Democrat Rep. Cedric Richmond (LA) was accused of watching the President&#8217;s Cup golf tournament during the Democrats&#8217; impeaching hearing on Thursday night in the House Judiciary Committee.
The incident, noticed by GOP Rapid Response Director Steve Guest, appears to show Richmond not taking the Democrats&#8217; impeachment hearing seriously as he was clearly focused on the golf tournament.
Guest tweeted out a video showing Richmond watching golf, adding, &#8220;What on earth is Democrat Rep. Cedric Richmond watching on his laptop during this impeachment markup? To me, it looks like Rep. Richmond is watching the President’s Cup golf tournament. Richmond’s actions are a DISGRACE.&#8221;
In the video posted by Guest, Richmond can be seen at the bottom of the screen, right above CNN&#8217;s &#8220;BREAKING NEWS&#8217; chyron, wearing a light gray suit.
In a second tweet, Guest zoomed in and the video clearly shows, although blurry, that Richmond was watching golf.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Zoomed in. 
Yep. 
Democrat Rep. Cedric Richmond is watching golf. <a href="https://t.co/Qu0Npl8RrD">pic.twitter.com/Qu0Npl8RrD</a>
&mdash; Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1205322577884913666?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 13, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Cedric Richmond

WATCH: Democrat Congressman Watches GOLF During Impeachment Hearing

Democrat Rep. Hank Johnson (GA) — who is known for his infamous Guam may &#8220;capsize&#8221; moment from several years ago — imagined a disturbing image during the Democrats&#8217; impeachment hearing on the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday as he spoke about President Donald Trump kidnapping the daughter of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and tying her up with duct-tape in a basement.
Johnson made the remarks while attempting to push back on the notion that President Zelensky was weak, saying, &#8220;Well, I&#8217;ll tell you that brings to mind the picture of President Trump and President Zelensky meeting in New York in September at the U.N. and a big chair for President Trump, little chair for President Zelensky.&#8221;
&#8220;Big, six-foot-four President Trump, five-foot-eleven President Zelensky. And they’re standing there, President Trump is holding court, and he says, &#8216;Oh, by the way, no pressure,'&#8221; Johnson continued. &#8220;And you saw President Zelensky shaking his head as if his daughter was downstairs in the basement, duct-taped.&#8221;
&#8220;I mean, there’s an imbalance of power in that relationship. It always has been,&#8221; Johnson concluded. &#8220;And there’s no way that the nation of Ukraine can stand up to the power, the power of the United States of America. And President Trump used that unequal bargaining position, he leveraged his power in that relationship, not for the benefit of the United States of America, but for his own benefit.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Deranged. <a href="https://t.co/gzrxE7iAiY">pic.twitter.com/gzrxE7iAiY</a>
&mdash; Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1205295034226106369?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 13, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Shortly after Johnson made the remarks, the White House fired back on social media by writing on Twitter: &#8220;JUST IN: Democrats want to impeach the President for [checks notes] being too tall.&#8221;
The White House then posted a picture of President Trump and President Zelensky sitting side-by-side at the meeting that Johnson claimed that Trump had a much bigger chair than Zelenky that clearly shows that the two leaders had the exact same chair.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
🤷‍♂️ <a href="https://t.co/KGY5zyrUGs">pic.twitter.com/KGY5zyrUGs</a>
&mdash; The White House (@WhiteHouse) <a href="https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1205259769197535232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Johnson is well known over remarks he made during a House Armed Services Committee in 2010 when he questioned Admiral Robert Willard, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, about the impact of increasing the number of U.S. troops on the the island of Guam.
&#8220;My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize,&#8221; Johnson said in a serious manner.
&#8220;We don&#8217;t anticipate that,&#8221; Willard responded.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Here ya go. <a href="https://t.co/M9oUZCg9mU">pic.twitter.com/M9oUZCg9mU</a>
&mdash; Arthur Schwartz (@ArthurSchwartz) <a href="https://twitter.com/ArthurSchwartz/status/1205288866657292290?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 13, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Johnson, who claimed this week that he did not support impeaching Trump until Democrats began their impeachment investigations into him a couple of months ago, directly compared the president to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler at the start of the year.
&#8220;Americans elected an authoritarian, racist, anti-immigrant strongman to the nation’s highest office,&#8221; Johnson said. &#8220;Americans, particularly black Americans, can’t afford to make that same mistake about the harm that could be done by a man named Hitler or a man named Trump.&#8221;
Johnson also mocked Trump supporters, saying, &#8220;Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again followers&#8230;are older, less educated, less prosperous, and they are dying early. Their life spans are decreasing, and many are dying from alcoholism, drug overdoses, liver disease, or simply a broken heart.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA): &quot;Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again followers&#8230;are older, less educated, less prosperous, and they are dying early. Their life spans are decreasing, and many are dying from alcoholism, drug overdoses, liver disease, or simply a broken heart.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/YYmwopUZDm">pic.twitter.com/YYmwopUZDm</a>
&mdash; Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1080637702444208128?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 3, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Hank Johnson

Democrat Ponders Trump Kidnapping Foreign Leaders’ Daughter. White House Fires Back.

Actress Olivia Wilde pointed media fury at director Clint Eastwood after journalists complained about the portrayal of reporter Kathy Scruggs in the upcoming film &#8220;Richard Jewell.&#8221;
Wilde, who plays Scruggs in the film, posted a lengthy Twitter thread on Thursday night taking issue with the suggestion that Scruggs trades sex for news tips in the Eastwood-directed film.
The actress said she did not understand her portrayal of Scruggs to include such an &#8220;appalling&#8221; and &#8220;misogynistic&#8221; implication and emphasized that she did not direct the film, Eastwood did, and she has little control as an actress.
&#8220;One of the things I love about directing is the ability to control the voice and message of the film,&#8221; Wilde started the Twitter thread. &#8220;As an actor, it’s more complicated, and I want to share my perspective on my role in the film &#8216;Richard Jewel.'&#8221;
&#8220;I was asked to play the supporting role of Kathy Scruggs, who was, by all accounts, bold, smart, and fearlessly undeterred by the challenge of being a female reporter in the south in the 1990s,&#8221; the actress continued. &#8220;I cannot even contemplate the amount of sexism she may have faced in the way of duty.&#8221;
&#8220;As a child of journalists myself, I have deep respect for the essential work of all in their field, particularly today when the media is routinely attacked and discredited, and regional papers like the AJC are disappearing on a daily basis,&#8221; Wilde said.
&#8220;Contrary to a swath of recent headlines, I do not believe that Kathy &#8216;traded sex for tips&#8217;. Nothing in my research suggested she did so, and it was never my intention to suggest she had. That would be an appalling and misogynistic dismissal of the difficult work she did,&#8221; she explained. &#8220;The perspective of the fictional dramatization of the story, as I understood it, was that Kathy, and the FBI agent who leaked false information to her, were in a pre-existing romantic relationship, not a transactional exchange of sex for information.&#8221;
Wilde then emphasized: &#8220;I cannot speak for the creative decisions made by the filmmakers, as I did not have a say in how the film was ultimately crafted, but it’s important to me that I share my personal take on the matter.&#8221;
Wilde included a &#8220;sex positive&#8221; message in the thread, suggesting that it is completely ethical to have sex with sources.
&#8220;My previous comments about female sexuality were lost in translation, so let me be clear: I do not believe sex-positivity and professionalism are mutually exclusive,&#8221; she wrote. &#8220;Kathy Scruggs was a modern, independent woman whose personal life should not detract from her accomplishments.&#8221;
The actress noted that the reporter &#8220;unfortunately became a piece of the massive puzzle that was responsible for the brutal and unjust vilification of an innocent man, Richard Jewell, and that tragedy is what this film attempts to shed light on.&#8221;
&#8220;I realize my opinions about Kathy, based on my own independent research, may differ from others involved with the film, but it was important to me to my my own position clear,&#8221; Wilde ended the thread.
Soon after posting the thread, Detroit Free Press pop culture critic Julie Hinds said Wilde&#8217;s posts raise &#8220;questions that Clint Eastwood should answer.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Thread from <a href="https://twitter.com/oliviawilde?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@OliviaWilde</a> raises questions that Clint Eastwood should answer. <a href="https://t.co/S5TwHVZCVp">https://t.co/S5TwHVZCVp</a>
&mdash; Julie Hinds (@juliehinds) <a href="https://twitter.com/juliehinds/status/1205250568295505921?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
See Wilde&#8217;s full thread, below:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
I was asked to play the supporting role of Kathy Scruggs, who was, by all accounts, bold, smart, and fearlessly undeterred by the challenge of being a female reporter in the south in the 1990s. I cannot even contemplate the amount of sexism she may have faced in the way of duty.
&mdash; olivia wilde (@oliviawilde) <a href="https://twitter.com/oliviawilde/status/1205244828516331526?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Contrary to a swath of recent headlines, I do not believe that Kathy “traded sex for tips”. Nothing in my research suggested she did so, and it was never my intention to suggest she had. That would be an appalling and misogynistic dismissal of the difficult work she did.
&mdash; olivia wilde (@oliviawilde) <a href="https://twitter.com/oliviawilde/status/1205244830684786689?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
I cannot speak for the creative decisions made by the filmmakers, as I did not have a say in how the film was ultimately crafted, but it’s important to me that I share my personal take on the matter.
&mdash; olivia wilde (@oliviawilde) <a href="https://twitter.com/oliviawilde/status/1205244832580542465?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
She unfortunately became a piece of the massive puzzle that was responsible for the brutal and unjust vilification of an innocent man, Richard Jewell, and that tragedy is what this film attempts to shed light on.
&mdash; olivia wilde (@oliviawilde) <a href="https://twitter.com/oliviawilde/status/1205244835378212866?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
I realize my opinions about Kathy, based on my own independent research, may differ from others involved with the film, but it was important to me to my my own position clear.
&mdash; olivia wilde (@oliviawilde) <a href="https://twitter.com/oliviawilde/status/1205247188122718209?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Olivia Wilde

Olivia Wilde Directs Heat To Clint Eastwood After Journalists Complain About ‘Richard Jewell’

Politicon 2018 &#8211; Day 2

University Presents ‘Refutation’ Of Ben Shapiro, Speaker Admits He Didn’t Attend Shapiro’s Speech

Netflix is catching major heat after the streaming service added a Christmas-themed &#8220;dark comedy&#8221; made by a Brazilian comedy group about &#8220;gay Jesus.&#8221;
Over 1.2 million Christians have signed a <a href="https://www.change.org/p/netflix-especial-de-natal-porta-dos-fundos">Change.org petition</a> asking Netflix to remove &#8220;A Primeira Tentação de Cristo,&#8221; or, &#8220;The First Temptation of Christ.&#8221;
According to LGBT website <a href="https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/12/12/gay-jesus-netflix-christmas-film-brazil-censorship-jair-bolsonaro-catholic-petition-porta-dos-fundos/">Pink News</a>, the Brazilian comedy group Porta dos Fundos, &#8220;which literally means &#8216;back door,'&#8221; is comprised of &#8220;five people from Rio de Janeiro who started making sketches and parodies on their YouTube channel.&#8221;
&#8220;Jesus is turning 30 and brings a surprise guest to meet the family. A Christmas special so wrong that it must be from comedians Porta dos Fundos,&#8221; the film is described on Netflix.
&#8220;The First Temptation of Christ&#8221; has been slammed as blasphemous and disrespectful by Brazilian Christians, many identifying as Catholics.
Catholic website <a href="https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-americas/2019/04/worlds-largest-catholic-country-debates-the-right-number-of-priests/">Crux</a> reported in April that Brazil has &#8220;the biggest Catholic population in the world with 123 million adherents,&#8221; though the nation has seen a dip in Catholic identity the past two years and an &#8220;accelerated growth of Evangelical denominations.&#8221;
“It is a serious offence against Jesus Christ and the Christians! It has no historical evidence to support the insinuations presented,&#8221; one petition signer wrote, Pink News noted.
Another said the movie &#8220;came to destroy the image of Christ who gave His life to save us. Netflix has featured series that the family can’t join to watch. God created man and woman and no one can change that.”
Here are some of the other <a href="https://www.change.org/p/netflix-especial-de-natal-porta-dos-fundos">reactions</a> from angered Christians:
<blockquote>[Porta dos Fundos] has no originality to make comedy and what does? Religious Prejudice!
For the end of derision and disrespect for the faith of the Catholic Church and especially for GOD.
Amazing! Disrespect for the faith of others. No one is obliged to believe in Jesus Christ, but we demand respect for our belief. I totally repudiated it and we already canceled our Netflix. Whoever disrespects my God does not deserve my money.
Create laws to defend LGBTS and we are at the mercy of this lack of respect? So give respect.
A total lack of respect for our belief !!!
Total blasphemy.
Disrespect for Christians.
It&#8217;s an absurd movie of this nature. Where is the moral.
It is a shame such content to be accessed by anyone &#8230; a freak!!!
The good artist owes more reverence to God than humor to men &#8230; But this choice is for the wise both for those who watch.</blockquote>
It&#8217;s unlikely Netflix will remove the comedy. Though, as reported by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/toto-disney-netflix-wave-white-flag-on-international-censorship">The Daily Wire</a> last month, the streaming service removed a segment from left-wing comedian Hasan Minhaj&#8217;s &#8220;Patriot Act&#8221; allegedly at the behest of the Saudis:
<blockquote>&#8220;Netflix, the world’s biggest streaming company (for now), got in trouble with one of its politically charged originals. The company’s far-left talker &#8216;Patriot Act&#8217; starring Hasan Minhaj aired a segment critical of Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and his ties to the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi earlier this year. &#8230; The streaming giant yanked the episode in question from its Saudi feed at the country’s urging.&#8221;</blockquote>

Netflix

Netflix Catches Heat Over ‘Gay Jesus’ Christmas Flick, 1 Million Christians Sign Petition Calling For Its Removal

Street artist Sabo has returned to troll the Democrats with an anti-smoking-themed poster illustrating the absurdity at the heart of whatever impeachment hoax the party chooses to make the cause celebre of the moment. Take a look:
Erected at the corner of Santa Monica Blvd and Kelton near the 405 freeway in Los Angeles, California, Sabo and his merry band of trolls appropriated an American Lung Association billboard displaying the number of smoking-related deaths this year. As the photos will show, the original sign read, &#8220;Smoking Deaths This Year: 415, 949 and counting&#8221;; once Sabo had his way with it, however, the sign then read, &#8220;Impeachment Hoaxes This Year: 415, 949 and counting,&#8221; which was then followed by the explosive caption, &#8220;Adam Schiff is cancer.&#8221; Take a look:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
For context, here was the original sign that Sabo appropriated: <a href="https://t.co/PpqGd7B61H">pic.twitter.com/PpqGd7B61H</a>
&mdash; Paul Bois (@PaulBois39) <a href="https://twitter.com/PaulBois39/status/1205260105060478976?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Starting since day 1 of President Trump&#8217;s election, the Democrats have been throwing anything they can get their hands on at the wall to see if it sticks in terms of Trump&#8217;s impeachment, from the Russian collusion hoax to the Stormy Daniels hoax to the now-Ukraine Whistleblower hoax. No matter how thin their case or flimsy their evidence, the Democrats always ferociously pound the table with each go-around as if Hitler himself has come to occupy the White House.
In an email to The Daily Wire, Sabo said that Democrats have essentially shown an inability to accept the results of a free election and have no resorted to ginning up hoaxes in order to boot a duly elected president from office.
&#8220;I&#8217;ve always had a fairly bad opinion of the Democrats. I&#8217;m not sure why it&#8217;s taken me so long to get to this place but &#8230; these are people who simply don&#8217;t believe in democracy,&#8221; Sabo said in the email. &#8220;Whenever a Republican wins office, I&#8217;ve noticed they spend that entire time protesting, resisting, and now using impeachment as a tool to change the results of an election.&#8221;
Sabo added that this form of protest amounts to a war of attrition in which Democrats win by wearing the opposition down.
&#8220;The past three years seems more like twelve and it&#8217;s by design,&#8221; said Sabo. &#8220;Democrats are trying to wear us down. When Obama won reelection, it was hard but, I accepted it.&#8221;
&#8220;As soon as Obama took office all the anti-war protests President Bush had to deal with disappeared,&#8221; said Sabo, &#8220;as soon as President Obama left office and a Republican stepped in the protests ramped back up at full speed. It&#8217;s simply how they opperate.&#8221;
Citing the many instances of Antifa-like thugs attacking people in the streets, Sabo said that people should see the past events of WWII as a warning.
&#8220;We think of the stories Jews went through just before WWII at the hands of the Germans, these stories are etched in stone now,&#8221; said Sabo. &#8220;As if they were so exceptional that such things could never happen again. Well, today people are getting beaten, shot in the streets, silenced, bankrupted, denied service from payment processors and banks for wrong-think. We better wake up because things are getting scary and it can happen again.&#8221;
View Sabo&#8217;s line of work anytime at <a href="http://www.unsavoryagents.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.unsavoryagents.com&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576263702115000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGOrGT5UsydG4u1U0h209tnT26-Lg">www.unsavoryagents.com</a>

sabo_00

SEE IT: Street Artist Sabo Trolls Impeachment Hoaxes: ‘Adam Schiff Is Cancer’

On Monday, Campus Reform released a video in which Cabot Phillips speaks with students at George Washington University about “Medicare for All.”
“So the main issue that Democrats have taken up, and [are] running against Trump on, is health care,” Phillips said. “The policy right now that they’re proposing is Medicare for All, which is the idea of government-funded health care for everyone. Is that a concept you view favorably or unfavorably?”
As expected, all of the students who were questioned said that, to one degree or another, they approved of Medicare for All.
<blockquote>“Favorably, for sure.”
“I do support Medicare for All.”
“I do think that every American deserves health care.”
“I do support that. I think it’s an important form of universal heath care.”
“I do support free health care for everybody.”
“In general, I would say yes. I do favor Medicare.”</blockquote>
A Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) supporter wearing a pink and gray scarf told Phillips that she didn’t believe he could say anything that would have her “view it unfavorably.”
Phillips then outlined some of the consequences of a Medicare for All system, and asked each participant to tell him whether they “view them favorably or unfavorably.”
“So, first off, it is mandatory, so it would be – over a hundred million people right now have private insurance plans that they like – they would be removed from those plans by the government,” Phillips stated. “It would be mandatory, and they would be put on the government plan, even if they didn&#8217;t want to. Is that something that concerns you at all?”
A female student wearing a black backpack said it “probably” concerns her. Another female student holding an orange cup agreed, saying she views that aspect of the plan “unfavorably.”
A male student holding a water bottle and another male student in a pink T-shirt indicated an unfavorable position.
“I mean, they shouldn&#8217;t be like kicked off of it, I guess. That’s not really – that doesn&#8217;t seem fair,” said the student in the pink tee.
A student with a beard and glasses who had previously indicated that he favored “free” health care said that the “government can’t force” Americans onto its plan, to which Phillips replied: “Well, that&#8217;s what this would do.”
Orange cup shared a similar sentiment, noting that while she believes “everyone should have health care,” Americans shouldn’t be stripped of their private plans.
The Sanders supporter remained steadfast: “I mean, as a Bernie support, I think you do have to give up some choice just for the benefit of everyone in society.”
Phillips moved on to another ramification of enacting a Medicare for All system.
“So, the second part – it would eliminate private health insurance, the entire industry. It would be just under a million jobs [that] would be eliminated because all insurance [is] moved to the government,” he said.
Most of the students stated that they viewed such a consequence “unfavorably.” Orange cup even went as far as to say that she believes “having jobs and being able to make a living and &#8230; survive on your own and take care of your family is more important than everybody having health care.”
Black backpack added that “the way someone wants to insure their life and their health is their choice.”
A student wearing a white T-shirt told Phillips that he was “fine with that,” leading to the following exchange:
<blockquote>WHITE TEE: People can have health care, you know, regardless of whether its private or governmental they will have health care –
PHILLIPS: But this would eliminate private health care.
WHITE TEE: Yeah, you know, and either way it&#8217;s still health care, you know?</blockquote>
Phillips moved on to the final detail.
“In the Bernie Sanders proposal – it would be about $32 trillion over the next decade – that would be every American paying about one-fifth of their income toward funding it. Is that a concern?” he asked.
The student with the beard and glasses was confused, asking: “You have to pay for it?”
Phillips replied: “Yes, so taxes will go up.”
The student shot back: “You still have to pay for it? I don&#8217;t support that.” He later added, “I just think that&#8217;s a lot and it&#8217;s just like, health care is definitely important and crucial, but there&#8217;s also other things that people are trying to worry about.”
Black backpack echoed that sentiment, emphasizing the adverse impact it might have on “low-income” families.
Pink tee said he would view the tax burden in an “unfavorable” light if he were on his own financially.
The student holding the water bottle laughed and said, “No comment.”
When asked if the information troubled her, orange cup replied in the affirmative, adding: “I didn&#8217;t know those facts before. Now I&#8217;m kind of debating on if I’m supporting Medicare for All now.”
Pink tee still wasn’t sure, although he said the information did “shock” him.
Black backpack said the information “could change [her] mind,” but “the overall goal is worthy of conversation.”
Phillips pressed white tee, asking him what his message was to people who want to keep the insurance they already have.
Tee offered an incoherent answer: “I mean, you know, regardless, I feel like insurance you can keep – here&#8217;s – I don&#8217;t really know much, I&#8217;m just [saying my] support, I [mumbles] just governmental stuff, but personally, yeah, it&#8217;s &#8230;”
Lastly, Phillips asked a female student from Venezuela if she viewed Medicare for All favorably or unfavorably.
She replied: “Where I come from &#8230; we used to have health care for all, right? But I feel like, for us particularly, it didn&#8217;t work. We’re socialist. It really hurt us as a country.”
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V8EOcRIduP8" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

Sanders and Warren.

WATCH: ‘Medicare For All’ Supporters Shocked By Facts About ‘Medicare For All’

Bernie Sanders

Elizabeth Warren

Health Care

Medicare for All

New national, state, and combined average polls from recent days not only suggest that public support for impeachment has stalled but that impeachment is beginning to backfire on the Democrat Party as they move forward with their attempt to remove the president from office.
&#8220;According to the Monmouth poll – which was released Wednesday – 50 percent said the president should not be impeached and removed from office, with 45 percent calling for impeachment and removal from the White House,&#8221; Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/impeachment-needle-not-moving-as-majority-still-oppose-removing-trump-polls">reported</a>. &#8220;It’s a similar story in the Quinnipiac survey, which was released on Tuesday. By a 51-45 percent margin, Americans opposed impeaching and removing the president, little changed from the school’s late November poll.&#8221;
Quinnipiac University Polling Analyst Tim Malloy said, “American voters signal they are slightly more inclined not to impeach than to impeach.&#8221;
However, a new Real Clear Politics average poll, which was featured by Fox News&#8217; Chris Wallace and Bret Baier on Thursday, noted that support for impeachment is now the lowest it has ever been and the opposition to it is at the highest it&#8217;s ever been.
&#8220;Time is not their friend and there was a fascinating poll today, it&#8217;s actually the Real Clear Politics average of recent polls and it shows that support impeaching and removing the president is at its lowest since this whole thing began two months ago, Opposition to impeaching and removing the president as at its highest, it basically, the two lines have intersected at I think 46%,&#8221; Wallace said. &#8220;So, continuing to hold these hearings, continuing to make these arguments &#8230; it certainly isn&#8217;t getting any bipartisan buy in and I think more Democrats than not think, &#8216;Look, let&#8217;s get this over with, we&#8217;re committed to this, we&#8217;re going to do it.'&#8221;
Wallace continued, &#8220;You could argue, that&#8217;s a heck of a way to impeach a president but let&#8217;s go ahead and do it, get it off out plate and then we can do the things we need to do to campaign in 2020, like it&#8217;s USMCA, or drug prices, things we can say we are working for the American people.&#8221;
&#8220;It&#8217;s a question I&#8217;ve been asking on &#8216;Fox News Sunday&#8217; for the last few weeks, which is a greater political risk: going ahead with impeachment or backing off at the last minute and going for censure or something?&#8221; Wallace concluded. &#8220;It&#8217;s unknowable, look Nancy Pelosi is a pretty smart tactician whatever you think of her policies and I think she&#8217;s made the calculation for her base, for the vast majority for her members of Congress, not those 31 in the swing districts, it would be much worse not to go ahead with impeachment because you would look foolish having climbed up this mountain and suddenly you&#8217;re within reach of the summit and you say, &#8216;nah, forget it.'&#8221;
A new Marquette Law Poll found that in the swing state of Wisconsin, for example, the majority of people opposed impeachment.
CBS 58 <a href="https://www.cbs58.com/news/wisconsin-voters-against-impeachment-mu-law-poll">reported</a>, &#8220;Forty percent of respondents favored impeaching and removing president Donald Trump from office, versus 52 percent who do not.&#8221;

Nancy Pelosi

Support For Democrats’ Impeachment Efforts Hits New Critical Point In Polls

At a league meeting on Wednesday, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell addressed the lingering controversy still swirling around National Anthem-protesting former quarterback Colin Kaepernick&#8217;s decision to skip a special workout offered to him by the league last month. The NFL, said Goodell, has &#8220;moved on.&#8221;
&#8220;This was about creating an opportunity,&#8221; Goodell told reporters at the league meeting Wednesday, as reported by <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-football-nfl/goodell-says-league-has-moved-on-from-kaepernick-special-workout-idUSKBN1YG057">Reuters</a>. &#8220;We created that opportunity. It was a unique opportunity, a credible opportunity and he chose not to take it. I understand that.&#8221;
&#8220;We’ve moved on,&#8221; the commissioner added.
Goodell&#8217;s comment about creating a &#8220;credible opportunity&#8221; for Kaepernick aligns with statements from league insiders published by ESPN in a report on what ultimately derailed what appears to be the quarterback-turned-social justice activist&#8217;s final shot at getting back into the league. In the <a href="https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/28139355/why-colin-kaepernick-nfl-were-never-going-work-out">report</a>, NFL insiders consistently maintained that the league, particularly Goodell, was genuinely offering Kaepernick a real opportunity to play again, but <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/nfl-insiders-kaepernick-tryout-needlessly-derailed-by-his-camps-distrust-of-league">&#8220;distrust&#8221; and &#8220;resentment&#8221;</a> for the league within Kaepernick&#8217;s camp led to his fateful decision to skip the NFL-organized event less than an hour before it began.
According to ESPN Senior Writer Howard Bryant&#8217;s sources, the idea to offer a private workout for Kaepernick began with Goodell, who had strong motivation to &#8220;find a path back for Kaepernick&#8221; into the league and had received reports that &#8220;two teams were legitimately interested in Kaepernick&#8221;:
<blockquote>According to league sources, a statement that Kaepernick’s team sent on Oct. 10 reiterating his readiness to return to the NFL — a statement that news outlets tweeted and Kaepernick retweeted — caught the attention of commissioner Roger Goodell. The post landed on receptive ears for two reasons. The first was that important business partners such as Jay-Z and respected advisers such as legendary sociologist Harry Edwards were pressuring Goodell to find a path back for Kaepernick. The second and more important reason was that the league’s football operations department had alerted Goodell to a piece of news long considered unlikely: Two teams were legitimately interested in Kaepernick.</blockquote>
Though ESPN&#8217;s league sources consistently stress that the workout was a &#8220;legitimate&#8221; chance for Kaepernick to impress the representatives from some 25 of the 32 teams that reportedly attended the event, the quarterback&#8217;s camp was immediately suspicious of the offer and maintained their distrustful stance throughout the process.
When the NFL provided Kaepernick&#8217;s representatives with the details about the workout — scheduled for the upcoming Saturday at the Falcons’ training facility in Flowery Branch, Georgia — Kaepernick&#8217;s associates suspected it was nothing but &#8220;a publicity stunt.&#8221;
&#8220;To the league, there was no reason to believe the invitation was illegitimate,&#8221; Bryant explains. &#8220;If Kaepernick wanted to play, here was his chance. Despite the events of the past three years, the NFL believed it could offer Kaepernick a legitimate workout based solely on football merits. It was an attitude that reflected the power and, some Kaepernick sources say, the arrogance of a $15 billion behemoth.&#8221;
What Kaepernick&#8217;s camp interpreted as &#8220;arrogance,&#8221; league insiders told ESPN, was actually just an attempt to keep the event &#8220;football-centric.&#8221;
&#8220;It was not about the external noise,&#8221; an NFL source told the network. &#8220;This was to be a football-centric exercise, full stop. He wanted a workout. He said he was ready to go. We set that up.&#8221;
In the end, Kaepernick&#8217;s representatives focused on two issues, the waiver and the ability to bring their own camera crew, about which insiders say Kaepernick&#8217;s crew was offering completely unfounded complaints driven by their distrust of the league.
Despite having chosen to skip the NFL event, after his much less-attended workout that his own representatives organized, Kaepernick accused the league, and specifically Goodell, of &#8220;running&#8221; from him.
&#8220;I&#8217;ve been ready for three years. I’ve been denied for three years,&#8221; Kaepernick <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-kaepernick-responds-to-backlash-over-skipped-tryout-blames-the-nfl">declared</a> to the cameras after his private workout. &#8220;We all know why I came out here today and showed it today in front of everybody. We have nothing to hide, so we’re waiting for the 32 owners, 32 teams, Roger Goodell, all of them to stop running. To stop running from the truth. To stop running from the people.&#8221;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-week-after-tryout-debacle-kaepernick-posts-defiant-message-to-league">WATCH: After No Teams Call Him, Kaepernick Posts Defiant Message To League</a>

Colin Kaepernick

NFL’s Goodell On Kaepernick: ‘We’ve Moved On’ After He Skipped Workout

Roger Goodell

On Wednesday, NBC’s Chuck Todd, speaking on &#8220;MTP Daily&#8221; about the testimony of Inspector General Michael Horowitz, breathed that &#8220;presidential conspiracy theories&#8221; resulting from the release of Horowitz’s report could wind up helping  President Trump.
 Todd started by saying, “Let’s be crystal clear here. The IG did find some alarming instances of FBI misconduct related to its applications to secretly monitor Carter Page. And he could not say whether political bias did or did not influence some of those specific decisions down the road. And, by the way, it’s not only political bias that could have influenced. It’s possible confirmation bias. Prosecutorial bias. Not all bias is red and blue in America,” as <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/tv/chuck-todd-ig-report-showed-alarming-fbi-misconduct-but-its-being-twisted-to-fuel-presidential-conspiracy-theories/">Mediaite</a> reported.
Todd continued, “Now the IG has surfaced important questions about Justice Department safeguards, especially for investigations of this magnitude. And yes, the facts of this report are important, but once again, the facts are being distorted, more by spin, and in some cases, conspiracy theories.”
Todd played a clip of Senator Lindsey Graham asserting, “What has been described as a few irregularities becomes a massive criminal conspiracy … they couldn’t believe Trump won; didn’t want him to win, and when he won, they couldn’t tolerate the fact that he won.”
A clip of President Trump followed in which he stated, “This was an overthrow of government; this was an attempted overthrow, and a lot of people were in on it and they got caught. They got caught red-handed.”
Attorney General William Barr was shown saying, “I think when you step back here and say ‘what was this all based on?’ — It’s not sufficient. … The question really is what was the agenda after the election that kept them pressing ahead after their case collapsed?”
Todd opined, “Now the facts have been warped to defend the president here. Counter-narratives have been pushed and presidential conspiracy theories have taken hold as part of this broader information war. Frankly, that’s helped the president in his fight against the facts of this impeachment investigation.”
In late November, on MSNBC’s “MTP Daily,” Todd theorized that President Trump should be <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-chuck-todd-compares-trump-to-o-j-simpson">compared to O.J. Simpson</a>, who was accused of murdering his wife Nicole and Ron Goldman but was acquitted despite substantial doubt among the public that he was innocent.
Todd’s comments were triggered after a short monologue from former senior FBI official Andrew Weissmann, who opined, “On substance, this is really not about the facts. The facts have been unbelievably clear; you had two and more compelling witnesses today saying, ‘Yes, there was a quid pro quo. And by the way, everybody knew it.’ So this is really not about the facts; it’s a question of what are the voters, whether it’s the voters in Congress or the voters in the election that’s coming up, are gonna care. I think that’s really the issue; it’s not sort of ‘package it.’”
As Mark Finkelstein noted at <a href="https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/mark-finkelstein/2019/11/22/chuck-todd-trump-oj%E2%80%94acquitted-everybody-knew-hes-guilty">Newsbusters</a>, that elicited this response from Todd: &#8220;I’m having a quick flashback to the O.J. trial, frankly, where the facts were damning, but it didn’t matter. And yet, he was innocent, but everybody knew he was guilty. Are we about to head into a situation like that where he’s going to get acquitted and yet everybody’s gonna know he&#8217;s guilty?&#8221;
&nbsp;

Meet the Press &#8211; Season 72

Chuck Todd: ‘Presidential Conspiracy Theories’ In Wake Of IG Report Could Help Trump

Chuck Todd

Donald Trump

Exit polls from the U.K. elections suggest that the Conservative Party is on course to secure an overall majority of 86 seats in the general election as the party nearly doubled the amount the seats that the far-left Labour Party won.
&#8220;The survey taken at UK polling stations suggests the Tories [The Conservative Party] will get 368 MPs &#8211; 50 more than at the 2017 election &#8211; when all the results have been counted,&#8221; the BBC <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50765773">reported</a>. Labour would get 191, the Lib Dems 13, the Brexit Party none and the SNP 55. The Green Party will still have one MP and Plaid Cymru will lose one seat for a total of three, the survey suggests.&#8221;
BBC noted that the survey, conducted by Ipsos MORI, is a very accurate poll and that the group surveyed over 22,000 people at 144 different polling locations.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Exit Poll Forecast: Conservative Majority <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BBCelection?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BBCelection</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GE2019?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#GE2019</a> <a href="https://t.co/epJYYpRo2y">pic.twitter.com/epJYYpRo2y</a>
&mdash; BBC Election (@bbcelection) <a href="https://twitter.com/bbcelection/status/1205245993614270471?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
New York Times Deputy Political Editor Steven Swinford reported that the blow out win will give the Conservatives the biggest majority that they have had in 32 years.
&#8220;Johnson will have the numbers he needs to get his Brexit deal through the Commons,&#8221; Swinford tweeted. &#8220;If exit polls are right Boris Johnson is PM and Britain will leave EU on Jan 31.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
BREAKING
The Tories are on course to secure an EIGHTY-SIX majority, exit poll suggests &#8211; biggest since 1987
Johnson will have the numbers he needs to get his Brexit deal through the Commons
If exit polls are right Boris Johnson is PM and Britain will leave EU on Jan 31
&mdash; Steven Swinford (@Steven_Swinford) <a href="https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1205246310636572677?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Swinford highlighted the reaction from the far-left Labour Party, which is led by notorious anti-Semite Jeremy Corbyn: &#8220;LABOUR REACTION: Barry Gardiner tells Sky News &#8216;this exit poll is a devastating blow &#8230; I think we offered a manifesto of hope that was full of integrity. If this is the result then many, many people are going to be let down'&#8221;
&#8220;Barry Gardiner says that if the exit poll is correct he is &#8216;deeply, deeply depressed,'&#8221; Swinford added. &#8220;He says it&#8217;s premature to be discussing Jeremy Corbyn&#8217;s leadership and that he hopes his colleagues will retain their seats.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Barry Gardiner says that if the exit poll is correct he is &#39;deeply, deeply depressed&#39;
He says it&#39;s premature to be discussing Jeremy Corbyn&#39;s leadership and that he hopes his colleagues will retain their seats
&mdash; Steven Swinford (@Steven_Swinford) <a href="https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1205250356009209859?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Sky News Political Correspondent Lewis Goodall tweeted out a quote from sources in the Labour Party who said that the party lost because Corbyn was an anti-Semite who did not understand economics:
Goodall tweeted, &#8220;Labour source: &#8216;This is a damning verdict on the Corbyn project. If the exit poll is accurate then jeremy Corbyn, Karie Murphy and Seamus Milne will have done more to bring about the end of the Labour Party than the Conservative Party ever could. Their position is untenable.'&#8221;
Goodall tweeted, &#8220;Labour source: &#8216;Any attempt to blame this on Brexit is folly. The one thing that came up time and time again from voters &#8211; Corbyn. Whether that was his support of the IRA, his antisemitism or limited grasp of economics. He was the problem.'&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Labour source: “Any attempt to blame this on Brexit is folly. The one thing that came up time and time again from voters &#8211; Corbyn. Whether that was his support of the IRA, his antisemitism or limited grasp of economics. He was the problem.”
&mdash; Lewis Goodall (@lewis_goodall) <a href="https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1205252358277672960?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Goodall concluded, &#8220;Another Labour source: &#8216;Leadership will try and blame it on Brexit but that’s bollocks. Speak to any candidate. They know what the problem was. And it was much more than Brexit.'&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
Another Labour source: “Leadership will try and blame it on Brexit but that’s bollocks. Speak to any candidate. They know what the problem was. And it was much more than Brexit.”
— Lewis Goodall (@lewis_goodall) <a href="https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1205254200332079110?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
The Conservative Party&#8217;s blow out win over the far-left Labour Party comes after <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ocasio-cortez-meddles-in-foreign-election-endorses-notorious-anti-semite/">socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) meddled in the election</a> by sharing promotional content encouraging British citizens to vote for the anti-Semitic Corbyn.
This is a breaking news story, refresh the page for updates.

Boris Johnson

BREAKING: Exit Polls From U.K. General Election Suggest Blowout

Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) meddled in a foreign election on Thursday when she shared a video promoting far-left British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and encouraged people to turn out and vote in the election.
Ocasio-Cortez tweeted: &#8220;This video is about the UK, but it might as well have been produced about the United States. The hoarding of wealth by the few is coming at the cost of peoples’ lives. The only way we change is with a massive surge of *new* voters at the polls. UK, Vote!&#8221;
The video attacks wealthy people in the U.K., Conservatives, and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, stating at the end: &#8220;The Conservatives have been in power for 10 years. We can&#8217;t survive another 5. On your side. For the many not the few. Vote Labour 12 December.&#8221;
Washington Examiner Magazine Executive Editor Seth Mandel tweeted out a screenshot of Ocasio-Cortez&#8217;s tweet that featured the video from Corbyn&#8217;s official Twitter account:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
HOLY S**T AOC OFFICIALLY ENDORSES JEREMY CORBYN <a href="https://t.co/0F1VZYyIlv">pic.twitter.com/0F1VZYyIlv</a>
&mdash; Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) <a href="https://twitter.com/SethAMandel/status/1205146202561482752?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;AOC endorsing Corbyn is a major moment, and for all those who cover anything remotely in the orbit of any of this: You will be judged on how you cover it. Just letting you know. This will be a big part of your grade for the semester,&#8221; Mandel added. &#8220;AOC: For the Many, Not the Jew.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
AOC: For the Many, Not the Jew
&mdash; Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) <a href="https://twitter.com/SethAMandel/status/1205158039424245760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
National Review published a brief <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/jeremy-corbyn-not-a-man-of-the-people/">overview</a> of a few of the examples of anti-Semitism that have been made against Corbyn:
<blockquote>When it comes to <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45030552" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">anti-Semitism in the Labour party</a>, the media have fallen for Corbyn’s deception too. Corbyn’s longstanding support for radical causes includes a penchant for Islamist anti-Semites. He invited members of Hamas and Hezbollah to the British Parliament as <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/01/jeremy-corbyn-under-pressure-to-denounce-friends-hamas-and-hezbo/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">“friends”</a> and was paid perhaps as much as £20,000 (about $27,000 at the time) to appear on <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/jeremy-corbyn-paid-iran-press-tv-tortured-journalist-2016-6" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Iranian Press TV</a> — the same network that was <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9028435/Britain-bans-Irans-Press-TV-from-airwaves.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">banned</a> in the U.K. for its broadcast of a forced confession by a tortured Iranian journalist. In one appearance Corbyn mused that <a href="https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/corbyn-suspected-hand-of-israel-in-egypt-bombing-during-press-tv-interview/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">“the hand of Israel”</a> was involved in a terror attack in Egypt. He traveled to Tunisia in 2014 and <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45196409" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">participated in a ceremony</a> honoring terrorists who murdered eleven Israelis at the 1972 Munich Olympics. Corbyn also hosted an event at the British Parliament in 2010 <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/jeremy-corbyn-hosted-event-likening-israel-to-nazis-6sb5rqd5x" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">comparing Israel to Nazi Germany</a> (part of a U.K. tour called “Never Again for Anyone — Auschwitz to Gaza”) and attended events by <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/20/jeremy-corbyns-10-year-association-group-denies-holocaust/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Deir Yassin Remembered</a>, a group chaired by Holocaust denier Paul Eisen.</blockquote>
Ocasio-Cortez, who has a documented history of anti-Semitism, has repeatedly praised or defended Jeremy Corbyn, Linda Sarsour, and Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI).
Ocasio-Cortez&#8217;s endorsement of Corbyn comes after she falsely accused President Donald Trump of anti-Semitism this week over a video clip where Trump was speaking to a group of supporters at the Israeli American Council and made obvious joking remarks.
&#8220;A lot of you are in the real estate business, because I know you very well, you&#8217;re brutal killers, not nice people at all, but you have to vote for me. You have no choice. You&#8217;re not going to vote for Pocahontas, I can tell you that,&#8221; Trump said as the audience cheered in favor of his remarks. &#8220;You&#8217;re not going to vote for the wealth tax! Yeah, let&#8217;s take 100% of your wealth away, no, no.&#8221;
&#8220;Even if you don&#8217;t like me, and some of you don&#8217;t, some of you I don&#8217;t like at all actually,&#8221; Trump continued as the audience laughed, adding, &#8220;and you&#8217;re going to be my biggest supporters because you&#8217;re going to be out of business in about 15 minutes if they get in.&#8221;
It was obvious that Trump was joking around with a crowd that was politically friendly toward him.
Despite this, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted: &#8220;This is outright and atrocious antisemitism coming from the President, and it is dangerous.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
This is outright and atrocious antisemitism coming from the President, and it is dangerous. <a href="https://t.co/E21xMrqSsP">https://t.co/E21xMrqSsP</a>
&mdash; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) <a href="https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1204089453502971905?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 9, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<div>
<div id="bling-3" data-google-query-id="CNuhs5GIseYCFUixTwodCJ8Exg"></div>
</div>

Ocasio-Cortez

Ocasio-Cortez Meddles In Foreign Election, Endorses Notorious Anti-Semite

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Jeremy Corbyn

I&#8217;m fascinated by the debate that has been raging these past several days among conservatives around the issue of pornography. I&#8217;m happy to accept blame for helping to start this scuffle because I think it has been a clarifying moment for conservatism. As Jane Coaston outlined in her fair and insightful <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/12/21003109/pornography-obscenity-barr-doj-conservatives-libertarians">reporting at Vox,</a> the dispute over porn regulation really springs from a more fundamental disagreement about the actual purpose of government.
<a href="https://nypost.com/2019/12/09/porn-isnt-free-speech-on-the-web-or-anywhere/">Guys like Sohrab Ahmari</a> have come down on the pro-regulation side, while the libertarians at <a href="https://reason.com/podcast/are-we-really-gonna-do-another-war-on-porn/">Reason</a> have settled, unsurprisingly, on the other. The dividing line even runs through The Daily Wire. My colleagues <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/knowles-the-porn-debate-isnt-really-about-porn">Michael Knowles</a> and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-at-first-things-porn-is-not-a-blessing-of-liberty">Josh Hammer</a> join Ahmari, myself, and others in the view that government has a legitimate role in battling the porn epidemic, while <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-915-should-we-ban-pornography-2">Ben Shapiro</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/JeremyDBoreing/status/1204426556484898816">Jeremy Boreing</a> say that it should not have a substantial role — and any role, if there is one, should not include an outright ban. I think everyone cited above has contributed thoughtfully to the discussion, and I&#8217;m not just saying that because two of them happen to sign my paychecks.
But through this whole back-and-forth, I haven&#8217;t seen anyone engage with what I consider to be my strongest argument. Putting aside, for a moment, the philosophical  discussion about the nature of government and the state&#8217;s role in preserving the common good — an important conversation, but one that leads us far into the weeds and loses sight of the original subject in the process — I&#8217;d like to re-emphasize a very simple point I&#8217;ve made about the porn problem, specifically.
The defense of pornography, or at least of its remaining legal and mostly unregulated, seems to hinge on the fact that the content is produced and viewed by consenting adults. If viewers do not consent to viewing a sexual act, we all presumably agree that a crime has occurred. It would seem to strain the bounds of the most radical libertarianism to argue that a group of adults are within their rights to have an orgy on the subway, for example.
Porn is different, it&#8217;s argued, because you only view it if you seek it out. If viewers of porn were not consenting — if internet porn were of such a nature that millions of people were forced to encounter it against their will every year — then it would seem that the argument against prohibition or regulation begins to crumble. Well, I think it has already crumbled because indeed millions of people are exposed to it every year against their will and consent. Those defending the legality of porn seem to be ignoring this group of victims, and I think that is an insurmountable moral and logical flaw in their position.
Children are first exposed to porn at the age of 11, on average. As we speak right now, there are no doubt millions of minors, some as young as five or six years old, watching adults have sex on the internet. This is an indisputable fact. Does the fact not blow to smithereens the &#8220;consent&#8221; excuse offered by the other side? Our legal system rests on the assumption that minors cannot consent to engage in sexual acts. If an adult has sex with a child, the adult is guilty of rape no matter if the child verbally agreed or not. In our society, we understand that children lack the mental and emotional maturity to make an informed decision in this area. To deny that is to literally defend pedophilia.
Well, if children cannot consent to engage in a sexual act, does it not inevitably follow that they cannot consent to witness such an act? If they cannot consent as a second-party participant, neither can they consent as a third-party participant. Thus, every child who watches porn does so, by definition, without consent. Again: I don&#8217;t see how you can quibble with this argument without also quibbling with the logic for criminalizing pedophilic behavior. I&#8217;m not saying that the people on the opposite side of this issue are trying to legalize pedophilia. I&#8217;m saying that they fail to appreciate how our laws against pedophilia also provide a basis for pornography regulation.
This all means that every &#8220;consenting adult&#8221; who posts hardcore sex videos to the internet does so knowing that children can very easily access and view it. They are putting it, as it were, within reach of the child. If the child reaches for it, who do we blame? Is it the child&#8217;s fault or the fault of the person who put it there? I would argue that every child who has viewed internet pornography is a victim of abuse. And the abuser is the person who posted that content where a child, with no trouble at all, could find it.
Indeed, the internet porn industry makes hundreds of millions of dollars every year on children. Each hit to a site like Pornhub is monetized. If millions of children go on that site — which they do, because there&#8217;s nothing to stop them — then Pornhub profits to the tune of millions on the psychological and sexual abuse of children. If you don&#8217;t think the government has an interest in the common good, broadly speaking, will you admit that it at least has an interest in preventing people from making millions on providing pornography to 12-year-olds?
The obvious dodge here is to lay the onus entirely at the feet of parents. &#8220;It&#8217;s not the pornographer&#8217;s fault,&#8221; critics will respond. &#8220;It&#8217;s up to the parent to stop their kids from seeing this stuff.&#8221; I find this rejoinder to be profoundly lazy. It&#8217;s true that parents should be doing all they can to shield their children from the filth on the internet, but it&#8217;s also true that the internet is so ubiquitous that parents cannot, on their own, do a sufficient job in this regard. Even if the child has no phone and no internet access at home — or, more likely, regulated internet access at home — he can still go almost anywhere else and access the internet dozens of different ways. Short of moving into a cave in the desert, a parent can only provide partial cover. But partial cover, in the end, is only a little better than no cover at all.
Besides, this does nothing to relieve the responsibility of the person posting the content in the first place. Even if every child exposed to porn has ineffectual and inattentive parents (which is most emphatically not the case), that still doesn&#8217;t explain why anyone should have the right to post sex videos on a public forum where children can easily access them. It might be true that some children who are molested could have been saved that trauma had their parents been more vigilant, but that does absolutely nothing at all to excuse the man who did the molesting. The same holds true for pornographers.
The question is this: Do we have a natural human right to post hardcore sex videos online where children can see them? Anyone who says &#8220;yes&#8221; has an extremely confused and hopelessly ambiguous conception of human rights. The rational people who say &#8220;no,&#8221; however, must weigh whether a person&#8217;s privilege to post such content outweighs the right of a child to be free from sexual abuse and trauma.
This does not have to be a deeply philosophical debate about philosophies of governance and so on. This can be much simpler. You do not have a right to expose children to sexually explicit content. Children do have a right to certain basic legal protections. That fact alone, in my view, is enough to settle the argument.

Child Abuse Words on Wooden Blocks

WALSH: Every Child Exposed To Internet Pornography Is An Abuse Victim. There Should Be Laws Protecting Them.

Children

Sexuality

Abortion rights group, Texas Equal Access (or TEA) Fund, has the perfect gift for all those hard-to-buy-for radical feminists on your holiday gift list this year: a series of candles with a very Christmas-y message, &#8220;Abortion is Magical.&#8221;
The &#8220;Abortion is Magical&#8221; candles come in four super-hip colors &#8212; hot pink, purple, sparkly gold, and gender-neutral teal &#8212; and bear a striking resemblance to Catholic prayer candles, though that&#8217;s probably not intentional.
Probably.
&#8220;Getting our holiday party favors ready! Every year we honor our volunteers and make sure they get a token of appreciation at our annual holiday party,&#8221; read an excited post on the group&#8217;s Facebook page.
<div id="fb-root"></div>
<script async="1" defer="1" crossorigin="anonymous" src="https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&amp;version=v5.0"></script>
<div class="fb-post" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/teafund/photos/a.392855076576/10156445895121577/?type=3&amp;theater" data-width="500">
<blockquote cite="https://www.facebook.com/teafund/posts/10156445895121577:0" class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore">
Getting our holiday party favors ready! Every year we honor our volunteers and make sure they get a token of appreciation at our annual holiday party.
Posted by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/teafund/">Texas Equal Access Fund &#8211; TEA Fund</a> on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.facebook.com/teafund/posts/10156445895121577:0">Wednesday, December 4, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
If you volunteer for TEA, which raises money to help women afford abortions in Texas, apparently, you can earn yours for free. It&#8217;s not clear whether TEA will also be offering the candles for sale, but the comments note that there are several supporters interested in purchasing them.
Not every fan of TEA was a fan of the candles or their message, however. First and foremost, Christmas, at its core, is about a very special unplanned pregnancy, so it seems odd to celebrate terminating unplanned pregnancies as part of the holiday season. But even some abortion rights supporters called TEA out on its claim that abortions are &#8220;magical.&#8221;
TEA, in a separate post, says they stand by their adjective.
&#8220;Abortions are magical for most people who have them,&#8221; TEA claims. &#8220;[R]efuting that just increases stigma around abortion. They are health care, self care, and community care.”
Although abortion rights advocates are always quick to claim that women who have terminated a pregnancy aren&#8217;t more likely to develop depression than women who have not, there&#8217;s no question that abortion is a difficult procedure, and that ending the life of a child can have physical, mental, emotional , and spiritual consequences. Many women regret their abortions. Many more mourn the end of the life in their womb. Women aren&#8217;t ignorant or stupid; despite the abortion rights rhetoric, it&#8217;s abundantly clear that abortion ends not just a physical condition, but a human life.
TEA, however, wants to ignore the seriousness of the procedure. Abortions, they say, “provide new beginnings for people trying to create a future for themselves that may have been unimaginable without their abortion” and “help people prioritize their own physical and mental health.”
Christmas is a bizarrely popular time for abortion rights groups who often release special &#8220;gifts&#8221; just for holiday giving. Planned Parenthood, for example, released a &#8220;<a href="https://marketplace.plannedparenthood.org/collections/i-stand-with-pp">Planned Parenthood Action&#8221; line</a> just in time for Christmas and Hanukkah. Last year, Teen Vogue <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/teen-vogue-abortion-gifts-women/">released an abortion gift list</a> that included a Ruth Bader Ginsberg coloring book and an &#8220;angry uterus&#8221; plush, and, several years ago, national Planned Parenthood had an entire Christmas campaign called &#8220;Choice on Earth.&#8221;
Planned Parenthood has been celebrating the holidays with special offers since at least 2008 when various Planned Parenthood clinics <a href="https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98259033">began offering holiday gift cards,</a> good for all of the clinic chain&#8217;s services, including abortion. Last year, The Daily Wire reported, the group asked for special <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/planned-parenthood-asks-christmas-donations-mike-paul-bois">Christmas donations</a>.

Christmas gift

Abortion Rights Group Offers &#8216;Abortion Is Magical&#8217; Candles As Holiday Gifts

Abortion

Christmas

So now the Joker is such an agent of chaos that he works to help President Donald Trump get re-elected in the latest Frank Miller comic, &#8220;The Dark Knight Returns: The Golden Child.&#8221;
According to <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/frank-millers-new-dark-knight-comic-goes-donald-trump-1261878">The Hollywood Reporter</a> (THR), the comic features the villains Darkseid and Joker working in tandem to give Trump a second term. Though the president&#8217;s name is not specifically mentioned, the comic leaves no room for subtle interpretations of who the character represents — to the point of having Joker don a jacket with the phrase &#8220;I Really Don’t Care, Do U?&#8221; scrawled across the back.
&#8220;The two are working, basically, to re-elect Donald Trump,&#8221; reports THR. &#8220;The president isn’t directly named in the comic, but he doesn’t need to be; his likeness is used on multiple pages; dialogue from the president is heard at one point and is distinctly Trumpian (&#8216;It’s going to be beautiful! You’re gonna love it! You’re gonna love every inch of it! I’m talking streets so safe you can let your kids go play and not even think about &#8217;em!&#8217;); and the Joker’s jacket, made of the U.S. flag, has the words &#8216;I Really Don’t Care, Do U?&#8217; scrawled on the back. Subtle, it’s not.&#8221;
Darkseid&#8217;s ultimate goal is to have the Joker wreak enough havoc so that humanity will lose faith in itself, making them easier to conquer.
&#8220;For those wondering why the two are working together for this purpose, Darkseid has recruited the Joker as an &#8216;agent of chaos&#8217; to promote Trump’s election, with the ultimate goal of destroying humanity’s faith in itself and thereby being easier to conquer,&#8221; THR continued.
As THR noted, DC Comics&#8217; decision to go full anti-Trumpian is a stark departure from Marvel, which, per THR, &#8220;rejected an editorial by &#8216;Maus&#8217; creator Art Spiegelman and replaced captions in its special 80th-anniversary release out of concern for being too political.&#8221;
For DC to make such a political statement with its comics could prove ultimately disastrous, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/marvel-vp-diversity-our-characters-killing-our-ben-shapiro">as evidenced</a> by Marvel Vice President David Gabriel saying in 2017 that diversity was severely hurting their sales.
&#8220;What we heard was that people didn’t want any more diversity,&#8221; said Gabriel. &#8220;They didn’t want female characters out there. That’s what we heard, whether we believe that or not. I don’t know that that’s really true, but that’s what we saw in sales. … Any character that was diverse, any character that was new, our female characters, anything that was not a core Marvel character, people were turning their nose up.”
However, as the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) moves into &#8220;Phase 4,&#8221; producer Kevin Feige has already promised a more diverse offering of characters.
&#8220;There’s been an avalanche of news coming out from this year’s San Diego Comic-Con, but arguably none are as huge as the many revelations about Phase 4 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe,&#8221; reported <a href="https://uproxx.com/viral/marvel-phase-4-diversity-twitter-reactions/">Uproxx</a>. &#8220;It became quickly evident that — along with news of Doctor Strange and Thor sequels — one thing distinguishes the next batch of superhero movies from the previous three: They’re incredibly diverse, with major roles going to women, to people of color, to people of many ethnicities, and to the LGBTQ+ community.&#8221;

New York Comic Con 2019 &#8211; Day 1

The Joker Helps Trump To Get Re-Elected In Frank Miller’s ‘Dark Knight’ Comic

2020 Election

Joker

The Hollywood Reporter

On Thursday, attorneys for 2013 Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev told the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston that their client’s death sentence should be overturned because his trial two years after the bombing should not have taken place in Boston.
In their legal brief, the lawyers wrote, “This case should not have been tried in Boston. Tsarnaev admitted heinous crimes, but even so — perhaps especially so — this trial demanded scrupulous adherence to the requirements of the Constitution and federal law. Again and again this trial fell short.” CNN reported, that in their motion, the lawyers write, &#8220;Fresh proceedings — in an unaffected community, before honest and unbiased jurors, who know that the bombings were [Dzhokar&#8217;s] first violent crimes but not Tamerlan&#8217;s — present a real prospect of a different outcome. This verdict is unworthy of confidence and this Court should reverse.&#8221;
In the bombings, which occurred April 15, 2013, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother Tamerlan used two homemade pressure cooker bombs near the finish line of the race, killing three people and injuring several hundred others. 16 people lost limbs as a result of the bombings. During the manhunt for the brothers, the brothers killed MIT policeman Sean A. Collier, kidnapped a man in his car, and had a shootout with the police in Watertown, where they shot and severely wounded two officers, one of whom, Boston Police Department officer Dennis Simmonds, was injured by a hand grenade and died in April 2014.
As <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/us/boston-marathon-bombing-developments.html?hp&amp;pagewanted=all">The New York Times</a> reported, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev said he and his brother were motivated by radical Islamic beliefs. He added that the brothers learned to build explosive devices from the online magazine of Al Qaeada and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/authorities-tsarnaev-brothers-planned-attack-on-new-yorks-times-square/2013/04/25/5efc342c-add5-11e2-8bf6-e70cb6ae066e_story.html">admitted</a> they had plans to bomb Times Square.
Tsarnaev´s lawyers cited the foreman for the jury, who retweeted a post after Tsarnaev’s arrest reading, “Congratulations to all of the law enforcement professionals who worked so hard and went through hell to bring in that piece of garbage.” The foreman had also tweeted about her family´s experience as they tried to find a safe during the hunt for the bombers, according to the attorneys. Another juror was urged in social media posts by others to “play the part” so he could get on the jury, <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7785757/Boston-Marathon-bomber-wants-death-sentence-overturned-says-tried-soon-jurors-lied.html">The Daily Mail</a> reported.
The attorneys for Tsarnaev wanted to portray Tsarnaev as being manipulated by Tamerlan, who was killed in a gun battle with police soon after the bombings. Prosecutors pointed out that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had no qualms about placing his bomb behind children: one of the people murdered was 8-year-old Martin Richard.
As <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/05/15/reactions-tsarnaev-verdict/27410321/">USA Today</a> reported, after the verdict was announced, Edward Deveau, chief of police in Watertown, MA, whose officers engaged with the Tsarnaevs, who used gunfire and hurled homemade bombs, asserted, &#8220;There&#8217;s been a lot of criticism of police officers around the country lately, but your local police department is out there fighting for you every day,” adding Watertown &#8220;officers put their lives on the line to protect that community and make sure these terrorists didn&#8217;t go down to New York City and kill more people.&#8221; He added that it was the survivors who needed attention, concluding, &#8220;Those two brothers: we won&#8217;t think about them anymore.&#8221;
Other statements after the verdict was announced included Michael Ward, an off-duty firefighter who helped victims on the day of the attacks. Ward stated, “I remember when those bombs went off; I remember when the vile disgusting thing that this person did and his brother. They destroyed countless innocent lives, destroyed bodies and parts. Very vivid memories for many people and many families … This is nothing to celebrate; this is a matter of justice. His premeditated actions, to stand behind children, wait four-and-a-half minutes with a fully loaded bomb and then to call his brother and tell him when to explode his bomb moments earlier … His justice now. He wanted to go to hell and he’s gonna get there early.”
Karen Brassard, a victim in the bombing, said, “I want to thank the jury for an unbelievably difficult thing that they’ve gone through; for weeks they’ve had to endure photographs, and testimony, and things that have been beyond anything anyone should have to see, and not only did they have to endure that but they had to do that silently, not being able to lean on any of their family members or even each other.
Liz Norden, the mother of two victims, added, “I have to watch my two sons put a leg on every day so I mean, I don’t know, closure? I can tell you it feels like a weight has been lifted off my shoulders, so I think there is some form of good feeling.”
<iframe id="molvideoplayer" title="MailOnline Embed Player" src="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/embed/video/1184171.html" width="698" height="573" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

Explosions At 117th Boston Marathon

Boston Marathon Bomber Wants Death Sentence Overturned Because Trial Was Held In Boston

Boston Bomber

On Wednesday’s episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” the Daily Wire editor-in-chief reacts to Megan Rapino receiving the Sports Illustrated “Sportsperson of the Year” award. Video and partial transcript below: 
[Megan Rapinoe receiving the award is] not a shock. She had a great women’s World Cup. Also, she happens to be a political figure, and Sports Illustrated has become, effectively speaking, Time magazine with basketballs, just like ESPN has become MSNBC with footballs. 
So Sports Illustrated gives the Sportsperson of the Year to Megan Rapinoe — deserved on the sports level, not really deserved on the political level — and [then] they get exactly what they deserve. Megan Rapinoe then rips into Sports Illustrated, which actually put this under “Things I like,” frankly, because I do like this — I think that when people get exactly what they deserve, it&#8217;s quite wonderful. 
According to <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/megan-rapinoe-calls-out-sports-illustrateds-lack-of-diversity-in-sportsperson-of-the-year-award-speech/">Mediaite</a>:
<blockquote>As one of just four women to win the Sportsperson of the Year award, she wasted no time in putting [Sports Illustrated] in the hot seat, saying in an acceptance speech, “Is it truth that I’m only the fourth woman deserving of this award? I don’t think so.”
“Is it true so few writers of color deserve to be featured in this publication? No. Is it true so few women’s voices deserve to be heard and deserve to be read in this publication? I don’t think so.”</blockquote>
She&#8217;s been given an award for her social justice activism, and she immediately swivels and clocks the people giving her the award, suggesting that they are, in fact, a bunch of sexists — that they haven&#8217;t given more awards to women in the past. 
First of all, I just said I think that on a comparative level, she&#8217;s deserving of the award. Who else would be deserving of the award last year? There are a few other people, maybe, but the fact is she&#8217;s as deserving as anybody in her sphere — if you are ranking people by their sphere. If we&#8217;re just going to go, like, athlete of the year, like best athlete of the last year, it would never be a woman — like literally ever. The reason being the bell curve for physical performance when you get to the very edge of the bell curve is all men, because men are built differently than women. But if we&#8217;re talking about in their respective sports, people who are important to their particular industry, of course Megan Rapinoe deserves the award. 
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qEXL3Rl_a6Q?start=3162" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
With that said, the fact that she is now dictating to Sports Illustrated how they ought to staff editorially is amazing to me, and I kind of love it. I kind of love the fact that these Sports Illustrated SJW woke idiots who were like “Megan Rapinoe, we have to give her the award because she hates Trump, she talks about gay marriage, she says that America sucks, she’ll kneel for the anthem — oh my God, so much hero-ing, so much heroism.” Then she&#8217;s like, “Well, how about you guys? How about you guys, ya sexists? You brutal, vicious, racist, white patriarchal sexist, you need more women writing for your magazine!” I think that she should be made the editor of Sports Illustrated. 
Sports Illustrated should now go all the way. They&#8217;ve been called out by a person woker than they are, and that means they she should be the honorary editor. They made her the honorary sportsperson of the year, in part because of her politics; why not put her entire in charge of your editorial policy? You can fire all of the writers who are male, who are good, and you can hire women whether they are qualified or not. Then, you will have achieved some sort of real parity, that&#8217;ll be great. 
In November of last year, she won the Glamour Woman of the Year award, and then she went after Glamour, too. She said “While I&#8217;m enjoying all this unprecedented and frankly, a little bit uncomfortable attention.” Okay, first of all, the idea that Megan Rapinoe is uncomfortable with attention, if you believe that, your head is as empty as it as an airplane hangar in the middle of the day, if you believe that Megan Rapinoe is uncomfortable with attention, This is a person who is attention seeking beyond all [belief]. 
[Rapinoe] says she’s “enjoying all of this unprecedented — and frankly, a little bit uncomfortable — attention and personal success, in large part due to my activism off the field, Colin Kaepernick is still effectively banned. …”
“I see no clearer example of that system being alive and well than me standing before you right now.” She said this at Glamour. The fact that she won an award — “I’m going to use this opportunity to rip on Glamour because you guys didn&#8217;t do enough for Colin Kaepernick.” 
Here&#8217;s the thing: Once you give the SJWs an inch, they will — the alligator will eat you. It may eat you last, but the faster you get in the in the alligator&#8217;s crosshairs, by the way, the faster you&#8217;re in the line of sight of the SJW alligator, the faster you&#8217;re gonna get eaten. Sports Illustrated got the treatment, Glamour got the treatment. Love it! 
I only hope that Megan Rapinoe continues to do this. I hope she continues to wipe the floor with all of the SJW editors who worship at her altar, and then they come before her to kiss the ring, and she immediately slaps them — she backhands them across the face, and says “If only you were more Woke.” 
Automatically, under Article 29 of the Constitution of the United States, she has now become the editor of Sports Illustrated. It&#8217;s sort of like the old code of chivalry, that if you had a fight with somebody — it&#8217;s the king&#8217;s justice. You throw down the gauntlet. If you have the fight, then you get to take the other person&#8217;s land. I think it&#8217;s like that. If you invite Megan Rapinoe to receive an award from you, she receives the award and then she beats the crap out of you, she now inherits your magazine. 
So she should be the editor of Sports Illustrated and Glamour, she should be the ombudsman of ESPN. Why the hell not? She knows better than you because she plays soccer and is Woke. You deserve all of this, Sports Illustrated. Every little bit of it. 
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ben-shapiro-show/id1047335260">Listen to full episodes of “The Ben Shapiro Show” on iTunes.</a> 
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-ben-shapiro-show">Watch “The Ben Shapiro Show” on-demand!</a>

Sports Illustrated Sportsperson Of The Year 2019

SHAPIRO: Sports Illustrated Isn&#8217;t Woke Enough For Megan Rapinoe

Megan Rapinoe

Sports Illustrated

Journalists for The New York Times and CNN may not love President Donald Trump, but they definitely loved their yearly invitation to the White House media Christmas party &#8212; a party that Trump has cancelled, to their great dismay, for two years running.
The White House did not officially announce, this year, that they would not be holding the annual event but, <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/13/white-house-christmas-party-press-1063232">Politico reports</a>, no on on the president&#8217;s staff put the media party on the White House&#8217;s official schedule, depriving the White House Press Corps of an evening of fun, frivolity, finger foods, and photo opportunities.
Instead, select journalists were given tickets for private White House tours.
“The White House Christmas press party was not put on the holiday schedule this year,” a White House official told Politico. “[W]e have accommodated members of the media and their families who have asked to see the holiday decorations.&#8221;
Donald and Melania Trump hosted a scaled-back version of the event in 2017 but cancelled the party outright in 2018, after the Trump Administration tired of its combative relationship with the White House Press Corps. Sensing that hosting a party for their ideological opponents might not be in their best interests, the White House has called time on the soiree again this year, to the great dismay of White House reporters, who once feasted and drank as kings on the taxpayers&#8217; dime.
&#8220;Journalists who attended the events, which featured a catered buffet of lamb chops, crab claws and elaborate desserts, got to roam the decorated mansion with a spouse or other family member, a friend or a colleague, adding to the invitation&#8217;s allure,&#8221; according to Fox News&#8217; Howard Kurtz. &#8220;But the biggest fringe-benefit was the picture-taking sessions, in which the president and first lady would patiently pose with guests and briefly chat with them in front of a Christmas tree, with the White House sending out the photos — copies of which were invariably sent home to mom. This would take a couple of hours, with long lines snaking across the building&#8217;s first floor. Bill Clinton even posed for pictures with journalists days after he was impeached.&#8221;
Reporters complained openly on social media.
&#8220;The canceling of the WH media christmas party was a story last year, and now it&#8217;s just gone and it&#8217;s not even a thing, like the press briefing and the NYT/WaPo subscriptions,&#8221; whined New York Times and MSNBC reporter Annie Karni.
Conde Nast&#8217;s Luke Zaleski called the move emblematic of the Trump Administration&#8217;s dictatorial tendencies. &#8220;Every day. In every way. Trump destroys American institutions while wrapping himself in warped populism and lurching toward dictatorship. if it gets much worse it won’t be reecoverable. In fact it might be over already. Just a question of how badly he will cheat in the election,&#8221; he tweeted.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Every day. In every way. Trump destroys American institutions while wrapping himself in warped populism and lurching toward dictatorship. if it gets much worse it won’t be reecoverable. In fact it might be over already. Just a question of how badly he will cheat in the election. <a href="https://t.co/dmXqkdkNWK">https://t.co/dmXqkdkNWK</a>
&mdash; Luke Zaleski (@ZaleskiLuke) <a href="https://twitter.com/ZaleskiLuke/status/1204918987282362369?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
CNN&#8217;s Brian Stetler noted that he was not among those who had forgotten: &#8220;It&#8217;s still a thing to me.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
It&#39;s still a thing to me <a href="https://t.co/kB9V51ovct">https://t.co/kB9V51ovct</a>
&mdash; Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) <a href="https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1204854736140357633?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
CNN likely contributed to the White House&#8217;s decision to toss the party off the official calendar. Back in 2017, when Trump hosted a more selective version of the annual event, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2017/12/03/white-house-christmas-party-rs.cnn">the network invited on two White House reporters</a> who had been very confrontational with the White House to complain that they&#8217;d been left off the guest list.
&nbsp;

Menu

Support For Democrats’ Impeachment Efforts Hits New Critical Point In Polls

WATCH: Democrat Congressman Watches GOLF During Impeachment Hearing

Democrat Ponders Trump Kidnapping Foreign Leaders’ Daughter. White House Fires Back.

Olivia Wilde Directs Heat To Clint Eastwood After Journalists Complain About ‘Richard Jewell’

University Presents ‘Refutation’ Of Ben Shapiro, Speaker Admits He Didn’t Attend Shapiro’s Speech

Ep. 816 - Horowitz Covers Dems and Media in Shame

Ep. 389 - A Hate Crime The Media Doesn't Want To Talk About

Ep. 915 - Should We Ban Pornography?

Ep. 465 - The Media Lie About Everything

Netflix Catches Heat Over ‘Gay Jesus’ Christmas Flick, 1 Million Christians Sign Petition Calling For Its Removal

SEE IT: Street Artist Sabo Trolls Impeachment Hoaxes: ‘Adam Schiff Is Cancer’

WATCH: ‘Medicare For All’ Supporters Shocked By Facts About ‘Medicare For All’

Another Kingdom w/ Klavan & Knowles

Media Bias, Trump-Russia Collusion & The IG Report w/ Ashe Schow

Should We Ban Porn? w/ Paul Bois