NFL players kneeling during anthem could result in refunds for one team’s fans—if legislation passes

The Indianapolis Colts would be required to offer refunds to fans at home games if Colts players kneel in protest during the national anthem — that is, if legislation an Indiana lawmaker is filing goes through.

State Rep. Milo Smith (R-Columbus) told the Indy Star his bill would let offended fans ask for a refund during the first quarter.

“To me, when they take a knee during the national anthem, it’s not respecting the national anthem or our country,” Smith added to the paper. “Our government isn’t perfect, but it’s still the best country in the world, and I think we need to be respectful of it.”

A Colts representative declined to comment on the proposal, the Star reported.

Smith and his daughter were attending the Colts’ September game against the Cleveland Browns when a group of Colts players took a knee, he told the paper, adding that while he was offended by the demonstration, he remained at the game.

“I’m pretty patriotic, and it didn’t sit right with me,” he told the Star.

Jane Henegar, executive director of ACLU Indiana, told the paper that Smith’s proposal could violate the Constitution.

“In effect by passing the law, government would be weighing in…and fining political speech by the Indianapolis Colts,” Henegar told the Star. “It seems like the worst thing that could happen is government weighing in and trying to control in any direction the political speech of private actors.”

But Smith maintained his bill doesn’t prevent kneeling, the paper reported.

What else does the proposed legislation say?

Smith’s bill doesn’t require the Colts to provide refunds if players from the visiting team kneel, the Star said.

What other measures has Smith been a part of?

The Star added that Smith is “a social conservative who played a key role in advancing a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage onto the Indiana House floor in 2014. His son, who is gay, criticized his father for his vote at the time.”

(H/T: Blue Lives Matter)

via – Stories

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

Trump calls for the U.S. Postal Service to charge Amazon ‘much more’ to deliver its packages

President Donald Trump took to Twitter on Friday to target Amazon, calling for the United States Postal Service to charge the retail company “much more” for shipping its packages.

What did the president say?

In a tweet, Trump accused Amazon of making the government agency “dumber and poorer.”

“Why is the United States Post Office, which is losing many billions of dollars a year, while charging Amazon and others so little to deliver their packages, making Amazon richer and the Post Office dumber and poorer? Should be charging MUCH MORE!” the president wrote.

Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon and its chief executive officer, also owns the Washington Post, a newspaper the president has frequently criticized, even dubbing it the “Amazon Washington Post” and accusing it of fabricating stories about him.

According to Reuters, the U.S. Postal Service is an independent agency operating within the federal government. It does not receive taxpayer dollars for its operating expenses. The agency lost $2.74 billion this year, according to its annual report. CBS reported that the agency’s financial woes stem from pension and health care costs.

Does USPS profit from its contract with Amazon?

Yes. A spokesperson for Amazon told Fortune earlier this year that its partnership with the USPS is “reviewed annually by the Postal Regulatory Commission,” which has “consistently found that Amazon’s contracts with the USPS are profitable.”

Reuters also noted that Amazon is considering launching its own delivery service. In 2015, the online retail company reportedly spent $11.5 billion on shipping expenses, a sum that comprised 46 percent of all of its operating expenses that year.

Amazon announced this week that it had a record-setting holiday sales season, Politico noted, “though it is unclear whether that is what prompted the president’s critique.”

In addition to the U.S. Postal Service, UPS and FedEx are also carrier partners of Amazon.

Amazon did not immediately comment on the president’s tweet.

via – Stories

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

“Are You Into Golden Showers?”: Former Obama Campaign Manager David Axelrod’s Son Calls FLOTUS Melania a “Prostitute”

“Are You Into Golden Showers?”: Former Obama Campaign Manager David Axelrod’s Son Calls FLOTUS Melania a “Prostitute”

Michael Axelrod, the son of former Obama campaign manager, David Axelrod, took to Twitter Friday to call First Lady Melania Trump a “prostitute.”

“”Are you into golden showers? Do you need citizenship? You said your name was Melania right?” ,” tweeted Axelrod.

Archived tweet source: Mike Axelrod

A search through David Axelrod “following,” accounts shows he’s following @Mike_Axelrod, proving this is indeed his son.

Mike Axelrod’s Twitter biography reads, “Except blood, fatherhood, and the Bulls I share nothing with .”

Axelrod’s Twitter cover photo includes himself and his father.

Mike Axelrod’s tweet about “gold showers,” is a reference to the discredited Fusion GPS dossier that falsely alleged Trump engaged in the lewd sexual act while in Russia.

As The Gateway Pundit‘s Jim Hoft reported, according to BuzzFeed, CNN and several far left sites—Trump partook in “golden showers” in Russia with prostitutes on a bed Obama once slept on… Russia then blackmailed Trump, not by asking for money or influence in his business deals, but by forcing him to run for president against all odds and win?

Here is the story that the CIA and idiots in the FAKE NEWS Media are pushing on America–
Here’s what they want us to believe —  Let’s recount:

** Obama has a meeting in Russia.
** Trump flies to Russia, finds out the hotel room Obama stayed in, and books it.
** Trump finds at least two hookers and invites them to Obama’s former hotel suite.
** Trump instructs the hookers to PISS ON THE BED because he hates Obama so much.
** Little did Trump know Putin had the entire room outfitted with video cameras.
** The Russian government now has video proof of Trump watching hookers PISS on a bed.
** Russian government tells Trump they will release the video if he does not run for president.
** Trump runs for president and against all odds and WINS the White House.

The report included ridiculous snippets like this one – That Trump couldn’t get a deal with the Russians so he hired a couple hookers instead.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, the original story was created by 4Chan user… And the intelligence community, John McCain and the far left #FakeNews media fell for the hoax.

As Twitter user @PROUDESTMURICAN pointed out, the Daily Mail settled a lawsuit for $2.9 million after the paper alleged Melania Trump “provided services beyond simply modeling”

Who is Michael Axelrod? According to a 2010 Michigan Avenue Magazine feature…

Michael, 27, is the founder of Grant Park Global, a firm that “assists Chicago-based companies and decision makers in removing access barriers in specific international markets.” […]

Still, his heart belongs here. “Chicago is the epitome of an American urban setting— diverse, forward-thinking and warm and welcoming toward everyone.” […]

Of course, a life in the spotlight isn’t without its drama—like when he found himself in an off-the-court altercation with the NBA’s Antonio Davis at a Bulls-Knicks game. But, much like his spin doctor father, Michael prefers to control the message. “No comment,” he wisely says.


As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

Feminist Artist Paints Four-Story Penis on Side of New York Building

Crews worked hard to paint over a gigantic image of penis that a Swedish artist working with a local street art organization created on Christmas Eve.

The picture of a massive erect male member drew the attention of passersby as well as quickly became an object of no small amount of controversy considering that children would be exposed to what is for all intents and purposes, pornography.

The work was the masterpiece of Swedish artist Carolina Falkholt who also was responsible for another vulgar image – a giant vagina – that adorned another building not far from the Broome Street apartment building. The bizarre abstract nature of the female reproductive organs is less easily discernable than the four-story schlong which left little to the imagination.

Crews quickly painted over the enormous blood sausage, but it has gotten plenty of buzz since.

Via New York City CBS affiliate CBS-2 “Penis Mural On Side Of LES Building Draws Curiosity, Outrage”:

A colorful mural on the Lower East Side has drawn curious looks, and some outrage.

A penis was painted on the side of the building – but it wasn’t there too long.

As CBS2’s Lisa Rozner reported, the sight at the building on Broome Street between Forsyth and Eldridge streets was so striking that many stopped to take a selfie.

“It’s great, it’s fantastic,” one passerby said.

“Oh my God, it’s crazy,” another said.

“It’s a little risqué, but it’s New York,” said Wendy Seminski. “I guess like they say, anything goes here.”

But others who live and work near the pink and red painted penis were not pleased.

“It’s awful,” said Wing Ho, who works next door.

The mural was painted Sunday, Christmas Eve morning. Since then, many complained to the local community board.

Crews splattered gray over the mural Wednesday afternoon.

“There’s two schools within the zone around here, so kids have to walk past this,” said Staci Crosbi.

“So I don’t think that part is appropriate for kids.”

The painting was commissioned by the nonprofit foundation The New Allen and was created by Swedish artist Carolina Falkholt.

In a statement that included many vulgar terms for both male and female genitalia, Falkholt explained that her goal is to make it so people are not ashamed of their bodies.

“Many of my murals, including these, are about not feeling ashamed of your body and who you are as a sexual being. You can be a woman with a (penis) and a man with a (vagina) at the same time. Or something else—whatever you want to be. It is all up to yourself, and not society, to decide what gender you are,” Falkholt wrote.

Ms. Falkholt spoke in more graphic terms to the UK Guardian:

Falkholt told the Guardian her work was often about “not feeling ashamed of your body and who you are as a sexual being”.

“I usually paint giant vaginas, pussies and c*nts,” she said, “and since I had just finished one on the side of a five-storey building, I felt like a dick was needed. The wall space on Broome was a perfect fit for it. To paraphrase [the artist] Judith Bernstein, if a dick can go into a woman, it can go up on a wall.”

In a society that has become increasingly overrun by liberal freaks one never knows what’s going to pop up.


Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

Trump: ‘I Have The Absolute Right To Do What I Want With The DOJ.’ He’s Correct, But The Democrats Are Going Insane.

In a much-ballyhooed spontaneous interview with The New York Times, President Trump stated on Thursday that he had complete authority over the Department of Justice – a constitutional fact. This led the media to lose its collective mind, however.

Trump stated, “I have absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department,” adding, “But for purposes of hopefully thinking I’m going to be treated fairly, I’ve stayed uninvolved with this particular matter.” Trump said that Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School agreed with his legal analysis.

Now, Trump is right. The executive branch is unitary – meaning that if you work for the executive branch, you work for the president. To suggest that the DOJ is immune to the president is akin to saying that the Environmental Protection Agency is immune to the president – and ever since the expiration of the Office of the Independent Counsel in 1999, there’s been no Congressional challenge to that basic idea.

That’s not to say that Trump can’t obstruct justice. Were Trump to lie to the FBI, for example, or direct the DOJ how to conduct an investigation, he’d be running into murky legal waters. But he has the power to fire special counsel Robert Mueller, to instruct Attorney General Jeff Sessions to initiate an investigation, and so on. Democrats never challenged this sort of presidential authority, not even when Attorney General Eric Holder called himself President Barack Obama’s “wing-man,” and said he was “there with my boy.”

Nonetheless, Democrats and the media have taken Trump’s comments as evidence of his dictatorial nature. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who spends his days on-call at CNN, said that Trump didn’t have the authority to direct the DOJ. He tweeted:

Schiff, of course, has been busily making unsubstantiated claims of Russian collusion for months; he stated weeks ago, “The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help, the Russians gave help, and the president made full use of that help.”

Here’s the reality: Trump would be a fool to interfere in the Mueller investigation. And he knows that. But for the Left to deny presidential authority over the DOJ is a recipe for the unworkability of the executive branch.

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

Six Insane California Laws That Go Into Effect Monday

For most Americans, the first moments of the new year are ones of celebration and excitement.

In California, it’s also a time to take stock of which new laws from the Democrat-controlled Legislature will make our lives just a little (or a lot) more frustrating. Here are six:

  1. The entire state will now ignore U.S. immigration law: Because it’s worked so well in San Francisco, California Democrats decided that the entire state should ignore federal immigration law. SB 54 forbids law enforcement officials from asking someone’s immigration or holding them for Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents — unless they’ve been convicted of a crime. AB 291 prohibits landlords (you know, like, private citizens who own private property) from reporting renters who are in the US illegally.

  2. The DMV is raising vehicle registration fees: This is a minor blip in California’s war on cars, but it’s a frustrating one, because, really, this is the only thing that could make the DMV experience even worse. SB 1 increases vehicle registration fees between $25 and $175, depending on the vehicle’s value.

  3. Employers can’t ask applicants about their salary history: Private employers — yes, private employers — can’t ask people who want money from them silly questions like how much money they’ve made in the past or are making at their current job. It will be interesting to see the inevitable unintended consequences of AB 168. It will be at least a little more difficult for a company to gauge what a reasonable offer looks like without knowing what an applicant is currently making or recently made. Sure, employers will ask questions like, “What would you like to make?” and smart applicants will clarify their expectations at some point in the interview process. But, really, it’s not the government’s business how an employer and an applicant work out any mutually beneficial agreement.

  4. Low-skilled workers will have a harder time finding work: That’s just a fancy way of saying, “The minimum wage will increase from $10.50 an hour to $11 an hour.” Under SB 3, the minimum wage will increase each year until it hits $15 an hour in 2022. For people who already have jobs, this is no big deal. For people making below the minimum wage who keep their jobs and get a pay increase, it’s great. But for low-skilled workers who need a job, this is bad news. A company is not going to pay a 20-year-old $11 an hour if he’s only bringing $9 an hour worth of value to the company. It will either make do without that position, automate, or move to a state whose legislature has some grasp of basic economics. But, really, as with #3 above, it’s not the government’s business how an employer and employee work out a mutually beneficial wage. If an applicant wants to make $9 an hour, and an employer wants to pay $9 an hour, how is it not a bad thing for the government to say that’s illegal?

  5. You can make up your gender on official state IDs: California will abolish its requirement that a person must go “clinically appropriate treatment for the purpose of gender transition” if they want to change the sex on their birth certificate, which means that men can say they’re women, and vice-versa, on state IDs like driver’s licenses. Beginning in 2019, driver’s licenses will have three options for sex: male, female, and nonbinary.

  6. Schools will no longer be allowed to decide whether or not they’re “gun-free zones”: Because the legislature has decided for them. AB 424 says school administrators can no longer permit employees with concealed carry permits to conceal and carry firearms on campus. Which means the only people with guns on campus will be criminals and campus police, who more often than not can only respond to shootings, not prevent them.

Has reading this list spiked your heart rate? Then you’ll be calmed by AB 64, which legalizes the sale and cultivation of recreational-use marijuana.

Happy 2018!

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

Klein: Defund the U.N.’s Palestinian ‘Refugee’ Agency to Pay for Trump’s Border Wall

TEL AVIV — A significant portion of the projected costs for President Donald Trump’s proposed border barrier with Mexico could be covered with the money saved if the U.S. stopped funding the scandalous U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which ministers to so-called Palestinian refugees.

The U.S. is UNRWA’s single largest donor, providing about $300 million annually. Defunding UNRWA would save the U.S. upwards of $3 billion over the next ten years.

Estimates for Trump’s barrier differ greatly, with Trump himself saying in 2015 the wall would cost $6 to $7 billion, and this past April stating, “I’ll do it for $10 billion or less.”

The news website Quartz documented other varied estimates:

  • In a widely quoted analyst note, Bernstein Research put it at $15 billion to $25 billion.
  • January 2017—Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell said it would cost between $12 billion to $15 billion.
  • February 2017—A leaked report from the Department of Homeland Security put it much higher, at $21.6 billion.

Regardless of the final costs, halting funding to UNRWA could go a long way to bolstering our national security if the U.S. instead channeled those funds to Trump’s wall.

There are many reasons the U.S. should immediately stop funding UNRWA, which perpetuates the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and instead take the approach recommended by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has called for the dismantlement of the UN’s Palestinian “refugee” agency.

The very existence of UNRWA is unnecessary. The international body has another agency, the UNHRC, which ministers to the world’s refugees other than Palestinians. Only Palestinian “refugees” have a separate agency, UNRWA.

The Palestinians and Arab states know that the so-called Palestinian refugee problem could only be sustained through a separate agency since Palestinian “refugees” do not meet the UN’s criteria for the very definition of refugees.

In fact, many readers may be surprised to learn the UN agency defines a Palestinian “refugee” in a manner that is different from all other refugees worldwide, and does so in a way that sustains the “refugee” crisis instead of solving the problem by finding solutions for the so-called Palestinian refugees.

The UNHRC, which again deals with all other refugees outside the Palestinian arena, has a fairly sensible definition of what a refugee is: “A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.”

In other words, the UNHRC defines a refugee as someone who was forced to flee his or her home and cannot return for fear of persecution.

UNRWA, however, defines a Palestinian “refugee” entirely differently. A Palestinian “refugee” is any person whose “normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948 and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.” So UNRWA counts as “refugees” any local Arab who lived in Palestine for as little as two years, knowing that scores of Arabs immigrated to the area during those years in search of employment amid talks of creating a future Jewish state.

Amazingly, UNRWA states that “Palestine refugees are persons who fulfill the above definition and descendants of fathers fulfilling the definition.”

This means that even if original Palestinian “refugees” long ago immigrated to another country and became citizens of that country, they and their descendants are still considered “refugees” according to UNRWA. The definition flies in the face of what a refugee is supposed to be. It is also in direct contrast to the Convention on Refugees, which dictates that a person who “has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality” is exempted from the status of refugee.

UNRWA’s definition of a “refugee” doesn’t mention UNHCR’s “well-founded fear of being persecuted.” Indeed, the Palestinians have no fear of being persecuted by Israel, and would not be considered a “refugee” under ordinary international criteria.

In defining a refugee as it does, UNRWA has ensured that the Palestinian “refugee” problem has only grown throughout the years.

The actual number of Palestinian “refugees” is in question.

The Jewish Virtual Library notes:

Many Arabs claim that 800,000 to 1,000,000 Palestinians became refugees in 1947­-49. The last census was taken in 1945. It found only 756,000 permanent Arab residents in Israel. On November 30, 1947, the date the UN voted for partition, the total was 809,100. A 1949 Government of Israel census counted 160,000 Arabs living in the country after the war. This meant no more than 650,000 Palestinian Arabs could have become refugees. A report by the UN Mediator on Palestine arrived at an even lower figure — 472,000.

The Library notes that at the same time that Arabs were left stranded, about the same number of Jews were forced to leave their homes in Arab countries:

The number of Jews fleeing Arab countries for Israel in the years following Israel’s independence was roughly equal to the number of Arabs leaving Palestine. Many Jews were allowed to take little more than the shirts on their backs. These refugees had no desire to be repatriated. Little is heard about them because they did not remain refugees for long. Of the 820,000 Jewish refugees, 586,000 were resettled in Israel at great expense and without any offer of compensation from the Arab governments who confiscated their possessions.

There is evidence that scores of Arabs joined the local inhabitants and became “refugees” attended to by UNRWA when the agency began operations in May 1950 to help the Arabs impacted by the 1948 war.

That year, UNRWA’s director admitted, “a large group of indigent people totaling over 100,000 … could not be called refugees, but … have lost their means of livelihood because of the war. … The Agency felt their need … even more acute than that of the refugees.”

UNRWA’s Annual Report of the Director from July 1951-June 1952 acknowledges it was difficult to separate “ordinary nomadic Bedouins and … unemployed or indigent local residents” from genuine refugees, and that “it cannot be doubted that in many cases individuals who could not qualify as being bona fide refugees are in fact on the relief rolls.”

Last week, Haaretz reported that Lebanon’s census data puts the Palestinian “refugee” population at about the third of the numbers reported by UNRWA. If accurate, this could mean UNRWA has been taking in funding for a wildly inflated number of so-called Palestinian refugees.

Haaretz reported:

Around 175,000 Palestinian refugees live in Lebanon, 45 percent of them in 12 refugee camps and 55 percent in 156 population centers throughout the country, according to a census conducted by Lebanon’s Central Administration of Statistics in partnership with the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics.

The total is much lower than the official figure of 500,000, cited by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. It has been known for years that the UN figure was inaccurate, since many Palestinian refugees have emigrated from Lebanon. But the census finding was also below other estimates, such as that of the American University of Beirut in 2015, which put the figure at between 260,000 and 280,000.

The census was approved by Lebanon’s government in August 2015, and in October 2015 a memorandum of understanding was signed with the Palestinian Authority.

The Palestinian “refugee” issue is one of the most potent weapons utilized by the PA against Israel. The Palestinians use their “refugee” status to threaten Israel’s existence by demanding the so-called right of return, meaning flooding Israel with millions of Palestinian and foreign Arabs considered Palestinian “refugees,” thus threatening the very nature of the Jewish state. If the “refugee” problem is ever solved, the Palestinian Authority’s main trump card against Israel will be taken away and they know it.

As I wrote in my book, The Late Great State of Israel:

When UNRWA began operations, it was assumed that the refugee problem would be resolved and that the agency would function only temporarily. It was not anticipated that the Arab states, which were directly shaping the mandate of this new organization, had another idea: the refugees would be kept in camps for as long as it took, and the burden of political responsibility for them was to be placed permanently upon Israel.

As one PLO document on the refugees explains: “In order to keep the refugee issue alive and prevent Israel from evading responsibility for their plight, Arab countries—with the notable exception of Jordan—have usually sought to preserve a Palestinian identity by maintaining the Palestinians’ status as refugees.”

Arlene Kushner, an Israel-based researcher on UNRWA, explains: “In other words, as a matter of deliberate policy, most Arab nations have deliberately declined to absorb the refugees or give them citizenship, and have instead focused on their right to ‘return’ to Israel.”

The Palestinians and Arab nations, meanwhile, have distorted the history of “Palestinian refugees” to manipulate the international community.

The Palestinian narrative is simple: When the Jewish state was founded, Israel largely kicked the Palestinians (who, by the way, did not exist at the time under the name “Palestinians,” but were local Arab inhabitants who lived in a region also inhabited by Jews) out of their homes, thus causing hundreds of thousands to become refugees. The Palestinians refer to Israel’s creation as the “Nakba,” or catastrophe when Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes.

The reality is quite different. After Israel was founded in 1948, a military coalition of Arab nations immediately formed to wage war on the new Jewish state. Some local Arabs, who did not yet go by the name of Palestinians, left the area in anticipation of the war, others directly responded to the dictates of Arab states to stay out of the way so that invading armies could conquer Israel, and still others fled once the war started so that they were not caught up in the fighting.

Arab states waged the war after refusing to accept UN Resolution 181, which called for the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states. The Jews immediately accepted the resolution, but the Arabs forthrightly rejected the plan, launching a war to destroy the Jewish state.

It should be noted that Israel’s Declaration of Independence called on the local Arab population to remain in place:

In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions.

It is true that some Jewish groups, including the Haganah, encouraged local Arabs to flee, however those few documented cases are the exception and not the rule.

The Economist, for example, reported that the Arab residents of Haifa left their homes in large part because of Arab army warnings:

Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit. … It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.

“Arab officers ordered the complete evacuation of specific villages in certain areas, lest their inhabitants ‘treacherously’ acquiesce in Israeli rule or hamper Arab military deployments,” wrote historian Benny Morris.

The time has come for the U.S. to take stock of the UNRWA “fake news” narrative of Palestinian “refugees” and act accordingly.

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

Drexel Professor Who Blamed Las Vegas, Texas Church Shootings on Trump and ‘Whiteness’ Resigns

Drexel Professor Who Blamed Las Vegas, Texas Church Shootings on Trump and ‘Whiteness’ Resigns

George Ciccariello-Maher has resigned from his post at Drexel University, claiming he was the target of a year-long harassment campaign over several of his controversial tweets.

Ciccariello-Maher, known best for his “All I want for Christmas is White Genocide” tweet, which he claimed was an attempt to poke fun at the paranoid fantasy that the left wants to decrease the amount of white Americans, has stepped down from his position at Drexel University. Most recently, Ciccariello-Maher was relegated to teaching online courses, as the university was concerned for his safety when he was on campus.

In the wake of the tragedy, Ciccariello-Maher baselessly blamed the Las Vegas concert massacre on “white supremacist patriarchy” in October this year.

“White people and men are told that they are entitled to everything. This is what happens when they don’t get what they want,” he tweeted.

In November, he blamed the Texas church shooting on “whiteness,” claiming “whiteness is a structure of privilege and it’s a structure of power, and a structure that, when it feels threatened, you know, lashes out.”

Ciccariello-Maher announced his resignation this week via social media. He blamed “a year of harassment by right-wing, white supremacist media outlets, and Internet mobs” in addition to supposed death threats against him and his family.

“This is not a decision I take lightly; however, after nearly a year of harassment by right-wing, white supremacist media outlets and Internet mobs, after death threats and threats of violence directed against me and my family, my situation has become unsustainable,” Ciccariello-Maher wrote. “Staying at Drexel in the eye of this storm has become detrimental to my own writing, speaking, and organizing.”

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

Bannon Mocks ‘Pathetic’ National Review: They Were ‘Begging Me to Help’ Them ‘Find Money’

“Guy came to me a couple of years ago begging me to help him find money,” said Breitbart News’s Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon of National Review’s former publisher Jack Fowler.

Bannon’s comments came during Friday’s edition of SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily in conversation with co-host Alex Marlow.

Describing the National Review as “pathetic,” Breitbart News’s Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon recalled how the ostensibly conservative news media outlet’s former publisher Jack Fowler begged him for fundraising help several years ago:

The National Review publisher, this is how pathetic they are. Guy came to me a couple of years ago begging me to help him find money. They’re not a for-profit thing, they lose money. It’s just a cash drain, their donors aren’t coming out… Begging with his tin cup out. “Hey, introduce me to some donors. We need money. We’re broke.”

National Review’s financial difficulties, said Bannon, were related to its management’s lack of understanding of the “new media” landscape. He contrasted National Review’s ineptitude in this dimension with Andrew Breitbart’s aptitude: “Here’s the thing they never got that [Andrew Breitbart] got: Andrew understood new media.”

“These guys are just a magazine nobody reads with a website nobody goes to,” surmised Bannon. “Nobody read them, anymore. Nobody pays attention. They have no influence.”

The wife of National Review Online’s (NRO) David French previously sought to monetize a relationship with former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK), said Bannon:

I think his wife was trying to suck up to the Palin family. They were sucking up to Palin family years ago. Another disaster. They were trying to do one of the girls’ biographies, or something, and that’s what these kind of people do, right? Hey kinda go from thing to thing to thing to try to pay the rent. How do you take a guy like that seriously?

Despite broadly staking out a “Never Trump” editorial position (with some dissent) and seeking to subvert then-presidential candidate Donald Trump’s campaign, National Review markets itself as a “conservative” news media outlet.

Breitbart News is about “the voice of the people,” said Marlow, “that’s why we’re populists.” This news media outlet is displacing the previously held influence of ostensibly conservative news media outlets, added its Editor-in-Chief: “That’s what this is about, that’s this year’s been about, and it’s about the diminishing voice of the pundits.”

The ostensibly conservative “Never Trump” commentariat, added Marlow, had damaged its political bona fides among grassroots conservatives:

Never Trump had the toughest year [in 2017]. It’s gotta be these guys who tried to help Hillary Clinton to win an election because Trump wasn’t a true conservative. But what have we gotten? We’ve gotten an across-the-board conservative president. We’ve gotten a guy who’s deconstructing the administrative state, gotten us incredible judges, passed a tax cut that was championed by basically all Republicans.

Donald Trump’s presidency amounts to an “unbelievable moment for conservatives,” added Marlow, noting that “Never Trump fought against the man that got all that done.”

Ostensibly “Never Trump” conservatives, said Bannon, had lost their political credibility by offering de facto support to an existential threat to America manifested in the Clintons; framing them as beyond political redemption: “So a lot of these guys are saying now, “oh, my gosh. He actually may be a conservative.” Guess what? Too late. You don’t get to redo it. Too late. You wanted Hillary Clinton. You wanted the total destruction of this country… We don’t care what you have to say.”



Follow Robert Kraychik on Twitter @rkraychik.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: