On Tuesday, President Trump delivered his State of the Union (SOTU) address, during which he spoke about abortion:
via Daily Wire
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml
Gallup: Five Million Latin Americans Coming to U.S. in Next 12 Months
Five million Latin Americans plan to migrate to the United States in the next 12 months, and an estimated 42 million more say they want to enter the country.
Those statistics were in a report from Jim Clifton, the chairman and CEO at Gallup:
Forty-two million seekers of citizenship or asylum are watching to determine exactly when and how is the best time to make the move. This suggests that open borders could potentially attract 42 million Latin Americans. A full 5 million who are planning to move in the next 12 months say they are moving to the U.S.
The poll came as Democrats began using their new political clout to try to widen the catch-and-release loopholes in President Donald Trump’s border defenses.
Breitbart News reported:
Democrats say the DHS does not need so many detention beds but instead can release and track migrants or resident illegals by using “Alternatives to Detention,” such as monitors strapped to migrants’ ankles.
Democrats also argue that migrants who bring children should not be detained. If that rule is adopted by Congress, all migrants who bring children to the border would be quickly released into the U.S. jobs market.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokeswoman Katie Waldman rejected the Democrats’ proposals, saying in a statement:
Without the necessary detention authority and sufficient funding for family beds to enable ICE to detain family units when they are ordered removed, ICE will still only be able to remove a very small percentage of family units, thereby increasing the pull factors and further contributing to the border crisis. For example last year, only one percent of all removals were on ATD, at a cost of $72,000 per removal.
“Most U.S. citizens like me just want to know the plan,” Clifton concluded. “What is the 10-year plan? How many, exactly whom and what skills will they bring? What do we want? Answer these questions, and the current discussion can be resolved.”
The Republicans on the DHS funding panel include Sens. Richard Shelby (AL), Shelley Moore Capito (WV), John Hoeven (ND), and Roy Blunt (MO), as well as Reps. Kay Granger (TX), Chuck Fleischmann (TN), Tom Graves (GA), and Steven Palazzo (MS).
The Democrats on the panel are Sens. Patrick Leahy (VT), Richard Durbin (IL), and Jon Tester (MT), along with Reps. Nita Lowey (NY), Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA), David Price (NC), Barbara Lee (CA), Henry Cuellar (TX), and Pete Aguilar (CA).
Follow Penny Starr on Twitter.
via Breitbart News
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com
WATCH: Sen. Mike Lee Blasts Sen. Mazie Hirono for Religious Test for Judicial Nominees
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) confronted Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday about her Party’s use of religious tests for judicial nominees.
“The problem with asking a nominee about the particulars of his or her religious beliefs is that those questions inevitably expose those beliefs as somehow a qualifier or a disqualifier for public office,” Lee, a Mormon, argued Thursday. “That is flatly inconsistent with at least the letter, at least the spirit, if not also the letter, of at least two provisions of the Constitution. I cannot fathom why this would ever make sense to do.”
“So I would ask Sen. Hirono in what circumstance, in what way, shape, or form is asking Neomi Rao whether she believes particular conduct to be sinful an appropriate question to be asked in this committee–ever,” Lee continued.
“These probing questions – I – if you were to list all of the questions that we asked, they have to do with whether or not these nominees’ very strongly held religious views, as well as any other views, that may not enable them to be objective as judges in lifetime positions,” Hirono argued. “I think that’s a legitimate area of inquiry, and it is not that we all ask, ‘Do you think such and such is a sin, etc., etc.?’”
“That was asked this week!” Lee responded vehemently. “This week, it was asked! I’m not making this up!”
Lee referred to Tuesday’s session of the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for Rao, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. During his questioning of Rao, Democrat Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey asked the nominee if she believes gay relationships are a “sin.”
In response, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican, said he has observed “a growing pattern among Senate Democrats of hostility to religious faith.”
Cruz continued:
Article VI of the Constitution says there should be no religious test for any public office. We have also seen Senate Democrats attack what they characterized as religious dogma. We have seen Senate Democrats attack nominees for their own personal views on salvation. I don’t believe this is a theological court of inquisition. I think the proper avenue for investigation of this committee is a nominee’s record.
The Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) applauded Lee for confronting Hirono on the use of religious tests for Trump’s judicial nominees.
“Thank you, Sen. Mike Lee, for putting Senate Democrats, who have demonstrated hate towards religion and people of faith, on notice for bullying President Trump’s judicial nominees,” said Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy adviser with JCN. “These smear tactics have no place in a judicial confirmation or anywhere else.”
JCN launched a $1.5 million ad buy in January, calling on Senate Democrats to end harassment of Trump’s judicial nominees for their religious beliefs.
Hirono also joined California Democrat Sen. Kamala Harris in suggesting U.S. District Court nominee Brian C. Buescher would not hear cases “fairly and impartially” due to his membership in the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic charitable organization.
via Breitbart News
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com
Stanford Student Smiles While Destroying Pro-Life Display, Caves When Authorities Are Brought In
An unidentified Stanford University student is going viral in all the wrong ways after video of him vandalizing a pro-life display was posted on social media.
According to The Daily Wire, the incident involved a “Cemetery of the Innocents” set up by the Stanford Students for Life. The national Students for Life website describes it as a way to dramatize the victims of abortion by setting up small crosses or other memorials for those who were killed before they were born.
“Does your school need a wake-up call?” the national website reads. “Most campuses do, so you’re not alone. Hosting a display that shows the magnitude of lives affected by abortion, is a gentle and peaceful way of informing your campus of why it’s important to take a stand for life. Sometimes our peers just don’t understand the extent of lives taken by abortion each day. It’s our job to remind them!”
Sometimes, being reminded can be a bit too much, as was the case here.
TRENDING: Room Erupts After Acting AG Shuts Down Chairman on Mueller Questioning: ‘Your 5 Minutes Is Up’
The video begins after the student was caught picking up the flowers the Stanford Students for Life were using for their display. He was asked several times to give up the flowers and informed they were private property, but he kept smiling and refusing to either put them back or put them in a box carried by one of the Students for Life members.
“It’s as simple as just putting it in (the box),” said a young woman identified by The Daily Wire as Students for Life regional coordinator Anna Bakh.
Nevertheless, he persisted, waving them off and asking not to be recorded.
“I understand,” he said. “It’s also as simple as taking those down and respecting people’s choices, being a decent human being.”
Do you think this student should face repercussions for his actions?
Because only one side should be able to protest, right?
“Also respecting other people’s opinions and their property, and their display,” Bakh said.
“It’s a couple of flowers,” the student said. “I don’t know if it’s that deep, especially to you guys if you just tell people to like to get an abortion and leave as soon as you convince them of that. You’re not going to like think about the consequences are for their lives.”
“Well this table is here, so you can talk about that,” another student said.
It’s worth noting there wasn’t much stridency among the Students for Life, who offered repeatedly to engage in dialogue with the student. He wasn’t having it, instead demanding that the display get taken down.
RELATED: Watch as Steve Scalise Dares Dems To Protect Babies & Their Leadership Instantly Cuts & Runs
Eventually, authorities were called, at which point he became strangely contrite. He even offered to put the flowers back; the group declined, simply asking him to return them.
When asked why he was “hurting himself,” the student replied, “It might be worth hurting himself for.”
Bakh told The Daily Wire he walked off without incident, but not before “kick(ing) a few of the lawn stakes as he walked away.”
“The SSFL’s memorial of the lives lost to abortion was a beautiful display that sparked many mind changing conversations,” Bakh said in a statement. “It is sad to see a student not only attempt to destroy such a beautiful memorial, but to also refuse to converse with us.
“It is unacceptable that students resort to vandalism when they disagree with the prolife viewpoint. We encouraged this particular student to dialogue with us and participate in an open conversation, rather than resorting to destruction. Unfortunately, this has become a theme across the nation and even Stanford University is no exception.”
There was no physicality here, but it’s a potent distillation of everything wrong with how the left treats pro-lifers.
To the left, the opinion of those who are against abortion is nothing, as is their right to have it heard. I have no doubt this young man thought he was doing something moral by pilfering the property of Students for Life. There are probably millions who agree with him. And that’s a very distinct kind of sickness — one that we’ll have to deal with, as a country, for decades to come.
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
via Conservative Tribune
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct
Nicolas Maduro blocks incoming food for his starving people
There’s a standoff (or perhaps a showdown) taking place on the border of Venezuela at the moment. It’s not 5,000 American troops (as hinted at by John Bolton) facing off with the Venezuelan army. It’s not even the army of Colombia, though their new President has been making noises along those lines and moving some of his troops. It’s a caravan of supply trucks with food and medical supplies intended for the starving people of Venezuela, but the supplies aren’t making it into the country. The reason? Dictator Nicolas Maduro won’t allow them to cross the border. (NPR)
Trucks full of food and medicine have arrived at the Venezuelan border, setting up a showdown between President Nicolás Maduro and U.S.-backed opposition leader Juan Guaidó.
The aid convoy arrived at the Colombian border city of Cucuta, The Associated Press reports, but Maduro and the military have blocked the Tienditas bridge so the trucks cannot enter Venezuela.
“The United States is prepositioning relief items — including food, nutritional supplements, hygiene kits and medical supplies — in Colombia so they are available to reach those most in need in Venezuela, as soon as possible,” a U.S. official told The AP.
Cucuta is the only major bridge and highway crossing into Venezuela in that area and Maduro currently has the entire thing blocked off with tractor-trailers parked sideways across all lanes. So he’s not only holding up the aid convoy but all traffic into and out of his country.
The tyrant had a ready explanation for why he was doing this. He said that Venezuela “has never been nor are we a country of beggars.” That’s a prideful boast, but nobody is calling the Venezuelan people “beggars.” They’re hostages to a socialist tyrant who is using starvation and a paucity of medicine and other necessities as a tool to keep his people beaten down. Sick and starving citizens who are forbidden to own guns are much less of a threat to a tyrant than well-fed, healthy people with firearms.
What kind of a monster does this? Maduro knows that his people are dying, either from starvation and neglect or simply being murdered in the streets by his thugs. Meanwhile, the dictator lives high on the hog in his palatial compound and goes on foreign jaunts where he eats the finest steaks. This is a scene straight out of the days leading up to the French revolution. Let the people eat cake.
If the Venezuelan military doesn’t stand up to this madman soon, something more drastic may happen. Whether it’s a bloody rebellion in the streets (which would be disastrous for the people of Venezuela) or an external push from the Colombian army (a disaster of a different kind), this story doesn’t end well. There’s no guarantee that a military junta would turn over power peacefully, but it would likely be the method of removing the monster involving the least bloodshed.
The post Nicolas Maduro blocks incoming food for his starving people appeared first on Hot Air.
via Hot Air
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com
AWFUL. Purple Heart Triple-Amputee Brian Kolfage Undergoes Invasive TSA Groping at Tucson Airport (VIDEO)
Purple Heart triple-amputee vet Brian Kolfage underwent an invasive TSA pat-down at Tucson International Airport on the morning after the “We Build the Wall” town hall.
A TSA agent groped and searched under Brian Kolfage’s hips, buttocks, groin and his half arm searching for what exactly? In addition to groping Kolfage, agents also swabbed his prosthetic legs and wheelchair for explosives.
Tucson’s metro core is extremely liberal and for open borders. Hillary Clinton won Tucson in 2016 — Trump won the outlying areas of Tucson.
Radical open borders groups such as La Raza have infected Tucson along with illegal alien invaders yet a triple-amputee veteran who served this country is groped and humiliated.
A concerned bystander caught the groping on video and told The Gateway Pundit that an observer was so disgusted by what the TSA agent was doing to Mr. Kolfage that they had to walk away due to disgust and anger at seeing a war hero subjected to such embarrassment.
The Gateway Pundit reached out to Brian Kolfage for comment after he was groped by TSA on Saturday.
Mr. Kolfage told The Gateway Pundit, “It’s unfortunate that every time I travel I get a full search and swabbed for explosives. It’s the times we live in. I understand the security concerns but it’s not TSA’s fault, it’s the policy makers in DC who have no clue what the real world is like; it’s a joke. It’s the same people who think there’s no issue at our border.”
“It’s amazing how our government is so worried about airport security with a triple amputee veteran in a wheelchair but everyday thousands of illegals are coming into our nation unchecked and killing Americans. I guess they turn a blind eye to them like they have to all the angel families,” Kolfage added
Kolfage added, “The policies of TSA are so bad, they have caused a charity to be formed for wounded vets to fly on private planes so we don’t have to deal with the full cavity searches and removing of prosthetics. That’s why I usually fly Veterans Airlift Command” https://www.veteransairlift.
Brian Kolfage set up a GoFundMe page to build the border wall and it has surpassed $20 million in donations with over 350,000 donors!
VIDEO:
The post AWFUL. Purple Heart Triple-Amputee Brian Kolfage Undergoes Invasive TSA Groping at Tucson Airport (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
via The Gateway Pundit
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com
“Free the nipple” heading to SCOTUS?
This has been a closely watched case in New Hampshire, both in terms of free speech and gender discrimination. (And I don’t mean “closely watched” just because it involves topless women.) Three Granite State ladies, Heidi Lilley, Kia Sinclair and Ginger Pierro, were arrested in 2016 for going topless at a local beach and refusing to cover up after other bathers complained. They were subsequently convicted of violating a local indecent exposure law. Their initial appeals were rejected and now the state’s highest court has agreed with the previous judges and declared that the conviction was not a violation of their rights and the ordinance does not unfairly treat men and women differently. (Associated Press)
New Hampshire’s highest court on Friday upheld the conviction of three women who were arrested for going topless on a New Hampshire beach, arguing their constitutional rights were not violated.
In a 3-2 ruling Friday, the court found Laconia’s ordinance does not discriminate on the basis of gender or violate the women’s right to free speech. In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice James P. Bassett with Senior Associate Justice Gary E. Hicks found the ordinance was unconstitutional because it treats men and women differently.
Heidi Lilley, Kia Sinclair and Ginger Pierro are part of the Free the Nipple campaign — a global campaign advocating for the rights of women to go topless. They were arrested in 2016 after removing their tops at a beach in Laconia and refusing to put them on when beachgoers complained. Pierro was doing yoga, while the two others were sunbathing.
This obviously isn’t up there on the priority list with civil rights complaints, border security or abortion, but it would still be an interesting case for the Supreme Court to take up. (And the women are currently considering such an appeal.)
The judges in this case are making an argument that seems awfully tough to substantiate. Associate Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi cited the fact that “courts generally upheld laws that prohibit women but not men from exposing their breasts against equal protection challenges.” That may be the case, but courts regularly upheld laws supporting slavery for a long time as well. We eventually moved past such notions.
The bottom line here is that the laws are supposed to apply equally to all. These laws are tailored specifically to treat women differently than men. There’s nothing unnatural about human breasts, and given the obesity epidemic the country is currently facing, I can assure you that there are some men out on those beaches with their tops off who could do with a larger cup size bra than at least one of the women who were convicted. Either the law applies to all citizens or it doesn’t.
For a more recent example of this double standard, look no further than Maroon 5 frontman Adam Levine removing his shirt entirely during the Super Bowl LIII halftime show. You’ll notice that people didn’t freak out the way they did when Janet Jackson had her little “wardrobe malfunction” a decade earlier.
Whether you find the idea of people going topless offensive or not, you risk running into all manner of offensive sights when you venture outside your front door. The courts have an obligation to strike down laws that treat people differently based on gender as well as race, religion and all the rest. The Free the Nipple advocates deserve their day before the Supreme Court and the justices should agree to hear this one.
The post “Free the nipple” heading to SCOTUS? appeared first on Hot Air.
via Hot Air
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com
Tucker Airs New Footage Of Raid On Roger Stone’s Home
Crazy. Via Daily Caller: Tucker Carlson aired and narrated the FBI’s raid on Roger Stone’s home during his show Friday night. Stone, a longtime confidant of President Donald Trump, was charged last month on seven counts, including five for making false statements to Congress, one for witness tampering and one for obstruction of a government […]
via Weasel Zippers
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us
Ocasio-Cortez, Adviser Caught Making False Statements About Documents They Published
Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and her team were caught making false statements about a document on the “Green New Deal” that they published on the congresswoman’s website after Ocasio-Cortez was widely mocked across the political spectrum.
Ocasio-Cortez published a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document on her congressional page that contained numerous outrageous statements, including that her “Green New Deal” sought to provide economic protections to those who were “unwilling to work.”
On Friday, Ocasio-Cortez adviser Robert Hockett appeared on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” where he made multiple false statements about the FAQ document published by Ocasio-Cortez’s team.
A video published by far-left Media Matters, an online publication that aims to smear conservatives, showed part of Hockett’s false claims, which Ocasio-Cortez then retweeted to her 3 million Twitter followers.
After being thoroughly mocked across the political spectrum over the disastrous rollout of her Green New Deal, Ocasio-Cortez did what she does best – make false and misleading statements while playing the victim card.
Ocasio-Cortez found a couple of examples of Twitter accounts who had tweeted out parody versions of her Green New Deal, and claimed that the Republican Party was secretly behind the attempt to destroy her plan because it was “so strong.”
“When your #GreenNewDeal legislation is so strong that the GOP has to resort to circulating false versions, but the real one nets 70 House cosponsors on Day 1 and all Dem presidential candidates sign on anyway,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.
Below is the full interview Ocasio-Cortez’s adviser had on Fox News.
Transcript from Tucker Carlson’s interview with Ocasio-Cortez adviser Robert Hockett provided via Fox News:
TUCKER CARLSON: All right, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says her Green New Deal will save the planet. In exchange, we just give up cars and airplanes and rebuild every structure in the United States. We’ll also by the way need to invent brand new forms of energy that science hasn’t conceived of yet. How much will this cost? That’s unclear. How will we pay for it? Unknown. Who will make this happen? Well, workers, obviously, though anyone who is quote, “unwilling” to work will still get paid by the government.
In other words, not all of the details have been ironed out as of tonight, that’s why we’re grateful that Robert Hockett is here. He is a Law Professor at Cornell. He is advising Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the Green New Deal and he joins us. Professor, thanks very much for coming on.
ROBERT HOCKETT, LAW PROFESSOR, CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Thanks, tucker.
CARLSON: So can I just ask the obvious question, why would we ever pay people who are quote “unwilling to work”?
HOCKETT: We never would, right? And AOC has never said anything like that, right? I think you are referring to some sort of document that — I think, some doctored document that somebody other than us has been circulating.
CARLSON: Oh, I thought that came right from her – that was in the backgrounder from her office is my understanding.
HOCKETT: No, no. She has actually tweeted it out to laugh at it. If you look at latest tweets. It seems that apparently, some Republicans have put it out there. I don’t know the details.
CARLSON: Well, good. Well, then thank you for correcting me. I mean, because it seemed a little ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as the idea that we’re going to build enough light rail to make airplanes unnecessary, which I think actually is from —
HOCKETT: I don’t know where you got that either, Tucker. I actually believe that you are actually on our side about this. If you actually read the actual plan, right, there is nothing about getting rid of anything. It is about expanding many options, right?
I mean, there are many, many things we want to be able to do now in addition to what we already do. So what’s — where is the airplane disappearance coming from? I’m not really clear on where that originated?
CARLSON: Well, I could actually get it for you. This is a —
HOCKETT: That would be great because I keep hearing that.
CARLSON: … frequently questions released by her office and I’m quoting from it. Maybe this is fraudulent in which case, I hope you will correct me. But it says that the Green New Deal — and I am quoting, “Totally overhaul transportation and that would mean,” quote, “building out high speed rail at a scale where air travel would stop becoming necessary.”
Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono responded to that by saying, “That would be hard for Hawaii.” So I don’t think that’s made up. The Senator from Hawaii.
HOCKETT: No, no. But I mean, apparently it is being misunderstood, right? We are really talking about expanding optionality here. We are not talking about getting rid of anything, right? We are talking about basically making it cost effective to move into more modern forms of technology and more modern forms of production which would then enable people actually cost effectively to transition to that stuff. We are not talking about requiring anything or prohibiting anything, that’s sort of 1980s style environmentalist.
CARLSON: Okay, but hold on, I don’t want to you back away from what she herself has said and all of this with the caveat that a lot of this won’t happen, maybe none of it, but these are the ideas that she is articulating. She did so on NBC last week.
HOCKETT: Well, I promise you, Tucker, I won’t back away from thinking she said, and see, we are pushing forward, right?
CARLSON: Then, she said, well, yes at high speed.
HOCKETT: Yes, very high speed. Yes.
CARLSON: That we are going to supplant all fossil fuels in 12 years.
HOCKETT: Yes, yes.
CARLSON: Okay, so that would mean —
HOCKETT: But that doesn’t mean prohibiting them. It means rendering them obsolete by doing something better. And we can do it. This is America. We can do anything.
CARLSON: Then good. Then I am glad, and it’s nice to have a smart person on the show to explain this. What about air travel which is critical to our economy? This is a continental country.
HOCKETT: It stays the same, right?
CARLSON: Okay, but no, because that requires fossil fuel.
HOCKETT: That might, wait, we are not talking – we are talking about carbon neutrality, remember? We are talking about net zero emissions. That doesn’t mean there is never any burning of anything, right? I mean, until we come up with solar panel flying airplanes, of course, we are not going to —
CARLSON: I’m sorry to interrupt you. I just want to correct you. I just had – because this seemed like we were making news on this show. The “unwilling to work” thing was in her backgrounder, that has been absolutely confirmed.
HOCKETT: No, no. Definitely not.
CARLSON: You’re saying no.
HOCKETT: No, definitely not. Definitely not.
CARLSON: Okay, so NBC and lots of other news outlets are saying that that was in the backgrounder and you are saying it is fraudulent.
HOCKETT: No, that’s erroneous, right. Now, there might be new details now that you know about that I don’t because I have been doing media all day. But the story all day —
CARLSON: Yes, I think that was actually in the document. I read it as it came out.
HOCKETT: Well, it’s the wrong document, Tucker. If that was —
CARLSON: Well, yes, well, it’s definitely the wrong document.
HOCKETT: That’s not us. No, we certainly don’t believe in anything like that, right?
CARLSON: So what you’re saying is, we’re getting rid of fossil fuels actually, even though you just said we were because —
HOCKETT: Yes. No, no, we’re rendering them obsolete for most purposes they are used for now, right?
CARLSON: BUT air travel is a huge source, a huge source.
HOCKETT: But that’s — hence the word “most” before, right? We eliminate them for most purposes for which they are used now by rendering them obsolete.
CARLSON: Okay, so — but that would include cars. So I have got two gasoline powered cars at home.
HOCKETT: Yes, but imagine how much better it is going to be when it’s cost effective to drive electric cars. But that can’t be done simply by individuals, right, you have to coordinate. You have to have charging stations everywhere and, of course, individuals can’t do that, right?
So in that sense, the government is acting like kind of orchestra conductor here, we are trying to coordinate some of that stuff that could only be centrally coordinated and enable everybody to act individually within that framework, right?
CARLSON: Yes, that doesn’t — I don’t fully understand what you are saying, but let me just, I mean on the low end, this would be the most expensive thing that the United States has ever undertaken including rural electrification in the Second World War and I am just kind of wondering in a country that has got more debt than it has GDP, how would we pay for that?
HOCKETT: Well, here’s the key, right? Remember that we racked up enormous debt to finance the Second World War effort and the deal and of course the interstate highway system in the 1950s. But here is a key point, he is a takeaway.
I want you to remember this, I hope everybody will remember this. Remember that inflation is a relation, right? It’s the relation between the quantity of money and the quantity of goods. Now, if the money that you are spending is resulting in the production of a great many more goods, you have no inflation problem.
More production absorbs more expenditures. The problem with the $7 trillion that was spent during the Bush years and then of course, in the last tax cut was that it wasn’t actually productive, but note, that even that didn’t bring about inflation.
CARLSON: Okay, we’re still not getting close to it, and by the way I am just getting all of this in my ear, we are actually going to follow up on this next week. That “unwilling to work” line which you are obviously embarrassed about and you should be of course.
HOCKETT: No, no, I am not embarrassed, it’s just not us.
CARLSON: That was in the document.
HOCKETT: It’s not embarrassing. No, Tucker. No, no. We are not embarrassed by what is not ours.
CARLSON: And we’re going to — paying people who are unwilling to work, there’s nothing more embarrassing than that.
HOCKETT: No, Tucker. We’re not embarrassed by what’s not ours. Okay, we will clarify this, it’s not ours.
CARLSON: Okay, we’re going to get to the bottom of that.
HOCKETT: Yes, we are.
CARLSON: We are going to prove it one way or the other and I hope you will come back.
HOCKETT: I will. I welcome it.
CARLSON: Professor, thank you.
HOCKETT: Thank you so much, Tucker.
CARLSON: I am glad — I am always grateful when people on your side come on, including you. Thank you.
via Daily Wire
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml
‘Big Bang Theory’ Mocks Prayer, Sarah Sanders in Sexist Attack on Screen
‘Big Bang Theory’ Mocks Prayer, Sarah Sanders in Sexist Attack on Screen
Featureflash Photo Agency / Shutterstock“Big Bang Theory” cast (Featureflash Photo Agency / Shutterstock)
Hollywood leftists are taking their attacks against the Trump administration to the next level while mocking prayer in the process.
If you were watched “The Big Bang Theory” Thursday night — and I’m not sure why you would — you might have noticed the disturbing message made by the show’s creator, Chuck Lorre.
If you’re familiar with the show, you know Lorre leaves a message on a vanity card for his viewers after the credits of each episode, but it’s only on screen for a split second.
Most of the time, Lorre’s message is harmless, but sometimes he’ll use the opportunity to make a political statement — even though the show has nothing to do with politics.
On Thursday, the Hollywood liberal used the ending credit to mock prayer and disparage White House press secretary Sarah Sanders.
TRENDING: If the Va. AG Can’t Take Governorship, Guess Who Takes Over: The GOP’s Speaker of the Va. House
“God told me He hasn’t spoken to Sarah Sanders since she was fourteen years old and praying for her skin to clear up. I have no reason to doubt Him,” the message read.
I thought it was sexist to attack women for their looks? Apparently, that doesn’t apply when it’s liberals doing the attacking.
.@bigbangtheor‘s Chuck Lorre Launches Ugly, Sexist Attack Against @PressSec Sarah Sanders https://t.co/6Lznh6wCe8 pic.twitter.com/QxfeV9Xz2z
— NewsBusters (@newsbusters) February 8, 2019
Should Sarah Sanders get an apology?
Sanders has been open about her Christian faith, telling the Christian Broadcasting Network in a recent interview that she believes “God wanted Donald Trump to become president.”
Lorre has already made it perfectly clear how he feels about prayer in the past.
In October, Lorre aired a fake, mocking prayer in which he questioned the existence of God and asked for “wrath” against supporters of President Donald Trump.
‘The Big Bang Theory’ Credits Feature Prayer from Show’s Creator Calling on God to issue ‘Old Testament wrath’ against ‘ https://t.co/a2iZaeu71h pic.twitter.com/hIHLcaOVLI
— NewsBusters (@newsbusters) October 29, 2018
RELATED: SJWs Furious Adam Levine Double-Crossed Them at Halftime Show
Lorre has also attacked President Donald Trump with the vanity card.
On a “Big Bang Theory” episode on January 3, the card read, “I am writing this vanity card on December 15th. If all goes as planned, you are reading it on January 3rd. Since I have no idea what the Gangster-in-Chief might do between now and then, I thought I’d express my outrage now. My pre-outrage if you will. Let’s call it anticipatory disgust. Or being aghast in advance. The point is I’m trying to get ahead of my inevitable indignation. This way, regardless of what law is broken, or which murderous dictator gets a pass, I’ll have already vented. Of course, if he nukes Pyongyang or Toronto in order to distract from impeachment chatter, I reserve the right to be upset.”
Lorre may think he’s being avant-garde or humorous, but most people don’t want to be preached at during a sitcom.
Besides, what’s humorous about mocking prayer and making petty attacks against someone’s looks? Absolutely nothing.
This is why millions of Americans chose Trump as their president. They’re tired of being attacked by elitists in Hollywood and Washington, D.C., and they’re also fed-up with the constant temper tantrums from people who can’t seem to accept that Trump is the president.
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
via Conservative Tribune
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct