Posted on

MyPillow Ignores Liberal Outrage, Refuses to Pull Ads from Laura Ingraham’s Fox News Show

MyPillow Ignores Liberal Outrage, Refuses to Pull Ads from Laura Ingraham’s Fox News Show

Mike Lindell MyPillow

CNBC

by Warner Todd Huston3 Apr 20180



MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell has taken to Twitter to assure customers that he will not be pulling his advertising from Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show despite the liberal outrage over her feud with anti-gun Parkland kid David Hogg.

As one company after another rushed to announce an end to advertising on The Ingraham Angle, Lindell stepped forward to tell the world that he won’t abandon Laura.

In a tweet seemingly aimed at Sean Hannity, the company’s CEO and founder insisted, “I did not take my advertising down from @IngrahamAngle and @FoxNews, nor do I intend to. @seanhannity.”

Ingraham got crosswise with anti-gun Parkland student David Hogg when she made a fairly innocuous joke about how the teenager was whining over being turned down by several colleges he applied to attend.

But, in reply, Hogg hyperbolically went after Ingraham’s livelihood, publishing a list of her advertisers and urging his followers to pepper the companies with complaints about their connection to Ingraham.

Over the next few days, Ingraham’s advertisers began to abandon her for daring to “attack a child.” She quickly apologized for slapping at the student. In yet another tweet she wrote:

Hogg refused to accept Ingraham’s apology and again took to Twitter to urge his acolytes to keep pressuring the Fox host’s advertisers:

Make of this what you will, but the next day Ingraham announced that she was taking a vacation. On the heels of that announcement, Fox News reiterated that it fully supports Ingraham and will not be punishing her or removing her from the air.

“We cannot and will not allow voices to be censored by agenda-driven intimidation efforts,” Jack Abernethy, co-president of Fox News, said in a statement on Monday.

“We look forward to having Laura Ingraham back hosting her program next Monday when she returns from spring vacation with her children,” he added.

The list of advertisers announcing that they pulled ads from the Ingraham Angle includes Jenny Craig, Nutrish, Hulu, TripAdvisor, Wayfair, Expedia, Nestlé, Johnson & Johnson, and Office Depot.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com

Posted on

Companies Boycotting Laura Ingraham Get Nasty Wakeup Call After Going Too Far

These words are coming back to bite.

As the national media’s cynical infatuation with David Hogg continues into its second month, some of largest advertisers in the country are finding out that reflexive appeasement of tyro tyrants can have a real price.

And Hogg explained why himself, even if he didn’t realize it at the time.

Conservative activists on social media have launched a counterboycott against companies that pulled their advertising from Fox News Channel’s “The Ingraham Angle” because of the conservative host’s mockery of Hogg via a Twitter post.

Ingraham’s apology to the teenager apparently carried no weight for CEOs bent on signaling their own virtue, but it’s a good bet a grassroots effort to support Ingraham by encouraging consumers to avoid those companies’ products will mean a lot more.

Conservative Tribune Daily Email

Thanks For Subscribing!

Because Americans know how to deal with bullies — and Hogg’s own words over the weekend inadvertently summed the situation up perfectly.

In a sneering weekend interview with CNN explaining how he rejected Ingraham’s apology, Hogg told the absolute truth for one of the few times since his arrival on the national scene as an opportunistic “survivor” of the Feb. 14 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

“No matter who somebody is, no matter how big or powerful they may seem, a bully is a bully, and it’s important that you stand up to them,” quoth the boy wonder from Broward.

Just so. And conservatives recognize it when one of their most articulate spokeswomen finds herself in a bully’s crosshairs.

Are you boycotting companies that abandoned Laura Ingraham?

And they know how to stand up for her.

In Facebook videos and Twitter posts, conservatives are rallying for a counterboycott of companies that pulled their advertising from Ingraham’s show.

In a statement Monday to the Los Angeles Times, Fox reiterated its support for Ingraham when company co-president Jack Abernethy declared: “We cannot and will not allow voices to be censored by agenda-driven intimidation efforts.”

Statements by consumers on social media have the same message, but even stronger, calling the companies out by name:

RELATED: Flashback: DC Liberal Tries to Set Self on Fire to Protest Trump [Video]

This wasn’t what Hogg intended, of course. He’s so covered by the liberal mantle of victimhood that he thinks he’s the one being bullied even while he and his liberal manipulators foster a boycott of a woman’s television show just because his teenage feelings were hurt.

But Americans with a little more life experience, and a well-earned distrust of liberal propaganda in the mainstream media know who’s really being victimized here. And they’re doing something about it.

No one likes a bully, and this counterboycott movement proves it. It’s a wakeup call for every liberal in the executive suites who might finally realize that they’ve taken things too far.

And it’s Hogg’s own words that are coming back to bite.

What do you think? Scroll down to comment below!

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://conservativetribune.com

Posted on

What is Mueller Hiding? Mueller Asks Judge to Waive Lawyer’s Right to File FOIA Requests in Russia Witch Hunt

What is Mueller Hiding? Mueller Asks Judge to Waive Lawyer’s Right to File FOIA Requests in Russia Witch Hunt

Cristina Laila
by Cristina Laila
April 2, 2018

Last week, 33-year-old Dutch lawyer Alex Van Der Zwaan asked to avoid jail time in the Russian hoax investigation.

Last month Van Der Zwaan pleaded guilty to lying to Special Counsel investigators about his conversations with Trump’s former campaign aide Rick Gates.

Dirty cop Robert Mueller asked a judge to waive Van Der Zwaan’s right to file a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request ahead of his sentencing which is scheduled for April 3rd.

What is Mueller hiding?

Special Counsel Robert Mueller asked the judge to waive Alex Van Der Zwaan’s right to file a FOIA claiming it would be a strain on “the scarce resources of the Special Counsel’s office.”

Mueller has unlimited time and money to go on a fishing expedition; this is his way of moving ahead with no oversight.

New York Times reporter, Kenneth Vogel tweeted a screenshot of the court document released Tuesday:

Kenneth Vogel tweeted: MUELLER asks judge to waive Alex van der Zwaan’s right to file Freedom of Information requests because they: 1) could “suggest to 3rd parties investigative facts that are…not widely known.” 2) would be a strain on “the scarce resources of the Special Counsel’s Office.”

More background on Van Der Zwaan’s charges via Fox News:

Alex Van Der Zwaan was charged by Mueller’s team with making false statements to investigators in an interview about his time working for a law firm hired by the Ukraine Ministry of Justice in 2012, when he helped produce a report on the trial of Ukrainian politician Yulia Tymoshenko. According to The Washington Post, Van Der Zwaan is the son-in-law of Russian oligarch German Khan.

Some of the reaction from people who are fed up with dirty cop Mueller and his KGB tactics:

Comments

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. Guest posting is disabled for security reasons.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Posted on

Now Activists Want To Topple Statues ‘Offensive To Native Americans’

Activists in Arcata, California, are looking to topple a statue in the city’s central square, but this time it’s not going to be of a Confederate general or anyone associated with the Civil War; they’re toppling a statue of President William McKinley, for his crimes, they say, against Native peoples at home and abroad.

“Put a rope around its neck and pull it down,” one activist shouted at a recent rally demanding the statute’s removal, according to the LA Times. Others suggested McKinley should go because of his support for “settler colonialism” that “savaged, raped and killed.”

Local Native American tribes and other assorted activists targeted the statue after a Charlottesville, Virginia, white supremacist rally to save a Confederate statue turned violent. Arcata officials claim the incident forced the city to look inward at its sins against the Native population, and to consider removing the statue as a protest against what they believe is “racism” on the part of President Donald Trump.

Arcata residents say they believe there’s no marked difference between McKinley, who presided over America’s westward expansion, and Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.

“Is there a difference between honoring McKinley and Robert E. Lee?” Arcata’s mayor recently asked media. “They both represent historical pain.”

Arcata’s council hopes to “inspire” other cities across the country to remove statues of McKinley. Other cities in California have removed statues of Christopher Columbus for similar reasons. Activists have also taken it upon themselves to vandalize and destroy statues of St. Junipero Serra, a Catholic priest who led missions in southern California.

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml

Posted on

Mother Turns Placenta Into Smoothie, Serves To Family

You won’t find this flavor at Tropical Smoothie.

A 33-year-old woman in Britain fed her family a smoothie that was made with her own placenta from a recent birth. Jay Woodall, a mother of four, said eating placenta is common among animals.

“It’s not really much different from eating certain meats,” she said. “A lot of animals do it, especially mammals, we’re the only ones who don’t eat the after birth.”

Well, yeah.

“It just tasted like a berry smoothie, it had coconut water and berries in it, so it tasted really nice,” she said, Fox News reported. By itself, the placenta tasted “a bit like liver, like an irony, metallic taste. It’s not horrible, it’s not a disgusting taste at all.”

She said her husband and 3-year-old son drank the placenta-infused smoothie. “I think everyone had it,” she said. “My husband had some just out of pure curiosity and my son tried some and said it was yummy. But again, it had berries and stuff in it.”

Woodall did a lot with her placenta — and even the umbilical cord. She said she spent $42 to have her placenta made into smoothies, and whatever was left was “dehydrated and turned into pills, she said, costing her another $210.” Fox wrote.

“Jay, a self-confessed hippy from Fleet, Hampshire, also had her umbilical cord dehydrated and turned into a keepsake.”

OK, now it’s all starting to make sense.

“When you think how much some people spend on vitamins, it sounds like a lot, but if it lasts you a whole year then it’s good value for money.”

After drinking the smoothie, Jay said she felt like “a boost of energy, better deeper sleep” and her mood was boosted.

“Milk production was good too, I had to take less because I was producing too much milk,” she added.

“The recovery after birth was quicker as well.”

Consuming one’s own placenta was a fad in the hippy dippy 1970s, but has come back recently with Kourtney and Kim Kardashian “encapsulating” theirs after giving birth.

While many companies offer to prepare the placenta for consumption, the National Institutes of Health says there is no scientific evidence or clinical benefit to eating placenta. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says taking placenta in the form of a capsule should be avoided.

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml

Posted on

Climate Change Trial Starts on Rough Footing for Environmentalists

A layer of pollution can be seen hovering over Los Angeles / Getty Images

BY:

A civil suit playing out between five American oil companies and the municipalities of Oakland and San Francisco started off poorly for climate change activists.

In preparation for California v. Chevron, the date for which has yet to determined, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup ordered the litigants converge for a “climate change tutorial” in an effort to ensure all parties understood the scientific foundation that would form the basis of the trial. The city attorneys of San Francisco and Oakland, the suit’s plaintiffs who are championed by climate change activists, were reportedly thrilled by the prospect. Some activists even compared the tutorial to the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The suit accuses the energy companies–BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Conoco Phillips, and Shell–of contributing to climate change and conspiring to cover up their knowledge of the associated detrimental effects.

The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Steven W. Berman, is expected to argue that because of the companies’ contributions to climate change, municipalities are now being forced to commit financial resources to combatting environmental changes.

In defense, the companies’ lawyers don’t seem to be questioning the science behind climate change, but rather their clients’ responsibility. The lawyers are expected to argue that the individuals who burn fossil fuels, rather than companies, are responsible for contributions to climate change.

During the tutorial, the judge pointed to several inaccuracies in the data and materials provided by the plaintiffs, sometimes to the embarrassment of climate change activists.

Alsup also castigated the plaintiff’s claims of a “smoking gun” document that would prove the conspiracy claims true. The plaintiffs pointed to a report that the companies had in their possession as proof they knew about the nefarious effects of climate change in 1995.

The “smoking gun” document in question proved to be a regurgitated summary of a 1995 report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. At the time of its release, the report was subject to significant scrutiny by many in the scientific community because it was riddled with huge uncertainties.

“There was a conspiratorial document within the defendants about how they knew good and well that global warming was right around the corner,” Alsup said. “Well, it turned out it wasn’t quite that. What it was, was a slide show that somebody had gone to the IPCC and was reporting on what the IPCC had reported, and that was it. Nothing more.”

The judge pointed out that since the report was widely and readily available, proving a conspiracy claim would be difficult.

“So they were on notice of what in IPCC said from that document, but it’s hard to say that they were secretly aware,” he said. “By that point they knew. Everybody knew everything in the IPCC.”

Since the release of the report, many of its key projections have been proved unfounded.

Berman, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney, is a high-profile trial lawyer who played an instrumental role in bringing a similar suit against the nation’s largest tobacco producers in the 1990s. Berman worked on the team that helped craft the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) of 1998, which at the time was the largest settlement in history. The MSA resulted from a suit between the four largest tobacco producers in the United States and the attorneys general of 46 states. The attorneys general argued the states were entitled to compensation for the medical costs associated with caring for individuals suffering from smoking-related illnesses. The tobacco companies settled the suit, agreeing to pay $206 billion over the first 25 years of the agreement. The companies also agreed to impose restrictions and prohibitions on marketing tobacco products, especially to children and youth.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://freebeacon.com

Posted on

Gun-Free London Now Has More Murders Than New York City

A favorite talking point for American liberals on gun control is that places like England have basically banned private firearms ownership and they don’t have nearly the murder problem that we do in the States. It turns out that guns aren’t the only thing that can kill people, knives work too. The city of London recently surpassed New York City in murders, because those Brits are some stabby mofos. Once again, things liberals say end up being a complete load of crap.

This is from The London Times:

London overtook New York in murders for the first time in modern history in February as the capital endured a dramatic surge in knife crime.

Fifteen people were murdered in the capital, against 14 in New York. Both cities have almost exactly the same population.

And things don’t look great for the gun control capitol of Europe for March either:

London murders for March are also likely to exceed or equal New York’s. By late last night there had been 22 killings in the capital, according to the Metropolitan police, against 21 in the US city.

Eight Londoners were murdered between March 14 and March 20 alone and the total number of London murders, even excluding victims of terrorism, has risen by 38% since 2014.

Gosh, if only Londoners were allowed to arm themselves in self-defense, maybe this murder rate would drop. The UK used a mass shooting event as a pretext to essentially ban private gun ownership. Handguns are strictly forbidden, but people can still get shotguns and plinkers (no semi-autos) for shooting sports if they are willing to endure a licensing process that makes getting top-level security clearance seem like applying for a library card.

They’ve traded shooting deaths for stabbing deaths essentially, which in liberal terms is a moral victory. On the left, only shooting deaths are tragic. If people get stabbed, they don’t care.

Clearly the Brits now have to ban knives to keep people safe. Maybe still allow butter knives, with a background check, but all other cutlery has to go. Chefs and home cooks alike while have to resort to Karate chops in preparing their food, but it’s a small price to pay for the public good.

You may be asking yourself, what is the cause of this violent uptick in London murders? Get ready to laugh:

Cressida Dick, commissioner of the Metropolitan police, blamed social media for escalating disputes into violence.

That was just some random thought thrown in this Times article that had no segue or explanation. Still, it’s quite funny and I think it indicates that in addition to banning knives, the British are going to go after FaceBook and Twitter. The UK has never met a right that they don’t want to repress.

Can’t get guns? Knives will do. If knives get banned? I’m sure fatal cricket bat beatings are going to go through the roof. Maybe it’s time the British government stops making victims out of its people and gives them them means to defend themselves. That’s not going to happen, but at least American gun-hating liberals can now STFU about how safe gun-free countries are. Again, that’s also something that ain’t going to happen.

Follow Brian Anderson on Twitter

via Downtrend.com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://downtrend.com

Posted on

“Turn Back To The Revolution”: Black DNC Official Calls For Dems To Use ‘Black Panther’ Tactics To Win 2018 Midterms (VIDEO)

“Turn Back To The Revolution”: Black DNC Official Calls For Dems To Use ‘Black Panther’ Tactics To Win 2018 Midterms (VIDEO)


by Joshua Caplan
April 2, 2018

In a speech Saturday, the Democratic National Committee’s Black Caucus chairwoman Virgie Rollins called on the Democrat Party to adopt tactics once used by the Black Panther Party to win the 2018 midterm elections. 

Daily Caller reports:

Virgie Rollins discussed being a “former Black Panther” at a town hall in Detroit on Saturday and explained how Democrats should mimic their “grassroots” community organizing strategies heading into the 2018 elections.

“I’m a former Black Panther,” the Democratic National Committee’s Black Caucus chairwoman stated. “When we talked about the movement… it was important for us to make people understand that it was about the movement for us, educating us.”

“We’ve got to be out here in masses in the midterms,” she continued. “It’s all about changing the Congress now.”

“They cannot win without black folks and women, so it’s up to us.”

“We’re going to do grassroots organizing in this election,” Rollins closed. “That is so important.”

“We’ve got to turn back to the revolution, because it’s important. They depend on us.”

DNC vice chair Keith Ellison was in attendance for the event.

Here is Ellison touting the Town Hall event.

Comments

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. Guest posting is disabled for security reasons.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Posted on

Judge To Tennessee: You’ll Take Refugees Whether You Want To Or Not

Judge To Tennessee: You’ll Take Refugees Whether You Want To Or Not
Last March, the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) initiated a lawsuit against the federal government on behalf of the Tennessee legislature, charging the refugee resettlement program imposes unconstitutional unfunded mandates, requiring states to pay for resettlement whether they participate in the federal program or not. For a year, the sides engaged in legal maneuvers while the judge dawdled.

via CanadaFreePress.Com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://canadafreepress.com/