme Court struck down in 2016 in a case called Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

Justice Samuel Alito delayed implementation of the Louisiana law by one week on Feb. 1. That order, called administrative stay, was necessary so that the justices could review court filings from each party. Alito hears emergency petitions which arise out of the 5th Circuit. (RELATED: Forthcoming Biography Reveals New Details Of Roberts’s Obamacare Vote)

A federal trial judge found the law unconstitutional in view of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Texas case. But the 5th Circuit reversed, finding that the law created a tangible (but limited) benefit without seriously inhibiting abortion access. Pro-choice groups counter that the measure will leave just one abortion provider in the state, making it a pretext to undermine abortion access.

This is breaking news. This post will be updated.

Send tips to kevin@dailycallernewsfoundation.org

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

mcclatchydc

Published  2 weeks ago

Former S.C. Democratic Party chairman Jaime Harrison has filed paperwork with the Federal Elections Commission for an “exploratory committee” to see if he has a path to beating U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham in 2020.

LifeNews.com

Published  2 weeks ago

This month Americans have become aware, if they weren’t already, of just how radical the pro-abortion movement has become. It started in Albany, N.Y., where the state’s legislature passed, and Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed, the Reproductive Health Act. The governor crowed that the new law “is a historic victory for New Yorkers and for our progressive values” and he even celebrated by ordering that New York City landmarks “be lit in pink” — to mourn the thousands of girls who would never draw breath thanks to the new law? No, “to celebrate this achievement and shine a bright light forward for the rest of the nation to follow.”

What makes the law so radical is that it permits abortion at any point in a pregnancy — even up to the point of delivery. And although it restricts abortions, in part, “to protect the patient’s life or health,” the definition of “health” is too vague to mean anything.

That’s not all. The law grants non-physicians the power to perform abortions. It repeals a section of the state’s law that protected children born alive during an abortion — meaning that this child could be killed outside of the womb and nobody would be prosecuted. As the Jesuit priest Sam Sawyer puts it, “The new law does not contain any meaningful restriction that is likely to ever prevent an abortion.”

Keep in mind, this is a state in which a third of pregnancies already end in abortion. But for some reason the state’s politicians, aided and abetted by NARAL and Planned Parenthood (our nation’s largest abortion provider), decided that this wasn’t enough. Perhaps the plan is abort half of all unborn children.

Unfortunately, New York’s law has emboldened radicals in legislatures across the country, from New Mexico to Rhode Island and Massachusetts. In Virginia, a state delegate proposed a similarly radical bill. When asked by a Republican colleague whether the bill would have permitted an abortion to be performed even as a woman was in labor, the lawmaker answered, “My bill would allow that, yes.” The next day, the state’s Democratic governor — who had run as a moderate — defended the proposed bill and, in chillingly calm terms, described how to perform an “abortion” on a child that had been delivered. In short, infanticide. And even after that description, he had the gall to say, “I think this was really blown out of proportion.”

Keep up with the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter. Follow @LifeNewsHQ

Of course, the push for these bills across the country isn’t a coincidence — it’s the result of a coordinated effort by radical organizations. Last year, Planned Parenthood announced what it called its Care for All initiative, a strategy intended to protect abortion rights in the event that the Supreme Court eventually overturns Roe v. Wade. “With the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, we are kicking our plan into high gear,” it announced. “This multi-million dollar, nationwide effort will be working to ensure that abortion is still accessible in the United States, no matter what happens at the Supreme Court.” Planned Parenthood receives more than half a billion dollars annually from taxpayers, by the way. It is no wonder that it has a budget for such initiatives.

Part of the plan involved working directly with state legislatures, “kick[ing] off the 2019 legislative session by doubling down on this work. We will be working with more than half of the states in the country to push policies to protect, expand, and enhance access to safe, legal abortion.”

If there’s any solace to be found in these developments, it’s that Planned Parenthood’s goals are far out of step with even the Democratic base. According to a recent poll conducted by Marist, only 25 percent of Americans who call themselves pro-choice believe that abortion should be available at any point in a pregnancy. In fact, 42 percent of this demographic think it should be limited to the first trimester, and another 17 percent think it should only be allowed in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. It is only the radicalized politicians who are pushing the abortion-on-demand narrative.

To their credit, some Democrats have taken a stand against the new abortion extremism. Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois has been a consistent voice against the radical abortion agenda, and as a result has been shunned by his party. Lipinski understands the extremism of his colleagues and works to bring them to a more moderate platform.

More Democrats should be focused on representing the values of their constituents rather than the interests of the abortion industry.

LifeNews Note: Jeanne Mancini is the president of March for Life. This column originally appeared at Real Clear Politics.

Big League Politics

Published  2 weeks ago

UPDATE: Justin Fairfax refuses to quit, even after former Virginia Democrat governor Terry McAuliffe called for his immediate resignation.

Fairfax cites his passing of FBI background checks, which is one of the same explanations that Brett Kavanaugh’s supporters used to defend the baselessly accused Republican-nominated Supreme Court justice. Here is Fairfax’s statement following the second accuser coming forward:

“I will not resign,” responds @LGJustinFairfax, denying second accusation. pic.twitter.com/aAmkdP0h4N

Justin Fairfax is now accused of rape by a classmate during his time at Duke University, according to her lawyers. This is the second allegation of sexual assault levied against the Virginia Democrat lieutenant governor, following Dr. Vanessa Tyson’s claim that Fairfax sexually assaulted her by forcing her to perform fellatio in a hotel room at the Democratic National Convention in Boston in 2004. Tyson has made it clear that she is willing to cooperate in an investigation of Fairfax, according to a source cited by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Evergreen Partners confirmed to Big League Politics that the firm is representing Meredith Watson.

Here is the statement from Mz. Watson’s attorneys.

Here is a yearbook photo of Fairfax at Duke University.

dailycaller

Published  2 weeks ago

Failed Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams urged the embattled Virginia Democrats to atone for their past inappropriate conduct, but would not call for their resignation, unlike her response to Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Abrams encouraged Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and Attorney General Mark Herring to “take personal responsibility” for donning blackface on separate occasions in the 1980s. She also urged Lieutenant Gov. Justin Fairfax to do the same, however, Fairfax has been accused of sexually assaulting a woman at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

“I know this, these are men who have tried to do the right thing in their professional lives, but I think they have to grapple with their private and personal decisions,” Abrams told BuzzFeed News on Thursday.

She stopped short of asking for any of the three Virginia Democrats to resign.

“I know that this is a difficult issue. I believe racism is wrong, I believe racist words and racist deeds require amends,” Abrams continued. “I would ask the state of Virginia, especially the governor, to think about what amends looks like in their state.”

The Georgia politician’s response is noticeably different than her reaction to the allegations of sexual assault against Justice Brett Kavanaugh, which has recently drawn comparisons to Fairfax’s situation.

Multiple accusations of sexual misconduct surfaced during Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court in 2018 — the justice vehemently denied all allegations against him. The claims against Kavanaugh were never corroborated and ultimately dismissed.

Conversely, Fairfax acknowledges a sexual encounter occurred with his accuser, however, he contended it was consensual. (RELATED: Stacey Abrams Wants To Run For Office, She’s Just Not Sure Which Position)

Abrams was a vocal opponent of Kavanaugh and urged the Senate to block his nomination. After the allegations against him arose, she argued the women should be believed regardless of corroborating evidence.

“Even today, structural and cultural barriers have created stigma that prevents survivors of sexual assault from coming forward,” Abrams told Marie Claire in September 2018. “It is incumbent upon our leaders to treat sexual assault prevention and building a culture of consent as a public health issue, and to ensure that survivors who wish to come forward can do so safely, and be believed.”

Abrams also participated in a national walk-out and a moment of solidarity with Kavanaugh’s accuser.

Survivors of sexual assault deserve respect. The way Dr. Blasey Ford has been treated is unacceptable. I will be participating in a national moment of solidarity at 1PM today because I #BelieveSurvivors. Will you join me?https://t.co/6Ntlhk7MI3 #gapol pic.twitter.com/eJPVPdj2R8

— Stacey Abrams (@staceyabrams) September 24, 2018

“Survivors of sexual assault deserve respect,” she tweeted. “The way Dr. Blasey Ford has been treated is unacceptable.”

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 weeks ago

A second woman came forward and accused Virginia Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax of sexual assault on Friday.

The accuser, a woman named Meredith Watson, requested the resignation of Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax through her attorney Nancy Erika Smith on Friday, alleging Fairfax raped her in college in the year 2000.

According to the statement released by Nancy Erika Smith, Meredith Watson has contemporaneous witnesses who have provided statements corroborating Ms. Watson’s claims Fairfax raped her.

“We have statements from former classmates corroborating that Ms. Watson immediately told friends that Mr. Fairfax had raped her.” the statement from Ms. Smith reads.

Ms. Watson not only told classmates that Fairfax raped her immediately after it happened in 2000, she also shared the account of the rape with her friends in a series of emails and Facebook messages, according to Ms. Watson’s attorney.

“Ms. Watson is reluctantly coming forward out of a strong civic sense of duty,” the statement says, adding, “She is not seeking any financial damages.”

“Ms. Watson hopes he will resign from public office.” (screenshot of statement below)

Dr. Vanessa Tyson, the first woman to accuse Justin Fairfax of sexual assault has a very compelling, believable story, however she does not offer any contemporaneous witnesses to corroborate her claims Mr. Fairfax sexually assaulted her at a DNC convention in Boston in 2004.

To be clear, a lack of contemporaneous witnesses does not mean Dr. Tyson was never sexually assaulted by Justin Fairfax.

Dr. Tyson says after she was assaulted by Justin Fairfax, she “suffered from both deep humiliation and shame,” a common thing women experience after a traumatic sexual assault.

“I did not speak about it for years, and I (like most survivors) suppressed those memories and emotions as a necessary means to continue my studies, and to pursue my goal of building a successful career as an academic,” Dr. Tyson said in a statement.

Both women who allege they were sexually assaulted by Justin Fairfax should be heard and taken seriously.

What makes this second woman’s case against Justin Fairfax so strong is the fact that she told classmates about the rape immediately after it happened.

To further put this into context, Christine Blasey Ford didn’t even offer up one contemporaneous witness to corroborate her claims Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a decades-old drunken high school party, yet the Senate Judiciary Committee allowed her to publicly testify against Kavanaugh.

The same Democrats who called for Brett Kavanaugh’s head on a pike are silent about Justin Fairfax’s sexual assault scandal. Let that sink in.

dailycaller

Published  2 weeks ago

New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dodged questions Friday about the sexual assault allegations that have emerged against Virginia Democratic Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax, after she previously protested Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Ocasio-Cortez invited a sexual assault survivor, who made news after protesting Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address Tuesday. The New York representative said she has not looked into the allegations against Fairfax in a hallway interview on Capitol Hill.

“I have not looked at all into the situation,” Ocasio-Cortez said when asked if she believed Fairfax’s accuser.

.@AOC asked about #JustinFairfax allegations in VA. Response: “Haven’t Look At All Into The Situation” pic.twitter.com/pQF0uhe5nd

— Sarah Dolan (@sarahedolan) February 8, 2019

This comes as five Democratic senators who condemned Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct allegations refused to acknowledge the allegations against Fairfax when asked by The Daily Caller News Foundation Thursday. The senators all dodged the question or acted like they had not heard about it when asked if the same standard should be applied to Fairfax as it was applied to Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings in 2018. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: Senators Who Condemned Kavanaugh Refused To Denounce Fairfax)

Fairfax was hit with his second allegation of sexual misconduct Friday afternoon.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Mail Online

Published  2 weeks ago

Meredith Watson has accused Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax of sexually assaulting her in 2000 - when they were both students at Duke University, her attorney said Friday.

Fox News

Published  2 weeks ago

The woman accusing Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax of sexual assault is not planning on pursuing charges, a source close to her legal team told Fox News.

American Greatness

Published  2 weeks ago

Post by @theamgreatness.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 weeks ago

Once again Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joined liberal justicies in a major ruling on abortion.

The court decided 5-4 to block Louisiana from requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals.

The law would protect women.

The Supreme Court voted against it.

The Washington Times reported:

A divided Supreme Court stopped Louisiana from enforcing new regulations on abortion clinics in a test of the conservative court’s views on abortion rights.

The justices said by a 5-4 vote late Thursday that they will not allow the state to put into effect a law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s four liberals in putting a hold on the law, pending a full review of the case.

President Donald Trump’s two Supreme Court appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, were among the four conservative members of the court who would have allowed the law to take effect.

Slate Magazine

Published  2 weeks ago

On Thursday night, the Supreme Court blocked a stringent Louisiana abortion law by a 5–4 vote, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberals to keep the measure on hold. Roberts’ vote is surprising, but not a total shock: The Louisiana statute is a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, and until the court overturns that decision, the Louisiana law cannot take effect. To Roberts, this precedent matters. To Justice Brett Kavanaugh, it does not. Kavanaugh so disagreed with the majority that he wrote a dissent explaining why the Louisiana law should be allowed to move forward—an opinion that should not be taken as anything less than a declaration of war on Roe v. Wade.

Thursday’s case, June Medical Services v. Gee, should be an easy one. It is a challenge to a Louisiana law that is nearly identical to the Texas statute invalidated in Whole Woman’s Health. Louisiana, like Texas, compelled its abortion providers to obtain surgical privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic. These privileges are often difficult if not impossible to obtain—hospitals can, and do, deny them because they oppose abortion. More importantly, they provide absolutely no medical benefit to women, as the Supreme Court ruled in Whole Woman’s Health. Because these measures impose a substantial burden on abortion providers (and their patients) while providing no benefit to women, the court found them to be unconstitutional.

Then, in 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who cast the fifth vote in Whole Woman’s Health, retired. He was replaced by Kavanaugh, who has a history of upholding abortion restrictions while claiming fidelity to Roe. In anticipation of Kavanaugh refusing to apply abortion precedents, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to enforce Whole Woman’s Health. Instead, it asserted (falsely) that the Louisiana law does provide some benefit to women (it does not) and that it doesn’t impose a serious burden. (It does: The law would likely shutter two of Louisiana’s three abortion clinics.) Clearly, the conservative 5th Circuit thought it could overturn Whole Woman’s Health on its own, and trust the Supreme Court to play along.

In the lead-up to this week’s decision, Roberts’ vote was an open question. I wrote last week that his “vote on this emergency appeal will reveal how aggressively the chief justice wants to attack abortion access—and whether he’s willing to sacrifice the rule of law to nullify Roe as fast as possible.” On Thursday, we got our answer. While the chief justice dissented from Whole Woman’s Health, he does not seem disposed to let a lower court simply ignore it.

Kavanaugh feels quite differently. In his dissent, he focused on the fact that, according to the 5th Circuit, Louisiana’s abortion providers did not try hard enough to obtain surgical privileges. That should not matter, because Whole Woman’s Health says the requirement that doctors get privileges in order to perform abortions is unconstitutional, as it bestows no benefit onto patients. Kavanaugh, though, disregarded that conclusion and wrote that the doctors should work harder to get these pointless privileges.

The most astounding aspect of Kavanaugh’s dissent is its credulous belief in Louisiana’s ostensible benevolence toward abortion clinics.

The most astounding aspect of Kavanaugh’s dissent is its credulous belief in Louisiana’s ostensible benevolence toward abortion clinics. He noted that, if the law takes effect, “there will be a 45-day regulatory transition” before it is applied. He also says that Louisiana promised not to “move aggressively to enforce the challenged law” during this period. Kavanaugh accepted the state’s pinky-promise not to swiftly close the clinics—even though they have spent months fighting for the ability to do precisely that. At the end of 45 days, the justice wrote, if the doctors still can’t obtain the privileges, they can go back to district court and start the fight anew.

This is classic Kavanaugh. On the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Kavanaugh had a penchant for pretending to apply Roe while finding arbitrary reasons to uphold abortion restrictions. Kavanaugh let the Trump administration prevent an undocumented minor from terminating her pregnancy, on the laughable theory that she could find a sponsor who would remove her from government custody, where she could reassert control over her body. It was a pseudo-moderate procedural solution that had the effect of denying the undocumented minor abortion access altogether. Here, Kavanaugh made the same play, pretending like he’d found a reasonable middle ground that, in reality, serves to rubber-stamp unconstitutional abortion laws.

No one should mistake Kavanaugh’s dissent as a genuine compromise. There will always be a way to uphold an abortion law while insisting that somehow, someday, women might still find a legal way to terminate their pregnancies. This kind of maneuvering is alarming, as it could allow the Supreme Court to chip away at Roe without the public paying much attention. At least for now, Roberts is inclined to adhere to Whole Woman’s Health, perhaps out of a concern for institutional legitimacy. But his junior colleague has made it quite plain that he is gunning for Roe. Don’t believe the lip service Kavanaugh paid to precedent on Thursday. He is ready and willing to let states regulate abortion out of existence.

WTNH

Published  2 weeks ago

(WTNH) - A Connecticut senator is looking to create a code of conduct for the nation's top court.

Senator Chris Murphy wants to hold U.S. Supreme Court justices ethically accountable.

On Thursday, he introduced the Supreme Court Ethics Act.

It would require the U.S. Supreme Court to adopt a code of ethics.

Supreme Court justices are exempt from the code of conduct that all other federal judges need to follow.

Sen. Murphy said after the nomination process for Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Americans are losing trust in the integrity of the Supreme Court.

The Washington Times

Published  2 weeks ago

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is stopping Louisiana from enforcing new regulations on abortion clinics in a test of the conservative court’s views on abortion rights.

The justices say by a 5-4 vote that they will not allow the state to put into effect a law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s four liberals in putting a hold on the law, pending a full review of the case.

The four more conservative justices, including Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, would have allowed it to take effect. Kavanaugh wrote a dissent explaining his vote.

The law is very similar to a Texas measure the justices struck down three years ago. Roberts dissented in that case.

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

Breitbart

Published  2 weeks ago

WASHINGTON, DC – The Supreme Court issued a temporary stay on Thursday night of a lower court order blocking a Louisiana law that would have required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

This stay lasts only until the Court votes on whether to take this case and does not necessarily signal which way the Court will vote on what could be an early abortion case of the new Supreme Court.

Louisiana adopted Act 620 in 2014, requiring doctors performing abortions to have privileges to treat patients within a 30-mile radius. That way, if an abortion is botched, the physician can stay with the woman to provide continuity of care at a hospital.

The statute has been tied up in litigation since that time.

A federal district judge in Louisiana held that the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (WWH) meant that Act 620 violated a woman’s right to abortion, which the Supreme Court declared for the first time in Roe v. Wade (1973) was a right implicit in the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed it, holding in a 2-1 decision that this Louisiana law was different than the Texas law invalidated in WWH and that this law does not run afoul of Supreme Court precedent.

The full Fifth Circuit then denied abortion providers’ petition to rehear the case en banc with all of the court’s current judges involved.

Abortion lawyers then applied to the U.S. Supreme Court to grant an emergency stay while they prepared a petition for certiorari to request that the nation’s highest court hear their case.

Late Thursday, the Supreme Court granted that stay by a 5-4 vote. Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal wing of the Court in that vote.

One reason to grant a stay is because there is a substantial likelihood that the Court will ultimately take the case and then reverse the lower court. If so, this stay is a bad sign for pro-life forces.

But there are other possible explanations. One possibility is the danger of irreparable harm. The petitioners argue that almost all abortion clinics in the state would close while the matter is pending in the Supreme Court and that the justices should keep the law from going into effect during that time.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a dissent from granting the stay, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch.

“The law has not yet taken effect, so the case comes to us in the context of a pre-enforcement facial challenge,” he noted, explaining that there could always be a later challenge if necessary when the law went into effect.

“I would deny the stay without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ ability to bring a later as-applied complaint … at the conclusion of the 45-day regulatory transition period,” he continued.

This stay will last until the Court receives a petition for review and votes on it. If the Court agrees to take the case, the stay would also continue until the Court hands down a final decision.

The annual cutoff for cases has passed, so this matter would be heard late this year, with a decision likely in early 2020.

The case is June Medical Services v. Gee and the application for a stay is 18A774 at the Supreme Court of the United States.

Ken Klukowski is senior legal editor for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.

HuffPost

Published  2 weeks ago

Jose Luis Magana/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) had the best fundraising quarter of her life in 2018, boosted in part by her decision to support Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court.

Collins raised $1.8 million in the last quarter of the year, but just $19,000 of that money came in itemized donations ― contributions of $200 or more ― from residents of Maine.

In contrast, $32,000 came from public advocates of Kavanaugh’s nomination, according to a review by the Democratic opposition research group American Bridge 21st Century. For the most part, these people donated on the same day or after Collins’ Oct. 5 announcement that she would vote to confirm Kavanaugh, even though he faced sexual misconduct allegations.

Some of the donations she received:

$2,700 from Alicia Downs on Oct. 5. Downs signed an August 2018 letter of women who worked with Kavanaugh in President George W. Bush’s White House.

$2,700 from Peter Kalis on Oct. 5. Kalis signed a July 2018 letter from Yale students, alumni and faculty backing Kavanaugh.

$5,400 from Laura Cox Kaplan on Nov. 2. Cox Kaplan gave two donations of $2,700 to Collins on the same day. She and her husband, Joel Kaplan, Facebook’s public policy chief, are friends of Kavanaugh. Cox Kaplan sat behind Kavanaugh during his hearing and spoke at an #IStandWithBrett press conference.

$18,450 from 16 other women who signed the Bush White House letter. In addition to Downs, 16 other women who signed the August 2018 letter of women who worked with Kavanaugh in the White House gave to Collins between Oct. 19 and Dec. 31. Their donations ranged from $250 to $2,700.

$2,750 from four women who knew Kavanaugh in high school. Four women ― Julie DeVol, Meghan McCaleb, Ann Fowler and Suzanne Matan ― who signed a Sept. 14 letter from women who knew Kavanaugh in high school also donated to Collins’ campaign between Oct. 19 and Oct. 30, in amounts ranging from $250 to $1,000.

“For all the talk about Collins’s record-setting quarter, the reality is that she raised more money from Kavanaugh sympathizers than she did from the people she’s supposed to be representing,” said Amelia Penniman, a spokeswoman for Bridge. “That fact speaks volumes and underscores exactly why her days in the Senate are numbered.”

Collins’ office did not return a request for comment. But Amy Abbott, the deputy treasurer of her campaign committee, earlier said that the high amount of out-of-state contributions was deliberate.

“We made an effort to have a strong quarter because we wanted to send the message that Senator Collins will be prepared to run a vigorous campaign in 2020,” Abbott told the Bangor Daily News, which had reported on the fundraising totals. “We focused our fundraising efforts nationally, which we typically do until the election year, which is why there were relatively fewer donations from Maine.”

She added that there were “many contributions” from Maine voters that were under the $200 reporting threshold. Indeed, there are hundreds of thousands of dollars in unitemized contributions. In theory, they could all be from Mainers and therefore exceed the amount contributed by Kavanaugh supporters. Since the data aren’t public, though, there’s no way of knowing.

Democrats initially hoped that Collins could be one of the Republicans to join them in tanking Kavanaugh’s nomination. She has been a supporter of abortion rights, while President Donald Trump made clear his Supreme Court justice nominees would overturn those protections.

Activists raised millions of dollars, promising to use it to help Collins’ future 2020 opponent if she decided to vote for Kavanaugh. Collins’ office likened the effort to extortion, saying it was an attempt to “bully” the senator.

Yahoo

Published  2 weeks ago

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — The Latest on the fallout from a racist photo that appeared on the 1984 medical school yearbook page of Virginia's governor (all times local):

WayneDupree.com

Published  2 weeks ago

NBC’s Megyn Kelly looks like she is out at the network and the reason centers around a “blackface” statement she made.

Since then, she has apologized and not only did she say she was sorry, she did it with tears. However, that still wasn’t enough for the execs who have seemingly removed her from the LIVE show for the rest of this week.

Related: Megyn Kelly’s Return In Doubt As NBC Forces Her To Apologize For Non-PC Comments

The View’s Joy Behar dressed as an African-American woman back in the 70s and was proud to talk about her curly hair and skin tone that she worked on to make the look authentic.

Behar talked in adoration of trying to look the part of a ‘beautiful African woman,’ even down to the makeup for her skin. Kelly brought up dressing to look like Diana Ross during her discussion, and her panel threw her to the wolves as if she should have never brought it up.

We’ve seen a lot of white women dress up like black women and vice versa over the years. White woman tan while black women use fading cream to lighten their skin. NBC went overboard with this “blackface” thing, but I still think it was more about Kelly defending Judge Brett Kavanaugh over Christine Blasey Ford than anything.

In an attempt to make some sort of point, Joy kept saying: “That’s my hair! That’s my hair!” which, yeah, we get it. What’s your point, Joy?

Clearly she’s trying to draw some sort of similarity between her short curly haircut and an afro, which, nope never nah. Joy looks like a white lady with white lady hair. That’s about it.

Joy helpfully notes, after being asked by Raven-Symoné if she was wearing tanning lotion, that she was in fact wearing makeup “little bit darker than [her] skin.” Yikes mcyikes.

If the timing is correct, that would date this photo around 1971. I can’t really get too bothered at this blackface-lite costume because it was 1971 and people didn’t even know what microaggressions were. I’m more flabbergasted by her willingness to pull this photo out and proudly show the world as if it’s totally cool in the year 2016.

What do you think about Behar dressing up like a black woman for Halloween? Do you think she should be fired today from the view for what happened back in 1971? Do you think Megyn Kelly should be fired for thinking it’s ok to dress up like this for Halloween if she wanted to?

Check out our new comment system below and leave a message as we try to build our new community.

If you find inaccurate information within this article, please use the contact form to alert us immediately. Don’t forget to follow the Wayne Dupree Show social media accounts on Facebook, Spreaker, iHeartRadio, Google Plus & Twitter.

Having problems finding a source for real news links in real time, click on Whatfinger.com. Visit, bookmark and share this resource and then tell your friends and family.

Breitbart

Published  2 weeks ago

The day after airing that $5.2M ad, we learned that the Washington Post covered up a sexual assault allegation against a Democrat.

WayneDupree.com

Published  2 weeks ago

Rob Reiner, Alyssa Milano, John Cusack, and others targeted the president mercilessly

I Love My Freedom

Published  2 weeks ago

President Trump is talking about unity at tonight's State of the Union address. Democrats, as predicted, aren't exactly giddy. When President Trump mentioned that black, Hispanic, and Asian unemployment has hit record low levels, Speaker

Breitbart

Published  2 weeks ago

President Donald Trump will deliver his second State of the Union address on Tuesday evening (9 PM ET) before a joint session of Congress. Trump’s speech, which was scheduled for Jan. 29, was postponed because of the government shutdown. Stay tuned to Breitbart News throughout the evening for live updates. All times eastern. | Politics

Fox News

Published  2 weeks ago

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Supreme Court's liberal wing on Thursday in temporarily blocking a Louisiana law that would have placed restrictions on abortion clinics, in the high court's first major ruling on abortion since the confirmation of Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The justices decided in a 5-4 vote that they will not allow the state to put into effect a law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. The Supreme Court is set to issue a final ruling on the merits of the case later.

The court's four more conservative justices, including Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, would have allowed the law to take effect. Kavanaugh wrote a dissent explaining his vote, saying the court's action was premature because the state had made clear it would allow abortion providers an additional 45 days to obtain admitting privileges before it started enforcing the law.

If the doctors succeed, they can continue performing abortions, but if they fail, they could return to court, Kavanaugh wrote.

The law was set to take effect Monday, but last Friday, Justice Samuel Alito temporarily halted its implementation so that the justices could review arguments.

Observers said that at least one and maybe two of Louisiana's three abortion clinics would have to close if the law were allowed to take effect. A federal appeals court that upheld the law, however, said it's not clear that any clinic would close.

The law is similar to a Texas measure the justices struck down three years ago by a 5-3 vote, shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Roberts, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by President George W. Bush, dissented in that case.

The chief justice has gone to great lengths in recent months to project an image of federal courts as nonpartisan, following the contentious confirmation of Kavanaugh that gave conservatives a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court. Many pro-choice groups claimed that Kavanaugh's confirmation amounted to a cataclysmic event, with the far-left progressive political action committee Democracy for America warning of the imminent "deaths of countless women."

Roberts, in an extraordinary statement last year, repudiated President Trump's comments that the nation has "Obama judges" and political hacks on the courts.

“What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them,” Roberts said in the unusual statement.

But Trump, who has long attacked the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as biased and a "total disaster," fired back immediately.

“Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country,” Trump tweeted.

“It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an ‘independent judiciary,’ but if it is why are so many opposing view (on Border and Safety) cases filed there, and why are a vast number of those cases overturned,” Trump continued. “Please study the numbers, they are shocking. We need protection and security - these rulings are making our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise!”

The debate over the Louisiana bill comes amid a renewed national debate on abortion law.

Senate Democrats on Monday blocked a GOP effort to introduce a billl meant to protect abortion survivors, which came in response to comments last week by Virginia Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam that seemingly endorsed post-birth abortions in certain cases.

Nebraska Republican Sen. Ben Sasse sought unanimous consent to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would have required that "any health care practitioner present" at the time of a birth "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age."

The bill, which exempted the mother involved in the birth from prosecution, also would have required practitioners to "ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital." It prescribed a possible term of imprisonment of up to five years for violations, not including penalties for first-degree murder that could also apply.

Democrats dismissed the bill as little more than a political stunt.

Fox News' Andrew O'Reilly and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

New York Post

Published  2 weeks ago

Virginia’s leadership crisis took an absurd turn Wednesday when the man who is second in line to become governor admitted he has worn blackface — even as Gov. Ralph Northam’s job is already on

WayneDupree.com

Published  2 weeks ago

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s four liberals in putting a hold on the law

TheHill

Published  2 weeks ago

Justice Ruth Bader is among the five Supreme Court justices who are expected to skip President Trump’s State of the Union Address Tuesday night.

The Supreme Court’s Public Information Office said it expects only Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to attend the proceedings in the House chamber.

Ginsburg has been closely watched since a Dec. 21 surgery to remove cancerous nodules from her lower left lung forced her to miss oral arguments last month, but the 85-year-old’s expected absence from the annual event likely isn’t health related.

Ginsburg was spotted for the first time in public post-op on Monday night.

It’s very common for justices to miss the State of the Union address. Roberts said publicly in 2010 that it’s up to each individual justice to decide whether to attend or not.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, of the court’s conservative wing, haven’t been in years.

Speaking to students at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Fla., in 2010, Thomas said he doesn’t go because “it’s become so partisan, it’s very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there,” according a The New York Times report at the time.

The statements came after President Obama criticized the court in his first State of the Union address for striking down limits on corporate campaign spending in the landmark case known as Citizens United.

“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said during his speech.

Alito, who was part of the ruling’s 5-4 majority and in the House chamber for the address, was spotted by the The New York Times shaking his head and mouthing what appeared to be the words “not true.”

Later that year while speaking at the Manhattan Institute, Alito complained publicly about the awkwardness of the annual event.

“We have to sit there like the proverbial potted plants most of the time,” he said, noting that it’s sometimes hard to refrain from manifesting any emotion or opinion.

He hasn’t been to a State of the Union since.

The late Antonin Scalia was another well-known no show. He called the event a “childish spectacle,” during a speaking engagement at George Washington University in 2013, USA Today reported.

Ginsburg attended each of Obama's addresses and even made headlines for dozing off during his remarks in 2015. She admitted later that she had shared some wine with her colleagues ahead of the event and was not “100 percent sober.”

The court’s leading liberal did not attend Trump’s joint address to Congress in 2017 nor his first official State of the Union last year. That absence, however, was due to prior speaking engagements in Rhode Island, according to multiple media reports.

Ginsburg caught fire in 2016 for making disparaging remarks about Trump during his 2016 run for the presidency. In an interview with the New York Times, she joked that she would have to move to New Zealand if he were elected.

Trump responded by calling for her to resign, claiming her mind is shot.

But Ginsburg’s personal feelings about Trump haven’t kept her from attending other events, including a swearing-in ceremony at the White House for his second nominee to the court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

I Love My Freedom

Published  2 weeks ago

New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is set to invite Ana Maria Archila as her guest to the State of the Union address. Archila became "famous" for cornering then-Senator Jeff Flake in an elevator during the

Big League Politics

Published  2 weeks ago

The woman currently accusing the Lt. Governor of Virginia of sexually assaulting her confirmed herself as the source of the allegations and explained to independent Virginia media how she released her story.

Last night after Big League Politics released the bombshell report that Stanford University Fellow and Professor Vanessa Tyson allegedly accused Democrat Virginia Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax sexually assaulted her at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. She did not use his name in the initial release, and Big League Politics did not receive confirmation from Tyson that she wrote the post.

However, this changed late last night when Tyson confirmed to independent Virginia media outlet RVA Dirt that she made the allegations, and enlisted a friend to help spread the story.

As people saw we weren’t solely reacting to the story because of the BLP post and had outside confirmations of an allegation coming forward, people started to stop attacking and be open to listening to Ms. Tyson. Eventually, Ms. Tyson came forward on our Facebook page and made comments affirming she gave consent for her story to be shared and explaining why she trusted one individual in our Richmond community to share her story. That Facebook page has photos going back to 2014 including one with her and Thad Williamson who is the husband of the person that Ms. Tyson trusted to share her story and indicated she was close with in graduate school. That is why we believe the comments to be authentically from Ms. Tyson.

The post continues elaborating on how mainstream news outlets refused to run the story:

RVA Dirt also explains that last night, after posting the Big League Politics article detailing Tyson’s allegations, their Facebook page “began receiving very aggressive direct messages attacking” the media outlet for sharing the Big League Politics article, claiming that Tyson was not ready to share her story.

The independent progressive Virginia media outlet does not believe the individual targeting their page is affiliated with Fairfax.

Tyson at one point commented on RVA Dirt‘s post, explaining that she was behind the allegations and thanked the page for sharing the information, but has since deleted the comment.

We were not able to locate screen shots of Tyson’s comment, but do have a screen shot of several Facebook users responding to Tyson.

RVA Dirt, however, posted a screen shot by Tyson revealing she gave the friend permission to share the story across social media.

On the RVA Dirt Facebook page Vanessa Tyson replied in the comments affirming her consent for the post to be shared. 🧜🏻‍♀️ pic.twitter.com/pv5ndskd4L

Big League Politics reached out to RVA Dirt for their comment on this story and did not receive an immediate response.

For Fairfax’s part, he admits the event took place, but claims it was consensual in nature.

Now today, after denying the accusation, Fairfax tells reporters that he did indeed have an encounter with the woman in 2004, but that everything was consensual.

The woman accusing him of sexual assault doesn’t see it that way.

His accuser, Vanessa Tyson is a Stanford University fellow, University Professor, and accomplished author. Regularly speaking in support of progressive issues, many doubt the idea of her accusations being politically motivated.

Tyson initially went to the Washington Post, who are famous for being the first outlet to speak publicly to Christine Blasey Ford, the woman behind the first sexual assault allegation against Justice Brett Kavanaugh. But the Post did not run the story, resulting in her Facebook post hunting at the alleged sexual assault.

This is the third major political earthquake to strike Virginia, after Democrat Virginia Governor Ralph Northam endorsed infanticide last early last week, then Big League Politics unearthed shockingly racist photos in Northam’s medical school yearbook.

The Federalist

Published  2 weeks ago

The Post's standards seem to change based on whether or not the alleged perpetrator is a Democrat or a Republican. This is bad for us all.

Fox News

Published  2 weeks ago

Congressional Democrats are using their guest lists for the State of the Union address on Tuesday to score political points against President Trump on immigration, the government shutdown and more. 

Townhall

Published  2 weeks ago

And Now Virginia's Democratic Lt. Gov Has Been Accused of Sexual Assault - Matt Vespa: UPDATE: The Washington Post reports that they “did not find .02/04/2019 17:41:40PM EST.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 weeks ago

In October during the Kavanaugh hearings RINO Senator Jeff Flake announced he would vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh out of the Judiciary Committee.

Then he got cornered in an elevator by screaming leftists for 4 minutes.

About an hour later and after several private talks with Democrats Jeff Flake came out and announced he would only vote for Brett Kavanaugh if an investigation continued on the man for another week.

This was exactly what Democrats were hoping for!

The women who were screaming at Senator Jeff Flake in the elevator are Soros-funded astroturfed activists.

Their names are Maria Gallagher and Ana Maria Archila.

They celebrated after Flake caved!

And they raised over $30,000 on CrowdPac for their elevator antics.

These two heroes, who confronted @JeffFlake this morning, just changed the course of the Kavanaugh process. We❤️you so much, @AnaMariaArchil2 and Maria Gallagher. #StopKavanaugh pic.twitter.com/Hd4gxLWcCE

— Make the Road Action (@MaketheRoadAct) September 28, 2018

Ana Maria Archila (on right in picture above) is from Colombia where she says she was sexually abused as a child.

She was screaming at Jeff Flake in a elevator on Capitol Hill.

Thanks to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, we discovered Ana Maria Archila is an illegal alien.

Mike Cernovich discovered that illegal alien elevator activist Ana Maria Archila made $176,071 in 2016 as a far left activist.

On Monday Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announced she was bringing Ana Maria Archila to the State of the Union Address by President Trump on Tuesday.

Archila will no doubt be one of several illegal aliens in attendance.

Democrats don’t care about Americans when there are illegal aliens to take care of.

Big League Politics

Published  2 weeks ago

Late Sunday evening, Big League Politics broke a story detailing an apparent sexual assault allegation against Democrat Virginia Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax occurring during the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

Now, that reporting has been confirmed according to a statement coming directly from Lt. Governor Fairfax’s office.

The statement, which calls the allegation “false,” reveals that the woman making the allegation had reached out to the Washington Post “more than a year ago.” But, according to the statement, the Post let the story die in darkness, choosing not to publish the story after a “months” long investigation.

This is the same Washington Post which spoke to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, publicly for the first time, and later followed up by publishing a column supporting the idea of “believing survivors,” saying that, “We believe women’s stories should be heard.”

The allegation that BLP first reported on, comes from a woman named Vanessa Tyson.

Tyson is a Stanford University Fellow, currently studying “the politics and policies surrounding sexual violence against women and children in the United States.” She also serves as a Professor at Scripps College, which she is currently on leave from, as well as being an accomplished author.

Her allegation was first made known to Big League Politics through a tipster sharing a private post from Tyson.

She claims that she was sexually assaulted at the 2004 Democratic National Convention by a staffer for former Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry. Fairfax was indeed a staffer for Kerry’s campaign.

The post goes on to explain that the man she alleges assaulted her went on to win statewide office in November of 2017 as a Democrat, just as Fairfax did. And finally, she explains that due to “strange, horrible luck,” the alleged abuser is likely to get a “VERY BIG promotion.”

That “strange, horrible luck” seems to be the scandal, first broke by BLP, likely to destroy the career of Democrat Virginia Governor Ralph Northram, showing a picture of him in either a Ku Klux Klan costume, or black face in his Medical School yearbook.

If Northam resigns, Fairfax will take his position as Governor, a VERY BIG promotion.

Everything in Tyson’s post points toward Fairfax, and now in a statement, that is being publicly admitted.

Big League Politics will keep you updated on this developing story.

National Review

Published  2 weeks ago

When it comes to sexual-misconduct claims against public officials, the same standard should be applied to everyone. We must reject slogans like #believewomen and instead grant the accused a presumption of innocence. However, that’s not the same thing as saying that accusers have to prove their claims beyond a reasonable doubt. Because we should hold public officials to a high standard of behavior — and because their liberty isn’t at risk — I’ve argued that we should ask a different question: “Is it more likely than not that the allegation is true?”

Applying that standard (and weighing the relevant evidence), I think it’s more likely than not that Bill Clinton is a rapist, Donald Trump is a sexual harasser, and Roy Moore engaged in sexual misconduct with underage teens. I do not believe, however, that Brett Kavanaugh is guilty of the allegations against him. Indeed, Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations are so far from “more likely than not” that competent litigators wouldn’t dream of taking the claims against him to civil court. To this day, those allegations are wholly uncorroborated and riddled with inconsistencies. Ford’s witnesses can’t even place Kavanaugh and Ford together at the party in question — much less in the same bedroom — and Ford’s testimony has been inconsistent on such matters as her age at the time of the attack, the number of witnesses, and even the number of attackers. Moreover, Ford deliberately withheld from the public evidence that was relevant to her claims, including her therapists’ notes and complete polygraph records.

But that hasn’t stopped a host of men and women on the Left from firmly believing that Kavanaugh is guilty, guilty, guilty. I wonder . . . How will these same individuals will view the sexual-misconduct allegations against Virginia’s Democratic lieutenant governor, Justin Fairfax? So far, they seem more solid than the claims against Kavanaugh.

In the Washington Post article linked above, we learn that the Post investigated the accuser’s claims against Fairfax “for several months.” (The Post also knew of Ford’s claims before they leaked). Fairfax and his accuser allegedly had a sexual encounter at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Here’s how the Post describes the claims:

During a conversation, the two realized they had a mutual friend. It was that commonality, she recalled, that put her at ease enough that on the afternoon Fairfax asked her to walk with him to his hotel room to pick up some papers, she thought nothing of joining him.

Fairfax and the woman told different versions of what happened in the hotel room with no one else present. The Washington Post could not find anyone who could corroborate either version. The Post did not find “significant red flags and inconsistencies within the allegations,” as the Fairfax statement incorrectly said.

The woman described a sexual encounter that began with consensual kissing and ended with a forced act that left her crying and shaken. She said Fairfax guided her to the bed, where they continued kissing, and then at one point she realized she could not move her neck. She said Fairfax used his strength to force her to perform oral sex.

The Washington Post, in phone calls to people who knew Fairfax from college, law school and through political circles, found no similar complaints of sexual misconduct against him. Without that, or the ability to corroborate the woman’s account — in part because she had not told anyone what happened — The Washington Post did not run a story.

While some folks are dunking on the Post for running with the Kavanaugh claims, the indictment isn’t entirely fair. The Post ran both claims only after their existence was widely known. It then provided the details it had. I’m much more interested in the coming response to those claims. Yes, a Supreme Court justice is more prominent and powerful than the Virginia lieutenant governor (so there would be more interest in the claims against Kavanaugh), but prominence is irrelevant to veracity, and on that score the claims against Fairfax are already more solid than any claim against Kavanaugh.

The Fairfax accuser came forward far sooner than Ford, she identified the specific time and place of the attack, the accused agreed that he was with the accuser at that time and place, there was an admitted sexual encounter, and — according to the Post — the paper “did not find significant red flags and inconsistencies” in her claims. Indeed, by making that statement, the Washington Post already contested a key Fairfax defense:

Based on the obvious problems and inconsistencies with even the first version of Ford’s claims, I expressed skepticism from the outset. But given that there was reportedly an admitted sexual encounter between the accuser and Fairfax, aren’t there at the very least grounds for serious concern? Based on the available evidence (and without seeing any person tested by cross-examination), it’s far too premature to say that it’s more likely than not that Fairfax is guilty or to demand his resignation. It’s not too premature to wonder, however, whether “believe women” or “believe survivors” will apply with equal ferocity to more credible claims against a promising young Democrat.

Fox News

Published  2 weeks ago

Congressional Democrats are using their guest lists for the State of the Union address on Tuesday to score political points against President Trump on immigration, the government shutdown and more. 

David Harris Jr

Published  2 weeks ago

A few hours ago we posted an article in which RURAL WA SHERIFFS REFUSE TO ENFORCE I-1639 GUN CONTROL. Numerous sheriffs in the state are refusing to enforce the gun controls and restrictions imposed by I-1639. They’re standing up for constitutionality and the Second Amendment.

Kamala Harris, on the other hand, is unashamedly aligned with the unconstitutional leftists who insist that the only safe American is an unarmed one. Too bad she can never get it through her head that the safest Americans are the law-abiding armed ones. She’s been at the forefront of leftist initiatives bent on taking away Second Amendment rights for years.

This from Breitbart:

Democrat presidential hopeful Kamala Harris has a long history of gun control support.

Some of her best known gun control pushes have been for bans on commonly-owned semiautomatic firearms and firearm accessories. But the historical record also finds her taking pains to make concealed carry permits more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain.

Taken together, her gun control history presents a would-be presidential candidate at war with Second Amendment in the same way that Hillary Clinton warred against it in 2016.

Ban on Commonly-Owned Semiautomatic Firearms–Whether you look at Harris’ time as California Attorney General or view her through the prism of her current office as Senator, she is opposed to Americans owning some of the most popular semiautomatic firearms on the market. Harris wants a ban that covers AR-15s and AK-47s, as well as numerous semiautomatic shotguns and similar firearms. She presents such a ban as a solution to crime, as if such firearms are a weapon of choice for criminals. However, FBI crime stats show that over four times as many people are stabbed to death annually than are killed with rifles of any kind.

Ban on Bump Stocks–Bump stocks are a firearm accessory that allow semiautomatic firearms to mimic fully automatic ones for a brief time. Such stocks do not convert semiautomatics into automatics. Rather, they help the gun owner use a bump fire technique to shoot faster, but with far less accuracy. Bump stocks have been used criminally one time since they were invented. A ban on the devices would not have prevented a single mass shooting in the U.S. during the 21st century.

Ban 18-20 Year Olds from Buying Long Guns–Harris wants to ban 18-20 year olds from buying long guns. She undertook this push after the February 14, 2018, attack on the Parkland high school, in which a gunman opened fire inside a building while a deputy stood outside and refused to confront him. She has not said whether other constitutional rights of 18-20 year olds, like freedom of speech and of religion, would remain inviolate, but Second Amendment rights would not be enjoyed until the age of 21.

Criminalization of Private Gun Sales–Harris supports the criminalization of private gun sales. Such criminalization would be accomplished via universal background checks, which Harris strongly supports. Americans have enjoyed private gun sales since 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified. But under a framework supported by Harris (and House Democrats), it would be a criminal act for a neighbor to sell a gun to a lifelong neighbor without getting government permission via a background check. In the same way, it would be criminal for a friend to sell a gun to a lifelong friend without government permission. Yet while neighbors and friends were being criminalized, Harris’ efforts would do nothing to stop mass shooters because nearly every mass shooter already acquires his guns via background checks.

Fight Against Concealed Carry–During her time as California Attorney General, Harris fought against citizens’ ability to secure a concealed carry permit. She did this most obviously in her fight to preserve the “good cause” requirement in California’s concealed carry law. That requirement means a citizen who has no criminal record, and therefore no reason to be denied a concealed permit, must still convince the state that he or she has “good cause” for carrying a gun for self-defense. On February 13, 2014, Breitbart News reported that a three judge panel from the Ninth Circuit struck down the “good cause” requirement. AG Harris responded by pressuring the court to rehear the case en banc, which the court did. As a result, they overturned the earlier decision and upheld the “good cause” requirement, giving the state final say in who can or cannot get a concealed carry license.

Something stands out to me here. Several of the things mentioned actually parallel the initiative in Washington. It makes me think of the way the mainstream media broadcasts exactly the same talking points, phrased exactly the same way, with the same facial expressions. You have to hand it to the liberals for this one thing – they get on the same page, and they beat the drum until they get something pushed through.

Conservatives just HAVE to get up and fight fire with fire! Democrats are not Mr. Nice Guy (or gal). The ones like Kamala Harris have no reservations when they think they can take down a strong conservative. All you have to do is look what she did to Brett Kavanaugh during the confirmation hearings to see the real person. Until she has a major change of heart, she’s trouble on a stick. As is, she is a (reasonably) pretty face with a nasty bite.

To try Amazing and All Natural supplements that our founder David J Harris Jr had developed, click here!

Tired of the social media giants “babysitting”? Join us here.

My book is here! And I personally handed a copy to our President at the White House!!! I hope you enjoy it @realDonaldTrump!

Follow David on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Patreon and YouTube @DavidJHarrisJr

thenewamerican

Published  2 weeks ago

A homosexual has accused Democratic Senator Cory Booker of a bathroom sex assault in 2014. by R. Cort Kirkwood

Talking Points Memo

Published  2 weeks ago

Zach Gibson/Getty Images North America

BANGOR, Maine (AP) — Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) had the best fundraising quarter of her career after she delivered a pivotal vote that helped seat Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, according to documents filed with the Federal Election Commission.

The Bangor Daily News reports that after announcing her decision to vote in favor of Kavanaugh’s nomination during a speech on the Senate floor in early October, Collins raised $1.8 million in the final quarter of 2018.

The records show that of the nearly $900,000 Collins received from individual donors who contributed more than $200 to her campaign, just $19,000 came from individuals with Maine addresses.

“We made an effort to have a strong quarter because we wanted to send the message that Senator Collins will be prepared to run a vigorous campaign in 2020,” said Amy Abbott, the deputy treasurer of Collins’ campaign committee. “We focused our fundraising efforts nationally, which we typically do until the election year, which is why there were relatively fewer donations from Maine.”

She said the campaign received “many contributions” from Maine that were under the $200 reporting threshold.

In the quarter before her Kavanaugh vote, Collins raised $140,000.

Collins’ decision to support Kavanaugh’s nomination led to a burst of donations for a potential 2020 challenger. So far no Democrats have emerged to challenge Collins next year.

Daily Wire

Published  2 weeks ago

A sketchy, uncorroborated accusation of sexual assault against Justin Fairfax, the Democrat Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, is making the rounds Monday morning.

Vanessa Tyson claims Fairfax sexually assaulted her at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, MA, when the Lt. Gov. was a campaign staffer. Fairfax has denied the accusation, pointing out that The Washington Post was made aware of the accusation around the time Fairfax was inaugurated a year ago, but the outlet investigated the claim and declined to run it.

“The Post carefully investigated the claim for several months. After being presented with facts consistent with the Lt. Governor's denial of the allegation, the absence of evidence corroborating the allegation, and significant red flags and inconsistencies within the allegation, the Post made the considered decision not to publish the story,” Fairfax said.

Notice what Fairfax says led the Post to refuse to run the story. Let’s go point-by-point and see how The Washington Post and other outlets failed to live up to such standards when the shaky accusations were against a Republican: now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Facts Consistent With The Accused’s Denial

Kavanaugh consistently denied each new, progressively more ludicrous, accusation against him. He said he studied hard in school, was part of a church committee, but also drank. Some classmates claim he was a “belligerent” drunk, others said he was a standup guy. None of that corroborates any of the women’s claims nor does it disprove his denial.

The Post found multiple people to claim that Kavanaugh must have forgotten what he did at least sometimes when drinking, even though there is no human ability to detect whether another person’s brain is creating short-term memories or not.

Also, Kavanaugh was attacked over his high school yearbook quotes, and every time he explained one of them it turned out to be the correct explanation. Multiple classmates who actually knew Kavanaugh, his friends, and the origin of the quotes backed up the judge’s explanations.

Absence Of Evidence Corroborating The Allegation

With nothing more than a written accusation, the Post reported the accusations against Kavanaugh, without any investigation. The allegations were published credulously. There was no corroborating evidence for any of the accusations.

Christine Blasey Ford gave the names of several people who should have remembered the party or the assault – not one could corroborate her claims. Deborah Ramirez also gave names, and again, no one could corroborate her claims. The New York Times initially declined to run Ramirez’s allegation because it couldn’t be corroborated, but did so once The New Yorker published the accusation without corroboration.

The Washington Post, in this instance, at least noted how little Ramirez’s claim was corroborated, even if it ran multiple columns and follow-up stories lumping these claims in as if more accusations equaled more truth.

Further, when the third accuser, Julie Swetnick, came forward with an insane accusation that Kavanaugh, as a teenager, orchestrated gang-rape parties, the Post wrote an article first noting the accuser’s security clearances. Much further down – at a point when most readers would click away – the Post added Swetnick’s earlier accusations against other people and tax problems.

Significant Red Flags And Inconsistencies

Each Kavanaugh accuser’s story had “significant red flags” that should have merited further investigation or at least a modicum of skepticism. Ford couldn’t remember how she got home after the party (and no one came forward to say they were the one who drove her home) and her claims of being traumatized today all fell apart. She didn’t have a fear of flying, she didn’t have a fear of confined spaces, and the second door on her house was part of renovations, not some need to escape.

Ramirez didn’t even know if Kavanaugh was the man who exposed himself to her, and had to talk to old Yale classmates – and her Democrat lawyers – before she convinced herself that he was the one.

Swetnick and other accuser’s claims were so outlandish that they should have been investigated. NBC famously refused to publish doubts about Swetnick and another accuser’s claims, going so far as to give her a primetime interview where she contradicted everything she said previously.

Conservative News Today

Published  2 weeks ago

Kellyanne Conway, the counselor to President Donald Trump, says if Democrat Senator Cory Booker were a Republican, he’d be viciously attacked as a “sexist” for choosing to run for president instead of supporting one of his female colleagues.

Obviously, Booker is running because he thinks he’s a better candidate than all the women from his party who are running.

Why Won’t Cory Booker Support His Female Peers?

“Welcome [to the race],” Conway told Fox & Friends. “He’s welcome to dive in ― along with 10, 15, 30 other Democratic candidates.”

When asked her reaction to Booker’s candidacy, Conway replied:

“I would ask him a couple questions today as he runs from my native New Jersey. One is: What’s wrong with the candidates that are already in there?

What is your objection to Kamala Harris running, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, these others who have already announced, Tulsi Gabbard, maybe?

If he were a Republican running against them, they would immediately call him a sexist for running against these women in the Democratic field.”

Conway: What Has Booker Accomplished?

Aside from his sexism, Kellyanne Conway says Cory Booker is not qualified to run for president.

Before becoming a US senator, Booker was the mayor of Newark, New Jersey from 2006 to 2013. During that time, crime in Newark soared and poverty remained a major problem in the embattled city.

“I would also ask him what exactly have you accomplished that qualifies you to be commander-in-chief and president of the United States?” Conway said.

Kellyanne also noted that Booker’s side gig as a “motivational speaker” is a disaster. She said even Democrat David Axelrod ― the former chief strategist for Barack Obama ― dissed Booker’s underwhelming “motivational-speaking” skills.

“I think people should go and look at his record in Newark, New Jersey.

Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, about 8 or 9 years ago, gave $200 million in matching funds to Newark for its school system and a whole bunch of that ― millions and millions of dollars ― went to politically-connected consulting firms.

I first came upon Cory Booker many years ago when he was a pro-school choice advocate. But the modern Democrat party…has moved so far to the left that he can’t even bring himself to continue to help these schoolchildren.”

Trump: ‘Spartacus’ Ran Newark Into the Ground

Meanwhile, check out President Trump’s brutal takedown of Booker after he tried to hijack the Senate Judiciary hearings in September 2018 by comically declaring “I Am Spartacus!”

“How about Cory Booker? Did you watch the performance?” Trump asked. “He ran Newark, New Jersey, into the ground and now he wants to be president? What was the moment he said he had? [‘Spartacus!’] I don’t think so. We’ll take Kirk Douglas at his prime. Booker ran Newark into the ground.”

While Booker condemned Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh over uncorroborated, decades-old groping allegations, he admitted that he groped a girl’s breast in high school without her consent.

Conservative News Today

Published  3 weeks ago

Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer’s longtime communications director, Matt House, was forced to resign amid revelations that he had “inappropriate encounters” with staffers.

While no specific allegations were disclosed, “inappropriate” conduct is usually a euphemism for sexual harassment or assault.

“Upon learning that he had inappropriate encounters within the office and that it was making some staff uncomfortable, he was asked to leave,” a Schumer spokesman said.

Chuck Schumer Is First To Condemn Others

Matt House apologized for his misconduct in a statement to the New York Post. He suggested that too much alcohol had fueled his misbehavior.

“I absolutely loved my time working in the Senate and it was the honor of my life. I deeply regret the mistakes I made on the number of occasions when I had too much to drink, and I apologize to anyone who was affected by my behavior.

I have always respected all of my colleagues and I was horrified to learn that I made anyone feel uncomfortable. In the past three months, I’ve stopped drinking and I’ve committed to making myself a better colleague and person.

Before becoming the communications director for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Matt House was previously Schumer’s press secretary. And before that, House worked for then-Senator Joe Biden’s failed 2008 presidential campaign.

Ironically, Schumer has not commented on the firing of his longtime aide, even though he’s very quick to condemn other politicians accused of sexual misconduct.

Kamala Harris Aide Resigns Amid Sex Harassment

Meanwhile, here’s what the senior advisers to other top Democrats have been up to:

As BizPac Review reported, a longtime aide to Democrat Senator Kamala Harris resigned in December 2018 amid revelations that he paid $400,000 to settle a sexual harassment claim when Harris was — ironically — the attorney general of California.

Harris — a junior senator who assumed office in 2017 — rocketed to fame in 2018 after viciously attacking Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court confirmation, when he was smeared with sham, 11th hour sexual misconduct claims.

Kamala Harris aide resigns after paying $400,000 in sexual harassment claim; Dem AG blamed the victim https://t.co/bF8dOxf1ai

— Herbert Reed (@Herbert_L_Reed) December 6, 2018

TRENDING: Kellyanne Conway: A ‘Republican Cory Booker’ would be attacked as ‘sexist’

I Love My Freedom

Published  3 weeks ago

President Donald Trump spoke about Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s ailing health earlier this week, and revealed who he might nominate if she retires.

During an interview with The Daily Caller, Trump wished Ginsburg good health and said the person he nominates to fill the next vacancy on the Supreme Court would come from his previously released list of judges.

“I hope that she’s healthy … I hope she’s happy … I hope she lives for a long time,” Trump said of Ginsburg, who has not been seen in public for over a month since recovering from surgery.

“I have very much confined myself to that list as you know … that list has great people on it … and I’d say it’s highly likely I would say,” he added.

“Anybody on that list would be a choice … they’re great people,” Trump said, adding, “a lot of people have said that list is one of the reasons I won … because being a non-politician where you don’t have a record of choosing people … Supreme Court especially for the Republican party, it seems was very, very important.”

Unfortunately, the news keeps getting worse for Ginsburg, who has missed over a month on the court and cancelled several public events.

The 85-year-old Justice is recovering from surgery to remove two cancerous growths from her left lung, forcing her to “work from home.”

Given she’s apparently unable to appear on the bench and is cancelling upcoming events, some Republicans are eyeing her replacement.

Ginsburg’s ailing health and her absence from the bench for over a month could be a major signal, and Trump is also getting ready.

With Ginsburg apparently unable to leave her home, the White House has been making “gingerly preparations” in case she retires.

Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg finally retire?

According to two sources familiar with the process, the White House is well aware of the medical issues involved with Ginsburg, who is 85-years-old.

“Gingerly preparations are underway, not just for Ginsburg but for any SCOTUS retirement,” a source involved in the Supreme Court nominations of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh said last month.

John Malcolm, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said Trump could appoint a conservative woman if Ginsburg does retire.

“There would be a lot of pressure to appoint a woman, I would think that one person the president would seriously look at would be Amy Coney Barrett,” he said.

“By appointing Pat, Trump made sure he has a White House counsel who is both able to handle the investigation and a movement conservative philosophically aligned with the base of the party,” American Conservative Union Chairman Matt Schlapp told TheDC.

“Trump has figured out there are some things you keep close to the vest. He likes to be the explainer-in-chief but understands there’s a downside to sharing too much,” Schlapp added.

While Trump, the White House, and many have wished nothing but the best for Ginsburg, many argue that her health issues may have gotten worse.

If she does retire while Trump is still in office, the president would have the historic opportunity to nominate a third Justice to the Supreme Court, which currently has a 5-4 conservative bent.

[RELATED: New Evidence DESTROYS Adam Schiff’s Collusion Claim About Don Jr.; CNN In SHAMBLES]

The Old School Patriot

Published  3 weeks ago

As of this moment, Virginia Governor, Ralph Northam, is still in office and appears to be intransigent about resigning.

Okay, unless you live under a rock, at the bottom of the sea with SpongeBob, you know exactly what I am talking about. It seems that there was a very disturbing 1984 yearbook photo from Governor Northam’s medical school that has a picture of two young men, one in blackface, and the other in full Ku Klux Klan regalia. The picture is on Ralph Northam’s yearbook page.

Initially, the Governor came out and offered an apology, accepting that he was one of the two pictured. Then Northam comes out on Saturday saying he was not in the picture, and presenting us with the Michael Jackson “dance contest” excuse, along with that ages-old tired blather of “I have African-American friends.”

Let me be very clear and upfront: I find Governor Northam’s assertion that he blackened his face once for a Michael Jackson dance contest — or something of the sort — to be disingenuous, offensive, and insulting. For some odd reason, Gov. Northam believes that everyone is just that gullible, stupid perhaps, to accept such a lame explanation.

Governor Northam is being condemned, and even leaders in the Democrat Party, both State and National, are demanding his resignation. Perhaps Governor Northam is betting on what we all know to be true, that the liberal progressive news media, and cycle, will kill this story. But there is a greater concern for the State and National Democrat Party, and it is all about hypocrisy.

I am quite sure we all remember the character assassination that then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh had to endure. Here was a man deliberately targeted by the progressive socialist left for destruction. They could not afford to have President Trump appoint a second conservative justice to the Supreme Court, especially replacing a swing vote justice. It was all hands on deck, and we watched the theater of the absurd play out and the utter disgraceful actions of elected officials and anarchist leftists who stormed hearing chambers, Capitol Hill, and the steps of the Supreme Court. There was one little problem: there was no evidence or corroborating testimony for Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and Julie Swetnick, who admitted that she had fabricated it all. How interesting that all these three women have disappeared from any national conversation, when they were the topic, incessantly so, of every conversation.

This is what Governor Northam is banking on, hoping it all just fades away. Yes, he is being condemned by those within his own party, but is this just pro forma? Are they are secretly plotting with the liberal progressive media to give this a slow death? The real hypocrisy is that the left in America went into an apoplectic meltdown about Brett Kavanaugh as a high school senior. Governor Northam’s yearbook is from his medical school, in 1984.

Also, as a comparison, that was the year I graduated the US Army Officer Basic Artillery course on the Commandant’s List, graduated Airborne and Jumpmaster School, got married, and deployed to Vicenza, Italy, for my first tour of duty. Oh yes, I did paint my face that year, but it was with OD green and loam camouflage paint.

What is certainly a sign of karma is the fact that during his candidacy for governor, Northam often referred to his opponent, Republican Ed Gillespie, as a racist. Oh my, and that leads to another interesting dilemma for the State, and especially the National, Democrat Party. How will they continue to refer to President Trump as a racist based upon hyperbole? After all, there are no questionable photos of President Trump in blackface, or in a KKK outfit. So, if Governor Northam remains in place, any rhetoric claiming that President Trump is a racist will look dubiously hypocritical. If there is any reason the Democrat Party wants Northam gone, it is for that strategic purpose.

This episode could not have happened at a worse time for the Democrat Party. Here it was the first day of Black History Month, and these pictures are revealed. Let’s be honest, there are those of us who know the real history of the Democrat Party with the black community in America. What a horrific optic to deal with currently, reminding people, not just blacks, of the scarred history the party of the Donkey has with Black America.

These pictures from Governor Northam’s medical school yearbook page come on the heels of his very controversial statement about what can only be deemed as support for infanticide, a sentiment shared by New York Governor Cuomo. When one ponders the intersection of racism and abortion, well, it leads to an organization founded by a white supremacist and racist, one who spoke at Ku Klux Klan rallies. Someone who referred to blacks as “undesirables” and “weeds.” That person is Margaret Sanger, and the organization is Planned Parenthood. Funny thing, even Planned Parenthood released a statement asking Northam to resign. I guess they are trying to cover their six.

And, let’s not forget, the last Democrat nominee for president of these United States of America, Hillary Clinton, is a recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award.

I am not seeking to be political here, but stating an obvious truth. The Democrat Party in America is facing a major crisis, and the optics are not good at all. They must have Governor Northam resign, or else the consequences may just be insurmountable, and that means electoral defeat.

Consider this last point: the Lieutenant Governor of Virginia is black. I remember the first black governor in America since Reconstruction, the 66th Governor of Virginia, Lawrence Douglas Wilder. I wonder what he has to say . . . and why Governor Northam will not allow Virginia to have its second black governor?

As stated, the optics are not good.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  3 weeks ago

Virginia Democrat leadership is already coming out in defense of Governor Ralph Northam’s racist yearbook photo.

A picture from Democrat Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s medical school yearbook surfaced on Friday showing two men, one in a KKK hood and robe and one in ‘blackface’ on the same page as Northam.

The photo was first published by Big League Politics on Friday and later confirmed by other outlets such as WaPo and The Virginian Pilot.

One half of the page shows Ralph Northam wearing a suit jacket and a tie, a photo of him in a cowboy hat and boots and another of him leaning up against a convertible.

It is unclear who the two men in costume are, however Eastern Virginia Medical School allowed students to personally choose photos for their yearbook page.

Democrats ALWAYS defend their own no matter what.

A Ralph Northam ally, Senate Minority Leader Richard L. Saslaw (D-Fairfax) defended the governor saying we don’t need to examine something that occurred 30 years ago — unless your name is Brett Kavanaugh of course!

“His whole life has been about exactly the opposite and that’s what you need to examine, not something that occurred 30 years ago,” said Senate Minority Leader Richard L. Saslaw (D-Fairfax). “While it’s in very poor taste, I would think no one in the General Assembly who would like their college conduct examined. I would hate to have to go back and examine my two years in the Army. Trust me. I was 18 years old and I was a handful, OK? His life since then has been anything but. It’s been a life of helping people, and many times for free.”

Jack Wilson, the Chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia said if it is indeed Northam in the photo, he needs to resign.

“Racism has no place in Virginia,” Wilson said in a statement. “These pictures are wholly inappropriate. If Governor Northam appeared in blackface or dressed in a KKK robe, he should resign immediately.”

Why are we just now finding out about Governor Ralph Northam’s 1984 yearbook with pictures of him presumably in blackface or a KKK robe?

Why did the Republican oppo researchers drop the ball during the Virginia gubernatorial election in 2017?

Ralph Northam’s yearbook would have been perfect fodder to attack the Democrat candidate with especially in Virginia.

USA TODAY

Published  3 weeks ago

(Photo: Jose Luis Magana, AP)

WASHINGTON – A deeply divided Supreme Court Thursday temporarily blocked abortion restrictions in Louisiana that critics complained were virtually identical to those struck down by the justices in 2016.

Although the court's new conservative majority may be poised to uphold more limits on abortion in the future, the Louisiana law's similarity to one the justices thwarted in Texas less than three years ago apparently sealed its fate, at least for now.

The court still could uphold the law after further review, giving President Donald Trump something to show for his 2016 pledge to appoint "pro-life justices."

The action gave abortion rights proponents, as well as women seeking procedures, a reprieve from a law that critics said threatened to leave just one abortion clinic and provider in business to serve an estimated 10,000 women.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's four liberals in blocking the law. New Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a dissent for the court's other four conservatives.

The Louisiana law requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. That was one of two requirements of the Texas law that the Supreme Court struck down as burdensome in a landmark 5-4 ruling when Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy held the deciding vote.

Louisiana officials claimed their law would not have the same deleterious effects that the Texas law threatened, thereby making it constitutional under the Supreme Court's "undue burden" test. The law previously was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, dominated by conservatives, including five appointed by Trump.

Since the Supreme Court's 2016 decision, Kennedy retired and two Trump nominees – Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – gave abortion opponents hope for a reversal on laws affecting abortion.

Kavanaugh, who succeeded Kennedy in October, has been viewed as the crucial fifth conservative vote. He has praised former chief justice William Rehnquist's dissent from the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, and he dissented from his federal appeals court's 2017 decision allowing an undocumented teenager in government custody to get an abortion.

But during his confirmation hearing last September, Kavanaugh referred to landmark Supreme Court decisions legalizing and affirming abortion rights as "precedent on precedent."

Abortion rights groups argued that the Texas decision set a precedent from which the justices could not retreat. The opinion by Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, in which Kennedy joined the court's liberals, said the law would force too many abortion clinics to close, leaving the state unable to handle up to 70,000 abortions annually. That burden on women, the court said, was unconstitutional without equal or greater health benefits.

Since that 5-3 ruling, which occurred after Associate Justice Antonin Scalia's death left the court shorthanded, laws requiring hospital admitting privileges have been struck down or unenforced in several other states, including Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Wisconsin. Only Missouri, North Dakota and Utah still have similar laws on the books.

Louisiana's statute was passed in 2014 but struck down by a federal district judge after trial three years later. It was resurrected in a 2-1 ruling by a federal appeals court panel, and the full appeals court later voted 9-6 against hearing the abortion rights group's appeal. Trump's judges all voted with the majority.

The justices still are considering whether to hear another abortion case challenging an Indiana law that bans abortions sought because of race, sex or disability. Another part of that law requires fetal remains to be buried or cremated. It was signed by Gov. Mike Pence before he was elected vice president.

Following Kavanaugh's calamitous Senate confirmation, which he survived by a narrow 50-48 vote amid an allegation of sexual assault during high school, Chief Justice John Roberts has tried to keep the court far away from controversy. But that effort hasn't been entirely successful.

The court will hear two cases later this month challenging the use of a Christian cross to honor World War I veterans. In March, it will hear two cases challenging partisan election maps in North Carolina and Maryland.

A case challenging the Trump administration's effort to add a question on citizenship to the 2020 Census may be granted for April or May. Gun rights are on tap for the fall, and cases on immigration and LGBT rights may not be far behind.

More: President Trump bets big on Supreme Court to uphold controversial policies after lower court losses

More: Supreme Court's actions on transgender troops, gun rights, public prayer signal conservative trend

WayneDupree.com

Published  3 weeks ago

Wonderful. Another liberal nut job is joining the Democratic Party circus thinking he deserves to be president because he wants the spotlight.

Sen. Cory Booker surprised me with this announcement. With Sen. Kamala Harris declaring, I didn’t think Booker would run. They are both the same with skeletons in their political closet. Harris had her little affair with the former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown while Booker’s history has a taint of sexual assault, which he admitted to.

Some are making fun of the number of candidates declaring to run for the Oval Office, but having options is always good. If you don’t like this, you can go elsewhere.

Related: Bernie’s Hometown Newspaper Begs Him Not To Run For President In EPIC Op-ed!

BREAKING: New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker launches 2020 presidential campaign.

Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey said Friday that he will seek the Democratic nomination for president, adding his name to a growing and increasingly diversified field of 2020 candidates intent on taking on President Trump.

Booker made his announcement via an email and video to supporters, and had interviews scheduled throughout the day.

“The history of our nation is defined by collective action; by interwoven destinies of slaves and abolitionists; of those born here and those who chose America as home; of those who took up arms to defend our country, and those who linked arms to challenge and change it,” Booker said in his video, which made repeated references to Trump and his actions as president.

“I believe that we can build a country where no one is forgotten, no one is left behind; where parents can put food on the table; where there are good paying jobs with good benefits in every neighborhood; where our criminal justice system keeps us safe, instead of shuffling more children into cages and coffins; where we see the faces of our leaders on television and feel pride, not shame,” he said.

#KamalaHarris aint got a chance in hell of getting the black votehttps://t.co/cnEV8XyVL1

— Bam (@youwylding_bam) February 1, 2019

After a JW complaint, the Senate Ethics Committee has refused to take action on Senator Cory Booker, who admitted he willfully violated Senate rules by releasing 'Committee confidential' docs on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s time as a WH counsel.https://t.co/GET9QUvYCP

I would like to take this opportunity to announce that I, along with six other Americans, will not be running for President in 2020. As the now-named “Gang of Seven,” we understand that this is a considerable departure from the American public, all of whom are running for President. However, we feel that this is a critical time for us to show leadership by going about our business as private citizens and not seeking an office for which we are eminently unqualified.

Thank you, and God save America.

As for CNN, they were just about giddy with the announcement but that just gives them another person of color to push.

Please consider making a donation to WayneDupree.com

and help our mission to make the world a better place

If you find inaccurate information within this article, please use the contact form to alert us immediately.

NOTE: Facebook and Twitter are currently censoring conservative content. We hope they will reverse their policy and honor all voices shortly. Until then, please like our page on Facebook and PLEASE check the Wayne Dupree homepage for the latest stories.

Having problems finding a source for real news links in real time, click on Whatfinger.com. Visit, bookmark and share this resource and then tell your friends and family.

Business 365

Published  3 weeks ago

It appears Sen. Kamala Harris may be having a memory problem. Or a truth problem.

The California Democrat and potential 2020 presidential contender commented on the power wielded by Supreme Court justices in a tweet on Monday.

Image: Screenshot

But the ‘facts’ Harris shared in her tweet were questionable at best.

Two decades after Brown v. Board, I was only the second class to integrate at Berkeley public schools. Without that decision, I likely would not have become a lawyer and eventually be elected a Senator from California.

That’s the power a Supreme Court Justice holds.

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) July 10, 2018

Harris’ parents, a professor and a researcher, attended graduate school in Berkeley where the family lived. But when they divorced, the then-seven-year-old Harris moved to Canada with her mother where she attended grade school and high school.

Harris, who was born in 1964, claimed she was in only the second class to integrate at Berkeley public schools.

Photos from the 1963 Berkeley yearbook, however, appears to tell a different story.

Classrooms in Berkeley were already integrated in 1963, before Harris was born.

And the same could be seen in the Berkeley 1964 yearbook —the year Harris was born.

Seems the senator needed to get her dates and facts right before her tweet.

Harris, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has been an outspoken critic of President Trump and his administration, making her a Democratic favorite as she reportedly thinks about a potential 2020 run for office.

“It’s about who can be radical, who can be a leader of the ‘resist’ movement, who can be the biggest hater of Donald Trump” Republican Congressman Sean Duffy told Fox News’ Laura Ingraham on “The Angle” Tuesday, speaking of Harris’ appeal to the left.

Duffy argued that Democrats are fully engaged in opposing Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, because “if you can’t win at the ballot box, if you can’t win votes in Congress, you have to look to the courts to have activist judges who will implement your progressive, liberal, socialist policies for you.”

Harris fits both of those needs for the left, Duffy noted as she leads the resistance movement against Trump and, as a former prosecutor, takes on the legal issues.

We know first-hand that censorship against conservative news is real. Please share stories and encourage your friends to sign up for our daily email blast so they are not getting shut out of seeing conservative news.

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/07/11/berkeley-yearbook-photos-catch-kamala-harris-is-one-whopper-of-a-lie-653359

timesofisrael

Published  3 weeks ago

The Democrat New Jersey senator, who just announced his 2020 presidential run, has a penchant for starting speeches with a Torah analysis

sacbee

Published  3 weeks ago

President Donald Trump’s nominees for three 9th Circuit Court vacancies in California sets up a confirmation battle between the Senate Judiciary Committee’s leading Democrat, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and the committee’s new Republican Chairman Lindsey Graham.

National Review

Published  3 weeks ago

Cory Booker has transformed his brand in the Trump-era, but in order to win the presidential nomination as a Democrat, he’ll need to play the part.

www.theepochtimes.com

Published  3 weeks ago

Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham, threw his support behind President Donald Trump's three nominees for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, over objections from California's Democratic Senators who claimed the White House did not do enough to include them in the selection process.

Fox News

Published  3 weeks ago

Calling for a sense of common purpose, Sen. Cory Booker on Friday morning declared his candidacy for president.

The high-profile Democrat from New Jersey announced his White House run with a new website that included a two-minute-long campaign launch video.

“I believe that we can build a country where no one is forgotten, no one is left behind; where parents can put food on the table; where there are good-paying jobs with good benefits in every neighborhood,” Booker said in the video.

The former mayor of Newark, known for his oratory skills, added that he envisions a country “where our criminal justice system keeps us safe, instead of shuffling more children into cages and coffins; where we see the faces of our leaders on television and feel pride, not shame.”

Booker’s entry into the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination race was widely expected. His jam-packed December visit to New Hampshire, the state that holds the first primary in the race for the White House, had the look and the feel of a presidential campaign trip. Aides confirmed that in recent weeks, Booker’s been hiring staffers for his emerging campaign.

Unlike some of his rivals for the nomination, Booker skipped setting up an exploratory committee as a first step toward running for the White House. Campaign aides said that next weekend (Feb. 8-9) Booker will visit Iowa – the state that holds the first-in-the-nation caucuses – and then head straight to South Carolina (Feb. 10-11) – which holds the first southern contest. They added that Booker – who turns 50 in April - will return to New Hampshire over President’s Day weekend.

Booker joins a growing field of candidates including Sen. Kamala Harris of California; former San Antonio mayor and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro; Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii; and former Rep. John Delaney of Maryland. Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York have set up presidential exploratory committees, as has Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana.

Booker’s announcement came less than two weeks after Harris jumped into the race on Martin Luther King Day, followed by a massive rally in her hometown of Oakland, Calif., days later. The two senators, both African-American, are expected to battle for the influential black vote in the Democratic primaries.

In his video, Booker told the story of his parents' struggle to move their family into a predominantly white neighborhood with great public schools. He also highlighted how as an adult, he moved into Newark's Central Ward, a low-income inner-city neighborhood where he continues to live.

“Together, we will channel our common pain back into our common purpose,” Booker said at the end of the video announcement. “Together, America, we will rise.”

His campaign highlighted that Booker – like many of his primary rivals – would reject contributions from corporate political action committees (PACs) and federal lobbyists. They added that Booker also opposed the use of super PACs to help his campaign or those of his rivals.

Booker, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, last summer and fall was one of the Democrats leading the push against the confirmation of now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. He raised eyebrows and was widely mocked by Republicans for comparing himself to Spartacus, the Thracian gladiator and rebel slave who led a rebellion against the Roman Empire.

Booker was ridiculed by Republicans after threatening to defy the Senate rules and release what he thought were confidential documents concerning Kavanaugh’s past.

“This is about the closest I’ll probably ever have in my life to an ‘I am Spartacus’ moment,” he said at the time.

Breitbart

Published  3 weeks ago

Embattled Governor Ralph Northam (D-VA) is counting on the establishment media to save him from having to resign.

cbsnews

Published  3 weeks ago

California Democratic Congresswoman Jackie Speier is nominating Dr. Christine Blasey Ford — the woman who accused then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of a high school sexual assault — for the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award. The award, which recognizes acts of "politically courageous leadership," is usually reserved for public officials and politicians.

Speier announced her nomination of Ford for the award on Twitter Monday. "Nominating Dr. Christine Blasey Ford ― a true American (s)hero who sacrificed so much to do what was right for our country and for the pursuit of truth of justice ― for this year's Profiles in Courage Award," Speier tweeted. "She is an inspiration to us all."

Nominating Dr. Christine Blasey Ford – a true American (s)hero who sacrificed so much to do what was right for our country and for the pursuit of truth of justice – for this year’s Profiles in Courage Award @JFKLibrary. She is an inspiration to us all.

— Jackie Speier (@RepSpeier) January 29, 2019

The award was created in 1989 by members of the Kennedy family "to honor President John F. Kennedy and to recognize and celebrate the quality of political courage that he admired most." President Barack Obama, former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and President George H.W. Bush are among past recipients. Recipients of the award are chosen by a bipartisan committee.

In September, Blasey Ford, a Palo Alto University college professor, went public with accusations that Kavanaugh had pinned her down at a party in high school and covered her mouth when she tried to scream. Her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee riveted the nation, as did his forceful denial. Blasey Ford said she was "100 percent" sure that Kavanaugh assaulted her. Kavanaugh said he was "100 percent certain" he did not. In the end, he was confirmed to the Supreme Court by a mostly party-line vote.

Blasey Ford said she received "frightening threats" that forced her to hire security to protect her family. For a time, they were forced from their home, her lawyer said. Despite the threats, she stood her ground.

"Although coming forward was terrifying, and caused disruption to our lives, I am grateful to have had the opportunity to fulfill my civic duty," Ford wrote in November. "Having done so, I am in awe of the many women and men who have written me to share similar life experiences, and now have bravely shared their experience with friends and family, many for the first time. I send you my heartfelt love and support."

The 2019 Profile in Courage Award will be presented in Washington, D.C., in May.

Fox News

Published  3 weeks ago

California Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris lashed out at the White House after President Trump, under pressure from conservative activists, re-nominated two conservative California judges to the Ninth Circuit federal appeals court over their opposition.

“We are deeply disappointed that the White House has chosen to re-nominate Daniel Collins and Kenneth Lee to the Ninth Circuit,” Feinstein and Harris said in a joint statement late Wednesday. “We made clear our opposition to these individuals and told the White House we wanted to work together to come to consensus on a new package of nominees.”

WHITE HOUSE ANNOUNCES 51 JUDICIAL PICKS

The White House announced the nomination of Collins and Lee, among other judicial nominations. Daniel A. Bress was also nominated to the Ninth Circuit.

The nomination of Collins and Lee bypasses the traditional "blue-slip" process in which the senators of the home state of the nominee give their consent to the pick. Feinstein and Harris said they had hoped to “work together to come to consensus on a new package of nominees” instead of President Trump nominating Collins and Lee.

Last week, the White House had announced the re-nomination of 51 federal judicial nominees left over from the previous Congress, kickstarting the administration's effort to install more conservative judges after GOP activists worried that such appointments had stalled.

Collins and Lee, however, were not initially nominated again, because of negotiations between the White House and Harris and Feinstein. They were first nominated in October.

Conservative activists protested those negotiations, though, as the Wall Street Journal editorial board drew attention to the situation and argued that both Feinstein and Harris “were two of the worst mudslingers on the Judiciary Committee that smeared Brett Kavanaugh.”

“Why on earth would the WH agree to tarnish its sterling legacy of circuit court judges & abandon the opportunity to improve the notorious 9th Cir to help Sens (and a would-be POTUS challenger) who are shafting him every chance they get?” tweeted Carrie Severino, the chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network.

Ken Blackwell, the former Ohio secretary of state, had said the White House’s failure to re-nominate the judges was “hugely demoralizing.”

“No deals with Senate liberals,” Blackwell wrote on Facebook.

The liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, with a sprawling purview representing nine Western states, has long been a thorn in the side of the Trump White House, with rulings against the travel ban and limits on funding to "sanctuary cities."

On Thursday, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, praised Trump's nomination of Collins, Lee and Bress.

“I’m very supportive of the nominees submitted by President Trump to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. These are highly qualified nominees and I am hopeful they will receive wide bipartisan support,” Graham said. “These nominations continue a trend by the Trump Administration of selecting highly qualified men and women to serve on the federal bench.”

Fox News’ Jason Donner and Gregg Re contributed to this report.

The Washington Times

Published  3 weeks ago

The White House plan for peeling off Democrats to support President Donald Trump's demands for billions in border wall money ran into a particularly stubborn obstacle: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Sch

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

Published  3 weeks ago

Trump has three qualified and quality nominees for vacancies who have not been renominated. That they are opposed by Feinstein and Harris is a feature, not a bug, of the merits of their confirmation.

WayneDupree.com

Published  3 weeks ago

A Democratic lawmaker selects Brett Kavanaugh's first accuser as her choice for the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage designation

NJ.com

Published  3 weeks ago

The knock on Booker is that he's a showboat without substance. Don't believe it. Hard facts show that it's not true.

Judicial Watch

Published  3 weeks ago

Senate Ethics Committee Gives Sen. Cory Booker a Pass for Purposely Violating Rules– Judicial Watch announced today that the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics has refused to take action against Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), who admitted to willfully violating Senate rules by releasing confidential records regarding then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s time as a White House counsel… Read more

Documents Detail Nancy Pelosi’s $185,000 CODEL to Italy and Ukraine in 2015– Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained documents through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Air Force detailing $134,587.81 plus $50,000 for an advance of funds for an “escort officer” for a total of $184.587.81 for then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) Congressional delegation (CODEL) to Italy and Ukraine in 2015… Read more

U.S. Combats Child Marriage Abroad, Grants Thousands of Spousal Visas for Immigrant Kids– While the U.S. government advances policies to prevent child marriage in foreign countries it approves thousands of petitions filed by Americans seeking spouse or fiancé visas for children born abroad… Read more

Weekly Update: Air Pelosi Exposed– Nancy Pelosi’s plan to fly into a war zone to thank the troops, which President Trump put on hold, was déjà vu all over again. We’ve been watching her taxpayer-supported travel for years. I discuss our prior work here in an op-ed for Fox News… Read more

X X X

Keep our investigators on the job uncovering the truth:

<>

X X X

Must Read

Tom Fitton: ‘Air Pelosi’ – Fox News– When President Trump denied House Speaker Nancy Pelosi use of a military aircraft for a CODEL (congressional delegation trip) to Afghanistan recently, he called the public’s attention to wasteful taxpayer-funded congressional travel… Read more

Senate cravenly fails to rebuke Cory Booker for ‘Spartacus’ moment– Washington Examiner– Lest some poor soul actually believe the Senate cares about ethics, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics has now disabused them of that notion… Read more

New docs reveal the extent of Pelosi’s CODEL travel abuses– The Blaze– House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s use of military aircraft came under scrutiny last week after President Donald Trump cancelled her congressional delegation trip to Belgium, Egypt, and Afghanistan… Read more

Must Watch

Tom Fitton: Pelosi Abuses Use of Military Luxury Travel– January 25, 2019- Watch Now!

Tom Fitton: DOJ and FBI Hijacked for Political Purposes Against President Trump- January 24, 2019- Watch Now!

Tom Fitton: Mueller is Illicitly Targeting & Harassing President Trump- January 13, 2019- Watch Now!

Inside Judicial Watch: Our Top 5 Investigations of 2018- January 17, 2019- Watch Now!

Tom Fitton: Time to Investigate Mueller…Secure the Border NOW- January 25, 2019- Watch Now!

Flag And Cross

Published  3 weeks ago

How will Democrats react to this? Will they blow it off or...yeah, they'll blow it off.

Blunt Force Truth

Published  3 weeks ago

While the media obsesses over the government shutdown and continues to smear innocent Catholic kids in Kentucky, Trump is continuing to work and get things done. In fact, he just nominated a massive number of judges.

The Washington Examiner reports:

Trump nominates 51 judges at once, enough to fill one-third of all court vacancies

In a sweeping move to further influence federal courts with conservative picks, President Trump on Wednesday renominated 51 judges who saw no action in the last Congress.

The list showed 37 nominees to district courts, nine to circuit courts, two each to the International Trade and Federal Claims courts, and one to the Military Commission Review.

One, Naomi Rao, was picked to replace the opening left when federal appeals court Judge Brett Kavanaugh […]

Want more BFT? Leave us a voicemail on our page or follow us on Twitter @BFT_Podcast and Facebook @BluntForceTruthPodcast. We want to hear from you! There’s no better place to get the #BluntForceTruth.

Washington Examiner

Published  3 weeks ago

In a sweeping move to further influence federal courts with conservative picks, President Trump on Wednesday renominated 51 judges that saw no action in the last Congress.

National Review

Published  3 weeks ago

Bad, Press

01/26 9:03 pm

Our national press is a national joke. Vain, languid, excitable, morbid, duplicitous, cheap, insular, mawkish, and possessed of a chronic self-obsession that would have made Dorian Gray blush, it rambles around the United States in neon pants, demanding congratulation for its travails. Not since Florence Foster Jenkins have Americans been treated to such an excruciating example of self-delusion. The most vocal among the press corps’ ranks cast themselves openly as “firefighters” when, at worst, they are pyromaniacs and, at best, they are obsequious asbestos salesmen. “You never get it right, do you?” Sybil Fawlty told Basil in Fawlty Towers. “You’re either crawling all over them licking their boots or spitting poison at them like some Benzedrine puff adder.” There is a great deal of space between apologist and bête noire. In the newsrooms of America, that space is empty.

It’s getting worse. Despite presenting an opportunity for sobriety and excellence, the election of President Donald Trump has been an unmitigated disaster for the political media, which have never reckoned with their role in Trump’s elevation and eventual selection, and which have subsequently treated his presidency as a rolling opportunity for high-octane drama, smug self-aggrandizement, and habitual sloth. I did not go to journalism school, but I find it hard to believe that even the least prestigious among those institutions teaches that the correct way to respond to explosive, unsourced reports that just happen to match your political priors is to shout “Boom” or “Bombshell” or “Big if true” and then to set about spreading those reports around the world without so much as a cursory investigation into the details. And yet, in the Trump era, this has become the modus operandi of all but the hardest-nosed scribblers.

The pattern is now drearily familiar. First, a poorly attributed story will break — say, “Source: Donald Trump Killed Leon Trotsky Back in 1940.” Next, thousands of blue-check journalists, with hundreds of millions of followers between them, will send it around Twitter before they have read beyond the headline. In response to this, the cable networks will start chattering, with the excuse that, “true or not, this is going to be a big story today,” while the major newspapers will run stories that confirm the existence of the original claim but not its veracity — and, if Representative Schiff is awake, they will note that “Democrats say this must be investigated.” These signal-boosting measures will be quickly followed by “Perspective” pieces that assume the original story is true and, worse, seek to draw “broader lessons” from it. In the New York Times this might be “The Long History of Queens Residents’ Assassinating Socialist Intellectuals”; in the Washington Post, “Toxic Capitalism: How America’s Red Hatred Explains Our Politics Today”; in The New Yorker, “I’ve Been to Mexico and Was Killed by a Pickaxe to the Head”; in Cosmopolitan, “The Specifics Don’t Matter, Men Are Guilty of Genocide.”

By early afternoon, the claim will be all the media are talking about, and the talking points on both sides of the political divide will have become preposterously, mind-numbingly stupid. On a hastily assembled panel, a “political consultant” who spends his time tweeting “The president is a murderer. This. Is. Not. Normal” will go up against a washed-out politician trying desperately to squirm his way around the protean Trump-didn’t-do-this-how-dare-you-but-if-he-did-it’s-actually-good-because-Trotsky-was-a-Communist-and-anyway-didn’t-Obama-drone-terrorists position that he contrived in a panic in the green room.

And then, just when the fracas is reaching boiling point, a sober-minded observer will point out that Donald Trump wasn’t actually born until 1946 and so couldn’t have killed Trotsky in 1940, and everyone will wash his hands, go to bed, and move on to the next “Boom!” project.

Everyone, that is, but the victim of the frenzy — who is usually Donald Trump but might also be Brett Kavanaugh or Nikki Haley or Ben Shapiro or a county comptroller from Arkansas or the children of Covington High School or someone who just happens to share a name with a school shooter and once complained online about his property taxes — who will complain bitterly about the spectacle and then be condescended to on the weekend shows by professional media apologists such as CNN’s Brian Stelter.

This phase is the final one within the cycle, and it may also be the most pernicious, for it is here that it is made clear to the architects of the screw-up at hand that they should expect no internal policing or pressure from their peers and that, on the contrary, they should think of themselves as equals to Lewis and Clark. To watch Stelter’s show, Reliable Sources, after a reporting debacle is to watch a master class in whataboutism and faux-persecution, followed by the insistence that even the most egregious lapses in judgment or professionalism are to be expected from time to time and that we should actually be worrying about the real victim here: the media’s reputation. This, suffice it to say, is not helpful. Were a football commentator to worry aloud that a team’s ten straight losses might lead some to think they weren’t any good — and then to cast any criticisms as an attack on sports per se — he would be laughed out of the announcers’ box.

“Accountability” doesn’t mean “always running a retraction when you get it wrong.” At some point it means learning and adapting and changing one’s approach. It is not an accident that all of the press’s mistakes go in one political or narrative direction. It is not happenstance that none of the major figures seem capable of playing “wait and see” when the subject is this presidency. And it is not foreordained that they must reflexively appeal to generalities when a member of the guild steps forcefully onto the nearest rake. Ronald Reagan liked to quip that a government department represented the closest thing to eternal life we are likely to see on this earth. In close second is a bad journalist with the right opinions, for he will be treated as if he were the very embodiment of liberty.

That, certainly, is how they regard themselves. “The last person to rule America who didn’t believe in the First Amendment was King George III,” wrote MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt, back in June — which is true only if you discount that the colonists actually enjoyed robust speech protections relative to their English cousins; if you are insensible of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the pro-slavery “gag” rules that bound the House of Representatives from 1835 to 1844, the Civil War, the Espionage Act of 1917, the Sedition Act of 1918, New York Times Co. v. United States, Woodrow Wilson, Charles Schenck, or Eugene Debs; and, most crucially, if you remain wholly incapable of distinguishing between criticism and restriction.

Donald Trump, at whom Hunt’s quip was aimed, does indeed have instincts toward the First Amendment of which he and his acolytes should be ashamed; he does indeed have a tenuous relationship with the truth; and he does indeed wear a skin so thin as to border on the translucent. But he has not — ever — “attacked the free press”; he has not prevented, or attempted to prevent, the publication of a single printed word; and he has made no attempt whatsoever to change the law that he might do so. Rather, he has repeatedly — and often stupidly — criticized the press corps. The difference between these two actions is the difference between a bad art critic’s savaging a painting in print and a bad art critic’s savaging a painting with a chainsaw. One is the exercise of liberty; the other, vandalism and intimidation.

If the media understand this difference, they are doing an excellent job pretending otherwise. In complaint after complaint, the “press” and “the First Amendment” are held to be synonymous when they are no such thing and cannot logically be so. Thomas Jefferson, who was as reliable a critic of suppression as the early republic played host to, wrote famously that if it were left to him “to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” And yet he also contended that “nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper.” This represented no contradiction whatsoever. One can believe simultaneously that the press must remain free and that it has built itself into an ersatz clerisy that regards its primary job not as conveying information in as effective a manner as possible but as translating writs for the benighted public, the better to save its soul. If the polls are to be believed, a majority of Americans believes exactly this.

And why wouldn’t they, when it’s made so obvious? Last year, when the White House unveiled an immigration change that it hoped to persuade Congress to pass, CNN’s Jim Acosta showed up in the press room with an indignant look on his face and began to recite poetry from the stalls. It is true that Acosta, a man who seems unable to decide whether he’s a political correspondent on basic cable or a member of the cast of Hamilton, is particularly absurd. But he is by no means an aberration. It is for a good reason that one cannot imagine a member of the mainstream press behaving toward a Democratic administration in the manner that Acosta behaves, and the reason is that he’d never think to do so against his own team.

Sometimes consciously, but most often unwittingly, journalists treat Democrats as normal and Republicans as abnormal and proceed accordingly in their coverage. Once one understands the rules, the whole setup becomes rather amusing. When a headline reads “Lawmaker Involved in Scandal,” one can immediately deduce that the lawmaker is a Democrat. Why? Because if he were a Republican, the story would make that clear in the headline. Without fail, stories that begin with “Republicans pounce” are actually about bad things that Democrats have done or said, while stories about bad things that Republicans have done or said begin with “Republican does or says a bad thing” and proceed to a dry recitation of the facts. A variation on this rule is “Republicans say,” which is used when a Republican says something that is so self-evidently true that, had a Democrat said it, it would have been reported straight. For a neat illustration of how farcical things have become, take a look at the Washington Post’s most recent “fact check,” which helpfully informs its readers that the claimed “one thousand burgers” President Trump bought for the Clemson football team were not, in fact, “piled up a mile high” because, “at two inches each, a thousand burgers would not reach one mile high.”

Democracy dies in darkness, indeed.

Selective political interest is disastrous in its own right. But when combined with the catastrophic historical illiteracy that is rife among the journalistic class, its result is what might best be described as the everything-happening-now-is-new fallacy, which leads almost everybody on cable news and the opinion pages to deem every moment of national irritation unprecedented, to cast all political fights as novel crises, and, provided it is being run by Republicans, to determine that the present Congress is “the worst ever.” Turn on the television and you will learn that our language is the “least civil,” our politics is “the most divided,” and our environment is the “most dangerous.” When a Democrat is president, he is “facing opposition of the kind that no president has had to suffer”; when a Republican is president, he is held to be badly unlike the previous ones, who were, in turn, regarded as a departure from their predecessors. Continually, we are held to be on the verge of descending into anarchy or reinstituting Jim Crow or murdering the marginalized or, a particular favorite of mine, establishing the regime outlined in The Handmaid’s Tale. Past is prologue, context, and balm. Without it, all is panic.

One of the most toxic consequences of this myopia is that both longstanding problems and bad ideas with a long pedigree come to be discussed in the press as if they were unique to the moment. Early in Donald Trump’s tenure, the Internet was thrown into a flat panic by a host of stories warning that President Trump was marking Loyalty Day. Surely, it was proposed, this was proof of his fascistic aspirations? As it happened, Loyalty Day had been recognized annually since 1958, as the law requires. Similar panics have been started by the news that Trump was bombing Syria without explicit congressional authorization; that he was relying on executive orders to achieve some of what he could not persuade Congress to acquiesce to; that he was detaining illegal immigrants at the border and repelling those who became violent; that he reserved the right to use drones anywhere around the world; that he was amending federal websites to reflect his priorities; and that he liked to play a lot of golf. The wisdom and legality of all of these decisions and behaviors is debatable. But none of them is new. Even Thomas Paine didn’t hope to start the world over again that often.

Which brings us to the press’s most infuriating habit: its selective defense of American institutions. On cable news, on the New York Times editorial pages, at the many black-tie galas that the media like to hold for themselves, the word is deployed as a cudgel. “Institution.” “Institution.” “Institution.” At least . . . until it’s not. Institutions matter until the Supreme Court rules in a way that annoys the editors of the Huffington Post, who immediately cast the same judges who yesterday were beyond reproach as “illegitimate” or “corrupt” or too male or too white or too Catholic or too rich or too mean. Institutions matter until the economy produces results that irritate Paul Krugman, at which point the system is held to be “rigged.” Institutions matter until Barack Obama wants to change the law without Congress, at which point the story becomes what the president wants and not whether what he is doing is legal. Institutions matter until Donald Trump wins an election, and then the entire system needs junking and is probably being run by the Russians anyway. Institutions matter until the Senate is deemed an obstacle to progress, or the House disagrees with the president, or the wrong team is making demands, and then . . .

Nothing is safe — not even longstanding rules against diagnosing patients from afar. In early 2018, the White House held a press conference at which President Trump’s doctor, a U.S. Navy rear admiral, delivered a report on the president’s health and, in so doing, unleashed the most extraordinarily unethical frenzy in recent memory. At the press conference itself, ABC’s Cecilia Vega insisted that, despite passing the same test that is used at Walter Reed, Trump might have “early onset Alzheimer’s” and “dementia-like symptoms,” while her colleagues threw out maladies from which they thought the patient might be suffering and cited “the doctors and clinicians all across the country” who had diagnosed Trump without examining him. On CNN, Sanjay Gupta explained that, whatever the doctor said, “the numbers” proved that Trump had “heart disease.” The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin insisted on Twitter that “Trump got a cognitive test not a psychiatric exam,” which, she said, “does not rule out most of what’s in DSM [the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders].” Rubin’s speculation was swiftly echoed across the media, which spent the next week inviting experts to take guesses as to what might be wrong with the president.

The greatest service that Donald Trump has rendered these United States is to have exposed the many ailments of which he is a symptom but not a cause. We had political division and cultural alienation before him. We had overbearing government and an imperial executive branch before him. We had media that were arrogant, parochial, and impenitent before him, too. Alas, they have grown yet worse since he arrived.

ELLE

Published  3 weeks ago

Here, her thoughts on gun control, immigration, women's rights, and more.

Truthdig: Expert Reporting, Current News, Provocative Columnists

Published  3 weeks ago

The World to Come

01/26 12:57 pm

The global ruling elites are preparing for dystopia. And we too should be.

Chicks On The Right — Young Conservatives

Published  4 weeks ago

As I mentioned earlier this month, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee is ALL ABOUT standing up for alleged "victims." Brett Kavanaugh will be a rubber stamp for the Trump-Pence anti-woman & anti-health care agenda. The Senate must

Judicial Watch

Published  4 weeks ago

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics has refused to take action against Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), who admitted to willfully violating Senate rules by releasing confidential records regarding then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s time as a White House counsel. The documents were marked “Committee confidential,” meaning they were not for public distribution.

Judicial Watch’s September 2018 complaint to the chairman and co-chairman of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics called for an investigation after Sen. Booker admitted to violating Senate rules in releasing the confidential material. Ethics Committee Chief Counsel and Staff Director Deborah Sue Mayer responded last week:

The Select Committee on Ethics (the Committee) has reviewed the complaint you filed against Senator Cory A. Booker, dated September 12, 2018. The Committee carefully evaluated the allegations in the complaint and, based on all the information before it, determined that no further action is appropriate. Thank you for your correspondence with the Committee.

Sen. Booker admitted breaking Senate rules when he issued a tweet on Friday, September 7 saying:

Weds—I broke committee rules by reading from “Committee confidential” docs.

Also, Sen. Booker then posted the following entry on his Facebook account on Sunday, September 9:

And the classification of many documents as “Committee confidential” is a sham… I willfully violate these sham rules. I fully accept any consequences that might arise from my actions including expulsion.

Judicial Watch noted in its complaint that Sen. Booker also uploaded “Committee confidential” records to a publicly accessible Dropbox account with the heading “Booker Confidential – Kavanaugh Hearing Documents”.

By violating the rules in releasing Committee confidential records, Sen. Booker appeared to have violated provisions 5 and/or 6 of Rule 29 of the Standing Rules of the Senate (Rev. Jan. 24, 2013), which stipulate that he should be subject to expulsion from the Senate:

Any Senator, officer or employee of the Senate who shall disclose the secret or confidential business or proceedings of the Senate, including the business and proceedings of the committees, subcommittees and offices of the Senate shall be liable, if a Senator, to suffer expulsion from the body; and if an officer or employee, to dismissal from the service of the Senate, and to punishment for contempt.

Whenever, by the request of the Senate or any committee thereof, any documents or papers shall be communicated to the Senate by the President or the head of any department relating to any matter pending in the Senate, the proceedings in regard to which are secret or confidential under the rules, said documents and papers shall be considered as confidential, and shall not be disclosed without leave of the Senate.

The Senate Ethics Committee is evenly split, with three Republicans and three Democrats. The Committee members are Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Christopher A. Coons (D-DE), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Brian Schatz (D-HI), James Risch (R-ID), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH).

“It is an absolute disgrace that the Senate Ethics Committee is giving Senator Booker a pass for willfully violating Senate rules by leaking confidential information to smear Justice Kavanaugh,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Senate continues the abuse of Kavanaugh and his family by refusing to act against a Senator who, pretending to be Spartacus, violated the rule of law and our Constitution in trying to destroy him.”

The American Spectator

Published  4 weeks ago

I am at war with the mainstream media because they portray themselves as objective observers of reality, when they’re no such thing. They’re partisan critical theory hacks…  They have nothing but contempt for the American people. – Andrew Breitbart Andrew Breitbart loathed the mainstream media. If you have any doubt about this fact, watch the […]

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

The White House on Tuesday announced the selection of 51 federal judicial nominees, kickstarting the administration's effort to install more conservative judges after GOP activists openly worried that such appointments had stalled.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann and his classmates have been attacked by everyone from respected journalists to far-left quasi celebrities to the point that a neutral observer might think they’re gunning for a spot on the Supreme Court.

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

At a few days’ remove from the Covington Catholic High School incident at the Lincoln Memorial, we can be reasonably sure there will be no apologies or corrections forthcoming from the major media outlets that rushed to vilify the students involved. The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and dozens of lesser news organizations that condemned the high schoolers from Kentucky have not retracted or walked back their initial, warped narrative: that racist white teens harassed an elderly Native American man.

Nor will there be any public contrition from many individual members of the media who were in the vanguard of the online mob. CNN’s Reza Aslan tweeted an image of one of the boys and asked, “Have you ever seen a more punchable face than this kid’s?” Filmmaker Michael Green tweeted the same image with the comment, “A face like that never changes. This image will define his life. No one need ever forgive him.”

Despite additional video footage that largely exonerated the students, neither of those public figures have deleted their tweets or apologized. Same for James Fallows at The Atlantic, who initially compared the high schoolers to Arkansas segregationists in the 1950s then doubled down, noting that because the kids were white and wearing “Make America Great Again” hats, they must be guilty.

Although some journalists have recanted at length, and others have apologized and deleted their early, emotionally charged reactions, plenty of others have not and will not. They believe that whatever the video footage actually reveals about the incident— specifically, that the elderly Native American man, Nathan Phillips, approached the kids and initiated a confrontation after they had been harassed by a bizarre racist group called the Black Hebrew Israelites—is irrelevant to what they say is the larger point: that “privileged” white teenage boys who wear MAGA hats are racist bigots and deserve no mercy.

The Covington kids are certainly getting none. They and their families have been doxxed, harassed, and threatened for days on end. On Tuesday, Covington Catholic High School was closed over security concerns.

Why the Covington Kids Were Deemed Guilty

It’s hard not to see the parallels here to the Brett Kavanaugh affair, the Rolling Stone-UVA rape hoax, and the Duke Lacrosse scandal. In all these cases, the rush to judgement hinged on the race and perceived privilege of the accused. They were guilty not based on the facts of what happened, they were guilty because of who they were: supposedly privileged white males.

The Covington high schoolers were in this sense the perfect villain for the social justice outrage mob. Not only were they mostly white, male, and Catholic, the entire reason they were in Washington was to attend the annual March for Life. As noted cultural commentator Alyssa Milano put it, “Let’s not forget—this entire event happened because a group of boys went on a school-sanctioned trip to protest against a woman’s right to her own body and reproductive healthcare. It is not debatable that bigotry was at play from the start.”

Milano is right that bigotry was at play from the start, but not quite in the way she means. The manifest, unquestionable bigotry at play is that of media figures and celebrities whose unfiltered contempt and rage bubbled up and spewed forth the instant they saw a smirking white kid in a MAGA hat face-to-face with an old Native American man.

Bigotry is what now animates the unrepentant members of the media like Deadspin’s Laura Wagner, who describes the “visibly aggressive teens” as “draped in racist, misogynist paraphernalia.” Bigotry is what’s behind comments like those of Mollie O’Reilly of Commonweal magazine, who declared, “You don’t let your kid wear a MAGA hat and then act offended when they get taken for a racist.”

These are not the thoughts and feelings of people who want to share a republic and live in peace with their political opponents. If opposing abortion or supporting the president marks you out as a bigot and a racist, then civic comity is impossible, there is nothing left to say, no way to compromise or live and let live. The only thing that’s possible is a zero-sum contest of brute strength. The only thing left to do is silence or destroy your enemy.

The Left Is Not Interested In Sharing a Country

This is the meaning behind another recent social justice pile-on that has received much less news coverage. Karen Pence, wife of Vice President Mike Pence, was denounced last week as the embodiment of hate and intolerance for having the temerity to teach art part-time at a small Christian academy in Northern Virginia called Immanuel Christian School. Pence’s crime is that the K-8 academy’s employment contract contains a provision asserting that marriage is between one man and one woman, “a single, exclusive covenant union as delineated in Scripture.”

The existence of an unremarkable contract that affirms what all orthodox Christians believe was first reported as news by HuffPo. It quickly had the desired effect. CNN’s John King wondered aloud whether the second lady should continue to receive Secret Service protection. Lady Gaga interrupted a set in Las Vegas to aver that the Pences are the “worst representation of what it means to be a Christian.” The Washington Post found a professor to tut-tut about how Immanuel Christian School embraces creationism and therefore can’t lay claim to orthodox beliefs about marriage: “They cannot have their orthodoxy and eat it, too.”

Here we get to the heart of the Covington affair. For the social justice left, including many mainstream media figures, holding conservative views on abortion or marriage automatically makes you a bigot. Even apart from any views you espouse, simply wearing a MAGA hat makes you a bigot. And being a white male, together with any of the above, makes you the worst of bigots.

And you don’t apologize to bigots. You destroy them.

POLITICUSUSA

Published  1 month ago

Rep. Joe Neguse (D., Colo.) said Friday that the House Judiciary Committee will “likely” investigate perjury charges against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Joe Neguse, a freshman member of the Judiciary Committee, made the comments to a group of his constituents on Friday. He said that he was very concerned about perjury claims against Kavanaugh and that his committee may take steps to impeach him depending on their findings.

“Judiciary Committee Freshman Democrat Rep. Joe Neguse Floats Perjury Probe of Justice Brett Kavanaugh”

Judiciary Committee Freshman Democrat Rep. Joe Neguse Floats Perjury Probe of Justice Brett Kavanaugh https://t.co/VaxidPzjZC

— Minnesota Sun (@TheMinnesotaSun) January 22, 2019

“There’s no question Kavanaugh committed perjury during the confirmation hearings and so forth,” Neguse said when asked if he planned to pursue Kavanaugh’s impeachment. “I think the Judiciary Committee is likely to take that up.”

The discussion between Neguse and his audience was recorded in a video that was distributed by a conservative advocacy group.

In the video recording Neguse did not give details about which specific statements of Kavanaugh’s he believes were lies and thus constituted the crime of perjury.

It is true, however, that Kavanaugh faced several perjury accusations during his confirmation hearings. It was suggested, for example, that he lied about when he learned of the sexual-assault allegations brought against him by his former Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez. Kavanaugh told senators that he first learned of Ramirez’s claims following the publication of the New Yorker report that informed the wider public.

NBC News subsequently obtained a series of text-message exchanges between Kavanaugh and his allies in which they appear to be discussing Ramirez’s allegations in advance of the report’s publication in the New Yorker.

NBC then published a report saying that Kavanaugh misled Senate investigators.

Kavanaugh was also accused of lying to senators about the meaning of certain off-color slang terms that were written by friends in his high-school yearbook that had to do with seducing girls.

He also was accused of lying about the details of his work portfolio during his tenure working as a lawyer in the George W. Bush White House.

No charges against Kavanaugh were proven, and no investigation was ever made into the charges.

Neguse’s comments apparently are consistent with comments on the same topic made by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.). It was reported that Nadler had also discussed the possibility of impeaching Kavanaugh days after the midterm elections.

This latest report is sure to stir up a hornet’s nest of controversy as the right-wing accuses Democrats in the House of engaging in an unfair persecution of the beloved Supreme Court Justice. Despite this, it is important the the truth about Justice Kavanaugh be discovered, including whether he lied to Congress under oath.

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

For all his murderous intent, Leon Trotsky once stumbled upon a piece of wisdom that has lived through ages. At the height of the Weimarian dysfunction in Europe, Trotsky wrote that sometimes, there is a limit to reasoning.

A quote often misattributed to him states that you might not be interested in war, but war is interested in you. Trotsky didn’t write “war,” he wrote dialectic, but the fundamental wisdom remains true. What are the options for you to reason with people who have already determined that you are the enemy? At what point do you realize that this is all futile, as the other side is not willing to entertain any reason, and is determined to crush you for political power?

A display of that was evident last during the Brett Kavanaugh affair. No one probably even remembers the names of the accusers anymore, and they have vanished in the fog, as political pawns usually do, once their puppeteers have deemed their time over. The latest is the Covington Catholic case.

It is hard to find a more disgraceful 48 hours for a section of American national media than the episodes of BuzzFeed’s Russia story and the unfortunate Covington kids, who were raked over the coals after they were publicly slandered by black nationalists and a Native American man. What transpired for almost two days was a mindless, emetic barbarism, by grown-up humans exulting in ritualistic bloodlust, supported by soft but vile totalitarian justifications by otherwise self-declared reasonable ones against a bunch of school kids, for what essentially amounts to their choice of hats.

Here’s what happened, as Robby Soave connected the dots for Reason Magazine, a far better reporter than anyone in CNN, MSNBC or the American papers of records. A bunch of Catholic school kids attending the March for Life were minding their own business, waiting for their bus, when they were approached by a smaller but older bunch of activists known as Hebrew Israelites, who started targeting one of the kids, who was African American. The activists called the African American kid words that are practically unprintable, and insinuated that his white schoolmates would harvest his organs. The white kids were in turn also called racial epithets.

Interestingly enough, the white school kids, while being mindlessly called racial supremacists across social media because of their choice of apparel, jumped out to defend their friend from bullying. Then suddenly, an activist with a history of crying racism approached one of the bemused kids, and started banging a drum inches from his face. Some people took a video of the gobsmacked kid, and edited and posted it on social media.

This particular kid, Nick Sandmann, was seen in the full video to be quite respectful, his emotions betraying a mix of teenage amusement, instinctive male caution, and confused curiosity. No words can do justice to what happened in the next few hours. It was a level of hysteric insanity unmatched even in our trying times.

Reza Aslan rhetorically asked if anyone has seen a more punchable face that the bemused kid in the middle, blissfully unaware of his own mug. BuzzFeed’s Anne Petersen tweeted how similar Justice Kavanaugh and this kid was, because they both look like entitled brats. TheWashington Post’s Karen Tumulty commented how this was a death of irony, as “Maga hat protesters surround a Native American” (which was not true, factually.)

Liberal role models Kathy Griffin called for doxing the kids and Stormy Daniels in a now-deleted tweet fantasized about putting these children behind electrocuted prisons. New York Times author and part-time fetish aficionado Kurt Eichenwald wished that these kids should be identified and penalized for perpetuity. Guardian blogger Jessica Valenti predictably saw the connection to white supremacy and patriarchy.

The most comical tweet of the night was, however, by one Melissa Grant which, for some reason, blasted Reason magazine for being tribal without reading the article at all, without for a moment dwelling on the irony of the situation. It was comical, except for the totalitarian Stalinist impulse displayed therein.

The list is endless. What was evidently a setup by a bunch of activists got out dormant animalistic savagery against teenagers, some of them perhaps on their first-ever trip to the nation’s capital, swept away and wondering what went wrong as they headed back home, and trying to comprehend the fleeting insanity of so many bigoted adult strangers online, some with their own kids of the same age, hating on them and desiring their blood. Whatever comes out of this will be a defining moment for all those kids and their families and the institutions that failed to protect or even stand behind them, including and especially their own Catholic diocese.

The most sickeningly disappointing was the line of argument that the kids deserved it. Consider this argument for a moment calmly: “Honestly, what were they expecting? They were Catholics wearing MAGA hats and MAGA hats are symbols of oppression, not unlike Brown Shirts and armbands under Mussolini.”

This signifies reprehensible logic, and almost no such scenario ends peacefully. Wearing MAGA hats, of course, does not automatically makes someone evil, yet almost half of the country’s population (not unlike Brexiteers here in the United Kingdom) are considered such. A hat is fundamentally not a symbolic show of audacity, nor is it barred in public spheres, or a call for abuse, physical or verbal, as well as direct action and counter-activism.

It is simply a choice of apparel that denotes someone’s political preference, and he or she should be allowed to, because that is the sign of a healthy democracy. Nor is people attending a March for Life itself scandalous. This march numerically dwarfed the Women’s March, but got one-tenth of the media coverage—perhaps a case study of media bias, and a sign of why polls and predictions fail so miserably.

But let’s take the original argument and reverse it. The logical endgame of “you are wearing this hat, and therefore you should expect what’s coming” is practically indistinguishable to a gangster’s demand. Nice hat you got there, shame if anything happens to your head.

What if this were framed in the reverse? By the same logic, a gun-toting militia man can march on and bang drums in front of anyone wearing a p-ssy hat, or verbally abuse anyone in a protest wearing black, because black denotes the colour of Antifa? Dox and threaten school kids because their parents are in Women’s March? Is this the road to the future?

Frankly, this is what it boils down to. If one side wears something, or says, writes, draws, argues or attempts something that hurts the other side’s highly delicate sensibilities, then the other side considers itself free to take direct action, abuse, and consider the former as an enemy. When politics is dragged to streets, and everything is personal, there can be no coexistence, as everyone opposed to your political position is portrayed like Mussolini. And one cannot arguably coexist with Mussolini and his brown shirts.

This is Weimarian, and will result in a backlash. And this is not just an American scenario. In Britain, those who voted Leave were called everything the MAGA kids are now being called simply because they chose to vote and win in a democratic process, which angered the other side. Now the public polling has defaulted to an even more hardline Brexit, including a No Deal with the European Union scenario being Britons’ top choice. As W.H. Auden wrote, “I and the public know, what all school children learn, those to whom evil is done, do evil in return.”

Nothing affects me more than seeing innocent people being bullied for their political choices by totalitarians who hold the cultural power and dominate the discourse. As I finish writing, I feel just a bleak, doom-filled disappointment. Those Covington school children did not deserve this for exercising their democratic rights, and taking a fun-filled trip. But hey, you don’t choose your war.

LifeNews.com

Published  1 month ago

Planned Parenthood released its annual report for the 2017-2018 fiscal year quietly over the weekend. The report revealed that the number of abortions the group did this past year increased by over 11,000 from 321,384 in 2016 to 332,757.

Another number that increased in their annual report was the amount of federal funding the nation’s largest abortion provider received. The group received $543.7 million in taxpayer funding in 2016 and that number increased by $20 million to $563.8 million in 2017-2018.

While the number of abortions and the amount of taxpayer dollars the abortion group received both increased, almost every other category of the group’s services went down.

The amount of contraception that the group provided continued to plummet from 2,701,866 in 2016 to 2,620,867 in this report.

Cancer screenings and prevention services also continued to go down from 660,777 in 2016 to 614,361.

The category of “Other Women’s Health Services” which includes pregnancy tests, prenatal services, and miscarriage care, decreased from 1,315,941 in 2016 to 1,302,460 in 2017-2018.

The abortion group’s reported number of patients held steady at 2.4 million, the same amount as in the 2015 and 2016 reports.

HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

While the number of patients is the same, the organization’s excess of revenue over expenses continued its dramatic increase and more than doubled from $77.5 million in 2015 and $98.5 million in 2016 to a whopping $244.8 million in 2017.

This demonstrates that, contrary to the group’s narrative that their very existence is threatened by threats to their federal funding, they are doing extremely well financially.

The “Message From Our Leadership” section of the report continued the group’s narrative that they provide vital healthcare services, despite the evident decline of those services in the report itself.

They praised the group’s new president Dr. Leana Wen, writing, “we know her vision is in line with what the American people want: more health care, not less.”

“Planned Parenthood services — from birth control to cancer screenings to abortion — are standard medical care. Reproductive health care is health care,” Wen wrote.

The group touted their political advocacy and opposition to the Trump administration.

They claimed that in light of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation, “a new U.S. Supreme Court also presents a grave threat to access to health care.”

The report also featured information about their partnership with dating apps.

“The matchmaking app OkCupid created an #IStandWithPP Badge to appear on the profiles of users who support Planned Parenthood,” they wrote. “Over 400,000 users adopted the badge, users with the badge got four times more matches than those without, and OkCupid’s posts about the partnership earned their highest Instagram engagement to date.”

A notably absent element of the report was any mention of their sponsorship of the Women’s March which was prominently featured in the 2016-2017 report. While the abortion group did sponsor the march this past weekend, it was despite a controversy over anti-Semitism from the Women’s March leaders that caused previous partners, including the DNC and the SPLC, to remove their support.

LifeNews Note: Lauretta Brown writes for Town Hall, where this column originally appeared.

National Review

Published  1 month ago

Conservative parents look at liberal hate and think, “They could do that to my son.”

Over the last 72 hours, I’ve been asking myself a simple question: What would happen if a group of Black Israelites had spent an hour taunting my son’s high-school football team? How would they have reacted if a Native American elder had walked into their midst – apparently not saying anything intelligible to them, but rather banging a drum and chanting inches from one kid’s face. Would they have thought that was an effort at “peacemaking,” or just more taunting? What would they have said if some of the people walking with that elder had yelled insults at them?

I ask those questions, but I’m pretty sure I know the answer. The boys wouldn’t have reacted all that differently from the kids at Covington Catholic. They would have sung different songs, they would have chanted different chants, and maybe one or two of the kids would have lofted an obscene gesture in the direction of the Black Israelites. In other words, they would have been kids, and barring some sort of overt criminal act, the blame for any tension that followed should rest with the adults who behaved so aggressively and strangely (and, let’s face it, walking through a group of boys chanting and banging a drum is not exactly normal behavior). If a kid responds poorly to a challenging situation, you reprimand him. You teach him.

But this is America in 2019, and it’s full of rage and hate. And parents of young men know that hostile people would instead want to destroy your child’s life. They would want to destroy your own livelihood. They would wish violence on him and you. They would try to destroy your school, and they would mock your faith. And then, even when their rage is proven to be unfounded, they would spend days hunting through your background and your school’s history to try to find some reason to hate you anyway.

Earlier today, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes tweeted this:

I haven’t seen the broad conservative coalition as fired up about a story since Kavanaugh. Pretty interesting.

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) January 22, 2019

He’s exactly right. So long as the Covington Catholic story remains in the news – so long as activists continue to comb through internet archives and social media to try to damn the school, its students, and parents to social-justice hell – this story is Brett Kavanaugh, the sequel. And here’s why, as summed up in a tweet from Bethany Mandel:

Between the Kavanaugh debacle and now what happened with these MAGA boys, there’s a lot of nervous boy moms and dads out there. If they can and will seek to destroy these guys, they’ll come after yours.

— Bethany S. Mandel (@bethanyshondark) January 21, 2019

In the Kavanaugh case, conservative men and women looked at decades-old, uncorroborated allegations, the unquestioning acceptance of those claims, and the furious effort to destroy a man’s reputation and career – even by passing along the wildest and most implausible claims – and thought, “That could be me” or “that could be my husband.”

Now, these same people look at the reaction to the Covington Catholic kids and think, “That could be my son.”

You can hold that fear in your heart without excusing or condoning sexual assault in any way. You can hold that fear in your heart without excusing or condoning racism or even thoughtless taunts. Because you’ll know that for all too many people, the truth doesn’t really matter. You’re a symbol, not a person. When angry people cook that social-justice omelet, they break eggs not with regret but with angry glee.

Yes, I know the “whatabouts.” I know the habit of some people on the right to immediately hunt through the pasts of even dead black men and boys to find some evidence they were a bad person, even if those facts aren’t relevant to the case at hand. I’ve seen the supposedly incriminating pictures of young black men passed around social media as if they’re evidence when they’re not. I know about cases like the Central Park Five.

I also know that practice is horrible. I know that it’s evil. And I understand why black parents worry that their kid could be next – and live in fear of something far more deadly than social media shame campaigns or lost jobs.

But the existence of that fear – and the reality of those cases – does not justify in any way a decision to intentionally inflict fear and pain on your political enemies. And when you are found to be wrong, when snap judgments go awry, the proper response is to apologize (as some of my colleagues have done). We’re human. We make mistakes. The proper response is not to double down in digging for dirt, hoping and praying that you’ll find some reason to justify your initial rage. When activists and partisans do that, they send a clear message to their opponents: They will destroy you if they can.

That’s the message that sent a shudder up the spine of husbands and wives during the Kavanaugh hearings. That’s the message that sends a shudder up the spine of moms and dads as we watch men and women try to ruin the Covington Catholic kids. This isn’t just a media scandal. When we see the hate, some of us see our sons, and we know that in America today, their futures, their reputations, and – given the prevalence of death threats – perhaps even their very lives are in the hands of an angry mob.

It’s that concern for our kids that makes Chris Hayes correct. After initial missteps, the Right is largely united. There exists out there a level of hate – and an eagerness to believe the worst – that not one of us should tolerate, and that not one of us should visit upon our foes.

WSJ

Published  1 month ago

Sen. Kamala Harris, (D., Calif.) said she is running for president, aiming to become the nation’s first woman to win the White House and the second black commander in chief.

LifeNews.com

Published  1 month ago

Abortion activist Kamala Harris has announced that she will be running for president against President Donald Trump, who has governed with a pro-life position.

“I am running for president of the United States,” Harris announced on ABC, on Martin Luther King Jr. Day. “I am very excited about it.”

“I feel a responsibility to stand up and fight for the best of who we are, and that fight will always include — as one of the highest priorities — our national security,” the Democrat from California said when asked what qualifies her to be president.

Harris has a long track record promoting abortion and has recently come under fire for calling a pro-life Catholic nominee an “extremist” simply because he is a member of a Catholic group.

Democratic California Sen. Kamala Harris announced on Monday that she is officially throwing her hat into the ring and seeking the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 2020.

Amid speculation of Harris’s presidential aspirations, the California senator revealed in December she would make a decision on whether or not to launch a 2020 presidential run over the holiday season. She also acknowledged the challenges she would face while running in such a heated election and how cutthroat the presidential race might be.

“Let’s be honest, it’s going to be ugly,” Harris said at the time. “When you break things, it is painful and you get cut. And you bleed.”

Leading up to her presidential announcement, the first-term senator had been actively elevating her national profile. Harris spent more money on Facebook ads during the summer than any other senator despite not being up for re-election in November 2018, according to The San Francisco Chronicle.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

Harris is so extreme one abortion that she has received awards for her abortion advocacy.

Harris also came under fire for lying about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. The false statements even earned her four Pinocchio awards from the pro-abortion Washington Post.

She also raided the home of David Daleiden, who exposed Pl;anned Parenthood selling body parts of aborted babies.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

When you look at the Senate Democrats who have announced their presidential campaigns so far, you notice that each one has a theme. For example, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has made her career about reform of the financial industry. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., has made hers about preventing workplace sexual harassment. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, who has all but announced his candidacy with his tour of Iowa, has made his campaign about what Democrats still have to offer the working class.

But what about Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., who announced her candidacy on Monday?

Look only at her two years in the Senate and two relevant data points pop up. First, there’s her recent attempt, along with Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, to apply an anti-Catholic religious test to a judicial nominee because he belonged to the Knights of Columbus. This was too much even for her fellow Democrats to bear — not a single one objected to a resolution that implicitly rebuked Harris and Hirono for their behavior.

The second relevant point is Harris’ conduct during the Justice Brett Kavanaugh hearings. No, not the contentious second round of Kavanaugh hearings involving sexual misconduct allegations, but the relatively placid first round in early September. During that process, Harris insinuated, through a line of questioning, that Kavanaugh had held a highly improper conversation about the Russia investigation with someone at the law firm President Trump had hired. After casting this slanderous aspersion, Harris then knowingly lied to journalists in order to prejudice public opinion against Kavanaugh's nomination. She falsely assured reporters that she had "good reason" and "reliable" evidence that Kavanaugh had indeed discussed the Russia investigation with lawyers at Trump's firm.

Then, as it turned out, she didn't have any evidence at all. She had been bluffing, the way unethical prosecutors do when trying to get people to plead guilty to offenses they didn't commit. But this wasn’t some police interrogation room — it was a Senate committee hearing. Harris was thus exposed as a liar the moment her bluff was called. But it illustrates how accustomed she already was to using prosecutorial power and access to the media to smear and bully the innocent and guilty alike.

These two incidents clearly indicate the kind of progressivism that Harris espouses. It is the same intolerant, authoritarian, by-any-means ideology that stretches back into her earlier career as a prosecutor and as attorney general of California.

As attorney general, Lara Bazelon wrote recently in the New York Times, Harris “fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors.” This fits with her more recent behavior.

Harris was also fond of overcriminalization. She supported legislation that would jail the parents of truant children. She strongly opposed criminal justice reform measures throughout her tenure in California. She also supported the Golden State’s unconstitutional law muzzling crisis pregnancy centers, which the Supreme Court struck down last year as a clear violation of the First Amendment and an attempt to criminalize the moral and political viewpoints of others.

Harris is now running under the motto, “For the People,” a legal reference that embodies her aspiration to become the nation’s prosecutor in chief. Her nomination would be an odd turn for progressives to take, given their recent hostility toward all law enforcement. On the other hand, it would fit perfectly with the Left's general desire to punish people who disagree with their views — whether it be Kavanaugh, Catholic students peacefully standing around at an anti-abortion demonstration, second lady Karen Pence's Christian school, the Little Sisters of the Poor, or Trump and everyone who works for him.

Harris is here, and she’s running, and she's everything scary about today’s intolerant Left.

Sean Hannity

Published  1 month ago

A recently sworn-in Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee told supporters this week that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh will “likely” be investigated for lying to Congress during his confirmation hearings last year.

Rep. Joe Neguse of Colorado was speaking with his constituents when he was asked to comment on Kavanaugh’s brutal nomination battle; claiming “there’s no question” the judge lied to Congressional leaders.

“There’s no question [Kavanaugh] committed perjury during the confirmation hearings and so forth,” Neguse claimed. “I think the Judiciary Committee is likely to take that up.”

Slate Magazine

Published  1 month ago

In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that cities and states may not abridge “the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense.” It has not heard a Second Amendment case since, leaving most lower courts to assume that the right to bear arms applies “in the home,” as the justices ruled. But on Tuesday, the court agreed to review a New York City law that limits gun owners’ ability to transport their guns outside the home. And it appears quite likely that the new conservative majority will, for the very first time, extend the Second Amendment beyond the front door and out into the streets, unleashing lower courts to strike down long-standing restrictions on the public carrying of firearms.

The case at hand, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York, is an ideal vehicle for gun-rights activists. Since 2008’s D.C. v. Heller and 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago, groups like the National Rifle Association have urged the courts to create a constitutional right to public carry. The goal is to prohibit the government from barring “concealed carry” and “open carry” of firearms, allowing most Americans to possess a gun in public, whether it’s hidden or flaunted. Results have been mixed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found a right to concealed carry outside the home. So did the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, by contrast, found no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed handgun in public. And the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has split the baby, upholding limitations on concealed carry while invalidating restrictions on public carry.

Despite this circuit split, the Supreme Court has declined to take a public-carry case and resolve the matter once and for all. The main reason appeared to be Justice Anthony Kennedy, who compelled Justice Antonin Scalia to add limiting language to the Heller decision establishing an individual right to bear arms. Given Kennedy’s wobbly support of gun rights, the conservative justices avoided taking a case that might result in a 5–4 decision upholding public-carry bans. Now Kennedy is gone, replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a gun-rights enthusiast who takes a breathtakingly expansive view of the Second Amendment. With a firmly pro-gun majority in place, the conservative justices finally seem ready to supercharge Heller.

There are compelling interests bolstering the New York City law as well as public-carry bans more broadly.

New York State Rifle may well mark their first step into the breach. The case involves a New York City measure that forbids residents from removing their firearms from their homes, unless they’re taking them to an “authorized small arms range” or “shooting club” within city limits. (There are seven such facilities, including at least one in each borough.) Several residents challenged the law’s constitutionality, arguing that the Second Amendment protects their right to carry guns to other shooting ranges, competitions, and second homes outside the city. In 2018, the Second Circuit upheld the rule, noting that it does not “substantially affect the exercise of core Second Amendment rights”—self-defense with a firearm in the home. Now the justices will evaluate that decision and, I suspect, reverse it.

The case thus marks an effort to inch the Supreme Court toward establishing a right to public carry without forcing the justices to tear down hundreds of laws in a single, sweeping ruling. For a decade, gun advocates have been stymied by the language in Heller and McDonald expressly limiting the Second Amendment to firearms “in the home.” The conservative justices, however, will probably use New York State Rifle to blur that line. If Americans have a constitutional right to take their guns to and from a firing range of their choice, after all, why shouldn’t they be allowed to transport them while traveling elsewhere? If the Constitution safeguards their ability to bring a firearm to and from their second home, why shouldn’t it also protect their right to carry a gun while running errands or visiting friends?

There are good answers to these questions. Right-to-carry laws, like those in Texas, appear to contribute to violent crime and increase homicide rates. Individuals carrying a weapon are more likely to escalate incidents of road rage and domestic conflicts into fatal shootings. Cities and states have a strong interest in curbing individuals’ ability to bring deadly weapons into the streets. And when New York City did allow residents to take their weapons to shooting ranges outside the city, the rule proved extremely difficult to enforce: Gun owners simply carried their weapons around and, when caught, insisted that they were heading to target practice.

So there are compelling interests bolstering the New York City law as well as public-carry bans more broadly. But these are interests that the Supreme Court seems poised to ignore. After all, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have already announced their belief that the Constitution protects concealed carry. And the conservative justices brushed off public-safety concerns in Heller, writing that the Second Amendment “takes certain policy choices off the table” when the government seeks to protect Americans from gun violence. With Kennedy replaced by a hard-liner, we may soon learn that prohibitions on the public transportation of firearms are another “policy choice” the Constitution does not permit.

Once the Second Amendment is extended beyond the home, public-carry bans generally will be the next to fall. Lower courts, now packed with pro-gun Trump nominees, will swiftly tear down restrictions on concealed and open carry. A central premise of Heller and McDonald—that the Second Amendment protects handguns “in the home”—will be cast aside. New York State Rifle will be the first shot in a coming constitutional revolution.

Rewire.News

Published  1 month ago

Every single day across America, women seeking abortion and other forms of reproductive health care have to run a gauntlet of intimidation just to enter

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

Lest some poor soul actually believe the Senate cares about ethics, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics has now disabused them of that notion.

Even when a senator openly admits and even brags about breaking Senate rules, the Ethics Committee will issue him no penalty. Indeed, so dismissive of ethics concerns is the committee that it won’t even bother a single sentence explaining its lack of action.

Those are the obvious conclusions to be drawn from the committee’s curt letter dismissing a complaint filed by the watchdog group Judicial Watch against Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., for releasing confidential records from then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s work in the George W. Bush White House. The document release led to Booker’s much-pilloried, self-proclaimed “ I am Spartacus moment,” in which the famous fabulist tried to grab a martyr’s mantle. Booker even went so far as to say he was willing to be expelled from the Senate for his supposed act of bravery.

This wasn’t a momentary act of bravado, either. For days afterward, he boasted about his rule-breaking and dared the Senate to do something about it. For example, on Facebook four full days later, he released a lengthy statement to this effect: “I willfully violate these sham rules. I fully accept any consequences that might arise from my actions including expulsion. Sen. Cornyn of Texas threatened me with expulsion during the hearings. Now he is threatening ethics charges. As I said then, I say it now: Bring it.”

Well, the Ethics Committee didn’t bring anything. It didn’t even offer a cursory rebuttal of Judicial Watch’s assertion that Booker had “violated provisions 5 and/or 6 of Rule 29 of the Standing Rules of the Senate.” Judicial Watch’s complaint was targeted and specific, but it received not even the courtesy of an acknowledgment that its concerns were reasonable.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton called the committee’s inaction “an absolute disgrace.” He is correct. For the Senate’s own rules to be treated with such brazen contempt, and then for the Senate to make no effort either to defend those rules or to express the mildest concern about violations thereof, is a sign of craven indifference to the importance of both ethics and its own reputation. No wonder so much of the public holds senators in such low esteem.

Tammy Bruce

Published  1 month ago

Last week, the Dems flew to Puerto Rico during the shutdown to a weekend retreat organized by Rep. Tony Cardenas (D., Calif.), chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus’s BOLD PAC, who is being sued for molesting a minor.

As Tammy wrote in her Fox column in November: The Democrats’ ‘believe all women’ fraud:

The Democrats never cared about “the women,” and they see violence against women as a political tool, not something to solve. Their politicizing of our lives diminishes all women.

Via Free Beacon.

Some of the same Democrats who accused Republicans of whitewashing sexual misconduct allegations against Justice Brett Kavanaugh left town during the shutdown to attend a weekend retreat in Puerto Rico organized by a senior Democrat being sued by a woman who claims he drugged and molested her when she was 16…

Cardenas has vigorously denied the allegations, accusing the woman of seeking revenge for her father, a disgruntled former Cardenas staffer. His lawyer issued a statement arguing that the request for a House ethics investigation shows that she has a “meritless and weak case.”

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge has determined there is enough merit to charges to move forward and has set a trial to begin in August.

National Review

Published  1 month ago

Representative Joe Neguse (D., Colo.), a freshman member of the House Judiciary Committee, told constituents Friday that the panel will “likely” investigate perjury claims against Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh and may move to impeach him depending on their findings.

“There’s no question [Kavanaugh] committed perjury during the confirmation hearings and so forth,” Neguse said when asked if he planned to pursue Kavanaugh’s impeachment. “I think the Judiciary Committee is likely to take that up.”

In the video of the exchange disseminated by a conservative advocacy group, Neguse did not explain which specific statement of Kavanaugh’s he believes constituted perjury.

Kavanaugh faced a number of perjury accusations during his confirmation hearings, including the suggestion that he lied about when he learned of the sexual-assault allegations brought against him by his former Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez.

During his second confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh told lawmakers that he first learned of Ramirez’s claims following the publication of the New Yorker report that informed the wider public. NBC News subsequently obtained a series of text-message exchanges between Kavanaugh and his allies in which they appear to be discussing Ramirez’s allegations in advance of the report’s publication in the New Yorker.

NBC then published a report, cited widely by other media outlets and pundits, suggesting that Kavanaugh misled investigators.

However, Kavanaugh had previously told Senate investigators that his former Yale classmates informed him that Ramirez was reaching out to fellow alumni in an effort to substantiate her claim. A transcript of that conversation with investigators, which occurred ahead of both the New Yorker report and his second confirmation hearing, shows that Kavanaugh did not intend to lie to lawmakers, as he had already admitted learning of the report in advance. NBC News subsequently edited its report without issuing a correction.

Kavanaugh was also accused of misleading lawmakers regarding the meaning of certain slang terms in his high-school yearbook as well as the details of his work portfolio during his time in the George W. Bush White House, though neither of those charges has been proven.

Neguse’s comments echo those made by Representative Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.), who was overheard on an Acela train discussing the possibility of impeaching Kavanaugh days after the midterm elections.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Actress and activist Alyssa Milano compared supporters of President Donald Trump to members of the Ku Klux Klan.

KENTUCKY STUDENT SEEN IN VIRAL CONFRONTATION WITH NATIVE AMERICAN VIETNAM VETERAN SPEAKS OUT

"The red MAGA hat is the new white hood," Milano, 46, tweeted Sunday.

"Without white boys being able to empathize with other people, humanity will continue to destroy itself. #FirstThoughtsWhenIWakeUp," she added.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Milano had previously posted a video of Nick Sandmann, a junior at Covington Catholic High School, and Native American Vietnam veteran Nathan Phillips.

Milano's post of the video came before a longer video emerged showing that Sandmann and his fellow students, who'd participated in the March for Life earlier that day, may have faced harassment of their own from other groups of protesters.

Sandmann, a junior at Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky, released a statement claiming he was targeted for harassment.

AMID KAVANAUGH PROBE, ALYSSA MILANO NOW SAYS BILL CLINTON 'PROBABLY SHOULD'VE' FACED SEXUAL MISCONDUCT INVESTIGATION

I am "mortified that so many people have come to believe something that did not happen — that students from my school were chanting or acting in a racist fashion toward African Americans or Native Americans. I did not do that, do not have hateful feelings in my heart and did not witness any of my classmates doing that," he said.

He added that other protesters him and his classmates "'racists,' 'bigots,' 'white crackers,' 'f—ts,' and 'incest kids.' They also taunted an African-American student from my school by telling him that we would 'harvest his organs.'"

ALYSSA MILANO'S 'HANDMAID'S TALE' FAIL: ACTRESS MOCKED ONLINE OVER BRETT KAVANAUGH PROTEST GARB

The former "Charmed" star has been extremely open about her political beliefs.

Milano sat in on the Brett Kavanaugh hearings in September and has previously called for healthcare reform and gun control.

In November, she announced she refused to speak at the 2019 Women's March unless its founders condemned Louis Farrakhan.

Daily Wire

Published  1 month ago

Start Now

Play Any Video With MediaPlayer10. 100% Free To Install - Use Forever!

Ad closed by Report this adWhy this ad? Seen this ad multiple timesAd covered contentNot interested in this adAlready bought thisWe'll try not to show that ad againAd closed by

When an edited clip of Catholic teenagers surrounding a Native American man first emerged, it was billed as evidence of racist high school students harassing an Indigenous person.

Journalists, celebrities, and others with blue checkmarks on Twitter rushed to condemn the kids as racists, even though it was clear from the beginning that something was amiss.

As The Daily Wire’s Emily Zanotti previously reported, the original video does not show what it was alleged to have shown and was clearly taken out of some larger context. Still, this did not stop the verified Twitter users from condemning and threatening kids based on no more evidence than the media’s say so and the fact that they were white boys wearing Make America Great Again hats.

On Monday morning, Mediate posted an article collecting some of the various tweets that have since been deleted after more information became available and exonerated the students who were waiting for a bus when they were taunted with racial slurs from some Black Hebrew Israelites and confronted by the Native Americans.

As Mediate’s Pardes Seleh notes, many public figures are apologizing for earlier statements or providing more information for the story, but others are simply deleting their awful tweets.

“New York Times opinion writer Kara Swisher, for instance, deleted one tweet saying she was thinking of ‘finding every one of these shitty kids and giving them a very large piece of my mind,’ and other tweets throwing slurs like ‘Nazi’ and ‘nationalist.’ Sinclair chief political correspondent Scott Thurman deleted a tweet alleging students in MAGA hats were ‘mocking’ and ‘taunting’ a Native American in front of the Lincoln Memorial in D.C., asking in a new tweet if the new video changed minds about the kids,” Seleh wrote, linking to screencaps of the tweets from Screenshot Bot (@sshotbot) on Twitter.

Ed and Brian Krassenstein, both opponents of President Donald Trump, each deleted tweets condemning the teens.

The New Republic’s Jeet Heer also deleted a tweet responding to Reason’s Robby Soave’s analysis of the video evidence surrounding the event, in which he suggested Soave thinks “doing the tomahawk chant to mock a Native isn’t racist.”

Matt Wolking, Communications Director for Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), captured a now-deleted tweet from CNN’s Bakari Sellers calling one of the Catholic students “deplorable” and suggesting some people “can also be punched in the face.”

A tweet from author Reza Aslan asking if anyone has “ever seen a more punchable face” than the same teenager is still up.

Comedian Patton Oswald deleted a tweet that linked to a thread from someone who revealed personal information about the student most targeted by the online hate mob without identifying the student by name.

Seleh notes that Oswalt “left up subsequent retweets maintaining his opinion that they were at fault.”

Alleged Republican commentator Ana Navarro also deleted a tweet calling the students “racist.”

She has since provided the full video.

Others who should probably delete their tweets haven’t, including Buzzfeed’s Anne Helen Petersen who, fresh off her employer’s embarrassing Trump collusion article, jumped headfirst into another wildly misreported story.

“One theme of the conversations over the past 24 hours = how deeply familiar this look is. It’s the look of white patriarchy, of course, but that familiarity – that banality – is part of what prompts the visceral reaction. This isn’t spectacular. It’s life in America,” she tweeted over another tweet depicting the smiling student in the MAGA hat next to a photo of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh also smiling.

twitchy.com

Published  1 month ago

Quillette

Published  1 month ago

In public discourse, an opponent’s identity and experience can matter more than their arguments. For instance, if you are a philosopher who supports the use of torture in a narrow set of circumstances on utilitarian grounds, you would not want to find yourself debating the ethics of such a position with a victim of torture. The optics of such a debate would be horrible, and in the minds of many observers they would place the philosopher at a decisive disadvantage no matter how careful or well defended his arguments happened to be. In the same way, whole groups of people consigned to the bottom of the identity politics grievance hierarchy are saddled with a similar handicap, often in situations far less contentious than the debate over torture. On Saturday in Washington DC, a group of Catholic school kids fell victim to this presumptive logic. The progressive media ran with a story that confirmed their intersectional priors and, in the process, damaged their credibility, established an

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

(AP/House.gov)

A freshman Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee told constituents the panel will “likely” investigate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh for purportedly committing perjury during his confirmation hearings last fall.

In a video sent out by conservative activist group America Rising, Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo., was recorded Friday saying he believes the Supreme Court justice committed perjury while under questioning from Congress -- though did not point to a specific statement.

“There’s no question [Kavanaugh] committed perjury during the confirmation hearings and so forth,” Neguse said, responding to a question about the possibility of impeaching Kavanaugh. “I think the Judiciary Committee is likely to take that up.”

Kavanaugh’s confirmation process last fall was nearly derailed by numerous accusations of sexual misconduct tied to the judge's time in high school at Georgetown Prep and college at Yale University.

Kavanaugh vehemently denied all of them, including claims from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford that he sexually assaulted her when both were high school students. On top of that controversy, Democrats have also previously claimed Kavanaugh lied to lawmakers -- including about his drinking habits and the meaning of terms in his high school yearbook.

Days after the midterm elections in November, Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., was overheard on an Amtrak train discussing the possibility of impeaching Kavanaugh, while Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez in December spoke about reform proposals to the Supreme Court.

But with Democrats assuming the House majority earlier this month, and with it the power to investigate and subpoena witnesses, the Kavanaugh controversy has largely taken a backseat to other Trump-related issues like his tax returns and alleged Russia connections.

Despite the uproar and accusations last fall, Kavanaugh was eventually confirmed by the Senate in an almost party-line vote of 50-48. Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia was the lone Democrat to support Kavanaugh.

Homeland Security

Published  1 month ago

Since taking over the House, Democrats have promised to open the investigation floodgates. If Donald Trump or anyone in his administration ever so much as misplaced a paper clip, you can be sure there would be hearings. When the Mueller probe reveals that there is no evidence of Russian collusion, they will start their own investigation, no doubt. Their main objective is to make sure Trump is not reelected, and in the meantime, they will do everything they can to make it impossible for him to govern. To them, that is called transparency and accountability.

But when the tables are turned, and the real crimes and abuses of power by Democrats are suddenly in the crosshairs of Republicans with a thirst for accountability… well, there’s outrage:

New tensions are flaring on the Senate Judiciary Committee over plans by newly minted Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to dig into Obama-era scandals.

Graham, a close ally of President Trump’s, has outlined several areas he wants to probe now that he has the Judiciary Committee gavel.

They include the FBI’s handling of its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant applications targeting former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), asked about Graham’s plans, started laughing and compared them to the “thrilling days of yesteryear.”

“This is going to be like the History Channel it turns out. Instead of taking a look at the current issues, Lindsey Graham wants to go back and answer important questions about the Bermuda Triangle and Hillary Clinton,” Durbin told The Hill.

Durbin said he was “concerned” about Graham’s plans but quipped that “you know there is that question about Jimmy Carter which he probably wants to ask.”

Democrats may dismiss Graham’s plans as pointless, but deep down don’t believe for a second they’re laughing. We all remember Graham’s epic smackdown of the Democrats’ actions during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings. I’m sure Graham is legitimately miffed that Obama and Hillary have managed to avoid accountability for their illegal actions, so there are really only two possible motives here. The first is that he really wants to see Obama and Hillary get what they deserve. The second possible motive is that Graham wants to hold these investigations over Democrats' heads as a bargaining chip and keep them from abusing their investigative powers as a means to tie Trump’s hands for the next 2-6 years and make it impossible for him to govern.

The big difference between congressional Democrats and Senator Graham is that Graham wants to investigate legitimate scandals. Consider the facts: Even though the BuzzFeed story about Trump directing Michael Cohen to lie to Congress has been proven to be fake news, Democrats still want to investigate it!

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

No American president has survived the sheer volume of attacks and hostility that Donald Trump has endured, yet this president just keeps prevailing over his critics.

The fact that President Trump has been able to achieve so much of his agenda despite the coordinated campaign to defy him is astounding. Whatever your opinion of Donald Trump, his success in the face of such rabid opposition is a testament to his tenacity and political skill.

The moment Donald Trump announced his candidacy for president, the media painted a target on his back. Sanctimonious celebrities and supposedly-neutral journalists mocked and jeered his candidacy. They demeaned and insulted his supporters. They contrived savage smears and invaded his family’s privacy.

TRUMP OFFERS IMMIGRATION COMPROMISE TO END PARTIAL SHUTDOWN; DEMS COOL TO OFFER

None of it worked. Donald Trump was able to hoist his detractors by their own petards, turning their attacks into publicity, and their smears into affirmations of his authenticity. His deft handling of their criticism allowed him to upend the American political landscape and win the greatest election upset in presidential history.

The media attacks only intensified after President Trump took office. Over the last two years, about 90 percent of the news media coverage of the president has been negative. In contrast, there were roughly twice as many positive stories about President Obama in 2009 as there were negative ones.

In addition to the constant deluge of hit pieces in the media, President Trump has also had to contend with Democratic lawmakers, judges and unelected bureaucrats who are equally committed to seeing him fail — regardless of the consequences for ordinary Americans.

No other president has ever had to contend with such intense attacks from so many different directions. President Trump, however, has survived the onslaught by staying true to the voters who elected him, delivering on promise after promise despite intense liberal resistance.

From the moment Donald Trump was declared the winner of the 2016 presidential election, Democrats have spun wild conspiracy theories about supposed collusion with Russian intelligence operatives. Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff invented this fantasy to explain how they suffered the most embarrassing loss in American political history, and rogue senior law enforcement officials and career bureaucrats quickly latched onto the theory to justify disruptive, open-ended investigations intended to undermine the Trump administration.

Meanwhile, activist judges have ignored the law to help liberal special interest groups delay and frustrate even routine presidential actions, issuing an unprecedented number of nationwide injunctions.

Liberal lawyers have scoured the country for the most anti-Trump judges, and thus far have succeeded in getting those judges to thwart President Trump’s travel ban, his zero tolerance policy on illegal immigration, his revocation of President Obama’s blatantly unconstitutional DACA order, and his Justice Department’s refusal to give sanctuary cities money that Congress specifically withheld from them. Most recently, an activist judge even issued an injunction against something as basic as restoring a question on the U.S. census form.

Elected Democrats have behaved no differently, grinding the government to a halt simply to spite the president.

In the House, Democrats have kept the government shut down rather than fund the sort of border barriers they consistently supported before President Trump’s election. In the Senate, Democrats made a disgusting spectacle out of the confirmation process for Justice Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s eminently well-qualified pick to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, even though it jeopardized vulnerable red-state Democrats heading into the 2018 midterm elections.

No other president has ever had to contend with such intense attacks from so many different directions. President Trump, however, has survived the onslaught by staying true to the voters who elected him, delivering on promise after promise despite intense liberal resistance.

President Trump has rebuilt the federal judiciary by appointing judges committed to the true, original meaning of the Constitution, including two brilliant Supreme Court justices. He has renegotiated unfair trade deals, passed historic tax cuts, and cut unnecessary job-killing regulations, creating the strongest economy and the lowest unemployment rate in generations. Now, he is fighting to get the Washington establishment to give the American people the border wall they voted for in 2016.

The D.C. establishment has deployed every weapon in its arsenal against the president, and even after two full years, it still hasn’t been enough to stop Donald Trump from winning.

dailycaller

Published  1 month ago

Democratic U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse of Colorado, a freshman member of the House Judiciary Committee, told constituents the panel will likely investigate Justice Brett Kavanaugh for perjury.

“There’s no question [Kavanaugh] committed perjury during the confirmation hearings and so forth,” Neguse said when asked if the justice might be impeached. “I think the Judiciary Committee is likely to take that up.”

WATCH Neguse’s comments:

A conservative opposition research group obtained and disseminated video of Neguse’s comments.

The congressman was not specific as to which of Kavanaugh’s statements might rise to the level of perjury. Democrats have put forward various theories as to how Kavanaugh misled the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings: One theory, which NBC News advanced, held that he lied concerning when he first learned about the allegations of Deborah Ramirez, a Yale classmate who accused Kavanaugh of drunkenly exposing himself to her at a party.

In response to questions from lawmakers during his second confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh said he first learned of Ramirez’s claims from The New Yorker, the venue in which her story appeared. NBC subsequently recovered text messages revealing the justice and his allies were discussing Ramirez’s allegations before the story’s publication, prompting charges of perjury.

However, Kavanaugh told Senate investigators before the hearing that he learned Ramirez was searching for witnesses to corroborate her story well in advance of The New Yorker story’s publication, thereby belying the perjury charges. The NBC report was stealth-edited, and a correction was never issued.

Other theories suppose the justice lied about the contents of his high school yearbook or hid his complicity with a White House staffer who stole strategy memos from Senate Democrats during his service in the George W. Bush administration. Neither of those propositions has been substantiated.

Requests for comment from the congressman’s office went unanswered. (RELATED: Trump Proposes Immigration Compromise As Supreme Court Considers DACA Appeal)

Kavanaugh has kept a low profile since joining the high court in October 2018. Though the justices often teach in law schools or speak to various professional groups when the Court is not hearing cases, Kavanaugh’s schedule of public engagements appears rather thin. Similarly, his maneuvers on the Court reflect a sense of caution: He joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the liberal bloc to keep the Court out of controversies relating to abortion and the census, while his style at oral argument is deferential and inconspicuous.

Democratic U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, the new chair of the Judiciary Committee, was overheard discussing a prospective Kavanaugh impeachment at some length on board the Acela train to Washington, D.C., just days after the midterm elections.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

BuzzFeed News

Published  1 month ago

How two Jewish American political consultants helped create the world’s largest anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.

TheHill

Published  1 month ago

New tensions are flaring on the Senate Judiciary Committee over plans by newly minted Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to dig into Obama-era scandals.

Sara A. Carter

Published  1 month ago

Sen. Kamala Harris announced on Monday that she will be running for president in 2020 because the future of Democracy is at stake. Harris, a staunch opponent of President Trump, previously served as Attorney General of the State of California.

The California Democrat is a critic of the government shutdown saying, there is no need for a wall but “they need a paycheck.”

Moreover, Harris has also been outspoken on the nomination of former Attorney General William Barr. She recently asked him to recuse himself from the Mueller investigation if he is nominated. Barr insisted he would not.

Further, Harris also opposed the confirmation process of then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Harris, who led a harsh round of questioning, expressed her dissent calling Kavanaugh ‘unfit’.

“When Dr. Christine Blasey Ford came forward with serious and credible allegations of sexual assault, not only was she attacked by Senate Republicans, she was mocked by the President of the United States,” Harris said.

She said the White House prevented the FBI from investigating critical aspects of the allegations or interviewing key witnesses. She accused the administration of “not even permitting the FBI to interview Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford.”

The accusation was dismissed by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the FBI. The FBI had already interviewed Kavanaugh and conducted a thorough background investigation before his nomination.

BREAKING NEWS: I just announced I’m running for President and I need your support. Will you chip in now to give us the strongest possible start?

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) January 21, 2019

I'm running for president. Let's do this together. Join us: https://t.co/9KwgFlgZHA pic.twitter.com/otf2ez7t1p

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) January 21, 2019

Daily Wire

Published  1 month ago

CNN anchor Ana Cabrera falsely claimed on Sunday that President Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr. made racial remarks over the last week that white men have a lot to fear.

"President Trump and his son Don Jr. said this week white men have a lot to fear right now," Cabrera said during a segment on black people who have had the police called on them by white people.

Trump and Trump Jr. never said that, though.

Earlier this month Trump said it was a "very scary time for young men in America" as he spoke about men being falsely accused of crimes as it related to the allegations made against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Trump Jr. told the Daily Mail earlier this month that he was concerned for his sons and his daughters during the #MeToo era and that he was most concerned for his boys as he suggested that he was concerned that they could be falsely accused by someone with political motives.

CNN's Ana Cabrera lies about recent comments made by President Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr., claiming they said: "White men have a lot to fear right now..."

Trump said: "It's a very scary time for young men in America..."

Trump Jr. said he is most concerned for his sons... pic.twitter.com/ZOBOXafYJo

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) October 15, 2018

Andrew Surabian, adviser to Donald Trump Jr., slammed CNN in a statement to The Daily Wire and said the network owed an immediate apology to Trump and Trump Jr.

"The provable lies and disgraceful race-baiting espoused by CNN anchor Ana Cabrera are especially shameful coming from a network that unironically brands itself as the 'realest name in news,'" Surabian said. "If CNN has even a sliver of journalistic credibility left, they will issue an immediate on air apology to both President Trump and Don Jr."

www.theepochtimes.com

Published  1 month ago

Economy From sweeping tax reform to support for energy production, President Donald Trump’s pro-business policies have boosted the ...

The Daily Signal

Published  1 month ago

The case arose after the Center for Medical Progress released videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood violating medical and ethical standards.

Daily Wire

Published  1 month ago

Report AdxReason: --Select please--

This year’s Women’s March has taken a significant hit after reports in 2018 that the founders of the organization were openly anti-Semitic. Many of the founders are supporters of flagrant anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, who routinely calls Jews “termites” and has led a “Death to America, Israel” chant in Iran.

The public gathering permit provided by the U.S. Department of the Interior’s National Park Service shows just how far the march has fallen, stating that the “anticipated number or participants” is roughly 10,000. In 2017, the first Women’s March attracted between 500,000 and 1 million people from around the country, according to official estimates.

Over the past several months, multiple celebrities and organizations have cut ties with the Women’s March due to the rampant anti-Semitism. Actresses Debra Messing and Alyssa Milano both condemned the leaders of the movement, as did comedienne Sarah Silverman. The left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center quietly withdrew its support for the organization, and the Democratic National Committee has removed the march from its list of partnerships. Female Democrat presidential candidates will also not attend this year’s march, including Sens. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). Harris was the keynote speaker at the 2017 Women’s March and Gillibrand headlined the organization’s campaign against now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) has also called out the group.

Due to the public relations scandal, a rival march has popped up, called the March for ALL Women Rally. This group emerged late Wednesday, meaning it would have had little effect on out-of-town women who already made travel arrangements to come to Washington, D.C. This new march will gather across the street – in Pershing Park – from where the original march will gather.

Rain and above-freezing temperatures are also being blamed for the low attendance, though it was cold at this time in 2017 as well, and the pro-life March for Life meets every year at this time and continues to draw huge crowds.

Finally, the organizers for the march itself are blaming the National Park Service (NPS), according to WUSA9.

“They wanted us to cancel the march altogether,” organizers wrote of the NPS in an email. “We told them we were marching with or without their permission, and we secured a permit to march on Pennsylvania Avenue, past the Trump International Hotel.”

This caused the NPS to issue a direct response.

“Any assertion that the National Park Service has encouraged any organizer to cancel their First Amendment demonstration is patently false,” a spokesman told WUSA9.

“For generations, Americans have come to the National Mall to exercise their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights to assemble and be heard. The National Park Service has been clear that our process would protect those fundamental rights by processing applications for First Amendment events that had been submitted prior to lapse of appropriations.”

Saturday’s Women’s March will travel down Pennsylvania Avenue, from Freedom Plaza to the Navy Memorial and back.

Tamika Mallory, who has been under fire lately for interviews where she defended calling Farrakhan the “Greatest Of All Time” and sidestepping a question about Israel’s right to exist, is listed on the NPS’s permit as one of the persons in charge, along with Bob Bland, Aquib Yacoob, Robby Diesu, Samantha Miller, Noor Mir, and Ellie Sturgill Wooden.

Santa Monica Observer

Published  1 month ago

Update: Stricken with Pneumonia, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg about to Retire from the Supreme Court.

https://www.smobserved.com/story/2019/01/07/news/stricken-with-pneumonia-ruth-bader-ginsburg-about-to-retire-from-supreme-court/3780.html

Editor's Note; We first posted this story in September, 2018. Sadly we were correct, as Justice Ginsburg underwent surgery on December 15th to remove a cancerous growth from her lungs. We are reposting it since so many people contacted us to ask if it was true, which sadly, it is. She did not appear for oral arguments on January 7, 2019, & it is becoming increasingly clear that she will not ever return to the bench. https://www.smobserved.com/story/2018/12/20/news/snopes-decries-observer-as-fake-news-for-posting-story-that-justice-ginsburg-has-cancer-sadly-we-were-right/3766.html

While the Nation is preoccupied with the appointment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, it appears there will soon be another vacancy on the US Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has had a re-occurrence of malignant melanoma, she has told her law clerks. Ginsburg was treated in 1999 for colon cancer and had surgery in 2009 for pancreatic cancer.

She has told key Democratic members of the Senate about her medical condition, including ranking Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee Dianne Feinstein. This explains in part the "take no prisoners" attitude of the Democrats during the Kavanaugh nomination, carefully orchestrating weak 37 year old allegations against Kavanaugh by Women he barely remembers knowing in High School and College.

Kavanaugh is a player in this drama. He's in the wrong place at the wrong time . President Donald J Trump will be replacing Notorious RBG, the lovechild of the left, and so will remake the Supreme Court for a generation. The Democrats simply must win back the Senate in November 2018, progressives feel.

Ginsburg, 85 was appointed by President Bill Clinton and took the oath of office on August 10, 1993. She is the second female justice (after Sandra Day O'Connor) of four to be confirmed to the court (along with Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who are still serving). Following O'Connor's retirement, and until Sotomayor joined the court, Ginsburg was the only female justice on the Supreme Court. During that time, Ginsburg became more forceful with her dissents, which were noted by legal observers and in popular culture. She is generally viewed as belonging to the liberal wing of the court. Ginsburg has authored notable majority opinions, including United States v. Virginia, Olmstead v. L.C., and Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.

Ginsburg was born in Brooklyn, New York, to Russian Jewish immigrants. Her older sister died when she was a baby, and her mother, one of her biggest sources of encouragement, died shortly before Ginsburg graduated from high school. She then earned her bachelor's degree at Cornell University, and was a wife and mother before starting law school at Harvard, where she was one of the few women in her class. Ginsburg transferred to Columbia Law School, where she graduated tied for first in her class.

Following law school, Ginsburg turned to academia. She was a professor at Rutgers School of Law and Columbia Law School, teaching civil procedure as one of the few women in her field. Ginsburg spent a considerable part of her legal career as an advocate for the advancement of gender equality and women's rights, winning multiple victories arguing before the Supreme Court. She advocated as a volunteer lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union and was a member of its board of directors and one of its general counsels in the 1970s. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter appointed her to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where she served until her appointment to the Supreme Court.

National Review

Published  1 month ago

Whether or not they like Trump, millions of voters still think the president is all that stands between them and socialism, radical cultural transformation, and social chaos.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Guest post by Joe Hoft President Donald J. Trump had arguably the best first two years for any President in US history since Washington.  On the other hand, arguably no president since Lincoln faced the massive headwinds that this president faced. From the actions of the corrupt actors in the prior administration, the Democrat Party, the Mueller ‘Witch […]

dailycaller

Published  1 month ago

The panel even accused Planned Parenthood of breaking the law

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 month ago

'She will probably miss a lot of things in the next few months...'

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

Thousands descended on a crippled capital city Friday for the annual March for Life. The ones sticking around for the weekend won’t be able to tour the museums, see the Declaration of Independence, or walk through the White House. The government is shut down.

But they don’t seem to mind. Pointing to his policies and especially to his judges, the pro-life marchers overwhelmingly support President Trump. Most support the shutdown too. Some just wish it was for different reasons.

Trump promised to build the wall. Trump also promised to stop taxpayer dollars from flowing to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion corporation in the U.S. He has kept the government shut down in an effort to honor the first promise.

“Why is all the emphasis on the border?” asks Lila Rose, the president of Live Action. “We should building a wall between taxpayer funds and the biggest abortion company that’s killing 900 children a day.”

Forcing a shutdown over Planned Parenthood isn’t just conjecture. It’s an idea first floated by Vice President Mike Pence. Is he willing to let the government go dark over Planned Parenthood funding? “Well, of course I am.” That’s what he said back when he was just a congressional rabble-rouser from Indiana. It was 2011 and Pence was holding up the entire budget over the issue.

“I think there's a broad consensus in this country,” Pence told MSNBC’s Willie Geist, “regardless of where you stand on the subject of abortion, there's a broad consensus for decades now opposing public funding of abortion and abortion providers.”

A college freshman from Minnesota, milling about before the march, in the cappuccino-colored snow of the National Mall, carries a sign that says “Hey Planned Parenthood! Go fund yourself!” Her name is AliJoe Nicolai and she agrees. She says she was an unplanned pregnancy, her birth mother gave her up for adoption, and she wishes Pence and Trump would shut down the government over Planned Parenthood.

“It’s just unbelievable,” Nicolai says of the fact that Republicans didn’t cut funding when they controlled the House, the Senate, and the presidency. “Let’s shut it down as long as we need to figure this out.”

Two baby boomers nearby pose for a picture with a snowman holding a sign that reads, “I am the pro-life generation.” They also agree.

“Build the wall for sure,” says May Chopaigne, a nurse from New Orleans. “And try to end funding for Planned Parenthood afterward,” interrupts her older brother John Tosh, a trauma surgeon also from the Big Easy.

The two compare the president to Cyrus the Great, that ancient Persian king who freed the Israelites from the Babylonian captivity. They scheduled the trip to D.C. months ago for the march and had planned to tour the different Smithsonian museums afterward. But both support the current shutdown, and both think that Trump is “the most pro-life president ever.”

Few would disagree. A serial philanderer as a celebrity real estate mogul, Trump, as president, has named two ostensibly pro-life Supreme Court nominees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, and expanded the Mexico City policy to stop domestic taxpayer dollars from funding abortions overseas. The religious right loves him for it.

Trump won over evangelicals on these promises. It was Pence who delivered the strongest pitch, less than a month before Election Day, telling the Values Voters Summit in September of 2016 that “the days of public funding for Planned Parenthood are over when the Trump-Pence administration arrives in Washington.”

Two years later, they haven’t delivered — although Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, says it isn't for lack of trying. Republicans were ready to gut Planned Parenthood’s federal budget during Obamacare repeal. Then Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., voted against the deal at the last minute. Dannenfelser blames him and the other two Republican senators who voted "nay," not the president. She endorses the idea of a second shutdown, saying she’s “all for it” before adding that “if you’re not living, you can’t benefit from a border wall.”

The politicians gathered on stage have mixed feelings. Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., is about as pro-life as they come. He just doesn’t think “shutting down the government is the right approach to resolving these differences.”

It is about tactics, not conviction, he explains: “We can stand for something firmly, like defunding Planned Parenthood, like border security, and at the same time work to get cooperation here to advance our cause.”

Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., thinks the opposite. “Republicans in Congress have failed the backbone test on defunding Planned Parenthood. It comes down to that. It takes leadership to do that, and so far leadership has failed the backbone test to get it done.” If Banks was picking the fights, things would be different. “I’m for building the wall, I’m for holding out on border security funding,” he says, “but I’d much rather be in a fight right now to defund Planned Parenthood.”

These interviews are getting hard to hear because the Pence motorcade has just rolled up, unannounced. The thousands of pro-life faithful whoop and holler their approval as the vice president and his wife, Karen Pence, and take the stage to deliver a surprise address.

“Life is winning in America once again,” Pence declares, as the shutdown stretches into its 25th day.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

It may seem to some observers that insane stuff just flies out of the mouth of socialist sensation Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on nearly a daily basis and the freshman congresswoman doesn't show any signs of getting

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

The news keeps getting worse for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which has resulted in President Donald Trump and Republicans making big moves.

As noted by CNN, the 85-year-old Justice has missed two weeks on the court, and now she has cancelled two more events that were scheduled for the coming weeks.

Get a $10 gift card when you subscribe to TRUMP articles on Facebook messenger!

Ginsburg will not attend scheduled talks in the upcoming weeks in Los Angeles and New York as she recovers from surgery that she had last month.

“Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg regrets that she is unable to attend the talk with David Rubenstein at 92Y on February 6,” an email from the 92nd Street Y said. “She is curtailing travel and focusing on her work while recuperating from recent surgery.”

The 85-year-old Justice is recovering from surgery to remove two cancerous growths from her left lung, forcing her to miss two straight weeks of oral arguments on the Supreme Court.

Given she’s apparently unable to appear on the bench and is cancelling upcoming events, some Republicans are eyeing her replacement.

During an interview on Fox News, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he’s “hell-bent” on ensuring that the next Supreme Court vacancy — whether it’s Ginsburg’s seat or for someone else — is filled by a conservative.

Graham now serves as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, meaning he is in charge of overseeing Supreme Court confirmations.

Graham assured viewers that he will not cower to liberal outrage and allow future hearings to descend into chaos like they did for then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

“My Democratic colleagues felt when they were in charge we should confirm judges by a majority vote. They changed the rules to accommodate President Obama. They tried to stack the court. They never thought [Hillary] Clinton would lose. So what you’re gonna have is Harry Reid’s and Chuck Schumer’s desire to stack the court on their Democratic watch has come back to haunt them,” Graham said.

“If there is an opening, whether it’s Ginsburg or anybody else, I will urge the president to nominate a qualified conservative and hopefully those people will get through – that person will get through,” Graham continued. “And I expect it to be along party lines, and this is what happens when you change the rules. This has come back to bite ‘ em. I predicted it would. And we’ll see. I hope Justice Ginsburg serves for a long time. But if there’s an opening on this court, I’m going to be hell-bent to put a conservative to replace whoever steps down for whatever reason.”

Ginsburg’s ailing health and her absence from the bench for two weeks could be a major signal, and President Donald Trump is also getting ready.

With Ginsburg apparently unable to leave her home, the White House has been making “gingerly preparations” in case she retires.

According to two sources familiar with the process, the White House is well aware of the medical issues involved with Ginsburg, who is 85-years-old.

“Gingerly preparations are underway, not just for Ginsburg but for any SCOTUS retirement,” a source involved in the Supreme Court nominations of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh said last week.

While Trump, the White House, and many have wished nothing but the best for Ginsburg, many argue that her health issues may have gotten worse.

If she does retire while Trump is still in office, the president would have the historic opportunity to nominate a third Justice to the Supreme Court, which currently has a 5-4 conservative bent.

NOLA.com

Published  1 month ago

On Friday (Jan. 18), a truly moving event occurred at the Capitol. Thousands of young people converged on Washington, D.C., in a respectful, prayerful march to serve as the voice for the voiceless at the 46th-annual March for Life, a national protest of the U.S. Supreme Court’s notorious Roe v. Wade decision. These young pro-life advocates are an inspiration to the nation, shining a light on the love and hope our country is built upon.

Nearly 2,000 Louisiana students visited D.C. for this momentous event. The enthusiasm and dedication shown by these young leaders speaks volumes for the future of our state and country. It is this powerful activism that has led Louisiana to become the prominent pro-life state, always fighting for the rights of the unborn.

This fight begins with the President Donald Trump’s leadership. When President Trump took office in January 2017, I was encouraged that our nation would be led by an executive guided by his commitment to protecting life. Under his leadership, America is restoring the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all people, including the unborn.

The strength of President Trump’s commitment to life has been clear since his first week in office, when he banned the use of Americans’ tax dollars to promote abortions in foreign countries, known as The Mexico City Policy, signaling a significant step to protect life. Unfortunately, in her first week as speaker, Democrat Nancy Pelosi held a vote on legislation to prop up the abortion industry by passing taxpayer funding of abortion through her Democrat-led House. Fortunately, that bill is dead on arrival in the Senate.

Though we face this new obstacle in our work to protect life in the House of Representatives, my dedication to this cause remains firm. As your representative in Congress, I have always fought to defend the sanctity of life. As the Republican Whip, I have worked to pass historic legislation protecting the unborn. We will not yield any ground as we defend the gains we have made in defense of life.

Last Congress, we made great strides to promote life. Confirming President Trump’s Supreme Court nominees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, were the most significant actions taken by Congress. It will take the combined action of pro-life members of Congress, as well as federal judges who share that belief in protecting innocent life at all stages, to once again ensure that life is respected.

In our legislative role, Congress made strong advancements toward passing laws that protect the unborn. Under my leadership as Republican Whip, the House successfully voted to defund Planned Parenthood and passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to prevent abortions after 20 weeks — around the fifth month of pregnancy — the time at which unborn children can feel pain.

Unfortunately, the Senate failed to act, so this month I joined my colleagues in reintroducing this powerful legislation preventing abortions after 20 weeks. Signing this legislation into law would bring us closer to fully recognizing the life and rights of the unborn. Further, this month I cosponsored the Defund Planned Parenthood Act because no taxpayer should be expected to fund something that subsidizes abortions or funnels money into an inherently political organization.

Until the lives of the unborn are fully recognized, our work will continue. Through prayer, faith, and action, we will continue to create lasting change in America. Friday’s March for Life was a positive sign that our fight to protect innocent life is alive and well in our country, and especially in the hearts and minds of the next generation of Louisiana’s leaders.

U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise of Jefferson represents Louisiana’s 1st Congressional District.

Santa Monica Observer

Published  1 month ago

Update, 1/16/19: Justice Ginsburg today cancelled a public appearance set for January 29, 2019, as she remains in a hospital fighting Pneumonia. The elderly judge appears to be nearing the end of her life, as the Trump administration asks allies for suggestions to replace her. Jan 29 in LA - Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Cancels Public Appearance in Los Angeles Set for January 29 https://t.co/ilYdXI05NH via @gatewaypundit

As any reader of the Santa Monica Observer knew last September, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has developed lung cancer. The 85 year old Supreme Court Justice had surgery as quietly as possible on December 22, 2018.

Following surgery, she has developed complications including pneumonia. Pneumonia often afflicts elderly post surgery patients in the US, since antibiotics have resulted in Multi Resistant Strains of the lung infection.

The left and the main stream media have tried to put on a brave face as Ginsburg missed three straight days of argument this week, interviewing cancer doctors to say that she would recover. They claimed that she was working in her hospital room, knowing that it was untrue.

No one in the media on in the Democratic party want to face the awful truth that President Donald Trump is about to replace one of the Court's most liberal justices.

When we broke the news in September,which we obtained from a confidential source in Justice Ginsburg's inner circle, the left went on attack. Our original story: https://www.smobserved.com/story/2019/01/07/politics/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-will-retire-from-the-us-supreme-court-in-january-2019/3658.html

Snopes.com labelled our prediction that Ginsburg would undergo cancer surgery then retire, #FakeNews. Sadly it wasn't. https://www.smobserved.com/story/2019/01/07/news/snopescom-labels-story-that-supreme-court-justice-ginsburg-has-cancer-as-fake-news/3766.html

Political stakes are very high when a US Supreme Court member retires or resigns. A new 50 year old Justice could be on the bench for 40 years, and there are only 9 justices.

In the wake of the bruising Brett Kavanaugh confirmation battle, Democrats have proposed altering the number of Justices on the US high court to 18, and also to limit them to one 18 year terms. The number of Supreme Court justices is not set forth in the US Constitution. Another proposal would have Supreme Court justices rotate in from the Circuit Courts of Appeal.

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

MSNBC and CNN are now both on record doing their part to spread a fringe conspiracy theory attacking Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

The original marching orders for this sexual McCarthyism came from two sources on the fringes of the far-left.

Last week Thursday, while criticizing Graham for his support of Trump, unemployed comedienne Chelsea Handler tweeted: “Hey, @LindseyGrahamSC what kind of dick sucking video do they have on you for you 2 be acting like this?”

Holy, fuck fuck. I just the video of trumps bipartisan “meeting” yesterday. Hey, @LindseyGrahamSC what kind of dick sucking video do they have on you for you 2 be acting like this? Wouldn’t coming out be more honorable?

— Chelsea Handler (@chelseahandler) January 11, 2018

Three days later, Jon Cooper, chairman of the Democratic Coalition, took the Twitter baton and, without evidence, claimed Graham is being blackmailed by Trump over “some pretty serious sexual kink.”

A Republican just told me that he doubts @LindseyGrahamSC is kowtowing to Trump (and indirectly Putin) because he’s being blackmailed over his sexual orientation (an open secret) or even financial corruption. Rather, he thinks it probably involves some pretty serious sexual kink.

— Jon Cooper (@joncoopertweets) January 13, 2019

The following day, MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle (pictured, bottom left) took this conspiracy mainstream when she closed a segment about Graham’s support for Trump with this unsubtle innuendo: “It could be that Donald Trump or somebody knows something pretty extreme about Lindsey Graham. We’re gonna leave it there.”

On Tuesday, this coordinated homophobic smear went nuclear when a sitting congresswoman, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), tweeted her belief that the conspiracy is true, that Graham is indeed “compromised.”

On Thursday, the far-left anti-Trump outlet CNN further legitimized all of this by allowing, without any pushback, Omar (pictured, right) to address those critics who say there is no evidence for her homophobic attack on Graham.

Watch below as CNN brings on Omar, the point person spreading the conspiracy, and allows her to answer her critics, and then drops it as though her word salad of an explanation is satisfactory. Were she a Republican, she would not be given the chance to defend herself on-air. They assemble a panel to talk about her, not to her — holding her up for public shaming. Left-wing pundits would viciously attack the network for giving her hate a “platform” if CNN asked a Rep. Ilhan Omar (R-MN) to “explain” what she meant by “compromised,” then Jim Sciutto (pictured, top left) just calling it “a remarkable comment” rather than “a lie.”

As CNN has devolved more and more into a conspiracy network, this tactic has become commonplace.

Rep. Omar: "Lots of Americans" agree with me that Trump is blackmailing Sen. Graham over his homosexuality pic.twitter.com/xPMAUHSLYE

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) January 17, 2019

And this is how the media legitimize a smear/conspiracy.

This is also textbook McCarthyism and homophobia. CNN, MSNBC, and the rest are openly weaponizing rumors about sexual orientation as a negative, as a smear. Several of them are going much farther than the shameless tactic of “outing,” suggesting without a shred of evidence that Graham is a sexual deviant. This is all about punishing him for being an effective defender of President Trump’s, for his vital work in adding Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court late last year, and his commitment as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to confirm conservative judges.

This is what it all boils down to. Graham is up for re-election in 2020, and within their bigoted, provincial, elite bubble, the far-left, the media, and Democrats (but I repeat myself) sincerely believe they can use this innuendo to terrorize Graham into behaving “correctly” because they actually believe the “backwards rubes” in South Carolina will care.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

A hard-left Democrat from Michigan is facing backlash and accusations of homophobia after repeating baseless allegations pushed by MSNBC and liberal activists that Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham is somehow being blackmailed into supporting President Trump.

U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, a freshman lawmaker and close ally of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., was condemned Tuesday after claiming Graham was “compromised.” Omar was responding to a video that suggested Graham pivoted from being a Trump critic to one of the president's biggest supporters in the Senate.

“They got to him, he is compromised!” Omar tweeted.

MSNBC’S STEPHANIE RUHLE IMPLIES TRUMP IS BLACKMAILING LINDSEY GRAHAM OVER ‘SOMETHING PRETTY EXTREME’

The baseless remark came the same day that MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle came under fire for implying that Graham was being blackmailed by Trump over “something pretty extreme.”

Just like Omar, Ruhle didn’t cite any evidence to support her claim. “It could be that Donald Trump or somebody knows something pretty extreme about Lindsey Graham,” Ruhle said before quickly ending the segment. "We're gonna leave it there."

Harmeet K. Dhillon, a national committeewoman for the Republican National Committee, slammed Omar’s comment for bigotry: “Breathtaking bigotry, homophobia from a member of Congress. It's not funny, and puzzling why Dems get away with outdated stereotypes and dumb conspiracy theories like this.”

“Is this a reference to the prominent & pernicious homophobic rumor that is circulating the internet? Because I might expect that from a troll, but you’re a Congresswoman,” Jerry Dunleavy tweeted.

“Here's an elected representative promulgating the homophobic conspiracy theory, without evidence, that Lindsay Graham is a gay, blackmailed, shill,” writer Tiana Lowe seconded.

The unfounded attacks on Graham -- who emerged as a leading pro-Trump voice and a superstar of the conservative movement following the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh -- have recently intensified, with progressive activists first floating the conspiracy theory about the senator.

Jon Cooper, chairman of the Democratic Coalition, a super PAC created to defeat Trump in the 2016 presidential election, on Sunday pushed the unfiltered version of the conspiracy on Twitter.

He said Graham “is kowtowing to Trump (and indirectly Putin)” because he’s being blackmailed over “some pretty serious sexual kink,” according to an unnamed Republican he spoke with.

Graham critics point out that the senator previously held a negative view of Trump, even calling him “a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot” during the presidential campaign.

But since the election, Graham has seen eye-to-eye with Trump on many issues, though he recently criticized the president's decision to pull out troops from Syria.

Graham denied rumors about sexual orientation in October after comedian Chelsea Handler attacked him in a homophobic tweet.

“She knows zero about me...[her tweets], I don't think they reflect well on her,” he told TMZ before adding, “To the extent that it matters, I'm not gay.”

Fox News’ Brian Flood contributed to this report.

Santa Monica Observer

Published  1 month ago

As any reader of the Santa Monica Observer knew last September, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has developed lung cancer. The 85 year old Supreme Court Justice had surgery as quietly as possible on December 22, 2018.

Following surgery, she has developed complications including pneumonia. Pneumonia often afflicts elderly post surgery patients in the US, since antibiotics have resulted in Multi Resistant Strains of the lung infection.

The left and the main stream media have tried to put on a brave face as Ginsburg missed three straight days of argument this week, interviewing cancer doctors to say that she would recover. They claimed that she was working in her hospital room, knowing that it was untrue.

No one in the media on in the Democratic party want to face the awful truth that President Donald Trump is about to replace one of the Court's most liberal justices.

When we broke the news in September,which we obtained from a confidential source in Justice Ginsburg's inner circle, the left went on attack. Our original story: https://www.smobserved.com/story/2019/01/07/politics/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-will-retire-from-the-us-supreme-court-in-january-2019/3658.html

Snopes.com labelled our prediction that Ginsburg would undergo cancer surgery then retire, #FakeNews. Sadly it wasn't. https://www.smobserved.com/story/2019/01/07/news/snopescom-labels-story-that-supreme-court-justice-ginsburg-has-cancer-as-fake-news/3766.html

Political stakes are very high when a US Supreme Court member retires or resigns. A new 50 year old Justice could be on the bench for 40 years, and there are only 9 justices.

In the wake of the bruising Brett Kavanaugh confirmation battle, Democrats have proposed altering the number of Justices on the US high court to 18, and also to limit them to one 18 year terms. The number of Supreme Court justices is not set forth in the US Constitution. Another proposal would have Supreme Court justices rotate in from the Circuit Courts of Appeal.

Rantt

Published  1 month ago

The right’s message has been loud and clear: they don’t care what the majority of voters think. They’ll do as they please, even if they have to change the laws to do it.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham kicked off Tuesday’s confirmation hearing for William Barr, President Trump's attorney general nominee, by saying the Justice Department needs a new leader to “right the ship over there.”

americanthinker

Published  1 month ago

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

With an unsettled field, betting on the victor of the Democratic 2020 presidential primary right now is risky business. In January 2015, Jeb Bush was atop the Republican pack, and Donald Trump was five months away from disrupting everything.

Nonetheless, there are indicators to assess the potential success of nascent campaigns. Among the dozens of names on the left, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., should be considered in the top tier.

At 54, Harris is two decades younger than some of her septuagenarian competitors – an age that enables her to appeal to the Instagram crowd without being painted as inexperienced. A child of immigrants, she brings diversity to a party obsessed with racial and gender politics.

THE 2020 ELECTION IS HERE AND GUESS WHO THE DEMOCRATS' FRONTRUNNER IS?

Harris has been in the Senate only two years – not long enough to amass a voting record on thorny issues or carry the stench of Washington. She has used her perch on the Senate Judiciary Committee to filet Trump nominees and earn plaudits from liberals.

Harris represents California, whose nearly 40 million citizens account for 12 percent of the entire country’s population. Typically an afterthought in the voting process with its June primary, the Golden State moved its date up to March 3. The leap-frogging means it will play an outsized role in the nomination, and its hometown representatives stand to benefit.

Now let’s consider her challenges. Harris’s home state advantage is no guarantee. Delegates will be assigned by congressional district, of which there are 53 across California’s 11 media markets. Opportunistic candidates can pick off wins by blanketing targeted areas of the state with resources.

Running as a liberal in a deep blue state, Harris has never been through the wringer of a national political campaign. She faced no Republican opposition in her only Senate run, trouncing the nearest Democrat by the largest margin of any non-incumbent senator in 100 years. Candidates get better with practice, and Harris’ inexperience on the national scene could cause some bumps along the road.

Harris’ tenure on the Judiciary Committee has not been without controversy. Even The Washington Post awarded her the dubious “four Pinnochios” award for misleading attacks against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. More recently, she faced allegations of anti-Catholic bigotry for denigrating the Knights of Columbus. It is a sad reality that in 2019 principled Catholics face hostility in the Democratic Party once led by John F. Kennedy.

More than anything else, Harris’s greatest vulnerabilities lie in her professional background. Presidential candidates must put forward their entire resumes to be picked apart by the media and opposition researchers, who frame it for consumption by the general public.

Harris’s roots are in law enforcement, first as district attorney for San Francisco and then attorney general of California – the state’s top cop. Carrying the banner of law enforcement for Democrats is akin to entering a Republican primary with a resume advocating tax hikes. Both positions fly in the face of party orthodoxy, particularly among activists who decide primaries.

Four years ago, Hillary Clinton struggled to explain her support of the 1994 crime bill, which was one component of her husband President Bill Clinton’s commitment to law and order. Twenty years later, it was a headache in a party deeply skeptical of law enforcement.

For Harris, every case she was a part of as a prosecutor is about to be scrutinized. It will be Whac-A-Mole – every time a controversy erupts and is put out, another one will arise. Already, her role in a top aide’s resignation amid sexual harassment allegations and a $400,000 payout for the accuser has raised eyebrows.

Harris will be forced to explain past positions that are anathema to liberals, such as defending the death penalty, laughing at the idea of marijuana legalization, and threatening parents with jail time for truancy. In politics, when you’re explaining, you’re losing.

If Harris over-compensates by running far to the left, she will open herself up to charges of being soft on crime – a reputation that has sunk Democratic candidates of yesteryear in general elections (looking at you, Michael Dukakis).

Even in a field crowded with higher-profile names, it would be a mistake to underestimate Kamala Harris’ political upside. Time will tell if she is able to capitalize on it. For my money, she starts the primary race as the (very early) favorite.

Colin Reed is a former campaign manager for Scott Brown and is a Republican strategist and managing director at Definers Public Affairs, a Washington, D.C. communications firm.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

William Barr, President Trump's nominee to be the next attorney general, not only survived his eight-hour Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday, but he left it with a strong chance of picking up some Democratic votes.

The Independent

Published  1 month ago

Donald Trump’s judicial nominee for a lifelong appointment to one of the nation’s most powerful courts, has stirred controversy over her apparent views surrounding sexual assault victims, among other legal issues.

Neomi Rao, who would replace Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the US Circuity Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, has never been a judge, though she previously worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee and currently serves the White House as the administrator of the office of information and regulatory affairs at the office of management and budget.

A series of writings the conservative penned while attending Yale University, have since revealed her apparent attitudes towards issues such as rape, race and LGBTQ equality after being unearthed in a BuzzFeed News report published on Monday.

In one of her more controversial columns from 1994 published in the Yale Herald, Ms Rao argued against the defence that a woman could become too inebriated to consent to sex.

“A good way to avoid a potential date rape is to stay reasonably sober," she wrote. “And if she drinks to the point where she can no longer choose, well, getting to that point was part of her choice.”

“Implying that a drunk woman has no control of her actions, but that a drunk man does strips women of all moral responsibility,” she continued.

The conservative legal scholar also appeared to undermine the need for LGBTQ protections, writing in a separate 1994 column: “Trendy political movements have only recently added sexuality to the standard checklist of traits requiring tolerance.”

She has also referred to the issue of race as a “hot, money-making issue”, and claimed “multiculturalists” were seeking “to undermine American culture”.

Created with Sketch. World news in pictures

Show all 50 Created with Sketch. Created with Sketch.

Created with Sketch. World news in pictures

The Justice Department defended the president’s choice to replace Mr Kavanaugh on what’s seen as the second most powerful court in the country, saying in a statement Ms Rao’s writings were “intentional provocative”.

“Neomi Rao is a renowned constitutional and administrative law expert. That is why the president nominated her to the DC Circuit. The views she expressed a quarter century ago as a college student writing for her student newspaper were intentionally provocative, designed to raise questions and push back against liberal elitism that dominated her campus at the time,” a spokesperson for the department said. “More than two decades later, her views can be found in her numerous academic articles and speeches. We are confident Ms. Rao will make an exemplary judge on the D.C Circuit.”

Ms Rao, who has reportedly been considered for a potential Supreme Court nominee if another seat were to open under Mr Trump’s presidency, has been a key official in the White House’s deregulations efforts.

She was selected by the president to fill Mr Kavanaugh’s role in November, though her official nomination was returned to the White House with the close of the last Congress in early January. Ms Rao is hardly the first of Mr Trump's judicial nominees to stir controversy; a slate of his picks have withdrawn after questions arose surrounding their compotency and stances on issues like race and equality.

The president is expected to re-nominate her and dozens of other judicial nominees in the coming weeks, setting the stage for a contentious confirmation battle.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told "Fox News Sunday" that he is "hell-bent" on ensuring that the next Supreme Court vacancy -- whether it is ailing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seat or otherwise -- is filled by a conservative, regardless of what outrage follows from the left.

SARAH PALIN

Published  1 month ago

There’s now been another update on the health of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Ginsburg missed the last week of work for the first time in her almost 25 years on the Court.

Now, word is that she will miss a second week.

The 85-year-old Justice is reportedly “progressing fine, and no further treatment is planned” the outlet says, and the two cancerous growths the justice had removed from her lungs last month represented the extent of the disease. The cancer has not returned, though Ginsburg will remain under observation.

“Her recovery from surgery is on track,” Ginsburg’s spokeswoman told media. “Post-surgery evaluation indicates no evidence of remaining disease, and no further treatment is required.”

Ginsburg missed a full week of work on the Supreme Court bench last week, preferring to analyze cases in front of the court through pleadings and transcripts of oral arguments. Ginsburg’s staff assured the Supreme Court and well-wishers that the Justice was simply resting comfortably at home and that she is confident she can give the same attention to her cases, despite being outside of the courtroom.

While working from home has been done before, when Chief Justice William Rehnquist was recovering from illness, it’s extremely rare.

But given she had three broken ribs and then the cancer surgery in the past two months, she should do all she can to properly recover and not overdo things.

She has had other bouts with cancer and a stent for artery blockage in the past.

The Trump administration has gingerly been looking at their short-list in the event that Ginsburg’s health forces her to retire.

“They’re doing it very quietly, of course, because the idea is not to be opportunistic, but just to be prepared so we aren’t caught flat-footed,” Politico’s source continued.

“It would be a brutal confirmation,” a Heritage Foundation expert added. “The first two were not easy at all, but this would be much harder in this respect: When Neil Gorsuch was the nominee, you were replacing a conservative with a conservative. With Kavanaugh, you were replacing the perennial swing voter, who more times than not sided with the so-called conservative wing, so that slightly solidified the conservative wing.”

But after what happened with Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the next replacement is going to be a throwdown for the ages, given the lies and machinations that the Democrats were willing to bring to bear against Kavanaugh.

Note: The author of this article has included commentary that expresses an opinion and analysis of the facts.

News Punch

Published  1 month ago

An organization founded by Hillary Clinton and funded by George Soros is preparing to sue President Trump over his "racist border wall."

The Tennessean

Published  1 month ago

Despite calls from protesters for his resignation, a legislator accused of sexual conduct against juveniles has been named chairman of an education subcommittee.

TheBlaze

Published  1 month ago

Abortion would be illegal after about six weeks

The Mississippi Legislature on Wednesday passed bills to ban abortions after an unborn baby's heartbeat is detected — usually at about six weeks — Live Action reported.

The "heartbeat bills" passed by the state Senate and House offer no exceptions for victims of rape or incest, according to The Clarion Ledger. There are, however, exceptions if it is believed the pregnancy could cause serious harm or endanger a woman's life.

If either bill is ultimately agreed to and signed into law, abortions would be illegal in Mississippi as soon as a heartbeat is detected. Mississippi Republican Gov. Phil Bryant has said he would sign a bill banning abortion as early as six weeks.

What was the debate?

Republican Sen. Joey Fillingane presented the bill in the Senate, according to the Clarion Ledger. That prompted Democratic Sen. Derrick Simmons to ask Fillingane if he was aware that Mississippi has spent $1.2 million defending in court a previous 15-week abortion ban, which was struck down by a federal judge.

During discussion, Simmons began asking a question: "Do you think it's a wise use of taxpayer money—" but before he could finish, Fillingane interrupted and said, "Absolutely."

Republican Sen. Michael Watson defended his colleague by asking, "Is it worth $1.2 million? What is a life worth?"

Fillingane also said that with Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the U.S. Supreme Court, a different ruling could prevail.

"These decisions may swing in a very different decision now," Fillingane told Simmons.

Republican Sen. Angela Hill, one of the authors of the Senate's heartbeat bill, gave an emotional speech about the issue.

"Times are changing in this country," she said, the Clarion Ledger reported. "We can see more of what's happening in the womb. ... We can see that heart beating with those tests and I've had those tests and they're not so bad."

"I see in this country that we protect sea turtle eggs and we protect other endangered species of animals with a greater degree of scrutiny and zealousness than we protect a child in the womb that has a beating heart," Hill continued. "The womb should be the safest place in the world for an unborn child. I'm asking Mississippi to be different."

Democratic Sen. Deborah Dawkins, a former nurse, called the idea of a heartbeat bill a "misnomer."

"In my opinion and the opinion of a lot of scientists, the heartbeat bill is a misnomer," Dawkins said. "What is called a heartbeat by some is pulsating embryonic tissue that may become a heart."

What else?

In a statement, Planned Parenthood Southeast complained that the bills would essentially outlaw abortion before many women "even know they're pregnant."

"Individual rights and freedoms go to the heart of who we are as a country, including the right to access safe and legal abortion," said Felicia Brown-Williams, the Mississippi director at Planned Parenthood Southeast Advocates.

Earlier this month, The Associated Press reported that Florida, Kentucky, Ohio, South Carolina, and Tennessee are considering legislation similar to what Mississippi lawmakers approved Wednesday.

Tablet Magazine

Published  1 month ago

Innocent visitors to Washington, D.C., must be baffled to see what appear to be street signs demarcating “Khashoggi Way” every several blocks or so. No such street or avenue can be found on Google Maps, and anyone asking where it is or where it leads is likely to be greeted with the smile reserv...

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

Demand Justice, an organization founded by former members of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and associated with a “social welfare organization” financed by billionaire activist George Soros, is raising money for an eventual court fight against what the group describes as President Trump’s proposed “racist, unnecessary wall.”

Time

Published  1 month ago

A new year has dawned in Washington, and this is what it looks like: a partial government shutdown in its third week; a new Congress sworn in only to sit on its hands; an emboldened House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refusing to cede an inch; and an angry President Donald Trump abandoning negotiations to take to television and make the case for crisis measures. Federal offices and museums are shuttered. Trash is piling up in national parks. Airport-security personnel are working without pay. Recipients of housing aid are wondering if they’ll soon be evicted.

But step back from the sordid details, and you could hardly get a more accurate tableau of America’s new political reality: a nonfunctioning federal government whose leaders, each insisting the stakes are too high to budge, have retreated to their corners. At the center of the drama are the two towering figures whose clash will define the next biennium: Trump and Pelosi, the yang and yin of a divided America, two powerful leaders with their credibility on the line, both convinced they hold the winning hand.

Also in this week’s issue:

The Shutdown Isn’t Really About the Wall. It’s About Trump’s Future

House Democrats Get Ready to Fight Trump. And Each Other

America’s Most Diverse Congress: Meet the Class of 2019

Neither can afford to lose. Trump has, after two years of distraction and delay, finally called the question of his signature policy promise, a wall on the southern border, which he insists must be a literal barrier made of concrete or steel. The wall is unpopular with the public and disdained by experts on both sides of the immigration debate. But the President is obsessed with playing to his hard-core base of supporters–and with his own self-image as a dominant alpha male–and caving would be an epic humiliation that could render him a premature lame duck and weaken his position ahead of a tough re-election campaign. Trump has been, if you will, pushed to the wall.

Pelosi takes up the first battle of her new speakership with a fired-up Democratic majority that saw the midterm results as a mandate to take on Trump and a repudiation of his stance on immigration, which he made the focus of in the election’s closing days. The San Francisco Congresswoman is legendary for her legislative savvy, having recently stamped out murmurs of dissent in her ranks. But that may be less of an asset with an outsider President who ignores traditional incentives. Trump has insisted that unpaid federal workers aren’t really bothered and even suggested he’d keep the government shuttered for months or even years. How does even the savviest negotiator deal with a President with such an unusual tolerance for conflict, uncertainty and the suffering of others?

The first Oval Office address of Trump’s presidency had the feel of a defensive maneuver. On the night of Jan. 8, he raced woodenly through a prepared text, sounding a familiar note: that migration from Mexico constitutes an urgent national-security threat. “This is a humanitarian crisis, a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul,” he intoned, as the camera zoomed in on his face. The President reportedly didn’t want to give the prime-time address, but his advisers convinced him that making the argument to the public was his best hope to shift the momentum of a fight he seemed to be losing.

The next day in the Senate, the President tried to make the sale to his own party, where cracks were beginning to show. The GOP leader, Mitch McConnell, had insisted that no bill to break the impasse would be considered without Trump’s endorsement. But purple-state Republicans had begun to voice public support for the Democrats’ position of reopening the government without allocating money for a border barrier. These Senators know that experts believe a physical wall isn’t feasible or effective on some areas of the border; that the wall has never enjoyed majority support in public opinion polls; and that illegal cross-border migration has dipped to historically low levels, replaced by a humanitarian crisis of asylum seekers hindered by the Trump Administration’s zero-tolerance policies, some of which courts have ruled unlawful. With the House in Democratic hands, the President can hardly afford an erosion of support in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Trump spent two years content to punt on the wall, sometimes telling his cheering crowds it was already under construction, sometimes declaring himself content with other solutions. This time, Trump could have pivoted from the dismal midterm result to a new posture of bipartisanship; he could have sought a bargain like the one Democrats offered him a year ago, in which undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children would get citizenship in exchange for a wall-funding subsidy as large as $25 billion. In the past, he’s repeatedly been talked out of forcing a shutdown, most recently in late September, when White House and Capitol Hill advisers successfully pleaded with him not to insert more drama into the height of the political season and Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh. In December, he nearly allowed himself to be diverted again, tweeting that border security had already improved and “the military” would be building the wall as the Senate unanimously passed wall-free government funding. But after an outcry from the right, Trump reversed himself and finally got the fight he wanted.

Democrats, for their part, tried once before to use a shutdown to force a popular change in immigration policy, but last time they lost their nerve after just a few days. That was before Pelosi was in charge of the House. Now, Democrats believe they already did all the compromising they needed to last year. Pelosi has unified her caucus and Senate Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, behind her hardball strategy. In an awkward tag-team response to Trump’s address, the two Democrats stood before a row of American flags and argued that Trump was “holding the American people hostage” with a manufactured crisis. If Pelosi’s nerve falters and she cedes ground, she would immediately risk losing the confidence of the fractious caucus she’s labored to control. But if she succeeds in her standoff with Trump, it will be an important moment in Washington, a signal that Congress, which has spent the past two years kowtowing to the President, now has the power to thwart him. That momentum would carry forward into numerous investigations the House is preparing to unleash.

Trump didn’t invent Washington gridlock. Plenty of other moments in his presidency have felt equally do-or-die, only to be subsumed and forgotten amid the next high-stakes crisis. Hours before Trump’s Oval Office address, new evidence emerged of his former campaign chairman’s communications with an aide the FBI has linked to Russian intelligence. At the end of the month, the President, assuming he can afford to fuel up Air Force One, is scheduled to travel to the annual meeting of economic elites in Davos, Switzerland, where he’ll confront the world order he continues to jumble and destabilize, an arguably bigger deal than nine shuttered government departments.

Perhaps it was inevitable that a President whose Administration has been in a state of virtual breakdown since its Inauguration should preside over the government itself grinding to a halt. Trump, true to his tendencies, acts on impulse, prevaricates, shreds norms and takes unilateral actions of questionable legality. He stumbles into authoritarianism, not out of calculation but out of machismo. Meanwhile, the Speaker, true to her tendencies, unites her wayward party behind a carefully chosen, logical course of action, but her best-laid plans may still be no match for an extraordinary moment. Ultimately, it is fitting that Trump, avatar of chaos, should face off against Pelosi, master of rules. And there’s no end in sight for the clash of these two titanic figures.

Write to Molly Ball at molly.ball@time.com.

This appears in the January 21, 2019 issue of TIME.

Crooked Media

Published  1 month ago

Expelling a member of Congress is an extraordinary step, but as an unapologetic white nationalist, Steve King is a perfect candidate for expulsion.

Daily Wire

Published  1 month ago

White House aides are said to be preparing a shortlist of potential Supreme Court nominees in the event that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies or retires.

Ginsburg, 85, missed oral arguments this week for the first time since she was first appointed to the high court 25 years ago by President Bill Clinton. After missing arguments on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday (for the record, she is reading transcripts of the sessions while she recovers from cancer surgery), the Trump White House began “reaching out to political allies and conservative activist groups to prepare for an ailing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s possible death or departure from the Supreme Court — an event that would trigger the second bitter confirmation battle of President Donald Trump’s tenure,” according to Politico.

This would actually be the third bitter confirmation battle of Trump’s tenure, unless Politico thinks Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) going nuclear to get Neil Gorsuch confirmed doesn’t constitute a “bitter confirmation battle.”

Politico spoke to “a source familiar with those conversations” within the White House, who said the administration “is taking the temperature on possible short-list candidates, reaching out to key stakeholders, and just making sure that people are informed on the process.” This source emphasized that the White House is “doing it very quietly, of course, because the idea is not to be opportunistic, but just to be prepared so we aren't caught flat-footed."

Back in November 2017, the White House updated a list of potential Supreme Court nominees in the event that President Trump would need to replace another justice. The list contained 25 names, including Brett Kavanaugh, who would eventually be confirmed to the court after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced he would retire in 2018. Other names on the list have since been appointed elsewhere, such as Don Willett, who now sits on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Still, some of the names on this list could come up again on a shortlist to replace Ginsburg, should the need arise. Amy Coney Barrett of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals was on the shortlist for the seat that eventually went to Kavanaugh. Since Ginsburg is a woman, replacing her with another woman could alleviate some of the attacks sure to be lodged against a potential future nominee.

Of course, Democrats and their media supporters will demand Trump replace Ginsburg with another liberal judge to keep the current makeup of the court’s ideology — a demand that was not put to President Barack Obama when he nominated Judge Merrick Garland (a center-left judge) to replace Justice Antonin Scalia (a reliably conservative judge). Garland never made it to the Supreme Court.

In the past, Ginsburg has said she would retire only when she “can’t do the job full steam,” however, previous justices have continued to work on the Supreme Court from home after their health deteriorated. Since it’s a lifetime appointment, Ginsburg is under no obligation to retire.

And we must remember she’s recovering from serious surgery. She may very well return to the bench soon. TMZ reported seeing her leaving her Washington, D.C. apartment on Wednesday, so she may be feeling better. Right now this is all just speculation, but Ginsburg has proved resilient in the past.

We wish her well.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was absent again on Wednesday, for the third consecutive day.

Though the 85-year-old Justice Ginsburg was unable to make it to the bench, she is said to be participating in deciding the case on Wednesday through briefs and transcripts.

Justice Ginsburg has been working from home since her surgery on December 21 in which she had cancerous nodules removed from her lung. Monday was the first day that she has missed oral arguments for reasons other than recusing herself. On Tuesday, she missed Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivering his first opinion in the court.

The Hill reports that Chief Justice John Roberts did not say whether Ginsburg would be back on the bench next week.

Ginsburg has battled cancer twice before, the Hill notes, colon cancer in 1999 and pancreatic cancer in 2009. She did not miss a day in court during those periods.

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

Six Republican senators bucked President Donald Trump and voted for a spending bill that does not contain the president’s increased border wall funding request.

The Senate failed to pass two separate spending bills that would end the historically long government shutdown. First, the Senate failed to pass President Trump’s “compromise” spending bill that contains $5.7 billion in border wall funding in exchange for a three-year extension of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program for illegal aliens.

The Senate also failed to pass a clean continuing resolution (CR) that would fund the government through February 8 and does not contain any increased border wall funding.

Six Republican senators voted against Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and the Republican majority to back Schumer’s plan.

The six Republican senators who voted with Schumer include:

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT)

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)

Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO)

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA)

Sen. Lisa Murkowksi (R-AK)

Sen. Romney infamously released an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he attacked the president’s character and America First policies. Despite Romney’s many spats with the president, Romney said in an interview with CNN that he will “be with Republicans” on the government shutdown.

“The shutdown is so extraordinarily unfair,” Collins said ahead of the vote this week. “I’ll vote yes and yes” on both bills.

Sen. Collins has bucked Trump and the Republican party in the past when she, Murkowski, and the late Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) tanked Obamacare repeal twice during Trump’s congressional term.

Murkowski also voted against confirming Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court despite historic Democrat opposition to his confirmation.

Sen. Garnder said that voting to re-open the government was the right thing to do.

Alexander contended in a statement after the votes that neither party should use a government shutdown as a bargaining chip.

“I voted twice today to open the government because it should never have been shut down,” Alexander said. “It is always wrong for either side to use shutting down the government as a bargaining chip in budget negotiations – it should be as off-limits as chemical weapons are to warfare.

POLITICO

Published  1 month ago

The White House is reaching out to political allies and conservative activist groups to prepare for an ailing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s possible death or departure from the Supreme Court — an event that would trigger the second bitter confirmation battle of President Donald Trump’s tenure.

The outreach began after Ginsburg, 85, on Monday missed oral arguments at the court for the first time in her 25 years on the bench. The justice, who was nominated to the court by President Bill Clinton in 1993, announced in late December that she underwent a surgical procedure to remove two cancerous growths from her lungs.

The White House "is taking the temperature on possible short-list candidates, reaching out to key stakeholders, and just making sure that people are informed on the process," said a source familiar with those conversations, who spoke on background given the delicate nature of the subject. "They're doing it very quietly, of course, because the idea is not to be opportunistic, but just to be prepared so we aren't caught flat-footed."

Ginsburg had a pulmonary lobectomy, the Supreme Court said in a statement, and her doctors said that post-surgery there was “no evidence of any remaining disease.” She has also recovered from several past health scares. But her departure from the Court would allow Trump to nominate a third Supreme Court justice — the most in one presidential term since President Ronald Reagan placed three judges on the highest court during his second term.

The nine-member court is currently divided 5-4 between its conservative and liberal wings. Ginsburg’s departure would allow Trump to create the Court’s strongest conservative majority in decades, a scenario sure to bring intense opposition from Democrats and liberal activists still furious over the October confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

"It would be a brutal confirmation,” said John Malcolm, director of the Heritage Foundation's Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. “The first two were not easy at all, but this would be much harder in this respect: When Neil Gorsuch was the nominee, you were replacing a conservative with a conservative. With Kavanaugh, you were replacing the perennial swing voter, who more times than not sided with the so-called conservative wing, so that slightly solidified the conservative wing.”

“But if you are replacing Justice Ginsburg with a Trump appointee, that would be akin to replacing Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas,” Malcolm added. “It would mark a large shift in the direction of the court."

The White House is urging outside allies to be prepared for another bruising confirmation battle should Ginsberg’s health take a sudden turn for the worse, according to four sources with knowledge of the overtures. Outside groups, led by the Federalist Society and the Judicial Crisis Network, played a leading role in helping to confirm Kavanaugh and, before that, Justice Neil Gorsuch.

The groups have advised the Trump team on everything from potential nominees to political and media strategy, producing television advertisements and blitzing reporters with supportive messaging. Together, the conservative groups spent over $7 million on ads supporting Kavanaugh’s nomination.

The White House has quietly pressed them not to rest on their laurels after Kavanaugh’s nationally-divisive confirmation battle amid charges of sexual misconduct.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Though Ginsburg and the Court itself have been tight-lipped about her health, her absence from the bench this week has become a cause of concern because of her remarkable past attendance streak, which persisted through two previous cancer treatments and a number of other health scares. At the outset of oral arguments on Monday, Chief Justice John Roberts said she was “unable to be present” but would participate in the cases nonetheless, reading briefs, filings, and a transcript of the sessions.

Supreme Court appointments are indefinite, and a seat is considered empty only if a justice dies or retires from the court. In the event a judge is unable to perform his or her duties, the only clear recourse is Congressional impeachment.

Ginsburg told an audience in mid-December that she “will do this job as long as I can do it full steam.” As a candidate in July 2016,

Trump tweeted that her “mind is shot — resign!” But after her surgery last month he wished her a “full and speedy recovery."

The White House counsel’s office and senior aides on the Senate Judiciary Committee, now chaired by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), have begun drafting a shortlist of potential court nominees. It features judges the president has considered for previous vacancies along with some new names. Many of them are women, sources say.

They include Seventh Circuit judge Amy Coney Barrett, who was a leading contender for the last Supreme Court vacancy, created by Justice Anthony Kennedy; Sixth Circuit judges Joan Larsen, Amul Thapar, and Raymond Kethledge; Eleventh Circuit judge Britt Grant; and Third Circuit judge Thomas Hardiman; and Neomi Rao, Trump’s current nominee for Kavanaugh’s old seat on the D.C. Circuit Court.

Should Ginsburg’s seat open, it would be the first confirmation battle of White House counsel Pat Cipollone’s tenure. The president’s first White House counsel Don McGahn — who focused heavily on confirming conservative judges to the federal bench — left the White House shortly after he played a central role in Kavanaugh’s October confirmation.

“Outside of war and peace, of course, the most important decision you make is the selection of a Supreme Court judge, if you get it,” Trump said last summer.

WSJ

Published  1 month ago

Advisers on touchy issues include Anthony Perkins’ Family Research Council, Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform and, on the left, the Southern Poverty Law Center. Their involvement behind the scenes, designed to tamp down a furor over social media’s policing of content, has instead kicked up a new range of disputes.

dailycaller

Published  1 month ago

Quiet preparations are underway within conservative legal circles and the White House counsel’s office in the event that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires, two sources familiar with the process tell The Daily Caller.

The 85-year-old Ginsburg did not appear for oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Monday, missing the first session in her 25 years on the court for reasons of ill health. Ginsburg is currently recuperating from recent surgery to remove cancerous nodules from her lungs, marking her third bout with the disease.

“Gingerly preparations are underway, not just for Ginsburg but for any SCOTUS retirement,” a source directly involved in the Supreme Court nominations of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh told TheDC.

Another source emphasized to TheDC that the quiet preparations are all that is realistically needed in case of a vacancy on the court because much of the required infrastructure already exists within the White House. (RELATED: How The Supreme Court Selection Process Went Down, As Told By Brett Kavanaugh)

Both sources said that the White House counsel’s office and its conservative legal allies have now been through two successful confirmation processes, and that they have developed an intimate and professional feel for how to run the process again, if necessary.

Trump is particularly proud of his handling of the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh nominations, a source close to the White House said, noting that the president views proper handling of the Supreme Court as a necessary part of maintaining the support of his voters.

The opening would be the first under White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who assumed the position after Don McGahn. Cipollone is a longtime Washington lawyer intimately familiar with the conservative legal eco-system.

“By appointing Pat, Trump made sure he has a White House counsel who is both able to handle the investigation and a movement conservative philosophically aligned with the base of the party,” American Conservative Union Chairman Matt Schlapp told TheDC.

Pressed on Trump’s lack of public discussion of any potential Supreme Court nomination, Schlapp noted that “Trump has figured out there are some things you keep close to the vest. He likes to be the explainer-in-chief but understands there’s a downside to sharing too much.”

John Malcolm, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, similarly told TheDC that Cipollone has “very bright movement conservatives” around him as staffers, and expressed confidence in his preparations to fill a vacancy on the court.

Malcolm speculated that if Ginsburg’s seat becomes vacant, “there would be a lot of pressure to appoint a woman, I would think that one person the president would seriously look at would be Amy Coney Barett.”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Laura Ingraham: If lawmakers refuse to address the border crisis, our government is already completely shut down - from the will of the people.

dailycaller

Published  1 month ago

Quiet preparations are underway within conservative legal circles and the White House counsel’s office in the event that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires, two sources familiar with the process tell The Daily Caller.

The 85-year-old Ginsburg did not appear for oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Monday, missing the first session in her 25 years on the court for reasons of ill health. Ginsburg is currently recuperating from recent surgery to remove cancerous nodules from her lungs, marking her third bout with the disease.

“Ginger preparations are underway, not just for Ginsburg but for any SCOTUS retirement,” a source directly involved in the Supreme Court nominations of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh told TheDC.

Another source emphasized to TheDC that the quiet preparations are all that is realistically needed in case of a vacancy on the court because much of the required infrastructure already exists within the White House. (RELATED: How The Supreme Court Selection Process Went Down, As Told By Brett Kavanaugh)

Both sources said that the White House counsel’s office and its conservative legal allies have now been through two successful confirmation processes, and that they have developed an intimate and professional feel for how to run the process again, if necessary.

Trump is particularly proud of his handling of the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh nominations, a source close to the White House said, noting that the president views proper handling of the Supreme Court as a necessary part of maintaining the support of his voters.

The opening would be the first under White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who assumed the position after Don McGahn. Cipollone is a longtime Washington lawyer intimately familiar with the conservative legal eco-system.

“By appointing Pat, Trump made sure he has a White House counsel who is both able to handle the investigation and a movement conservative philosophically aligned with the base of the party,” American Conservative Union Chairman Matt Schlapp told TheDC.

Pressed on Trump’s lack of public discussion of any potential Supreme Court nomination, Schlapp noted that “Trump has figured out there are some things you keep close to the vest. He likes to be the explainer-in-chief but understands there’s a downside to sharing too much.”

John Malcolm, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, similarly told TheDC that Cipollone has “very bright movement conservatives” around him as staffers, and expressed confidence in his preparations to fill a vacancy on the court.

Malcolm speculated that if Ginsburg’s seat becomes vacant, “there would be a lot of pressure to appoint a woman, I would think that one person the president would seriously look at would be Amy Coney Barett.”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

LifeNews.com

Published  1 month ago

Hillary Clinton is not on the campaign trail right now, but she still is using her influence to push legalized abortion up to birth.

On Sunday, she announced plans to help New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo push a radical pro-abortion bill in his state.

“I’ll be joining Gov. Cuomo as he lays out his plan to codify Roe v. Wade and pass the Reproductive Health Act,” Clinton wrote on Twitter. “There’s no time to wait.”

Cuomo made no secret of his plans to ram the pro-abortion bill through the state legislature. He said he wants to see it pass within 30 days.

Pro-abortion lawmakers in New York have been trying to pass the radical pro-abortion Reproductive Health Act for years. Already one of the most pro-abortion states in America, New York would be made even more pro-abortion if the legislation passes. The bill would allow abortions on viable, late-term unborn babies for any “health” reason and would keep abortion on demand legal in the state if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.

The Times Union reports the bill would end a decades-old law that would criminalize late-term abortions if Roe is overturned and replace it with new language allowing abortion on demand. State Sen. Liz Krueger, D-Manhattan, is the sponsor.

“It would proclaim abortion as a fundamental right and impose an extreme abortion agenda on all New Yorkers,” according to New York State Right to Life.

Here’s more from the local news:

LifeNews depends on the support of readers like you to combat the pro-abortion media. Please donate now.

The legislation passed the Assembly but was blocked by the Senate Health Committee before it got to the floor for a vote last year.

With the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and the controversial appointment of conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Democrats like Cuomo and Clinton fear the Supreme Court could repeal Roe v. Wade. They’re pushing, as New York’s legislature convenes on Jan. 9, to make sure the ruling is state law.

Among the most radically pro-abortion parts of the legislation, it would create a very loose definition of viability that could allow unborn babies to be aborted up to birth. According to a New York RTL analysis of the 2013 bill, which is basically the same as the current legislation:

“Roe v. Wade defined viability as the potential to ‘live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid.’ RHA states that viability will be subjectively determined by the ‘licensed healthcare practitioner’ and no ‘extraordinary medical measures’ are required to help the child survive outside the womb. ‘Extraordinary medical measures’ is not defined.”

It also would end limits on late-term abortions by allowing third-trimester unborn babies to be aborted for all “health” factors including “physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman’s age.”

Additionally, the bill says the state cannot “deny, regulate or restrict” abortion, not even for common-sense reasons such as parental consent for minors, informed consent or limits on taxpayer-funded abortions.

Pro-life groups fear for medical workers’ rights as well. According to New York RTL, the bill does not provide conscience protections for religious hospitals or insurance companies, and medical workers could be forced to refer women for abortions.

Cuomo and Clinton both advocate for abortion on demand. During her failed 2016 presidential campaign, Clinton not only pushed for abortion to be legal for any reason up to birth but also for taxpayer-funded abortions.

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 month ago

Before we get started, let me make a few things clear: I’m not a ghoul. I don’t wish Ruth Bader Ginsburg ill. Yes, I’d like her to retire and, yes, I’d like to see a strict-constructionist take her place on the bench – but I don’t want her sick, hurting, or deceased. I wish her nothing but a speedy recovery and a long, happy, life. If you feel otherwise, please feel free to show yourself to the exits.

With that as prologue, it’s clear that Democrats are absolutely terrified that Ginsburg is unable to resume her SCOTUS duties. If there’s one idea they despise well, honestly, it’s capitalism. If there are two ideas they despise, they’re capitalism and the notion that Donald Trump could replace the left’s Supreme Court Patron Saint.

Don’t believe me? You can buy this on Amazon:

I’m not sure who would want an RBG prayer candle in their home but, if you do, you’re probably upset by this morning’s news:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, recovering from surgery, will not attend oral arguments Monday—the first time she has missed a scheduled public session in her 25-year career on the high court bench, a court spokeswoman says. https://t.co/htprmoA6dM pic.twitter.com/U1vGC6n84o

— ABC News (@ABC) January 7, 2019

JUST IN: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is still recovering from surgery last month to remove two cancerous nodules from her lung, will not be at the Supreme Court this morning as it meets for its first day of oral arguments of the new year https://t.co/EHQyHj9By2 pic.twitter.com/g8ruRZoBvt

— CNN (@CNN) January 7, 2019

Progressives are, of course, freaking out. This morning, there were thousands of social media posts expressing fear over the fact that her name was trending on Twitter. That’s understandable because, if President Trump appoints another Justice, the overall court will swing decisively away from their agenda.

But what does that say about the left?

So far, Trump’s nominees, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, have been substantively non-controversial. Democrats have ginned-up controversies in an effort to derail their nominations (or, in Kavanaugh’s case, destroy the nominee) but prior to their SCOTUS appointments the tenures of both men were viewed favorably. It’s notable that almost none of the objections to Trump’s picks were based on the substance of their judicial careers. It is ONLY the fact that they could pull the court toward a strict interpretation of the Constitution that causes left-wing panic.

Dems never miss an opportunity to profess their love of our founding document, but their fear serves as a tacit admission that their goals are anti-constitutional or, at the very least, that they view the Constitution as an obstruction.

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

Former Vice President Joe Biden is facing criticism for pointing the finger at conservative radio host "Rush Limbaugh and the conservative blonde woman" for the partial government shutdown.

Biden was presumably talking about Ann Coulter, who had before the shutdown called President Trump "gutless" and said that if Trump caves on the wall then the next president would be a Democrat.

"Republicans overwhelmingly voted to keep the government open," Biden said. "Then Rush Limbaugh and the conservative blonde woman says he’s losing his base, and so he’s changed his mind."

Limbaugh, a conservative radio host, had urged Trump to stand a firm ground on the shutdown in order to deliver on his campaign promise about building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Congress had planned to send Trump a bill that would have extended government funding through February, but Trump told them he wouldn't sign it and demanded more than $5 billion to pay for the wall. Trump has maintained since he will not sign a spending bill that doesn't include money for a border wall.

Biden's comments drew criticism on Twitter for his use of "conservative blonde woman" rather than the woman's name. Coulter is a well-known, if controversial, conservative columnist and talk show host who has published a dozen books.

The comment is the latest from the gaffe-prone former senator — who once described then-candidate Sen. Barack Obama as "articulate and bright and clean" — to earn criticism for being sexist, dating back decades. Criticism of his handling of the 1991 Senate confirmation hearings for Justice Clarence Thomas in which Anita Hill testified about the sexual harassment she faced re-emerged in the wake of the hearings for Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was accused of sexual misconduct by California professor Christine Blasey Ford.

Hill said in an Elle interview last year that while Biden, who chaired those hearings, has since said he owes her an apology, he had not apologized.

Biden, widely regarded as a top contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, has also drawn scrutiny for his habit of touching women while he speaks to them, a practice repeatedly captured in photos of public events.

The Atlantic

Published  1 month ago

From seizing control of the internet to declaring martial law, President Trump may legally do all kinds of extraordinary things.

SARAH PALIN

Published  1 month ago

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell probably won’t find himself on any highlight reels, but he scored a buzzer-beater of confirmations in the final hours of the 115th Congress.

According to a report from the Washington Examiner, McConnell confirmed 77 nominees previously stuck in the legislative body.

From the report:

In total, the Senate cleared 77 nominees by voice vote, among them 23 ambassadors to countries including Australia, Armenia, Yemen, Guyana, Kenya, and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Senate confirmed eight U.S. attorneys and eight U.S. marshals, a member of the Federal Maritime Commission, and two members of the Federal Communications Commission.

The Senate confirmed James Carroll Jr. to be director of National Drug Control Policy. It also confirmed Ellen McCarthy to serve as assistant secretary of state.

And it confirmed Kelvin Droegemeier to serve as the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

“The Senate has reached an agreement to confirm more of the Administration’s well-qualified nominees,” McConnell wrote in a social media post. “I’m glad these newly-confirmed nominees will be able to get to work on important business for the American people.”

According to the Washington Examiner, McConnell was hopeful to have more than a dozen federal judges passed before the end of the 115th session of Congress but was unable to score a deal with Schumer. Despite not clearing those nominees, as NPR reports, the Senate helped Trump continue his historic streak of appointing judges across 2018:

The Trump administration more than doubled the number of judges it confirmed to federal appeals courts in 2018, exceeding the pace of the last five presidents and stocking the courts with lifetime appointees who could have profound consequences for civil rights, the environment and government regulations.

To conservatives, the Trump approach to judges represents the administration’s most enduring legacy and a central reason he won the White House. Many of the Trump nominees are members of the Federalist Society, an elite group that has made a point of creating a pipeline of future judges.

The trend on judges is likely to continue this year, since Republicans hold 53 seats in the Senate. McConnell often points to confirming judges as a key success of the GOP-controlled Senate since Trump was elected. It’s a message that may have boosted the enthusiasm of conservative voters in the midterm elections, particularly with the heated confirmation battle over Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh coming just weeks earlier.

Note: The author of this article has included commentary that expresses an opinion and analysis of the facts.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

The Senate Judiciary Committee for the first time will have Republican women serve on the panel, a new report says.

According to a roster and a Capitol Hill source, Sens. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, are slated to serve on the committee, Politico reports. Although four women from the Democratic party have previously served on the panel, no Republican women have yet.

The committee appointments are not set in stone yet though, a spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told Politico.

The move comes after the committee came under scrutiny last fall during the confirmation proceedings for now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was accused of sexual misconduct. Committee Republicans hired a female attorney to help question Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, initially said last year that being on the committee was “a lot of work” and maybe women weren’t interested in joining the panel, but he later apologized.

“Everyone knows Republicans need women on Judiciary,” said Marilyn Musgrave, the vice president of anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List. “It will take away the critics asking, ‘Where are the women?’”

dailycaller

Published  1 month ago

'Well, how does it work to the advantage of the people of Utah?'

realclearpolitics

Published  1 month ago

Given all the political fervor of 2018, Americans may easily lose sight of the policy achievements of the past 12 months. So, before bidding the year goodbye, consider these impressive accomplishments of President Trump:

Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court – As messy and unfair as the process was, his confirmation secures another conservative jurist with an originalist constitutional approach and a restrained view of judicial power. The untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016 crystalized for many voters the danger of allowing Hillary Clinton to fill that seat. With Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in place, Trump has kept his promise to remake the high court with young, conservative thinkers.

Confronting China – Much of the heartland anxiety that vaulted Trump into the Oval Office emanates directly from the abusive economic warfare waged by China for decades against the United States. At long last, those workers find a champion in Donald Trump, who slapped serious tariffs upon Beijing and finally forced the regime to negotiate fairly. America now embraces its strong bargaining position and demands reciprocity in trade and an end to rampant industrial theft and piracy.

Middle-Class Wages Rise – Incomes in general soared in 2018, with average hourly earnings finally eclipsing 3 percent growth for the first time since before the Great Recession. The news is even better for blue-collar workers, who now realize wage growth above that of white-collar workers for the first time in nearly a decade.

U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Deal – Trump proved that America welcomes equitable global commerce by cementing a badly needed modernization of NAFTA. The USMCA provides a template for other such trade pacts and effectively isolates China’s increasingly untenable posture.

Ending the Iran Nuclear Deal – Gone are the days of coddling the mullahs who have terrorized America and our allies for decades. Instead of counting the billions of dollars of cash sent via secret nighttime flights by the Obama administration, the Tehran regime now faces a U.S. leadership determined to thwart its tyranny and prevent its nuclearization.

Moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem – Trump proved once again how differently he governs compared to Washington norms. Past presidents promised for decades to make this move and U.S. law has required it since 1995, but only President Trump made good on his pledge, honored our ally, and recognized the obvious reality that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel.

Smashing the ISIS Caliphate and Exiting Syria – Unlike his predecessor, who haughtily dismissed and ignored the ISIS threat as terrorists’ “JV team,” President Trump smartly dispatched limited U.S. troops to help our partners erase the territorial caliphate that had inflicted unspeakable human rights abuses. Just as importantly, Trump also announced the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria, placing the primary burden for ongoing stability upon regional powers Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. This president will not repeat the disastrous nation-building mistakes of Presidents Bush and Obama.

Increasing Minority Jobs – If Trump is actually racist, as biased mainstream media “journalists” often claim, he’s remarkably bad at it, because people of color have thrived under the pro-growth policies of the Trump Boom. Black joblessness in 2018 reached the lowest levels ever recorded. For Hispanics, in history there have been a total of 14 months with a jobless rate under 5 percent -- and 13 of those months have unfolded under the leadership of President Trump. Small business dynamism is particularly crucial for minority advancement, and small business surveys report optimism among entrepreneurs at record highs in 2018.

Holding the Line with Migrant Caravans – In the face of continual demagoguery from liberal politicians and their allies in the legacy media, President Trump took a tough and principled stance against would-be trespassers. Lawless caravans assault our sovereignty and abuse our generous asylum statutes. Such provocations validate the need for a border wall along with reforms to immigration laws.

Record American Oil Production – In 2018, the U.S. surpassed Russia and Saudi Arabia to become the world’s largest producer of crude oil. Through aggressive regulatory relief and pro-energy moves like green-lighting the Keystone XL pipeline, President Trump paved the way for an independent energy future.

There were missteps, to be sure. For example, the Helsinki press conference with Vladimir Putin belied the normally assertive Trump. Still, good news abounded in 2018 as America reaped the benefits of a commander-in-chief committed to restoring the greatness of our republic. The intelligentsia of the permanent political class may howl, and complicit pseudo-journalists will balk, but the reality of the Trump track record reveals a country growing in prosperity and security.

Steve Cortes is a contributor to RealClearPolitics and a CNN political commentator. His Twitter handle is @CortesSteve.

GOBankingRates

Published  1 month ago

Sen. Kamala Harris is the first person of South-Asian descent to serve in the U.S. Senate.

Her personal financial disclosures do not include her multimillion-dollar Brentwood home.

She has been rumored to be a potential candidate for president in the 2020 election.

The unfolding drama of the Brett Kavanaugh hearings related to his Supreme Court nomination has captured the attention of the country, bringing a new level of attention to a few of the potential Democratic candidates to challenge President Donald Trump in the 2020 election. One of them is Kamala Harris, the junior senator from California who — despite just winning election to the body in 2016 — is already being discussed as a potential 2020 candidate.

But what sort of financial outlook does Sen. Harris have as she gears up for a potential presidential run? Here’s a closer look at the net worth of Kamala Harris.

Click to read more about the most expensive races in the 2018 elections.

Kamala Harris Net Worth: $581,010-$1.8M

Kamala Harris’ net worth falls between $581,010 and almost $2 million at its highest. She keeps a significant portion of that in cash, with a Wells Fargo savings account that has between $250,001 and $500,000 in it. However, the biggest chunk of her reported wealth would come in the form of her retirement plan through the city of San Francisco. Her City & County of San Francisco 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan could be worth as much as $800,000. She also has between $115,002 and $300,000 in debt from a mortgage — 30 years with a 3.75% APR — and a home equity line of credit — 20 years at a 4.75% APR.

Focusing just on Harris’ personal reported wealth does not paint a complete picture, however. The California senator’s disclosure also includes assets held by her husband — Los Angeles attorney Douglas Emhoff — that could add up to as much as $3.5 million. Mostly in the form of mutual funds and other investments, Emhoff might have earned over $182,000 last year in interest and dividends alone.

Kamala Harris’ Pricey Properties Add to Net Worth

It’s also worth noting what’s not included in the disclosures, namely any properties for which Harris and her husband aren’t earning rent. That would include the multimillion-dollar Brentwood, Calif., home where they live. Properties that are listed in the disclosure are two mortgages of at least $1 million held independently.

So, although it’s unclear how much Harris is really worth without a better understanding of her homes, it could be safe to assume that Harris and Emhoff have a combined net worth in the millions.

Kamala Harris’ Rise in Politics

Kamala Harris was raised in Oakland, Calif., and attended Howard University for her undergraduate degree and then received her law degree from the University of California, Hastings. After leaving law school, she took on her first job in government at Alameda County District Attorney’s Office.

In 2003, Harris became the district attorney for the City and County of San Francisco, where she served two terms before becoming the first African-American woman to fill the role of California’s attorney general.

After serving as the state’s attorney general, she ran to fill the Senate seat vacated by the retirement of Barbara Boxer and won the election in 2016, defeating Rep. Loretta Sanchez to become the first Indian American and only the second African-American woman to serve in the Senate.

Click through to read more about how political conditions affect the stock market.

More on Politicians

Daily Kos

Published  1 month ago

The world will be a better place in 2019, if for no other reason than Laura Ingraham has lost one of her platforms for hatemongering, her radio show previously syndicated by Courtside Entertainment Group, due to loss of advertising revenue. But before you get too excited, she’ll be replacing it with a podcast and she’s still a fixture on Fox News. Media Matters did a lengthy article on the lowlights of Ingraham’s show. If you find yourself wondering for even a moment why the RWNJs think like they do, here is the mother lode of their dogma, 17 years of it.

Ingraham fawned over Donald Trump’s bigoted rhetoric on immigration; she defended his calls for a ban on Muslims entering the United States, and even argued that the ban was “not broad enough,” claiming that she would “go farther” and be “even worse than Trump.”

She asserted that “Middle Eastern countries have got to be told… we’re cutting you off,” questioned why the U.S. should allow Muslim immigration ”knowing that we can't tell if an Islamic individual is going to be radicalized.”

She fearmongered about Muslim immigrants as “people who have dual loyalties … whether it's the Quran, or the Quranic way of thinking, versus the loyalties to the United States.”

Ingraham claimed that Trump’s assertion that Mexico is “sending rapists” is true, and stated that Mexicans “have come here to murder and rape our people.”

She parroted Trump in claiming that “nobody has a right to be here except the people who are born here,” and said the United States should shoot deported immigrants if they try to re-enter the country.

Shehypedfears of terrorism about Muslim refugee women, asking: “What’s underneath that burqa, baby?

After the October 2017 mass shooting at a Las Vegas music festival, she suggested that photos of the gunman’s room were staged and that he was in too “poor health” to have acted alone.

Before the 2016 election, Ingraham implied that Hillary Clinton may try to kill then-FBI Director James Comey if she won.

Ingraham pushed a discredited conspiracy theory that a Democratic National Committee staffer was murdered for leaking the hacked 2016 DNC emails.

After Christine Blasey Ford accused then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, Ingraham argued that “George Soros is involved” because Ford’s “social media was scrubbed.” She also claimed -- without offering any evidence -- that Ford’s accusations were “a left-wing conspiracy.”

The boycott of sponsors of the radio show was a direct result of the efforts of David Hogg and other student activists in the wake of the Parkland shooting. Ingraham’s TV show was substantially affected as well. Politico:

It’s not unusual for advertisers to flee temporarily when controversy strikes a television program. But the sustained loss of advertising minutes and big, nationally recognized brands from "The Ingraham Angle" shows the power of activist-led boycotts and the depth of major corporations' concerns about offending would-be consumers in the hyperpoliticized era of President Donald Trump.

Early this year, Ingraham’s show averaged nearly 15 minutes of advertisements per hour, in line with those of her Fox News prime-time colleagues Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson, according to an analysis for POLITICO by Kantar Media.

That number plummeted after the boycott campaign, and it still hasn’t recovered: Last month, “The Ingraham Angle” averaged 10 minutes and 50 seconds of ads per hour, Kantar Media found.

It’s not an all encompassing victory, but it is a victory none the less. This is how it starts. If the golden adage is “follow the money” the corollary to that rule is “hit ‘em in the pocketbook.”

To receive articles of mine not published elsewhere become a patron on Patreon.

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

President Donald Trump has had as much impact on the third branch of government in two years as most presidents have in two full terms, and the new Senate opens the door for the second half of his first term to be even more significant than the first half.

The Senate in 2018 confirmed 67 federal judges to lifetime appointments: one Supreme Court justice, 18 judges to the U.S. courts of appeals, and 48 judges to the federal district courts (which is where trials are conducted).

Combined with the 2017 number, this is a phenomenal total of 85 new federal judges: two Supreme Court justices, 30 appellate judges, and 53 trial judges. The total of 30 for the circuit courts of appeals breaks the previous all-time two-year record of 23, marking a historic achievement by President Trump and Senate Republicans.

Many of the issues most important to voters turn on competing views of interpreting the Constitution or federal law, and thus depend on the judicial philosophy of the judges deciding court cases involving those issues.

Regarding immigration, the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii reversed 5-4 the losses from liberal judges over Presidential Proclamation 9645 (the travel ban), after Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation. Similar Supreme Court victories are likely to reverse adverse rulings on DACA and the asylum caravans as well, so long as the White House and congressional Republicans do not give up those fights.

Regarding religious liberty, lower-court losses on the constitutionality of public displays with religious imagery, invocations at public events, and rights of conscience for people of faith both under the Free Speech Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment are widely expected to become Supreme Court victories.

Regarding the Second Amendment, where lower courts have routinely ignored the Supreme Court’s two blockbuster decisions – Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) – at least a couple circuit courts of appeals now support the original public meaning of the right to bear arms, thanks to originalist judges appointed by President Trump. And with Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation, experts expect the Supreme Court may now have a majority that will vindicate other basic aspects of that right, such as the fact that it extends beyond the confines of a law-abiding citizen’s home.

Regarding the suffocating reach of the vast federal administrative state, Trump appointees to the lower courts have criticized long-standing doctrines that are foundational to the power of the federal leviathan, and the Supreme Court will hear arguments in early 2019 in Kisor v. Wilkie, over whether to overrule Auer deference, one of the pillars of unaccountable bureaucratic power.

The truth about judicial confirmations over the past two years is this: Conservatives never had a working Senate majority as they confirmed the most constitutionally faithful slate of new judges in many decades. The 52-48 Republican control of the Senate – which became 51-49 after the loss of the Alabama seat to Democrat Sen. Doug Jones – never had 50 completely reliable Republican votes for originalist nominees.

Everyone talked about two moderate Republicans. But in addition to the two moderate women in the Republican caucus, Susan Collins (ME) and Lisa Murkowski (AK), there were several senators who needed to be sold on certain nominees. Three of them are no longer in the Senate as of January 3: Jeff Flake (AZ), Dean Heller (NV), and Bob Corker (TN). Two of those seats were lost to Democrats, so were only partial losses where judges were concerned. The third was replaced by a solid Republican vote for conservative judges – Marsha Blackburn (TN) – which is essentially a plus-one in terms of votes that conservatives need no longer worry about.

As a consequence, the new 53-47 Republican-controlled Senate should almost always be at worst 51-49 on originalist judges. Even when a surprise comes along that costs a vote – such as Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), who somehow fell for left-wing attacks, opposing two well-respected judicial nominees because of long-discredited allegations of racial insensitivity that even the liberal American Bar Association (ABA) did not see as disqualifying – this new equation allows for Vice President Mike Pence to break 50-50 tie votes to confirm the president’s nominees.

President Trump can now be even bolder on one of his strongest issues. In 2016, 48 percent of voters said judges were very important to their voting choice and an amazing 21 percent said it was their top issue. With almost 100 additional judicial vacancies to fill, the president can more than double his historic success thus far on that campaign promise, and over the next two years can give those voters something to mobilize for in 2020.

Ken Klukowski is senior legal editor for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Allegations of past sexual misconduct nearly derailed Brett Kavanaugh’s ascent to the Supreme Court bench.

NewsBusters

Published  1 month ago

In 2018 there was a torrent of ugliness directed at conservatives. Vice President Mike Pence was disgustingly derided as a “dangerous” Christian with a “mental illness” on ABC’s The View. When White

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

For the first time since 1936 conservatives have a majority on the Supreme Court and they could use this to make important changes in how the court interprets the Constitution.

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago