Conservatives welcome. Libs & RINOs go away. It's all of you destroying the society and conservatives must no longer appease you!
Yesterday President Trump vowed to shut down the federal government if Congress refuses to cough up the dough for the southern border wall that the American people have been demanding for decades.
via CanadaFreePress.Com
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/11sy9G3
The John Brown Clubs are gun clubs for leftists affiliated with Redneck Revolt, an outfit in turn affiliated with Antifa (they marched with the other Antifa gangs in Charlottesville). Redneck Revolt was founded to agitate among rural working-class whites across the country, the people left behind by the attempt to shift the United States into a hierarchal meritocracy. This effort reveals considerably smarter thinking than that of Obama, the coastal elites, or for that matter, Kevin Williamson and Bill Kristol.
The John Brown Clubs were founded to exploit working class interest in firearms, and to provide training and familiarization to the more effete levels of the “resistance.” Those of a certain age will recall the “Gay Communist Gun Club,” one of SNL’s funnier skits. That, in a nutshell, and with a large helping of divisive racial politics, is what the Brownies are.
The Brownies had a brief fling of notoriety this past Spring when the original Phoenix branch showed up at a Trump rally toting guns and acting as menacing as any random group of left-wing snowflakes can manage. Widely covered in the regional and left-wing press, the stories featured shots of the standard dreadlock and nose chain denizens of the current left with an impressive array of shoulder weapons. (Interestingly, none of them were masked, as has become customary on the left. Presumably, the sight of armed and masked people assembling would have required arrests.)
Close examination by firearms experts revealed that at least some of the weaponry were actually airsoft toys with the orange rings clipped off. Not an impressive debut, in other words.
All the same, a number of new branches have sprouted in Denver, Orlando, Cincinnati, Seattle, and Maine.
Something often overlooked when dealing with the American left is that they’ve adapted the process of “projection” as a political strategy. It works like this: the left accuses the opposition (it could be “the right,” or the middle, or even traditional liberals, for that matter) of some crime or other. It can be anything at all, and it doesn’t matter if it’s true or not – the accusation is all that counts. Once placed in the record and validated by our current media, the accusation then becomes a new benchmark for political activity – as far as the left goes, anyway. Because the “far right” or the “fascists,” or whoever, violated the rules, it’s now okay for the left to do the same. They have no choice, really, if they want to save the People from being ravaged by the fascist hordes. You have to fight fire with fire, no?
So, if Richard Nixon “subverted the Constitution” during Watergate, well, that justifies every left-wing president since, from Carter to Clinton to Obama, in doing the same. Since the “far right” impeached Bill Clinton for no reason at all, the left is justified in threatening every Republican president with impeachment. Since George W. Bush cheated his way into the presidency in 2000, we can’t complain about Hillary pulling the same thing.
We could go on endlessly from there, but to cut to the chase, this is what the John Brown Clubs are all about – an attempt to respond to the editorial cartoon horror-flick image of conservatism by being even more horrifying. Comprised of bitter clingers, Nazis, and Klansmen, right-wingers lope through the twilight hills with a firearm in one hand and a Bible in the other, threatening progressives, undocumented immigrants, and every flavor of LGBTPDQ+ there is. What choice do the Brownies have but to respond in kind?
And respond they have. A recent video, released for purposes of shock and awe, reveals the Phoenix club in full panoply as a platoon of Harry Callaghans, John McClains, and Rambos – in their own minds, anyway:
VIDEO
Targets set up twenty paces away, clearing their weapons while aiming at their feet, that bizarre Frederick the Great-era firing line.… Clearly, the Brownies know next to nothing about guns – how to handle them, fire them, gun safety, whatever. Because they don’t think there is anything to know. The impression the left has about gun owners is simple: gibbering psychopathic loons waving weapons of mass destruction in a pathetic effort to make up for personal deficiencies. A threat to decent people, and nothing more.
Leftists – Brownies among them – have no idea why people own guns. Because they have no idea, they think they have nothing to learn beyond what end the slug comes out of. The process of learning about guns – how they are safely handled, how they are used, the differences between types and makes, and what they are for — does not occur. The same is true of the growth in character that serious firearm ownership demands and encourages – the enhanced sense of personal responsibility and discipline that is one of the great benefits of living with firearms. The Brownies don’t know that this exists. Therefore, it doesn’t happen. It’s as if somebody tossed a set of keys to a Mustang to a fourteen-year-old and told her to take it away without any effort to impart driver safety, the rules of the road, and so forth.
No – to the left, guns are simply a menace. So the Brownies have established themselves as a menace. That’s why they showed up at the Trump march in Phoenix. Interestingly, there were no photos of the Trump marchers in the articles dealing with the incident. Why not? Because those photos would have revealed the Trump marchers to be unarmed. Normal everyday people, husbands and wives, families, small businessmen, professionals, students, all out to express their support of the government with nary a pistol in evidence. Because they don’t need them. Because there would be no point.
But here come all the Che, Jrs., menacing, belligerent, willing to up the ante, to push things as far as they’ll go – and then even farther.
That, after all, is exactly what their historic namesake did. John Brown is greater than a historical figure. He is an icon. An icon of chaos, murder, and bloodshed. The absolute bloody-minded ultraviolet far end of the abolitionist movement, one who actively frightened sincere figures such as Frederick Douglass. Brown was one of the belligerents who made Kansas bleed in the late 1850s, personally responsible for at least one massacre of Southern settlers at Pottawatomie in 1856. He returned east in hopes of an even greater bloodletting, one encompassing the entire South.
He didn’t have to do this – while in Kansas, he had also freed a number of slaves and sent them north toward freedom. He could have continued that, acting as something of an abolitionist Robin Hood, bestowing freedom while making the slaveholders look foolish in their effort to turn Kansas into a slave state. But something else called to him – something that to modern eyes bears a strong resemblance to the behavior of Charlie Manson or Jim Jones. In the end, he merely convinced the South as a whole that its own propaganda was true – that abolitionists, far from a Gospel-inspired crusade in favor of Christian values, were a gang of bloodthirsty maniacs eager to plunge the South into apocalypse. And once they convinced themselves of this, they set about, against their own interests, in making it true.
The John Brown clubs didn’t choose that name by accident. Charlottesville must be thought of in same terms as Bleeding Kansas and Harpers Ferry. Because it’s the same impulse of near-demented fanaticism that lies behind them all, a century and a half apart.
The Harpers Ferry raid was intended to kick off a massive rebellion that would drown the slave-owning class in a tidal wave of blood. So was Charlottesville. Only the victims, this time, were to be the bourgeois, the middle class, the ordinary Americans who insist on going their own way in defiance of the laws of History.
After arranging for a collision between the two gangs (recall that John Brown sponsor Redneck Revolt was there, taking part in the attack), McAuliffe and Streeter stood down the police in hopes of a confrontation or even worse, a massacre. A few dozen dead kids would have suited them just fine. But this time (and largely, I would be willing to bet, thanks to the basic cowardice of the KKK/Nazis), they did not get it.
Why weren’t the John Brown Clubs at Charlottesville? Because they weren’t ready yet. God forbid that the tag team visible in that video tried to take on anybody experienced in arms. But they will be. For what other purpose do they exist?
Eventually, they will show up with their fancy weapons that they don’t understand. Eventually, somebody is going to pull that trigger, as happened at Kent State in 1970. Then the Brownies will learn what guns are all about.
They will also learn what it is to be cannon fodder.
The John Brown Clubs are gun clubs for leftists affiliated with Redneck Revolt, an outfit in turn affiliated with Antifa (they marched with the other Antifa gangs in Charlottesville). Redneck Revolt was founded to agitate among rural working-class whites across the country, the people left behind by the attempt to shift the United States into a hierarchal meritocracy. This effort reveals considerably smarter thinking than that of Obama, the coastal elites, or for that matter, Kevin Williamson and Bill Kristol.
The John Brown Clubs were founded to exploit working class interest in firearms, and to provide training and familiarization to the more effete levels of the “resistance.” Those of a certain age will recall the “Gay Communist Gun Club,” one of SNL’s funnier skits. That, in a nutshell, and with a large helping of divisive racial politics, is what the Brownies are.
The Brownies had a brief fling of notoriety this past Spring when the original Phoenix branch showed up at a Trump rally toting guns and acting as menacing as any random group of left-wing snowflakes can manage. Widely covered in the regional and left-wing press, the stories featured shots of the standard dreadlock and nose chain denizens of the current left with an impressive array of shoulder weapons. (Interestingly, none of them were masked, as has become customary on the left. Presumably, the sight of armed and masked people assembling would have required arrests.)
Close examination by firearms experts revealed that at least some of the weaponry were actually airsoft toys with the orange rings clipped off. Not an impressive debut, in other words.
All the same, a number of new branches have sprouted in Denver, Orlando, Cincinnati, Seattle, and Maine.
Something often overlooked when dealing with the American left is that they’ve adapted the process of “projection” as a political strategy. It works like this: the left accuses the opposition (it could be “the right,” or the middle, or even traditional liberals, for that matter) of some crime or other. It can be anything at all, and it doesn’t matter if it’s true or not – the accusation is all that counts. Once placed in the record and validated by our current media, the accusation then becomes a new benchmark for political activity – as far as the left goes, anyway. Because the “far right” or the “fascists,” or whoever, violated the rules, it’s now okay for the left to do the same. They have no choice, really, if they want to save the People from being ravaged by the fascist hordes. You have to fight fire with fire, no?
So, if Richard Nixon “subverted the Constitution” during Watergate, well, that justifies every left-wing president since, from Carter to Clinton to Obama, in doing the same. Since the “far right” impeached Bill Clinton for no reason at all, the left is justified in threatening every Republican president with impeachment. Since George W. Bush cheated his way into the presidency in 2000, we can’t complain about Hillary pulling the same thing.
We could go on endlessly from there, but to cut to the chase, this is what the John Brown Clubs are all about – an attempt to respond to the editorial cartoon horror-flick image of conservatism by being even more horrifying. Comprised of bitter clingers, Nazis, and Klansmen, right-wingers lope through the twilight hills with a firearm in one hand and a Bible in the other, threatening progressives, undocumented immigrants, and every flavor of LGBTPDQ+ there is. What choice do the Brownies have but to respond in kind?
And respond they have. A recent video, released for purposes of shock and awe, reveals the Phoenix club in full panoply as a platoon of Harry Callaghans, John McClains, and Rambos – in their own minds, anyway:
VIDEO
Targets set up twenty paces away, clearing their weapons while aiming at their feet, that bizarre Frederick the Great-era firing line.… Clearly, the Brownies know next to nothing about guns – how to handle them, fire them, gun safety, whatever. Because they don’t think there is anything to know. The impression the left has about gun owners is simple: gibbering psychopathic loons waving weapons of mass destruction in a pathetic effort to make up for personal deficiencies. A threat to decent people, and nothing more.
Leftists – Brownies among them – have no idea why people own guns. Because they have no idea, they think they have nothing to learn beyond what end the slug comes out of. The process of learning about guns – how they are safely handled, how they are used, the differences between types and makes, and what they are for — does not occur. The same is true of the growth in character that serious firearm ownership demands and encourages – the enhanced sense of personal responsibility and discipline that is one of the great benefits of living with firearms. The Brownies don’t know that this exists. Therefore, it doesn’t happen. It’s as if somebody tossed a set of keys to a Mustang to a fourteen-year-old and told her to take it away without any effort to impart driver safety, the rules of the road, and so forth.
No – to the left, guns are simply a menace. So the Brownies have established themselves as a menace. That’s why they showed up at the Trump march in Phoenix. Interestingly, there were no photos of the Trump marchers in the articles dealing with the incident. Why not? Because those photos would have revealed the Trump marchers to be unarmed. Normal everyday people, husbands and wives, families, small businessmen, professionals, students, all out to express their support of the government with nary a pistol in evidence. Because they don’t need them. Because there would be no point.
But here come all the Che, Jrs., menacing, belligerent, willing to up the ante, to push things as far as they’ll go – and then even farther.
That, after all, is exactly what their historic namesake did. John Brown is greater than a historical figure. He is an icon. An icon of chaos, murder, and bloodshed. The absolute bloody-minded ultraviolet far end of the abolitionist movement, one who actively frightened sincere figures such as Frederick Douglass. Brown was one of the belligerents who made Kansas bleed in the late 1850s, personally responsible for at least one massacre of Southern settlers at Pottawatomie in 1856. He returned east in hopes of an even greater bloodletting, one encompassing the entire South.
He didn’t have to do this – while in Kansas, he had also freed a number of slaves and sent them north toward freedom. He could have continued that, acting as something of an abolitionist Robin Hood, bestowing freedom while making the slaveholders look foolish in their effort to turn Kansas into a slave state. But something else called to him – something that to modern eyes bears a strong resemblance to the behavior of Charlie Manson or Jim Jones. In the end, he merely convinced the South as a whole that its own propaganda was true – that abolitionists, far from a Gospel-inspired crusade in favor of Christian values, were a gang of bloodthirsty maniacs eager to plunge the South into apocalypse. And once they convinced themselves of this, they set about, against their own interests, in making it true.
The John Brown clubs didn’t choose that name by accident. Charlottesville must be thought of in same terms as Bleeding Kansas and Harpers Ferry. Because it’s the same impulse of near-demented fanaticism that lies behind them all, a century and a half apart.
The Harpers Ferry raid was intended to kick off a massive rebellion that would drown the slave-owning class in a tidal wave of blood. So was Charlottesville. Only the victims, this time, were to be the bourgeois, the middle class, the ordinary Americans who insist on going their own way in defiance of the laws of History.
After arranging for a collision between the two gangs (recall that John Brown sponsor Redneck Revolt was there, taking part in the attack), McAuliffe and Streeter stood down the police in hopes of a confrontation or even worse, a massacre. A few dozen dead kids would have suited them just fine. But this time (and largely, I would be willing to bet, thanks to the basic cowardice of the KKK/Nazis), they did not get it.
Why weren’t the John Brown Clubs at Charlottesville? Because they weren’t ready yet. God forbid that the tag team visible in that video tried to take on anybody experienced in arms. But they will be. For what other purpose do they exist?
Eventually, they will show up with their fancy weapons that they don’t understand. Eventually, somebody is going to pull that trigger, as happened at Kent State in 1970. Then the Brownies will learn what guns are all about.
They will also learn what it is to be cannon fodder.
via American Thinker
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/TYiPDP
Advertisement – story continues below
During Barack Obama’s time as president, he was never one for being openly respectful and affectionate towards the military. Remember the latte salute, anyone?
Well, after eight years of Obama, there’s a new sheriff in town — Donald J. Trump. And, as you may have noticed, his attitude toward the military is a little different.
Nowhere was that more evident than when the president arrived in Yuma, Arizona, on Tuesday prior to his campaign-style rally in Phoenix.
Advertisement – story continues below
According to ABC News, Trump visited Marine Air Station Yuma, a Marine Corps base on the U.S.-Mexico border. The visit was part of the president’s push for stronger border security — including his signature infrastructure project, the border wall. As the president got off of Air Force One in Yuma, Marines lined up to greet the president. And Trump was more than happy to greet them as well, grabbing their caps and signing them.
U.S. Marine Sgt. Lauren Butler wrote on her Instagram account that “today was the highlight of my Marine Corps career. Thank you, President Trump, for coming to Marine Corps Air Station Yuma today to shake some hands and sign some covers! It was a day I’ll never forget.”
“Meeting President Trump was one of the coolest experiences I’ve ever had,” Butler told American Military News. “I’ve always been a Trump supporter, so I was extremely excited. But regardless of your political views, shaking hands with the president is extremely humbling and something you’ll never forget.”
Check out the video here:
That’s a heck of a lot different than a latte salute.
Under Barack Obama, our Marines were left holding umbrellas in the rain. And if you think that’s just symbolic, think again. Just look what happened in Benghazi.
This is clearly a president who cares about our troops and is willing to give them the respect they deserve. After eight years, that’s a refreshing change.
Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter if you agree.
Advertisement – story continues below
via Conservative Tribune
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/1w7bvFX
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said Wednesday that Democrats have "won every fight" against Republicans, leaving out that Democrats have lost every special election to Republicans this year.
"The Republican Party is in such disarray right now, crisis after crisis; nonetheless the Democratic Party does not not seem to have been able to capitalize on the problems facing your other party," KRON reporter Pam Moore said during the exclusive interview.
Pelosi was taken aback by Moore’s suggestion that Democrats have not "capitalized" and asked her what she meant before responding to her question.
"We have beaten them in appropriations," Pelosi said. "We’ve won every fight. The president’s numbers are in the high 30s, which is for a new president remarkable to be so low. He is making his own case. The American people see for themselves that he does not share their values and that he does not—some who may have voted for him are now rethinking and others are just digging in their heels."
Pelosi went on to discuss the efforts of Democrats trying to take back Congress in the 2018 midterm elections by touting their new economic message that was rolled out in late July.
"We hope to get Republicans to join us in our Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Pay, Better Future," Pelosi said.
Pelosi claimed that Democrats "won every fight" against Republicans, but she never mentioned the four special elections that Democrats spent $35 million on, only to lose to Republicans candidates. Since President Donald Trump took office in January, Democratic candidates lost in Georgia, South Carolina, Kansas, and Montana, the Washington Free Beacon reported:
Democrats have blown through $35 million on special elections since President Donald Trump took office and do not have a single victory to show for it.
Democrats dumped most of their money into Georgia’s record-breaking special election. Despite this, Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff ended up losing the election by a wider margin than the Democratic candidate in South Carolina, whose election took place on the same day.
The post Pelosi: Democrats Have ‘Won Every Fight’ Against Republicans appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.
via Washington Free Beacon
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://freebeacon.com
Missouri State Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal’s apology to President Trump and his family after her controversial social media post that she wanted him to be assassinated doesn’t appear to be enough to let her fat ass wriggle off the hook.
The Democrat has faced increasing pressure to resign from her seat, something that to this point she is refusing to do but she may no longer have much say in the matter as the wheels are in motion to forcibly oust her from the state legislature.
Lt. Governor Mike Parson who is a Republican, sent out a letter requesting a special session that would be convened to throw her out of the state government.
Missouri Lt. Gov. calls for special session to expel senator who hoped for Trump’s death https://t.co/CyDn3U2KRX http://pic.twitter.com/5rDwS50nZg
— KMOV (@KMOV) August 22, 2017
Via St. Louis television station KMOV 4 “Special session possible to oust Chappelle-Nadal”:
The backlash continues for Democratic Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal from a posted comment on Facebook last week that expressed hope that President Donald Trump would be assassinated.
Republican Lt. Gov. Mike Parson sent a letter to senators Tuesday urging Chappelle-Nadal be expelled. “I am calling on the Missouri Senate to go into special session in conjunction with Veto Session, with the purpose of expelling Senator Chappelle-Nadal from the body under the authority vested to the Senate under Article III, Section 18 of the Missouri Constitution.”
Chappelle-Nadal offered a personal apology to the president and his family on Sunday but has resisted calls to resign. Missouri U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, Congressman Lacy Clay and the Missouri Democratic Party have called for her resignation.
Sen. Paul Wieland of Jefferson County and Sen. Dave Schatz of Franklin County, both Republicans, told News 4 if Chappelle-Nadal doesn’t step down, the senate should step in and remove her from office.
Parson’s request for a special session came hours after Republican and Democratic state Senate leaders removed Chappelle-Nadal from all of her legislative committee assignments.
There will certainly be cries of protest from her defenders that she just made a mistake and is being unjustly persecuted for being a successful black woman, some may even suggest that she is being lynched.
Protests will likely take place if and when the special session commences but she has nobody to blame but herself for what was an incredibly stupid act. Social media is monitored by political opponents and other citizens looking to hold their elected officials accountable and this dummy thought that she would be immune to the consequences for her actions.
Now that it has been made clear by both the Governor and Lieutenant Governor as well as the head of the state Democratic party that she has to go, Chappelle-Nadal must resign or she will be yanked out like a rotten tooth.
via Downtrend.com
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://downtrend.com
Fighting a brave battle against CNN’s emotionally hysterical, overwhelmed, and triggered liberals after Tuesday’s Trump rally, CNN political commentator and former RNC official Mike Shields thoroughly lambasted his colleagues losing their minds for spending time “chiming in that we just think the President is insane” and deeming him mentally ill.
Shields faced harsh push back, including some fake news pushed by CNN Tonight host Don Lemon that no one on the air questioned whether President Trump himself was unstable but just his speech and behavior. Good luck trying to wrap your head around that one.
At roughly 12:40 a.m. Eastern on Wednesday, Shields calmly began by stating that “a piece of advice I would give everybody” in the media “is the President’s spent a tremendous amount of time tonight criticizing the media” and there’s a reason for that.
“It’s right to hold him accountable, it’s right to fact check him but immediately after that when the conversation shifts into he’s insane and he’s unfit for office and he’s lost his mind and we’re doing psychoanalysis on television of the President, you’re doing the work of — you’re doing his work for him. This is almost what he wants to see happen is that he criticizes the media and the media themselves are unhinged and start calling the President insane. I think that’s a huge mistake,” Shields astutely explained.
Shields also called out CNN for not labeling the protesters clashing with police as “left-wing” and reemphasized that they’re making the President’s argument that the media are against him when they deem him “insane.”
Lemon seemed totally discombobulated, so Shields kept moving. Here’s a snippet:
And we can argue whether or not that’s appropriate for him to do or not, but that’s a good conversation and veering off into he’s insane sort of ends our credibility to criticize him because people now think just we’re the ones that are sort losing it over his speech and that’s probably what he and his supporters want us to do.
Never Trump leader Rick Wilson re-upped the discussion from earlier (which my colleague Nick Fondacaro chronicled) that it’s fair to argue Trump is mentally ill and diagnose him as such, but Shields eventually hit back.
Taking note of how Congress should somehow do something to stop the President (read: remove him from office), Shields dropped more truth bombs:
Look, I mean, the other part of this, so where this is sort of leading is and I heard you guys saying this is that, you know, the Congress has to do thing about this. The American people elected the President, okay?. The media didn’t elect him. Commentators didn’t elect him. The Congress didn’t elect him either and so before the Congress is going to do something like this, this is why we’re jumping so ahead in this conversation because you’re so upset about the speech that he gave that I just think it does a disservice to say, you know. Once, again, let’s start talking impeachment. That’s like the protesters outside the arena as opposed to a conversation about should we fact check the President and is he handling the Charlottesville thing properly. How should we handle that topic with dignity if we don’t think he handled it with dignity or as Paul Ryan talked about.
“My point is that the media does exist to hold elected officials accountable and has to have credibility with the public when they do that and when we go – we lose our own credibility, I’m saying we because I’m on CNN. We lose our credibility when we go far as to immediately say, you know what? Let’s have a ten-minute conversation with multiple people all chiming in that we just think the President is insane. I mean, you do realize how that’s being heard by millions of people,” Shields added with that devastating rhetorical question.
<<< Please support MRC’s NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>
Despite the earlier segment and Wilson’s own words minutes earlier, Lemon offered this Pants-on-Fire claim:
I think — hang on. Hang on. I will let you get in. I think by saying that something is insanity is not necessarily say that the — what is happening right now is insanity, not saying specifically that the President is insane. I think people are questioning — are questioning his fitness for office and for me to say, for people to say oh, my gosh, this is insane doesn’t mean the person is insane. It just means the situation we’re in is insane or not the norm….if you cannot assess someone’s behavior and figure out whether they’re okay or fit for something, then who are we? What have we become where we have to have this fake objectivity and pretend that thing is not happening.
Lemon showed in the seconds after the Trump rally ended just how unglued he would be tonight, so it came up again when he mocked Shields’s arguments as a big, giant strawman:
When I hear someone yelling on the streets, Mike, for no reason, screaming, howling at the moon and sky, am I supposed to say I’m going to say, well, I’m going to lose my credibility because I don’t assess that person as someone who has something wrong with them or who needs help. We can’t sit here and pretend that that is not happening. That what happened on this stage tonight in Phoenix, Arizona, is normal, is rational, is worthy of the highest office in the land, is worthy of someone who has the nuclear codes for someone to sit there and have these — and present these fake enemies we’re not the enemy of the state or of the people or the President of the United States.
“This man has a nuclear codes and can blast us to smithereens at any moment if he wants to. So says the former Director of National Intelligence who just appeared on CNN who said now he is worried and scared about this person,” a fearful Lemon concluded.
Shields responded [emphasis mine]:
Yeah, look, I just think there’s a difference between what you just said. First of all, I’m not asking for fake objectivity. I’m asking for a little bit of sort of credibility how we’re talking about these things. Secondly, whether or not he’s worthy to hold office and whether or not he’s fit and insane to hold office, worthy to hold office is a partisan thing that lots of Democrats never thought he was and never will accept he is. He’s not fit for office takes us — veers us into a place where it allows people that want to criticize media, when you want to push back on them and say, you know, the President shouldn’t criticize us and that’s crazy for him to do that, for them – when we say, you know what? He’s actually insane, you’re doing the work of the President and the people that want to criticize the media. That’s my point. I think we can have a conversation about this.
The late-night craziness Shields bought back against were thanks to CNN advertisers Claritin, FractureMe.com, Midas, and Whole Food Markets.
Here’s the relevant transcript from August 23’s CNN Tonight with Don Lemon:
CNN Tonight with Don Lemon
August 23, 2017
12:40 a.m. Eastern
MIKE SHIELDS: Don, you know, we have these conversations on your show about media coverage. I think a piece of advice I would give everybody is the President’s spent a tremendous amount of time tonight criticizing the media. And it’s right to push back on that, it’s right to hold him accountable, it’s right to fact check him but immediately after that when the conversation shifts into he’s insane and he’s unfit for office and he’s lost his mind and we’re doing psychoanalysis on television of the President, you’re doing the work of — you’re doing his work for him. This is almost what he wants to see happen is that he criticizes the media and the media themselves are unhinged and start calling the President insane. I think that’s a huge mistake. I think it’s a mistake not to call the protesters left-wing protesters that are in Arizona right now fighting the police, I think that’s a mistake, as well. I think, if you could do those things, not call the President insane and just fact check him and call the protesters out for who you are, you gain the credibility ground that you need to push back on the president when he gives a speech like this. You’re almost doing his work for him when we start calling him insane. So, that’s, you know, the first comment I have to make about that.
LEMON: You thought his speech was sane? You thought it was a rational speech?
SHIELDS: I thought it sounded exactly like a speech he gave in the campaign and no one was calling him, let’s have a whole panel discussion about how he insane is he during the campaign and so, you can disagree with what the President’s saying —
LEMON: Should we have been?
SHEILDS: — look, I think that it is correct to criticize the President’s handling of how he’s communicated to the American people about race and about the Charlottesville incident. That’s a legitimate conversation. We should have that and we have been having that. I think that it’s good he’s talking about it. He should keep talking about. I understand the criticism tonight of how he talked about it, although I don think he was trying to point out there are parts of what he said that weren’t covered. And we can argue whether or not that’s appropriate for him to do or not, but that’s a good conversation and veering off into he’s insane sort of ends our credibility to criticize him because people now think just we’re the ones that are sort losing it over his speech and that’s probably what he and his supporters want us to do.
(….)
SHIELDS: Look, I mean, the other part of this, so where this is sort of leading is and I heard you guys saying this is that, you know, the Congress has to do thing about this. The American people elected the President, okay?. The media didn’t elect him. Commentators didn’t elect him. The Congress didn’t elect him either and so before the Congress is going to do something like this, this is why we’re jumping so ahead in this conversation because you’re so upset about the speech that he gave that I just think it does a disservice to say, you know. Once, again, let’s start talking impeachment. That’s like the protesters outside the arena as opposed to a conversation about should we fact check the President and is he handling the Charlottesville thing properly. How should we handle that topic with dignity if we don’t think he handled it with dignity or as Paul Ryan talked about.
LEMON: So Mike, are you saying there’s never any nothing is out of bound with the President? You know, there was — Richard Nixon was driven from office. He resigned. So the president is always right, is always sane, is always accurate and can do no wrong? Is – that’s what it sounds —
SHIELDS: That’s not what I’m saying at all, don and that’s actually my point. My point is that the media does exist to hold elected officials accountable and has to have credibility with the public when they do that and when we go – we lose our own credibility, I’m saying we because I’m on CNN. We lose our credibility when we go far as to immediately say, you know what? Let’s have a ten-minute conversation with multiple people all chiming in that we just think the President is insane.
LEMON: I think that —
SHIELDS: I mean, you do realize how that’s being heard by millions of people? They’re going, you know what? The media’s just blasting the President —
LEMON: I think — hang on. Hang on. I will let you get in. I think by saying that something is insanity is not necessarily say that the — what is happening right now is insanity, not saying specifically that the president is insane. I think people are questioning —
SHIELDS: People were saying he is insane.
LEMON: — are questioning his fitness for office and for me to say, for people to say oh, my gosh, this is insane doesn’t mean the person is insane. It just means the situation we’re in is insane or not the norm. But to question — the former Director of National Intelligence also his members of his own party are questioning his fitness for office. And we are talking about that, and if you cannot assess someone’s behavior and figure out whether they’re okay or fit for something, then who are we? What have we become where we have to have this fake objectivity and pretend that thing is not happening. When I hear someone yelling on the streets, Mike, for no reason, screaming, howling at the moon and sky, am I supposed to say I’m going to say, well, I’m going to lose my credibility because I don’t assess that person as someone who has something wrong with them or who needs help. We can’t sit here and pretend that that is not happening. That what happened on this stage tonight in Phoenix, Arizona, is normal, is rational, is worthy of the highest office in the land, is worthy of someone who has the nuclear codes for someone to sit there and have these — and present these fake enemies we’re not the enemy of the state or of the people or the President of the United States. This man has a nuclear codes and can blast us to smithereens at any moment if he wants to. So says the former Director of National Intelligence who just appeared on CNN who said now he is worried and scared about this person.
SHIELDS: Yeah, look, I just think there’s a difference between what you just said. First of all, I’m not asking for fake objectivity. I’m asking for a little bit of sort of credibility how we’re talking about these things. Secondly, whether or not he’s worthy to hold office and whether or not he’s fit and insane to hold office, worthy to hold office is a partisan thing that lots of Democrats never thought he was and never will accept he is. He’s not fit for office takes us — veers us into a place where it allows people that want to criticize media, when you want to push back on them and say, you know, the President shouldn’t criticize us and that’s crazy for him to do that, for them – when we say, you know what? He’s actually insane, you’re doing the work of the President and the people that want to criticize the media. That’s my point. I think we can have a conversation about this.
via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/2v7eUfC
Advertisement – story continues below
Back when Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with a Russian lawyer was disclosed earlier this summer, the media figured that it, at long last, had the smoking gun against the Trump administration they were looking for.
Even though a half-dozen or so other smoking guns they’d trotted out had turned out to be broken water pistols at best — remember MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Trump’s “tax return”? — this time they swore up and down on a stack of “The Audacity of Hope” that this was the Jenga block that would topple the Trump White House.
We’re just a few weeks short of autumn now, and the only collapse we’ve seen is of the Russian narrative. The media has, you may have noticed, moved on to Charlottesville. Now, a bombshell report from a left-leaning veterans intelligence group says that the event that started the ball rolling on Russia — the infamous Guccifer 2.0 leak that was linked to the Russians — was fabricated and that a forensic analysis of the documents proves that “Russian fingerprints” were introduced into them to make it look like the handiwork of Vladimir Putin.
Advertisement – story continues below
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity is probably best known as the group thatfirst reported that Saddam Hussein didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, a feat that got them picked up and lauded by The New York Times back in the days when Howard Dean was considered a viable presidential candidate and “American Idiot” was considered a nuanced political statement.
Now, VIPS isn’t getting picked up much by The New York Times — or many liberal media outlets, save (surprisingly) The Nation. The group’s new report claims it’s much more likely that the DNC leaks came from inside the committee and that it would be almost impossible for the Russians to have pulled it off.
“Forensic studies of ‘Russian hacking’ into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computer,” states the group’s report, released in July but just getting play now.
Advertisement – story continues below
“After examining metadata from the ‘Guccifer 2.0’ July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device.”
The report, which was put together with the help of several digital forensics experts, argues that the speeds at which the documents were downloaded were completely incompatible with a hack.
On July 5 of last year, “(i)n the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device,” the report reads.
“That speed is much faster than what is physically possible with a hack,” it notes. To obfuscate their identity during a hack, hackers have to use what’s known as a VPN, or Virtual Private Network. That dramatically slows internet speeds — meaning that it would be almost impossible to get the data onto a storage device that quickly.
Advertisement – story continues below
And that’s not all: The Nation (which is, for those unfamiliar with it, one of the most left-leaning publications in the United States) notes that metadata shows that the emails “were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language” — an indication that someone wanted to make it look like a Russian-speaking individual was behind it.
No wonder that the media has been so eager to discard the Russia narrative and go onto Charlottesville, at least when it comes to the president. Not only have all hopes of impeachment faded, but the inciting incident of the Russian narrative — the DNC hack — may not have been the Russians at all. And, if the report is true, it almost certainly clears the president or any of his associates of collusion. After all, if the emails passed directly from a DNC source to WikiLeaks, there isn’t even any Russian middleman to collude with.
We commend The Nation for having covered this. We only hope that other outlets would have the same courage. We don’t necessarily know that this report is true. However, given its provenance, it’s something that needs to be investigated.
Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter if you agree.
via Conservative Tribune
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/1w7bvFX
AZ Highground reports:
A statewide Arizona survey of 400 likely Arizona 2018 General Election voters shows Republican incumbent Senator Jeff Flake fourteen points behind his primary Republican opponent Kelli Ward and eight points behind prospective Democratic opponent U.S. Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema (D, AZ-9).
Q. If the primary election for United States Senate were held today, would you vote for [Rotate] Jeff Flake or Kelli Ward?
28.2% Jeff Flake
42.5% Kelli Ward
5.1% Some other candidate
24.2% Don’t know, RefusedQ. If the General Election for United States Senate were held today, would you vote for [Rotate] Jeff Flake or Kyrsten Sinema?
32.5% Jeff Flake
40.5% Kyrsten Sinema
27.0% Don’t know, RefusedThe Republican Primary Election sample was of 273 high efficacy Republican and PND/Independent voters and has a margin of error of ±5.93%. The General Election sample of 400 high efficacy general election voters has a margin of error of ±4.88%.
“While Election Day may still be more than a year away, Senator Jeff Flake’s campaign has a lot of work to do to persuade Republican primary voters that his form of principled Republican conservatism can trump the nativist populism that is fueling Republican voters’ antipathy towards Washington insiders. These same Republicans still give the President a 74% approval rating in Arizona,” said Chuck Coughlin, President & CEO of HighGround Public Affairs, which conducted the poll.
Pollster Nate Silver recently issued a major warning to Flake over his unpopularity.
FiveThirtyEight reports:
Republican Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona is unpopular — really unpopular. According to a poll about all 100 senators released Tuesday by Morning Consult, just 37 percent of registered voters in Arizona approve of their junior senator, compared with 45 percent who disapprove.
[…]
The polling firm [Morning Consult] has consistently had Flake’s approval ratings at lower levels than those of many other senators. Other surveys have also generally found Flake to have a relatively low approval rating. Flake even commented on one of the surveys in 2013, saying: “Given the public’s dim view of Congress in general, that probably puts me somewhere just below pond scum.”
[…]
Flake struggled at the ballot box in his one Senate race. During his 2012 bid for this open seat, Flake beat Democrat Richard Carmona by just 3 points. His showing was the worst for a Republican Senate candidate in Arizona since 1988.
It certainly doesn’t help that President Trump isn’t a fan of Flake.
“Phoenix crowd last night was amazing – a packed house. I love the Great State of Arizona. Not a fan of Jeff Flake, weak on crime & border!”, Tweeted Trump today.
Phoenix crowd last night was amazing – a packed house. I love the Great State of Arizona. Not a fan of Jeff Flake, weak on crime & border!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 23, 2017
The post POLL: AZ Sen. Jeff Flake Trailing GOP Primary Challenger Kelli Ward By Double Digits appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
via The Gateway Pundit
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/SIPp5X
Things got dicey in Phoenix last night after President Trump’s speech, mainly because the so-called Antifa showed up to protest.
But one guy got more than a kick in the pants. He got hit squarely in the family jewels by a tear gas canister or a “pepper ball” fired by Phoenix police — on live TV.
The protester, wearing a a gas mask, is seen kicking a canister of tear gas back at police. Seconds later something hits him right in the cajones and a cloud of dust rises up. He doubles over in pain, drops to the ground and lies there until a friend comes along and helps him off the street.
via Daily Wire
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/1TJbF1r
I thought we had reached peak stupid for the week with ESPN’s decision to pull an Asian sportscaster because his name is Robert Lee, but the ACLU is trying to outdo the network with its reaction to criticism of this tweet:
This is the future that ACLU members want. http://pic.twitter.com/bAIwuheEco
— ACLU National (@ACLU) August 23, 2017
Notice that this child, who appears to be 3-years-old, is wearing an ACLU onesie with the words “free speech” on them. About half an hour later someone posted this reply:
A White kid with a flag?!
— Nyasha Junior (@NyashaJunior) August 23, 2017
Note this isn’t just a question it’s an outraged question. A few minutes later the ACLU thanked followers for reminding them “white supremacy is everywhere.”
When your Twitter followers keep you in check and remind you that white supremacy is everywhere. http://pic.twitter.com/Qx5D5hbKWy
— ACLU National (@ACLU) August 23, 2017
Those who have suggested that intersectionality operates like a religion with racism standing in for original sin seem to be on to something. How else could a 3-year-old (who may or may not be potty trained yet) be an example of white supremacy? Even the person who complained about the photo doesn’t seem to know. Her only comment is to point out he’s white and holding a flag. Even if you are so far left that you think the flag alone makes this white supremacy, doesn’t the fact that a child is holding it suggest there’s no ill will involved? Apparently not.
There are already over 600 replies to the ACLU’s original tweet and you’ll be shocked to learn many of them are defending the idea that this is indeed an example of white supremacy. I’m not going to post any of them here because most of the people have 48 followers and don’t need the attention. But if you doubt me, just have a look at the replies.
There are also some genuine white supremacists joining in after the fact, which of course leads to more people on the left saying ‘See! It was racist!’ But no, it’s really not. This is just the fringes on each side working each other up. The real question is why the ACLU is joining in the nonsense as if they’ve done something wrong.
Look, I understand people are hypersensitive right now because of what happened in Charlottesville. Someone was murdered by a racist nut. Nazis were marching around with Tiki torches. But the sensitivity has to have some rational limit. Doesn’t it?
The post ACLU: That photo of a flag-waving 3-year-old we just posted shows ‘white supremacy is everywhere’ appeared first on Hot Air.
via Hot Air
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://hotair.com