On Wednesday, NBCUniversal announced that there will not be any additional investigations into sexual misconduct allegations surrounding former “Today” host Matt Lauer. 
&#8220;There is no additional investigation being launched,” NBCUniversal spokesperson Hilary Smith said, according to <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/nbcuniversal-wont-conduct-new-matt-lauer-investigation-1248592">The Hollywood Reporter</a>. &#8220;We are very confident in the report that was conducted.”
&#8220;We fired Matt Lauer within 24 hours of learning what he did, and promptly launched a corporate investigation,” Smith contended. “Based on our investigative findings, we have swiftly taken appropriate actions to address the situation and improve workplace culture. It is also worth noting that this was a corporate investigation that was conducted by an almost entirely female team, none of whom are part of the News division.&#8221;
Megyn Kelly, a former NBC employee who’s been vocal in her support for an outside investigation, blasted the network for their lack on transparency. 
“CBS, FOX, NPR, NFL &#8211; all hired outside investigators,” she posted to Twitter. “NBC again refuses to do so &#8230; as it claims it has ‘nothing to hide.’”
“RELEASE ALL LAUER ACCUSERS FROM THEIR NON-DISCLOSURES,” Kelly added, in all upper case letters.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
CBS, FOX, NPR, NFL &#8211; all hired outside investigators. NBC again refuses to do so &#8230; as it claims it has “nothing to hide.” RELEASE ALL LAUER ACCUSERS FROM THEIR NON-DISCLOSURES. <a href="https://t.co/cMoLMYCcE6">https://t.co/cMoLMYCcE6</a>
&mdash; Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) <a href="https://twitter.com/megynkelly/status/1184971434856202240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
While working for NBC, Kelly publicly called for an outside investigation into the network over internal claims of sexual misconduct regarding Lauer and the suspect handling of allegations into Democrat megadonor Harvey Weinstein.
“There is a question about whether or not there should be an outside investigator to take a hard look at this,” Kelly <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/tucker-carlson-floats-real-reason-megyn-kelly-was-canned-from-nbc">said</a> on NBC airwaves on September 2, 2018, referring to the Lauer allegations and apparent stonewalling on Weinstein reporting from then-NBC journalist Ronan Farrow. “To me, as a lawyer, it’s just always better to just send it outside, and then people can have more faith in it, and if there’s nothing to hide, you have no worries about it,” she added.
While Kelly was ostensibly fired from NBC a month later for remarks about darkening one&#8217;s face for Halloween costumes, Fox News host Tucker Carlson suggested Wednesday that Kelly was actually canned for calling for an outside investigation.
Kelly neither confirmed nor denied Carlson&#8217;s theory.
“There needs to be an outside investigation into this company,” she told Carlson. “They investigated themselves, that doesn’t work. Fox News had an outside investigator, CBS News had an outside investigator, NPR, the NFL, this is how it’s done. You get somebody on the outside who can be trusted.” 
As reported by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/matt-lauer-accused-of-rape-by-former-colleague-lauer-responds">The Daily Wire</a> last week, former NBC news employee Brooke Nevils claims she was raped by Lauer in 2014 while covering the Sochi Olympics, Farrow&#8217;s new book &#8220;Catch and Kill&#8221; reveals.
“Once she was in his hotel room, Nevils alleges, Lauer — who was wearing a T-shirt and boxers — pushed her against the door and kissed her. He then pushed her onto the bed, ‘flipping her over, asking if she liked anal sex,’ Farrow writes. ‘She said that she declined several times,’” a report from Variety said.
Nevils claims she “was in the midst of telling him she wasn’t interested again when he ‘just did it,’” Farrow wrote in the book. “Lauer, she said, didn’t use lubricant. The encounter was excruciatingly painful. ‘It hurt so bad. I remember thinking, Is this normal?’ She told me she stopped saying no, but wept silently into a pillow.”
“It was nonconsensual in the sense that I was too drunk to consent,” the former NBC employee told Farrow. “It was nonconsensual in that I said, multiple times, that I didn’t want to have anal sex.”
Nevils admitted that she had consensual sexual encounters with Lauer following the alleged rape — some of which she initiated.
According to Farrow, Nevils says the alleged incident was an open secret at NBC before a formal complaint was filed and Lauer was canned.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/tucker-carlson-floats-real-reason-megyn-kelly-was-canned-from-nbc">Tucker Carlson Floats Real Reason Megyn Kelly Was Canned From NBC: Called For Independent Investigation</a>

Megyn Kelly

NBC Won&#8217;t Open New Investigation Into Matt Lauer; Megyn Kelly Responds

Matt Lauer

Rape

Ronan Farrow

On Thursday’s episode of “The Andrew Klavan Show,” Klavan talked to Kimberley Strassel, a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, about her new book, “Resistance (At All Costs): How Trump Haters Are Breaking America.” Video and partial transcript below:
KLAVAN: Before we talk about what&#8217;s happening now in this impeachment thing, and the media, and what they&#8217;re doing, before we talk about that, I just want to put it in context with what Obama did during 2016. People get confused about it, it&#8217;s such a deep story with so many different names and moving parts. Can you give us a simple explanation about what happened during the 2016 election [and] what the Obama administration and their intelligence services were doing?
STRASSEL: Well, right, and it&#8217;s actually quite simple – I put this in the book. My working theory is that Jim Comey came down with the first undiagnosed case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. And because he was a person with immense authority and powers, unlike most Americans, he was able to do something about that. And the way he did it was [that] he took the unprecedented step of opening a counterintelligence investigation into a sitting presidential campaign.
When they couldn&#8217;t find anything, they moved on. They never expected Trump to be president. When he was elected, they then moved to try to make this sound better by exploding this narrative out on the public, and then maneuvering to get a Special Counsel in part to justify their actions. [The] country was put through two years of this pain and agony, only to find out that none of it was true because, by the way, it was largely based on opposition research from the rival Clinton campaign.
Along the way, we had American citizens who were surveilled. I heard you say earlier about the double standard with Trump asking about Biden and corruption. That kind of almost made me laugh, because this is so small by comparison to what the Democrats did. In fact, the only way it would be equal is if Trump had ordered his FBI to open an investigation into Biden, and was currently wiretapping Biden&#8217;s campaign, which, by the way, I would like to state for the record: I hope [that] is not happening and I don&#8217;t think it’s happening. But you know, that’s the magnitude of the goal here.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SZ8SQUDDz0w?start=1469" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen">﻿</iframe>
KLAVAN: That is what gets me. Now, how much of this do you think will be in the IG report, and how much of it do you think will be in the Durham report? I mean, obviously, the Durham report is a long way off. They keep promising the IG report any minute. How much of this information do you think will be in there?
STRASSEL: Well, I keep tempering expectations in one regard on the IG report because do remember, he&#8217;s an IG. He doesn&#8217;t have the power to impanel a grand jury; he doesn&#8217;t have the power to subpoena people. He can only speak to people, in fact, who are existing Department of Justice employees or people who willingly agree to come to him. He was also told to look very specifically at the question of potential abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. 
Now, I have every reason to believe that Horowitz is a straight up guy. The first two reports he put out on Comey and McCabe were pretty brutal. So I don&#8217;t think he&#8217;s going to pull his punches, and I think this is going to be a pretty good explanation of an important part of this abuse power. But I think we&#8217;re going to have to wait for Durham to get information about the origins of the investigation, the degree to which perhaps the CIA was involved or other foreign intelligence agencies, and I think the good news there is that we&#8217;ve now got reports that both Barr and Durham have been making contacts with the countries that seem to matter in this story. 
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-andrew-klavan-show/id1045171376?mt=2">Listen to full episodes of “The Andrew Klavan Show” on iTunes. </a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show">Watch “The Andrew Klavan Show” on-demand!</a>

Kimberley Strassel And Andrew Klavan

Kimberley Strassel To Klavan: Comey Had ‘First Undiagnosed Case Of Trump Derangement Syndrome’

Donald Trump

James Comey

On this week’s episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show: Sunday Special,” the Daily Wire editor-in-chief talked to Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson about his new book, “Letters From An Astrophysicist.” During the interview, they also briefly discussed the problem of transgender athletes participating in sports. Video and partial transcript below: 
SHAPIRO: Moving on from climate change, which is an area &#8212; as I said &#8212; where some people on the Right are not particularly interested, to areas where it seems like the Left is militating against the advent of science. One of those areas, is the area of transgenderism, where the argument &#8212; 

TYSON: Curiously, I have no transgender letters [in my book, &#8220;Letters From An Astrophysicist&#8221;].
SHAPIRO: It’s true, nothing in the book. We’ve strayed now far from the topic of your book. But since I have you here and you’re a science person, I’m going to ask you to science for me a little bit. 
But when it comes to transgenderism, the argument that is typically made by gender theorists is that gender is entirely separate from sex. You&#8217;ve seen the argument made that it makes no difference, on average, if men are stronger than women are &#8212; that if we were to allow transgender women to compete with non-transgender women, then this would somehow not disadvantage biological women. This seems to me absolutely a-scientific, that if we&#8217;re actually gonna have a discussion about gender and sex, that [discussion] should be based in data, which suggests that mammals are in fact binary in terms of their sex, unless you have intersex birth defects typically, or genetic defects. 
TYSON: I&#8217;m happy to opine on this. This only matters because today we segregate nearly all sports by gender. Otherwise, why do we even give a [expletive] what someone identifies with? We live in a free country, and with consenting adults and people&#8217;s free expression of who and what they are &#8212; 

SHAPIRO: Now, on an adult level I agree with you. But I think it does matter what we teach children.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z3yyOL2cCLI" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen">﻿</iframe>
TYSON: That’s what I’m saying. So there&#8217;s the matrix of what you are biologically, how you express yourself, who you choose as a sexual partner. If we actually live in a free country as we tell ourselves, people&#8217;s freedom to behave in any of those ways should not concern you at all. Nor are they requiring that you behave that way. Okay, this is for their own freedoms because we live in a free country.
Now, what is unresolved here is, what do you do with sports? It&#8217;s unresolved, and I&#8217;ve followed that closely, and I don&#8217;t see any, I don&#8217;t see any meaningful solutions to come down off of that. We know that hormones manifest differently in different people, and &#8212; that’s the whole thing with steroids, steroids are hormones &#8212; we rallied against steroids in professional sports because it gives you an undue advantage. So, I try to think of what the future of sports would be in the world of a gender spectrum, and it may be, you don&#8217;t specify whether it&#8217;s a male or female sport. You just take measurements of what your hormonal balances are, and so you compete based on your hormones. It’s a thought I had, I don&#8217;t know where it&#8217;s going to land. 
SHAPIRO: The WNBA won&#8217;t be in business for very long if that&#8217;s the case. 
TYSON: It would just be, you&#8217;d have to find some way to compete people against each other, if you still care that sports is an interesting activity. 
SHAPIRO: I guess the area where it does come up in a non-sports area &#8212; 

TYSON: Yea, tell me, because I don&#8217;t know.
SHAPIRO: So, you talk in your book about the education of children and teaching children about science. Right now, children are being taught about the quote unquote “gender spectrum,” which is not scientifically based. That is a theory-based idea. 
TYSON: No, wait, wait, wait, hold on. People express themselves on a spectrum, so you learn that. 
SHAPIRO: That&#8217;s a social point, not a scientific point. Meaning, we express ourselves based in different languages. Is that something we teach in a science class, or is that something that you teach when you&#8217;re teaching a language?
TYSON: So, whether the fact that people want to express themselves on a spectrum, on a gender spectrum, whether that fact is something you want to put in a sociology class or in a science class, maybe that remains to be determined. But it is a real fact about real society. 
SHAPIRO: Well of course, nobody&#8217;s denying that people [do] identify how they want to identify. So, the question is, What is the relationship of that to biology? The argument is made that trans women are women, for example, and what that seems to mean is that trans women are identical to women. Now, if people want to say trans women are not biological women, obviously that is the case. But people don&#8217;t seem to want to say that, although that is obviously scientifically true. Trans women are not biological women. Biological women are biological women.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/sunday-special">Watch “The Ben Shapiro Show: Sunday Special” on-demand!</a>

Neil deGrasse Tyson And Ben Shapiro

Neil deGrasse Tyson To Shapiro: Transgender Athletes Leave The Future Of Sports ‘Unresolved’

Neil deGrasse Tyson

Transgender

This piece will be frequently updated.
What a week in the Trump impeachment saga!
I remain adamant in my <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-stop-calling-everything-impeachable-offense-josh-hammer">contention</a> that the present Democratic impeachment effort represents a tremendous overreach — and I feel buttressed in making that contention by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/15/house-democratic-leaders-impeachment-vote-047136">announcement</a> this week that she will not hold a House-wide vote soon to formally kick off impeachment proceedings — but national polling does appear now to be solidly (if still relatively narrowly) in favor of impeachment.
As of October 17, 2019, <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/do-americans-support-impeaching-president-trump/">FiveThirtyEight </a>indicates that Americans now support impeachment by a 5.3% margin. This represents a dramatic flip from barely over one month ago, when Americans opposed impeachment by a whopping 15% margin. It is likely that White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney&#8217;s <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-17/mulvaney-links-ukraine-aid-to-2016-probe-saying-get-over-it">comments</a> this week — which may be reasonably interpreted as offering some support for Democrats’ “quid pro quo” theory of impeachment — will redound against the president and perhaps further exacerbate that impeachment polling deficit.
The situation, on the ground, still represents something of a stalemate. Many of those close to the president, such as personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Defense Secretary Mark Esper, are presently refusing to recognize House Democrats’ subpoenas; on the other hand, nettlesome former U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/17/gordon-sondland-to-break-from-trump-in-impeachment-testimony-000288">testified</a> this week in a way that may cause great discomfit to the administration. Specifically, Sondland threw the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bogner-the-curious-case-of-rudy-giuliani-iran-and-armenia">problematic</a> Giuliani <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/10/17/770714277/read-gordon-sondlands-opening-statement-to-congress">under the bus</a>.
In any event, more broadly speaking, Pelosi seems deeply reluctant to hold a House-wide impeachment authorization vote. The fact that Pelosi seems scared to do so will, in a bit of circular logic, only further incentivize the dilatory tactics of Trump’s inner circle in terms of defying subpoenas.
The current default position from the White House and its inner circle seems to mirror the <a href="http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/government-politics/worcester-v-georgia-1832">apocryphal</a> line once attributed to President Andrew Jackson: “[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.” There is some historical precedent for this, albeit not much. Per <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/13/house-could-take-subpoena-enforcement-into-its-own-hands-will-it-work/">The Washington Post</a>, a congressional sergeant-at-arms has been used — at least once, during the presidency of Herbert Hoover — to detain an obstructionist witness and force him to abide by his congressional subpoena. As the Post accurately notes, “Congress can, after a brief process, detain people who refuse to provide requested information.”
There is something to be said for both sides’ positions, and former Bush administration official and current law professor John Yoo has a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/nancy-pelosi-doesnt-have-to-make-impeachment-fair-but-it-still-should-be/2019/10/13/b09ce182-ec44-11e9-85c0-85a098e47b37_story.html">terrific op-ed</a> earlier this week at The Washington Post that incisively analyzes this tug-of-war. As Yoo points out, extant U.S. Supreme Court <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States">precedent</a> holds that the precise procedures employed during both the House impeachment process and any subsequent Senate impeachment trial represent non-justiciable issues that the judiciary cannot review. But as Yoo also argues and I have previously opined, House Democrats would be politically wise to engage in a more transparent, <a href="https://theresurgent.com/2019/10/16/democrats-defy-house-precedents-on-impeachment/">historically grounded</a>, and overall “fair” — meaning inclusion of basic procedural normal, such as full due process and the ability of the House minority to cross-examine and subpoena witnesses — impeachment process.
Impeachment and conviction of a sitting U.S. president is a radically undemocratic maneuver that overturns the results of a freely held election. True, the Constitution prescribes the impeachment process, but that process ought to be fully transparent and “fair” so as to ensure buy-in from the electorate is as close to universal as possible. At a bare minimum, it would be severely deleterious to democratic norms if most of the citizenry viewed the impeachment process as tyrannical or destabilizing.
The legal standard for impeachment is clear: It is purely political. As Alexander Hamilton <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp">explained</a> in The Federalist No. 65, impeachment of a president may be properly considered for all “offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” There is no black-letter legal guideline for what this may comprise; instead, the Constitution’s Framers relied upon Congress exercising <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-stop-calling-everything-impeachable-offense-josh-hammer">prudence</a> in its political judgment.
Looking ahead, it will be fascinating to see whether Pelosi holds a House-wide impeachment authorization vote soon — and whether that planned vote (or lack thereof) affects the dilatory tactics that those close to Trump are currently employing, with respect to witness subpoenaing.

House Democrats Hold Meeting To Discuss Impeachment Inquiry

Impeachment Wire: The Latest On The Effort To Impeach President Trump

2020 Election

Democratic Party

Impeachment

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) fired back on Friday after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton contended that the Democratic presidential candidate is a &#8220;Russian asset&#8221; who is being groomed to run as a third-party candidate.
&#8220;Great! Thank you [Hillary Clinton],&#8221; Gabbard responded to Clinton. &#8220;You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain.&#8221;
&#8220;From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&#8230; concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and &#8230;
&mdash; Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) <a href="https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1185289627936219136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 18, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The Hawaii congresswoman&#8217;s remarks come only two days after <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard-a-russian-asset-being-groomed-for-third-party-run">Clinton sat down with</a> President Barack Obama&#8217;s former campaign manager, David Plouffe, during an appearance on his podcast &#8220;Campaign HQ.&#8221;
&#8220;I think they have got their eye on someone who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She is the favorite of the Russians,&#8221; Clinton said. &#8220;They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.&#8221;
&#8220;That&#8217;s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she&#8217;s also a Russian asset. Yeah, she&#8217;s a Russian asset &#8212; I mean, totally,&#8221; she added. &#8220;They know they can&#8217;t win without a third-party candidate. So I don&#8217;t know who it&#8217;s going to be, but I will guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most needed.&#8221;
While the former first lady refrained from naming the &#8220;Democratic primary&#8221; candidate to whom she was initially referring, Clinton&#8217;s spokesman Nick Merrill later confirmed that it was, in fact, Gabbard.
&#8220;If the nesting doll fits,&#8221; Merrill replied when asked directly about the congresswoman.
Gabbard <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-tulsi-gabbard-rules-out-third-party-run-molly-prince">revealed in August</a> that she will not run for president on a third party ticket if she fails to win the Democratic Party&#8217;s presidential nomination. However, she challenged the twice-failed presidential candidate to jump into the 2020 race for a third time.
&#8220;It&#8217;s now clear that this primary is between you and me,&#8221; Gabbard said to Clinton. &#8220;Don&#8217;t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.&#8221;
Clinton famously lost the 2016 presidential election against President Donald Trump in a stunning upset. Even following her failed bid, she has been an outspoken critic of the president and his administration, and has repeatedly and publicly mulled over running for the Democratic nomination in the upcoming election cycle.
&#8220;Maybe there does need to be a rematch,&#8221; Clinton said earlier in the month. &#8220;Obviously, I can beat him again.&#8221;
While Trump won the Electoral College and ultimately the presidency, Clinton seized the popular vote. She has subsequently listed dozens of reasons for her loss, but maintains that she should have won and would win in a re-match against the president.
As of publication, Gabbard sits at 1.2% support among Democratic primary voters, according to the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">RealClearPolitics</a> national polling average.

Democratic Presidential Candidate Tulsi Gabbard Visits &#8220;FOX &amp; Friends&#8221;

Tulsi Gabbard Lights Up Hillary Clinton For Suggesting She’s A Russian Asset: &#8216;The Queen Of Warmongers&#8217;

Hillary Clinton

Russia

Tulsi Gabbard

A Planned Parenthood doctor who was secretly recorded stating she changed abortion techniques to get intact hearts, lungs and livers to sell has defended her comments in a San Francisco courtroom.
Dr. Deborah Nucatola, the former Senior Director of Medical Services for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told the court this week that she believed the comments she made to David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt in an undercover video were, “no big deal.”
Dr. Nucatola was giving evidence in a lawsuit taken by Planned Parenthood against Daleiden, a journalist and activist who secretly recorded the organization haggling over the price of body parts from abortions.
Despite detailing the harvesting of baby organs, skulls and other body parts, and changing procedures without patient permission to make them more intact and valuable, the court heard that Dr. Nucatola “didn&#8217;t get the big deal and didn&#8217;t think there was anything wrong in the video with what I said.&#8221;
Daleiden set up a fake company and posed as a buyer looking to buy baby organs and limbs for research and commercial use and recorded Nucatola saying &#8220;a lot of people want liver &#8230; a lot of people want intact hearts these days.” She also said she had just been asked to provide lungs from an abortion.
The secret recording also revealed Dr. Nucatola boasting about how she would change abortion techniques to acquire more intact and therefore more valuable samples.
“I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps. The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is the calvarium, the head is basically the biggest part. Most of the other stuff can come out intact. It’s very rare to have a patient that doesn’t have enough dilation to evacuate all the other parts intact,” according to videos shown yesterday in the San Francisco courtroom.
Dr. Nucatola was recorded detailing exactly how she would ensure a more valuable specimen for sale.
“So then you’re just kind of cognizant of where you put your graspers, you try to intentionally go above and below the thorax, so that, you know, we’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m going to basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact,&#8221; she told the undercover journalists.
The jury heard how Dr. Nucatola was recorded stating that the position of the baby would be changed during the abortion to ensure a more intact skull could be harvested.
“And with the calvarium [skull], in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex, because when it’s vertex presentation, you never have enough dilation at the beginning of the case, unless you have real, huge amount of dilation to deliver an intact calvarium [skull]. So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end. So I mean there are certainly steps that can be taken to try to ensure…. Exactly, exactly. Under ultrasound guidance, they can just change the presentation.”
Dr. Nucatola declined to defend her comments when approached by a Daily Wire correspondent outside the courtroom.
<iframe title="Planned Parenthood Doctor, Deborah Nucatola, Stands Behind Words &amp; Actions In Baby Body Parts Video" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bgBiL-EZmYI?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Planned Parenthood is seeking damages from Daleiden and his co-defendants for damages they say were caused by the videos. They are also seeking damages for breach of contract and fraud for misrepresentations made to infiltrate the organisation and for breach of privacy for filming the executives during negotiations.
Planned Parenthood had originally sought $20 million in damages for fraud and trespass against Daleiden and his colleagues. However, Judge William Orrick reduced potential damages to $600,000. Daleiden and his colleagues are denying liability. In situations where he broke the law regarding recording people without their permission Daleiden is claiming he was a journalist and that it is allowed under California law where it can be utilized to prevent a felony assault on a person.
Daleiden recorded Planned Parenthood executives stating they changed abortion techniques to ensure better and more profitable body parts were retrieved for sale. He also claims that the recordings took place in public places, such as restaurants and hotels, where participants have no expectation of privacy.
Planned Parenthood is not suing Daleiden for defamation or slander and in an opening argument the Planned Parent lawyers did not state that the videos were inaccurate or exaggerated. They instead claimed they were filmed through illegal methods. The organization is also claiming Daleiden and his colleagues are guilty of fraud for setting up a fake company and identifications to start the business conversations with the Planned Parenthood executives.
Phelim McAleer is a journalist and filmmaker. He is the author of the New York Times best-selling book “Gosnell &#8211; The Untold Story of America&#8217;s Most Prolific Serial Killer.”

Planned Parenthood offices

Abortion Doctor Doesn&#8217;t Get The &#8216;Big Deal&#8217; About Changing Procedures To Get More Valuable Hearts, Lungs, Livers

Abortion

Planned Parenthood

Quentin Tarantino&#8217;s &#8220;Once Upon a Time in Hollywood&#8221; will have to wait a while to see those Chinese dollars due to the country halting the film&#8217;s release over its depiction of Bruce Lee.
&#8220;The film was originally set to hit theaters in the Middle Kingdom on Oct. 25 after having received approval from Chinese censors,&#8221; reports <a href="https://variety.com/2019/film/news/quentin-tarantino-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-china-release-halted-1203375052/">Variety</a>. &#8220;But an exhibitor source told Variety that the movie has been &#8216;temporarily put on hold&#8217; because the daughter of Bruce Lee has filed a complaint to China’s National Film Administration about the on-screen depiction of her late father, a hero to many Chinese.&#8221;
The source told the outlet that the film should be approved so long as Tarantino can make some cuts.
In the movie, actor Mike Moh hilariously portrays kung-fu screen legend Bruce Lee as an arrogant braggart who talks a bigger game than the one he plays. Despite the fact that most Bruce Lee biographers agree that Lee did indeed have a haughty side to go along with his sweet side, Tarantino got slapped with accusations of racism for supposedly portraying the film’s lone minority character so disparagingly.
“They didn’t need to treat him in the way that white Hollywood did when he was alive,” Shannon Lee told <a href="https://www.thewrap.com/bruce-lee-daughter-mockery-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-shannon-lee/">TheWrap</a>. “He comes across as an arrogant a**hole who was full of hot air and not someone who had to fight triple as hard as any of those people did to accomplish what was naturally given to so many others. It was really uncomfortable to sit in the theater and listen to people laugh at my father.”
After enough criticism mounted, Tarantino eventually defended his portrayal of Bruce Lee during a press tour for the film in Russia, citing Lee’s own wife as a source.
“The way he was talking, I didn’t just make a lot of that up,” Tarantino said, as reported by <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/tarantino-responds-bruce-lee-once-a-time-hollywood-criticism-1231125">The Hollywood Reporter</a>. “I heard him say things like that, to that effect. If people are saying, ‘Well he never said he could beat up Muhammad Ali,’ well yeah, he did. Not only did he say that, but his wife, Linda Lee, said that in her first biography I ever read … She absolutely said it.”
Variety <a href="https://variety.com/2019/film/news/bruce-lee-quentin-tarantino-shannon-lee-interview-1203302850/">reports</a> that the quote referred to by Tarantino, however, may not be directly attributable to Lee’s wife:
<blockquote>The passage in his wife Linda Lee Cadwell’s book, “Bruce Lee: The Man Only I Knew,” that Tarantino appears to refer to is a quote from a critic, who wrote that “Those who watched [Bruce] Lee would bet on Lee to render Cassius Clay senseless,” and not from the author herself (Clay was later known as Muhammad Ali).</blockquote>
Though Tarantino has not commented on China stalling the release, he has in the past <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jan/14/quentin-tarantino-chinese-china-movies-illegally-pirate-censorship-downloads">encouraged his Chinese fans</a> to watch his movies illegally if they so choose. In fact, 2012&#8217;s &#8220;Django Unchained&#8221; received virtually no money in China after a successful bootlegging campaign in response to a similarily stalled release.
“We didn’t make any money on [Django Unchained] but at the same time people saw it all over the place because they see it on bootleg out there and everything,” he said in 2016. “I have a lot of Chinese fans who buy my movies on the street and watch them and I’m OK with it. I’m not OK with it in other places, but if the government’s going to censor me then I want the people to see it in any way they can.”

&#8216;Once Upon a Time In Hollywood&#8217; Premiere In Tokyo

China Stalls ‘Once Upon A Time In Hollywood’ Release Over Bruce Lee Depiction

China

Hollywood

Quentin Tarantino

Dear Mr. Brin: Fifty years ago this week, when I was a 21-year-old college senior, I was in the Soviet Union, sent by the government of Israel to smuggle in Jewish religious items and smuggle out names of Jews who wanted to escape the Soviet Union and could then be issued a formal invitation to Israel.
I was chosen because I was a committed Jew and because I knew Hebrew and Russian. I was no hero, but the trip did entail risk. The Soviets did not appreciate people smuggling out names of Soviet citizens who sought to emigrate, information the Israeli government and activist groups in America used to advocate on their behalf.
My four weeks in the USSR were, of course, life-changing. This young American, lucky beyond belief to have spent his entire life in the freest country in the world, experienced what it was like to live in a totalitarian police state. People feared merely being seen speaking with a Westerner, lest the KGB arrest and interrogate them. People arranged to meet me at a certain tree in a certain park and only spoke to me while walking to avoid eavesdroppers. I met with Jewish engineers, doctors and professors who could find no work because they were known to the government to be &#8220;otkazniki,&#8221; or &#8220;refuseniks&#8221; — Jews who had applied for exit visas to leave the Soviet Union and been refused permission. I&#8217;m sure you know of them from your parents.
I left the Soviet Union angry and grateful — angry there are people who have the audacity to tell other people what they could and could not say, and grateful beyond measure to have been born in America, where no one could tell anyone what they could say. From that day to this, I have never taken freedom, especially freedom of speech, for granted.
Why I am writing to you about this?
Because, beyond my wildest dreams, two things are happening in America.
One is that for the first time in America&#8217;s history, free speech is seriously threatened.
In 1977, when Nazis sought to march in Skokie, Illinois — those terrible human beings chose Skokie because it was home to many Jewish Holocaust survivors — virtually every liberal and conservative organization, including Jewish organizations, defended the Nazis&#8217; right to march. Because in America — and only in America — it was understood that even if the most loathsome speech was not protected, all speech was at risk.
That has changed.
Today, decent people — people who abhor Nazism and every other form of evil, left or right; people like Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro and Ayaan Hirsi Ali — are shouted down, threatened, disinvited or never invited to speak at America&#8217;s universities.
The other thing that is happening is even more frightening. The company that you co-founded, Google, the greatest conduit of speech in world history, is also suppressing speech. I have asked myself over and over: How could the company founded by a man whose parents fled the Soviet Union do this?
It so boggles the mind that I have to hope you are simply not fully aware of what your company is doing.
So, in a nutshell, let me tell you what Google has done to one organization, Prager University (better known as PragerU). Every week, PragerU releases a five-minute video on virtually every subject outside of STEM (science, technology, engineering and math). Some of the finest minds in the world have presented these videos — including professors from Harvard, Stanford and MIT; four Pulitzer Prize winners; three former prime ministers; liberals; conservatives; Democrats; Republicans (including never-Trumpers); gays; and, of course, many women and members of ethnic and racial minorities.
Yet YouTube, which Google owns, has placed hundreds of our videos on its restricted list. In addition to the inherent smear of being labeled &#8220;inappropriate for children,&#8221; this means no family that filters out pornography and graphic violence, no school and no library can see those videos. Among those restricted videos is one during former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper defends Israel. Had someone told me 50 years ago that a company led by the son of Soviet Jewish refuseniks would suppress a video by a world leader defending the Jewish state, I would have told them they were out of their mind. That&#8217;s one reason I can only assume, or at least hope, that you are not fully aware of what your company is doing.
Or how about a video series I present on the Ten Commandments? YouTube is suppressing a number of those, too. When Sen. Ted Cruz asked a Google official why Google restricted one of my videos on the Ten Commandments, the official responded (it&#8217;s on YouTube) that it was because the video &#8220;contains references to murder.&#8221;
In fact, PragerU has repeatedly asked Google over the past several years why any of our videos are on the restricted list, and we have received either a runaround or silence. We have never received a substantive explanation. We have no desire to see government intervene in private business to protect free speech. But your company has availed itself of protections under law that shield it from liability for defamation, copyright infringement, etc. Your company&#8217;s arrogance is such that a vast number of Americans — liberals as well as conservatives — are worried that the major conduit of speech in the Free World doesn&#8217;t care about free speech.
Mr. Brin, along with millions of other Americans, I fought to bring your parents from a land with no freedom to the Land of the Free. None of us has ever asked for anything in return. It was our honor to work for liberty in general and for Soviet Jewry specifically.
What Americans most want from immigrants is that they help keep America free. I never had any doubt that those leaving the Soviet Union would fulfill that mission.
Until now.
Freedom of speech is the most fundamental of all freedoms. It&#8217;s what your parents yearned for and bequeathed to you. Please don&#8217;t help take it away from those who made it possible — the people of America.
Sincerely yours,
Dennis Prager
Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His latest book, published by Regnery in April 2018, is &#8220;The Rational Bible,&#8221; a commentary on the book of Exodus. His film, &#8220;No Safe Spaces,&#8221; comes to theaters fall 2019. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com.

Sergey Brin.

PRAGER: An Open Letter To Sergey Brin

Communism

Free Speech

Google

In a newly reported development that further complicates the Democrats&#8217; Ukraine corruption investigation, a State Department witness told congressional investigators this week that in early 2015 he warned about the problematic optics of the vice president&#8217;s son, Hunter Biden, serving on the board of a Ukrainian energy company while his father was tasked with overseeing Ukraine-U.S. relations.  The career State Department official told investigators his warning was rebuffed by Biden&#8217;s office. Months later, Biden would pressure the Ukraine &#8212; by withholding a billion dollars in aid &#8212; to fire the prosecutor who had looked into the company employing Hunter.
Citing sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/diplomat-tells-investigators-he-raised-alarms-in-2015-about-hunter-bidens-ukraine-work-but-was-rebuffed/2019/10/18/81e35be9-4f5a-4048-8520-0baabb18ab63_story.html">The Washington Post</a> reported Friday that George Kent, a deputy assistant secretary of state and career State Department official, &#8220;testified Tuesday that he worried that Hunter Biden’s position at the firm Burisma Holdings would complicate efforts by U.S. diplomats to convey to Ukrainian officials the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest.&#8221;
The sources told the Post that Kent &#8220;had concerns that Ukrainian officials would view Hunter Biden as a conduit for currying influence with his father, said the people.&#8221;
Kent reportedly told congressional investigators that Biden&#8217;s office dismissed his warning about the potentially problematic situation by saying the vice president did not have the &#8220;bandwidth&#8221; to address the Hunter-Burisma question because he was dealing with his other son, Beau, battling cancer.
<div class="remainder-content">
<section>
<div>
&#8220;Kent, who also testified about how Trump’s associates raised unfounded allegations about the former ambassador to Ukraine, is the first known example of a career diplomat who raised concerns internally in the Obama administration about Hunter Biden’s board position,&#8221; the Post reports, noting that the paper &#8220;has previously reported that there had been discussions among Biden’s advisers about whether his son’s Ukraine work would be perceived as a conflict of interest, and that one former adviser had been concerned enough to mention it to Biden, though the conversation was brief.&#8221;
The Post also stresses that Kent&#8217;s testimony demonstrates that the Democrats&#8217; impeachment inquiry has the potential to dig up information related to the Bidens that could undermine the Democratic presidential candidate, who is still the party frontrunner, according to multiple polls.
The Post goes on to acknowledge that Trump is not the only one who has raised allegations about the Bidens and Ukraine, as the Democratic frontrunner has &#8220;faced questions about why he didn’t anticipate concerns about potential conflicts of interest as he took a leading role in carrying out U.S. policy toward Ukraine.&#8221;
A former senior Biden national security aide told the Post that while the former Vice President was dealing with Beau&#8217;s ultimately fatal bout with cancer at the time, it had a &#8220;minimal impact on his work,&#8221; the Post reports.
</div>
<div>
<div class="cb bg-offwhite mt-xxs pad-top-md pad-bottom-md mb-lg ml-neg-gutter mr-neg-gutter mr-auto-ns ml-auto-ns dn db-ns relative">
Hunter Biden addressed his work in Ukraine in an <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hunter-biden-breaks-silence-on-ukraine-accusations-trump-fires-back-really-bad">interview</a> this week with ABC News, and while he insisted that he did nothing &#8220;improper,&#8221; admitted that, &#8220;in retrospect,&#8221; some of his business dealings while his father was Vice President were a &#8220;mistake.&#8221;
“In retrospect, look, I think that it was poor judgment on my part,” he told ABC News’ Amy Robach in an interview released Tuesday. “Is that I think that it was poor judgment because I don’t believe now, when I look back on it — I know that there was — did nothing wrong at all. However, was it poor judgment to be in the middle of something that is … a swamp in — in — in many ways? Yeah. &#8230; I gave a hook to some very unethical people to act in illegal ways to try to do some harm to my father. That’s where I made the mistake. So I take full responsibility for that.&#8221;
Hunter also admitted that he &#8220;probably&#8221; would not have gotten some of the high-paying jobs he enjoyed if his father weren&#8217;t the vice president.
The Democrats&#8217; impeachment inquiry was sparked by a whistleblower report on Trump&#8217;s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which Trump asked his Ukrainian counterpart to &#8220;look into&#8221; the alleged Biden-Burisma scandal.
&#8220;There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution, and a lot of people want to find out about that,&#8221; said Trump. &#8220;So whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it… It sounds horrible to me.&#8221;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hunter-biden-breaks-silence-on-ukraine-accusations-trump-fires-back-really-bad">Hunter Biden Breaks Silence On Ukraine Accusations; Trump Fires Back: ‘Really Bad’</a>
</div>
</div>
</section>
</div>

Hunter Biden and Joe Biden

Impeachment Witness Tells Congress He Warned About Biden-Ukraine Problem In 2015, Got Shut Down By Biden&#8217;s Office

Joe Biden

Ukraine

On Thursday’s episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” the Daily Wire editor-in-chief talked about President Trump and Nancy Pelosi’s meeting at the White House. Video and partial transcript below:
All of this resulted in a blow up at the White House yesterday. The Democrats showed up at the White House and they had this meeting, and they accused Trump of a meltdown, [and then] Trump accused them of a meltdown – so we have dueling meltdown statements here.
 According to <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/16/house-opposes-trump-move-to-pull-forces-from-northern-syria.html">CNBC: </a>
<blockquote>Democratic congressional leaders said they walked out of a White House meeting Wednesday on Syria after what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called a &#8220;meltdown.&#8221; 
After top Democrats left the bipartisan meeting with Trump, Pelosi told reporters that the president appeared &#8220;shaken up&#8221; by a House vote condemning his decision to remove U.S. forces from northern Syria. …
&#8220;That&#8217;s why we couldn&#8217;t continue in the meeting, because he was just not relating to the reality of it,” Pelosi said outside the White House. …
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer described the meeting as more of a &#8220;nasty diatribe&#8221; than a &#8220;dialogue.&#8221; He said that Trump called Pelosi a &#8220;third-rate politician&#8221; – though Pelosi later clarified the president used the term &#8220;third grade politician.&#8221; House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., added that he had &#8220;never&#8221; seen a president &#8220;treat so disrespectfully a co-equal branch&#8221; of government.</blockquote>
Well, Barack Obama used to do that pretty routinely &#8212; not calling people third grade politicians, or third-rate politicians or any of that. Barack Obama just used to basically call his political opponents Tea Party terrorists. 
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2Ji8IjRcxD8?start=1536" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen">﻿</iframe>
In any case, [here&#8217;s CNBC again]:
<blockquote>House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Republican who voted for the House measure to oppose pulling out of northern Syria, told reporters that Pelosi &#8220;stormed out&#8221; of the meeting. He called her behavior &#8220;unbecoming&#8221; and argued that Pelosi tried to make the gathering unproductive. 
The White House declined to comment on whether Trump called Pelosi a &#8220;third-rate politician&#8221;&#8230;
The vote earlier Wednesday added to the pressure on the president. &#8230;
During the meeting on Wednesday, Schumer brought up former Defense Secretary James Mattis’ recent comment that the Islamic State group “will resurge” in Syria &#8230; Trump then called the former United States Marine Corps general &#8220;the world&#8217;s most overrated general,&#8221; saying &#8220;he wasn&#8217;t tough enough,&#8221; NBC reported.</blockquote>
Yeah, I&#8217;m pretty sure that James Mattis doesn&#8217;t have to prove his bona fides in the toughness category. [CNBC continues by saying], &#8220;Schumer on Wednesday urged Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to take up the resolution.&#8221;
President Trump also then tweeted about the Democrats. So he tweeted a picture of Nancy Pelosi standing there and lecturing him, and he tweets out, “Nervous Nancy&#8217;s unhinged moment.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Nervous Nancy&#8217;s unhinged meltdown! <a href="https://t.co/RDeUI7sfe7">pic.twitter.com/RDeUI7sfe7</a>
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1184597281808498688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 16, 2019</a></blockquote>
Then, he tweeted another picture of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Steny Hoyer, all looking shell-shocked. He tweeted, &#8220;Do you think they like me?&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Do you think they like me? <a href="https://t.co/TDmUnJ8HtF">pic.twitter.com/TDmUnJ8HtF</a>
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1184595335794036737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 16, 2019</a></blockquote>
I mean, just top notch trolling by the President of the United States. He also called Nancy Pelosi “sick” after all of this. He said, “Nancy Pelosi needs help fast. There is either something wrong with her ‘upstairs’ or she just plain doesn&#8217;t like our great country. She had a total meltdown in the White House today. It was very sad to watch. Pray for her, she is a very sick person!”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Nancy Pelosi needs help fast! There is either something wrong with her “upstairs,” or she just plain doesn’t like our great Country. She had a total meltdown in the White House today. It was very sad to watch. Pray for her, she is a very sick person!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1184620202480193537?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
I don&#8217;t believe that President Trump is going to pray for Nancy Pelosi. I&#8217;m just gonna put that out there. I don&#8217;t actually think that President Trump is going to get on his knees and pray to God for the health of Nancy Pelosi tonight. “Pray for her, she&#8217;s a very sick person.” Okay, so everything is going great, guys. Everything is going spectacularly. 
<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>

President Trump Meets with Congressional Leadership

SHAPIRO: Pelosi And Trump Accuse Each Other Of Having A Meltdown

Charles Schumer

Nancy Pelosi

Syria

Just a little over a week after Chick-fil-A opened its first location in the United Kingdom, the restaurant will be closing because the shopping center will not extend the restaurant&#8217;s six-month lease in response to the protests of LGBTQ activists.
&#8220;Gay rights campaigners called for a boycott of Chick-fil-A, which opened its first branch at The Oracle shopping centre in Reading on 10 October,&#8221; reports the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-50094551">BBC</a>.
A spokesperson for The Oracle shopping center told the BBC that &#8220;the right thing to do&#8221; was to prevent the fast-food chain from doing business in response to the LGBTQ outcry.
&#8220;We always look to introduce new concepts for our customers, however, we have decided on this occasion that the right thing to do is to only allow Chick-Fil-A to trade with us for the initial six-month pilot period, and not to extend the lease any further,&#8221; said the spokesperson.
Reading Pride expressed delight over the &#8220;good news,&#8221; saying the six-month period was &#8220;reasonable request &#8230; to allow for re-settlement and notice for employees that have moved from other jobs.&#8221; Reading Pride did, however, promise to keep haranguing the restaurant with protests until it officially left the shopping center for good.
Chick-fil-A told the BBC that the organization has donated to Christian groups for youth and education, noting that they serve as home to a diverse number of employees. &#8220;There are 145,000 people – black, white; gay, straight; Christian, non-Christian – who represent Chick-fil-A,&#8221; said a spokesperson.
Speaking with <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/18/chick-fil-as-first-uk-location-will-close-after-pressure-from-lgbtq-rights-group.html">CNBC</a>, a Chick-fil-A spokesperson said that the chicken empire will continue expansion into international markets.
&#8220;Chick-fil-A is always evaluating potential new locations in the hope of serving customers great food and award winning service. This six month pilot licensed location in Reading, UK is part of our exploration in international markets,&#8221; the spokesperson said.
The hate toward the chicken sandwich empire began in 2012, when company president Dan Cathy expressed support for traditional one-man/one-woman marriage, prompting boycotts across the country from LGBTQ activists.
“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,&#8217;” Cathy <a href="https://www.christianpost.com/news/chick-fil-a-president-says-gods-judgment-coming-because-of-same-sex-marriage-78485/#SUuZKIURo5MhCW2p.99">said at the time</a>. “I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”
Just last year, two major publications wrote scathing articles begging people to boycott the business: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/29418/new-yorker-columnist-chick-fil-evil-and-must-be-ben-shapiro">The New Yorker</a> and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/31789/huffpost-if-you-really-love-lgbtq-people-you-just-joseph-curl">HuffPost</a>. “If You Really Love LGBTQ People, You Just Can’t Keep Eating Chick-fil-A,” wrote Noah Michelson of HuffPost. When Chick-fil-A wanted to set up shop in New York City, Dan Piepenring of The New Yorker called it a “creepy infiltration” of the city. Following that, multiple universities and two city airports have banned Chick-fil-A from doing business.
Despite the efforts to harm the business, with college campuses and two city airports banning the chain from opening up shop, the chicken empire’s sales continue to climb and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/chick-fil-sales-have-doubled-face-leftist-paul-bois">have only doubled</a> since the boycotts launched in 2012.
“Chick-fil-A’s annual sales have more than doubled since LGBT and liberal groups began calling for a boycott of the restaurant in 2012, according to a new analysis,” reported <a href="https://www.christianheadlines.com/contributors/michael-foust/chick-fil-a-s-sales-have-doubled-since-lgbt-boycott-began-in-2012.html">Christian Headlines</a> last month. “In 2012, when controversy arose over the CEO’s comments about same-sex marriage, <a href="https://www.wsbradio.com/business/chick-fil-keeps-growing-despite-uproar/9Qtv5hIeJUc59lFUfxZQ3L/">sales totaled</a> $4.6 billion, up from $4.1 billion the year before. In 2018, sales <a href="https://www.christianheadlines.com/contributors/michael-foust/chick-fil-a-with-a-mission-to-glorify-god-is-now-3rd-largest-restaurant-in-u-s.html">totaled</a> $10.46 billion, making it the third-largest restaurant in the United States behind McDonald’s and Starbucks.”

&#8220;Chick-Fil-A Is Anti-Gay!&#8221; PETA And The LGBT Community Protest

Chick-Fil-A Closing First U.K. Location After Pressure From LGBTQ Activists

Chick-fil-A

LGBT

United Kingdom

Former Secretary of Defense Gen. James Mattis took a few a shots at President Donald Trump while giving a keynote address on Thursday night.
Speaking at the annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, Mattis joked about Trump reportedly calling him “the world’s most overrated general,” and jabbed the president for receiving a draft deferment during the Vietnam War after being diagnosed with <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/us/politics/donald-trump-draft-record.html">bone spurs</a> in his heels.
“I’m not just an overrated general, I am the greatest, the world’s most overrated,” Gen. Mattis, who resigned from his post in December, joked about Trump’s comments. 
“I’m honored to be considered that by Donald Trump because he also called Meryl Streep an overrated actress,” he continued, according to <a href="https://time.com/5704659/james-mattis-donald-trump-jokes/?utm_source=twitter&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=editorial&amp;utm_term=politics_military&amp;linkId=75531899">TIME</a> magazine. “So I guess I’m the Meryl Streep of generals, and frankly, that sounds pretty good to me.”
According to <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/former-defense-secretary-james-mattis-pokes-fun-at-trump-calling-him-overrated-im-the-meryl-streep-of-generals">Fox News</a>, Mattis came up during a contentious White House meeting regarding Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria:
<blockquote>A Democratic source familiar with the meeting told Fox News that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., started to read the president a quote from Mattis from last Sunday: &#8220;And, in this case, if we don&#8217;t keep the pressure on, then ISIS will resurge. It&#8217;s absolutely a given that they will come back,&#8221; Mattis had said.
That&#8217;s apparently when Trump cut Schumer off and called Mattis overrated.</blockquote>
&#8220;You know why?&#8221; Trump reportedly said at the meeting. &#8220;He wasn’t tough enough. I captured ISIS. Mattis said it would take two years. I captured them in one month.&#8221;
Mattis’ resignation letter “said that his policy views no longer aligned with Trump’s, in particular when it came to support for American allies overseas,” noted the <a href="https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/10/17/trump-blasts-mattis-as-the-worlds-most-overrated-general/">Military Times</a>. “Administration officials said Trump’s promises to quickly withdraw U.S. forces from the Middle East and Afghanistan also played a factor in Mattis’ decision to step down.”
Moreover, earlier in the week, Mattis appeared on “Meet the Press” and indicated that “he does not believe administration statements that ISIS is completely defeated,” the Military Times added. 
&#8220;We have got to keep the pressure on ISIS so they don&#8217;t recover,&#8221; the popular general said. “We may want a war over; we may even declare it over. You can pull your troops out &#8212; as President Obama learned the hard way out of Iraq &#8212; but the enemy gets the vote.”
Mattis went after Trump’s draft deferment during the reception, too. “I earned my spurs on the battlefield. Donald Trump earned his spurs in a letter from a doctor,&#8221; he told the audience.
Trump was diagnosed with bone spurs in his heels after he graduated from college in the spring of 1968, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/us/politics/donald-trump-draft-record.html">The New York Times</a>. “The diagnosis resulted in a coveted 1-Y medical deferment that fall, exempting him from military service as the United States was undertaking huge troop deployments to Southeast Asia, inducting about 300,000 men into the military that year,” the report said. “The deferment was one of five Mr. Trump received during Vietnam. The others were for education.”
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
“I guess I’m the Meryl Streep of generals.” Former Defense Secretary James Mattis takes shot at Trump after the president called him “overrated” <a href="https://t.co/PlwilAYHyA">https://t.co/PlwilAYHyA</a> <a href="https://t.co/vlI7B1vaK9">pic.twitter.com/vlI7B1vaK9</a>
&mdash; TIME (@TIME) <a href="https://twitter.com/TIME/status/1185190661949198336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 18, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-gen-mattis-says-isis-will-resurge-if-we-dont-keep-the-pressure-on">WATCH: Gen. Mattis Says ISIS ‘Will Resurge’ If ‘We Don’t Keep The Pressure On’</a>

President Trump And General Mattis

WATCH: General Mattis Jabs Trump: He Got His &#8216;Spurs In A Letter,’ I Got Mine ‘On The Battlefield’

James Mattis

Chaos and violence have broken out in Mexico, even more than usual. The <a href="https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1185013332769759232">footage</a> looks like something out of a war zone. This latest bit of anarchy began when Mexican law enforcement officers managed to arrest Ovidio Guzmán, one of the top drug lords in the country and son of the notorious kingpin Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán.
Unfortunately, Guzmán’s cartel was not willing to let the son end up in a U.S. maximum security prison like the father. Dozens of gunmen, armed with everything from machine guns to grenade launchers to sniper rifles, invaded the city where Guzmán was captured and started murdering police officers. The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-el-chapos-son-arrested-in-mexico-cartel-violence-erupts">reports</a> that the cartel militants also went searching for the family members of Mexican military personnel.
Finally, the Mexican government capitulated, raised the metaphorical white flag, and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/17/el-chapo-violence-breaks-out-in-mexican-city-amid-rumours-of-sons-arrest">released the younger Guzmán</a>. The president of Mexico assured the public that his administration is &#8220;doing really well&#8221; in its crime fighting strategy, explaining that they &#8220;don&#8217;t want war.&#8221; But war is exactly what he has on his hands, whether he wants it or not, and releasing a notorious drug lord back into the clutches of his cartel is, one might argue, the exact opposite of doing really well. It is, in fact, a disgrace, a travesty, an embarrassment, and a signal that Mexico is a failed state. The drug cartels run the show, and after having so much success with the &#8220;take over the city and start shooting people&#8221; strategy, they will surely resort to it again.
I don&#8217;t know what Mexico&#8217;s next step should be (though refraining from releasing any more drug lords might be a good start), but I do know what the United States’ next step should be: build the wall, finally. Really build it. Most of the wall building that has happened so far under Trump&#8217;s watch &#8212; despite how Trump himself sometimes presents it — has consisted of <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/trump-administration-border-wall-three-new-contracts-rio-grande-valley-sector-1462252">replacing</a> existing fences with slightly better fences. There has not been much in the way of actually new wall — or fence, or barrier, or whatever we&#8217;re calling it now &#8212; and certainly we haven&#8217;t seen the grand, 2,000 mile-long wall across the entire southern border like we were promised.
Of course, every thinking person always knew that the Great Wall of America wasn’t going to happen, but there are still plenty of places along the border where a wall can be, should be, and so far hasn&#8217;t been built. It would seem that now, with the Mexican government all but officially surrendering to the cartels, is as good a time as any to get started.
There has never been any rational objection to building the wall. There are some practical reasons why a wall across all 2,000 miles probably isn&#8217;t feasible (or necessary, given the natural barriers that exist along some portions of the border), but there is no valid argument in principle against erecting physical barriers wherever they are possible and needed. Those arguments always come down to vague emotional appeals and clichéd sloganeering about &#8220;building bridges, not walls.&#8221; But this is not the time for clichés. Mexico is collapsing, and we have to shield ourselves from the debris.

Border wall prototypes.

WALSH: Mexico Is A Failed State Run By Drug Cartels. It’s Time To Finally Build The Wall.

Crime

Drugs

Illegal Immigration

Mexico

Southern Border

In a letter obtained and published by the <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/trump-campaign-to-sue-cnn-over-pro-impeachment-bias-demands-substantial-payment">Washington Examiner</a> on Friday, President Trump&#8217;s campaign informs CNN President Jeff Zucker that it plans to sue him and his network for a &#8220;substantial&#8221; amount as a result of CNN subjecting the president to &#8220;unfair, unfounded, unethical and unlawful attacks.&#8221;
The letter was sent after the release this week of a series of undercover videos produced by James O&#8217;Keefe&#8217;s Project Veritas showing CNN insiders describing alleged overt, systemic bias against Trump within CNN, including from the top: Zucker himself.
The letter is addressed to Zucker and CNN&#8217;s Executive Vice President and General Counsel David Vigilante and signed by Charles J. Harder of Harder LLP, a firm representing Trump&#8217;s campaign. In the letter, Harder accuses CNN of failing to abide by &#8220;industry-accepted codes of ethics, including the Society for Professional Journalists&#8217; Code of Ethics,&#8221; as well as CNN&#8217;s own self-declared commitment to &#8220;excellence in journalism&#8221; and being &#8220;the most trusted source for news and information.&#8221;
Among the evidence of CNN&#8217;s alleged failure to provide ethical coverage, Harder cites Project Veritas&#8217; recent videos in which CNN employees say that their network is committed to help &#8220;take down President Trump&#8221; and Zucker is driven by a &#8220;personal vendetta&#8221; against him. Harder stresses that the listed examples &#8220;are merely the tip of the iceberg of the evidence my clients have accumulated over recent years.&#8221;
&#8220;We also expect substantial additional information about CNN’s wrongful practices to become known in the coming days and weeks,&#8221; Harder states. &#8220;Never in the history of this country has a president been the subject of such a sustained barrage of unfair, unfounded, unethical and unlawful attacks by so-called &#8216;mainstream&#8217; news, as the current situation.&#8221;
&#8220;Your actions are in violation of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.), among other applicable laws, by constituting misrepresentations to the public, to your advertisers, and others,&#8221; the letter reads. &#8220;Accordingly, my clients intend to file legal action against you, to seek compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, reimbursement of legal costs, and all other available legal and equitable remedies, to the maximum extent permitted by law.&#8221;
Below is the full text of the letter (formatting adjusted):
<div id="dyId4dd2216ddfbec268" data-dy-embedded-object="true">
Dear Mr. Zucker and Mr. Vigilante:
This firm is litigation counsel for President Donald J. Trump and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. We write concerning your biased reporting practices relating to our clients. The terms “you” and “your” in this letter shall collectively refer to CNN Broadcasting, Inc., CNN Productions, Inc., CNN Interactive Group, Inc., the website located at CNN.com, and all broadcast television stations owned, operated or affiliated with the foregoing.
Your website expressly represents to the public, in writing, that you are “journalists,” “truth seekers,” “united by a mission to inform, engage and empower the world,” and you “stand for excellence in journalism and [your] products.” See <a href="https://www.cnn.com/About">https://www.CNN.com/About</a>  (emphasis added). Your slogan is “The Most Trusted Name in News”. Your Facebook account claims you are “widely known to be – the most trusted source for news and information.” Your anchor, Don Lemon, stated on June 6, 2019, as a keynote speaker at Financial Times Live Future of News: “We don’t profess to be a liberal network, we’re a news network … we have a commitment to the truth and to facts, which has really been paramount, especially always at CNN.” Mr. Zucker said in an interview with Variety, published on August 2, 2016: “[O]ur air, as opposed to others’, is truly fair and balanced.” (Emphasis added.)
Statements like “excellence in journalism,” “most trusted source for news and information,” “commitment to the truth and to facts” and “truly fair and balanced” are statements that would be widely considered throughout the journalism community and news industry as  journalism that complies with industry-accepted codes of ethics, including the Society for Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics. That code — written by journalism experts for practicing journalists (available at<a href="https://www.spj.org/pdf/spj-code-of-ethics.pdf"> </a><a href="https://www.spj.org/pdf/spj-code-of-ethics.pdf">https://www.SPJ.org/pdf/spj-code-of-ethics.pdf</a>) (the “Code”)  — provides in pertinent part:
“Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest … in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.” (Emphasis added.)
“Journalists should:
<ul>
<li>“Verify information before releasing it.”</li>
<li>“Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.”</li>
<li>“Label advocacy and commentary.”</li>
<li>“Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information.”</li>
<li>“Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.”</li>
<li>“[A]void political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.”</li>
<li>“Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.”</li>
<li>“Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.”</li>
</ul>
(Emphasis added.)
Recently released video footage of individuals alleged to be your employees (see <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7XZmugtLv4">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7XZmugtLv4</a>) (the “Footage”) indicates that your reporting relating to President Trump is contrary to your own mission and the aforementioned Code of Ethics. Your own employees appear to state that CNN is focused on trying to “take down President Trump,” driven by a “personal vendetta” that Mr. Zucker purportedly has against him, rather than reporting the news in an objective manner. In the Footage, your employees appear to state that CNN attempts to make its reporting appear neutral and unbiased, when in fact its reporting is far from neutral and highly biased against the President. Among other statements, your employees appear to state the following:  Nick Neville, Media Coordinator at CNN, states:
<blockquote>“Jeff Zucker, basically the president of CNN has a personal vendetta against Trump”
“[Jeff Zucker has] had an ongoing feud with Trump since The Apprentice” (where Zucker was a producer)
“I totally want to do just like the truth, the dogged reporting. But then you have higher up executives like Zucker and other people, who are saying we gotta make profits&#8230;so it turns into like certain things that you do are trying just to attract viewers, then it becomes kind of a comedy show” “Don Lemon comes on, he makes you think he’s objective news, but he’s  blatantly opinionated. So either disclose where you’re coming from or get someone whose a little bit more objective. Don Lemon&#8230;love him or hate him he’s blatantly anti-Trump, he’s blatantly left. So maybe Don Lemon could disclose that, but CNN makes it appear as though we have 24 hours of unbiased news, that’s not true.”</blockquote>
Cary Poarch, a CNN employee in the Washington, D.C. bureau, states:
<blockquote>“CNN purports to be facts first, and that’s just not the case”</blockquote>
Christian Sierra, a Media Coordinator at CNN, states:
<blockquote>“There’s just nothing we can do if Zucker wants impeachment every single day to be the top story … He wants impeachment above all else”
“I hate how everything is all Trump all the time now, everyone at the network complains about it, they hate covering Trump every day”
“Our Democratic interviews are like softballs, compared to the Republicans”</blockquote>
The aforementioned examples are merely the tip of the iceberg of the evidence my clients have accumulated over recent years. We also expect substantial additional information about CNN’s wrongful practices to become known in the coming days and weeks.  Never in the history of this country has a President been the subject of such a sustained barrage of unfair, unfounded, unethical and unlawful attacks by so-called “mainstream” news, as the current situation.
Your actions are in violation of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.), among other applicable laws, by constituting misrepresentations to the public, to your advertisers, and others. Accordingly, my clients intend to file legal action against you, to seek compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, reimbursement of legal costs, and all other available legal and equitable remedies, to the maximum extent permitted by law.
Please contact the undersigned to discuss an appropriate resolution of this matter, which would include a substantial payment of damages, as well as all other appropriate measures that are necessary to fully address the magnitude of the situation. This letter is not intended as a full or complete statement of all relevant facts, applicable law, causes of actions or legal remedies, and nothing herein is intended as, nor should it be deemed to constitute, a waiver or relinquishment of any of my clients’ rights, remedies, claims or causes of action, all of which are hereby expressly reserved. 
Very truly yours, 
CHARLES J. HARDER Of 
HARDER LLP
</div>

CNN President Jeff Zucker

READ IT: Trump Campaign&#8217;s Letter Declaring Legal Action Against CNN For Anti-Trump Bias

Jeff Zucker

Media Bias

Proving himself once again to be a master troll artist, President Trump ripped into Hollywood while speaking Thursday night before an uproarious crowd at his Dallas rally, scolding the industry for attacking conservatives and Trump supporters.
First, the president attacked television networks for their low ratings as they allegedly push fake news onto the American people, which then segued into blasting the Oscars for generating poor ratings while attacking his political supporters.
“Don’t worry. I won’t say anything bad about your network,” Trump told reporters, as reported by <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/donald-trump-oscars-ratings">Fox News</a>. “Because a lot of the times, I get ready to do a number on these phony networks and you know, you see those red lights go off off off off. They don’t want their viewers to see it. But that’s OK, I’m not going to say it tonight. I’m going to say, ‘You’re legitimate media.’ I don’t actually mean that.”
“But look at all those cameras,” Trump continued. “That’s like the Academy Awards used to be before it failed. You know why it failed? You know why it failed? Because they came after us. That’s why it failed. It failed because they had stupid people saying horrible things about us. Stupid, stupid people. They are stupid people, and their ratings have dropped like a rock, and I love seeing it, I’m telling you. Love it. But no matter how hard they try, they will fail because the people of Texas and the people of America will never surrender our freedom to those people right there.”
While the Oscars saw a small uptick in viewership this past year, the noted award ceremony has arguably been declining both in quality and in popularity since the 2016 election. In 2018, the year that host Jimmy Kimmel essentially delivered a purely political rant in his opening monologue, the Academy Awards had their worst-ever television ratings. As Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ratings-oscars-stunk-again-theres-one-very-simple-ben-shapiro">stated at the time</a>, the poor showing could only be due to the prevalence of far-left politics:
<blockquote>Since the end of the first Bush term, then, Hollywood has decided that Americans are rubes. If Americans like a product, that’s because the product must be too bourgeois. Hollywood must use its special night to demonstrate to Americans just how gauche they really are.
And so, each year, that’s what Hollywood does. They live off the profits of Thor: Ragnorak while bragging at the cocktail parties about Call Me By Your Name. They cash the checks from Star Wars: The Last Jedi while handing statuettes to The Shape of Water. And they fill their shows each year with lectures on intersectionality and “important” messages.
There’s a reason the ratings keep dropping at the Oscars. And it’s not merely because people haven’t been seeing the movies that win. It’s because Hollywood specifically chooses to reward movies that aren’t big hits so they can point out to the rubes just how ignorant they truly are.
And when Hollywood does approve a film that Americans like (see, e.g., Wonder Woman or Black Panther), Americans are told that something historic has happened — even though Americans have routinely enjoyed films that carry virtuous messages. Americans just don’t like being patronized. And Hollywood’s entire sense of value rests in their belief that Americans are worth sneering at — even when Hollywood is attempting to move beyond one of the worst scandals in its history.</blockquote>

Donald Trump Holds &#8220;Keep America Great&#8221; Campaign Rally In Dallas

Trump Trolls Hollywood: Oscars ‘Failed’ When ‘They Came After Us’

On Wednesday, twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Tulsi Gabbard a &#8220;Russian asset&#8221; who is being groomed for a third-party run in 2020.
&#8220;I’m not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on someone who’s currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians,&#8221; Hillary said, apparently referring to Gabbard, according to <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-clinton-appears-to-claim-russians-grooming-tulsi-gabbard-to-run-as-third-party-candidate">The Daily Beast</a>. &#8220;They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.&#8221;
&#8220;That’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset. Yeah, she’s a Russian asset — I mean, totally,&#8221; the Democrat continued. &#8220;They know they can’t win without a third-party candidate. So I don’t know who it’s going to be, but I will guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states that they most needed.&#8221;
The former secretary of state made the comments during an episode of the podcast &#8220;<a href="https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vaHEtcGxvdWZmZQ&amp;episode=OGE2M2FhMTgtZTZlMS0xMWU5LTk4YWEtNTM4NTJiZDViMzc5&amp;hl=en&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjzmZSA-KXlAhXmm-AKHZsMC_AQieUEegQIABAE&amp;ep=6&amp;at=1571406131757">Campaign HQ with David Plouffe</a>&#8221; without referring to Gabbard by name.
However, following the podcast, a spokesman for Hillary snakily confirmed it was indeed Gabbard to whom she was referring.
&#8220;Clinton spox [Nick Merrill], when asked if [Clinton] was referring to Gabbard: &#8216;If the nesting doll fits,'&#8221; CNN&#8217;s Dan Merica reported.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Hillary Clinton appears to suggest Russians are &#39;grooming&#39; Tulsi Gabbard for third-party run.
Clinton spox <a href="https://twitter.com/NickMerrill?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@NickMerrill</a>, when asked if HRC was referring to Gabbard: “If the nesting doll fits.”
More here: <a href="https://t.co/MfnW3HAmCI">https://t.co/MfnW3HAmCI</a>
&mdash; Dan Merica (@merica) <a href="https://twitter.com/merica/status/1185225224234635265?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 18, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As noted by The Daily Beast, Gabbard pledged in August to refrain from a third-party run if she were to lose the Democratic nomination.
Gabbard has yet to respond. 
As argued by The Daily Wire’s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/curl-hillary-clinton-has-become-completely-delusional">Joseph Curl </a>earlier in the week, Mrs. Clinton’s behavior has become increasingly &#8220;delusional.&#8221;
For example, just last week, Hillary claimed she beat President Donald Trump in the 2016 election. 
&#8220;You know, it truly is remarkable how obsessed he remains with me,&#8221; she said of President Trump, as reported by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hillary-falsely-claims-she-won-2016-election-suggests-she-might-run-again">The Daily Wire</a>. &#8220;But this latest tweet is so typical of him. Nothing has been more examined and looked at than my e-mails. We all know that.&#8221;
&#8220;So maybe there does need to be a rematch. Obviously, I can beat him again,&#8221; Hillary claimed. &#8220;But, just seriously, I don’t understand, I don’t think anybody understands what motivates him.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Hillary Clinton coming down with a strong case of Stacey Abrams Syndrome and claiming she won the 2016 election. <a href="https://t.co/uTSj72IMN0">pic.twitter.com/uTSj72IMN0</a>
&mdash; Zach Parkinson (@AZachParkinson) <a href="https://twitter.com/AZachParkinson/status/1181746036911546368?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 9, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Earlier this month, the former first lady called Trump an &#8220;illegitimate president,&#8221; adding that he’s &#8220;very insecure about it.&#8221;
&#8220;First, I do think that he knows that he’s an illegitimate president,&#8221; Hillary said of Trump, during an appearance on &#8220;The View.&#8221; &#8220;And because of that he’s very insecure about it.&#8221;
Trump &#8220;is someone who has to dominate and be, you know, the only voice in the room and the biggest guy on the block, the master of the universe, and he can’t stand any kind of questioning or any kind of dialogue,&#8221; she offered. 
Of course, as previously noted by The Daily Wire, it was Hillary who was absolutely rattled and deeply concerned for our democracy when Trump suggested in October 2016 that he would have to “look at” everything before conceding the presidential election if he were to lose. 
&#8220;That’s horrifying,&#8221; she said at the time about Trump’s remarks, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/20/us/politics/presidential-debate.html">The New York Times</a>. &#8220;Let’s be clear about what he is saying and what that means. He is denigrating — he is talking down our democracy. And I am appalled that someone who is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that position.&#8221;
It&#8217;s &#8220;really troubling,&#8221; she added. &#8220;That is not the way our democracy works.&#8221;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/state-department-takes-new-action-on-hillary-investigation">State Department Takes New Action On Hillary Investigation</a>

Hillary Clinton, Tulsi Gabbard

Hillary Clinton: Tulsi Gabbard A ‘Russian Asset’ Being Groomed For Third-Party Run

Actress Elizabeth Olsen, known for her role as Wanda Maximoff/Scarlet Witch in &#8220;The Avengers&#8221; franchise, announced her excitement to see the superhero genre to become more inclusive regarding racial and sexual diversity.
Speaking with <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/avengers-elizabeth-olsen-superheroes-hollywood">Fox News</a>, Olsen said that &#8220;now more than ever&#8221; is the time to see representation in the superhero genre.
&#8220;I think it&#8217;s important to have all representations of superheroes on the big screen, now more than ever,&#8221; said Olsen. &#8220;I feel like we are moving and we are making changes. And &#8230; I&#8217;ve always just felt it&#8217;s hard for me to say I have been treated so and so way because I&#8217;m a female at work because &#8230; I&#8217;ve always had a lucky experience.&#8221;
Olsen added that people of color and sexual minorities have not had the same lucky experience as her, which makes sense when considering she is the younger sister of twin duo Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen – two of the biggest child stars of the 1990s.
&#8220;But I do believe that, that I know and I understand that that&#8217;s not the universal experience,&#8221; said Olsen. &#8220;I feel like it&#8217;s women, it&#8217;s women of color, it&#8217;s men of color. I feel like it&#8217;s representing different sexualities. I just feel like now people are listening, people are paying attention. So now it&#8217;s the opportunity.&#8221;
The Marvel universe has faced criticism recently for not including enough LGBTQ characters or superheroes, though producers Kevin Feige and Victoria Alonso <a href="https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-gay-character-in-avengers-endgame-was-not-supposed-1835665347?utm_source=io9_twitter&amp;utm_medium=socialflow&amp;utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_twitter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">have promised</a> they will be arriving soon. The latest “Avengers” installment, however, did break new ground with the inclusion of Grieving Man (played by co-director Joe Russo), who was seen at the very beginning telling Steve Rogers about a man he was dating. However, LGBTQ activists took the character as Marvel’s cheap attempt at diversity.
“As disappointing as [previous] missed opportunities for queer representation were, none of them stung anywhere nearly as much as the Grieving Man’s introduction inadvertently does, because his presence comes across like an inconsequential afterthought, and it doesn’t help matters that the Russos and Marvel appear to be quite pleased with the creative decision,” wrote Charles Pullman at <a href="https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-gay-character-in-avengers-endgame-was-not-supposed-1835665347">Gizmodo</a>.
“Spider-Man” actor Tom Holland also recently told <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tom-holland-interview-robert-downey-jr-avengers-billy-elliot-spider-man-v8963l3kx?wgu=270525_54264_15620633691442_0df4b3c34c&amp;wgexpiry=1569839369&amp;utm_source=planit&amp;utm_medium=affiliate&amp;utm_content=22278&amp;wgu=270525_54264_15621805969014_d627b67eb5&amp;wgexpiry=1569956596&amp;utm_source=planit&amp;utm_medium=affiliate&amp;utm_content=22278" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-rapid-parsed="slk" data-ylk="subsec:paragraph;cpos:2;elm:context_link;itc:0">Britain’s Sunday Times</a> that he would be open to his character being openly gay in the future.
“I can’t talk about the future of the character because honestly I don’t know and it’s out of my hands,” Holland told the outlet. “But I do know a lot about the future of Marvel, and they are going to be representing lots of different people in the next few years.”
“The world isn’t as simple as a straight white guy,” he continued. “It doesn’t end there, and these films need to represent more than one type of person.”
Actress Tessa Thompson, who plays Valkyrie in “Thor: Ragnarok” and &#8220;Avengers: Endgame,&#8221; <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/tessa-thompson-valkyrie-could-be-marvels-first-paul-bois">said recently</a> that her character could become the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s first LGBTQ superhero.
“As new king [of Asgard], she needs to find her queen. That will be the first order of business,” said Thompson at Comic-Con.
In “Avengers: Endgame,” the character Thor declared Valkyrie the new queen of Asgard. Ever since her character appeared in “Ragnarok,” Thompson has pressed the point that Valkyrie’s sexuality swings both ways. In fact, the hit movie had a deleted LGBTQ scene in which Valkyrie was shown to be bisexual when a female lover leaves her bedroom. Thompson said the film’s director Taika Waititi wanted to keep the scene, but was forced to cut it.
“He kept it in the film as long as he could; eventually the bit had to be cut because it distracted from the scene’s vital exposition,” Thompson explained to <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/features/how-tessa-thompson-went-from-indie-actor-to-thor-ragnarok-badass-w510485" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-rapid-parsed="slk" data-ylk="subsec:paragraph;cpos:11;elm:context_link;itc:0">Rolling Stone</a>.

Celebrities Visit Build &#8211; October 8, 2019

‘Avengers’ Star Elizabeth Olsen: We Need ‘All Representation Of Superheroes’

Marvel

As of right now, most national head-to-head polls for the 2020 presidential general election show President Donald Trump losing to his Democratic Party presidential primary rivals. This trend generally holds, regardless of whether the nominee is any of the leading top three Democratic candidates: Former Vice President <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html">Joe Biden</a>, Sen. <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_warren-6251.html">Elizabeth Warren</a> (D-MA), or Sen. <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html">Bernie Sanders</a> (I-VT).
While the Trump campaign might be tempted to rest on its laurels and sneer at the polls based upon a look back at the perceived polling debacle that was the 2016 presidential election, such a move would be just as haughty as it is myopic. As Harry Enten&#8217;s <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/">article</a> from November 4, 2016 — that would be four days before the general election — presciently pointed out, in retrospect, polling from the 2016 election cycle was not actually irreconcilable with a Trump victory. Trump obviously trailed Hillary Clinton in the polls, but his victory was actually not outside the realm of polling feasibility — or even outside the realm of polling reasonableness.
As such, the 2020 Trump re-election campaign would be wise to focus on what it can do to win over a larger share of independent, moderate, and suburban voters. In doing so, the Trump campaign would be wise to look back to a much-ballyhooed part of Karl Rove&#8217;s 2004 blueprint for George W. Bush&#8217;s re-election: Specifically, that campaign&#8217;s ingenious focus on the &#8220;<a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/security-moms-bushs-secret-election-weapon-gl6jc8cxr7j">security mom</a>.&#8221; The mythical &#8220;security mom,&#8221; at the time, was symbolized by the proverbial suburban mother who was worried about revanchist Islamist terrorism and sought to protect her home and family against those who would seek to kill us.
Although some of the specific animating issues have changed over the past 15 years, there is tremendous potential this election cycle for Trump to deploy similar messaging and reach out to a similar sect of voters.
Violent crime in America, despite overall dramatically declining since the 1990s, has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-in-defense-of-prosecutors">unfortunately spiked</a> over the past few years. Why isn&#8217;t Trump formally renouncing the <a href="https://www.providencejournal.com/news/20191004/he-was-released-early-from-prison-in-february-now-hes-wanted-for-murder-on-federal-hill">harrowing</a> First Step Act jailbreak law, the passage of which he apparently already <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/trump-reportedly-regrets-passage-jailbreak-first-step-act-gullible-conservatives-supported/">regrets</a>, and doubling down on &#8220;Willie Horton&#8221;-style anti-crime messaging?
Left-wing Democrats are campaigning harder than ever on anti-Second Amendment, gun-grabbing policy proposals. Why isn&#8217;t Trump leading Republicans on a 2020 platform of cracking down on the gun felons that <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/html/decriminalization-delusion-14037.html">light-on-crime</a> jurisdictions like California seem <a href="https://calmatters.org/gun-violence/2019/10/felons-firearms-california-federal-charges-gun-control-newsom/">hellbent on unleashing</a> upon the general public?
The global jihad — as embodied both by the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-designating-muslim-brotherhood-terrorist-josh-hammer">Muslim Brotherhood</a>, the mother&#8217;s milk of Sunni jihad, as well as more public-facing Islamist outfits like al-Qaeda and Islamic State — continues, 18 years after 9/11, to pose a threat to the U.S. homeland. Why isn&#8217;t Trump running on a platform of discussing not just the wall and border security, but also the arguably even more indispensable issue of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-border-wall-nice-interior-enforcement-nicer-josh-hammer">interior visa enforcement</a>? What about the need to radically <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-never-forget-911-we-need-rethink-how-we-josh-hammer">restructure our immigration policy</a> away from letting in largely unvetted populations of Middle Easterners?
Across the nation, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-who-will-stand-for-the-forgotten-american">neo-Confederate</a> &#8220;sanctuary&#8221; jurisdictions employ anti-<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi">Supremacy Clause</a> erroneous legal &#8220;reasoning&#8221; to defy <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiHsv7v4LXjAhWTHM0KHZKMB7gQFjAAegQIAxAB&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.cornell.edu%2Fuscode%2Ftext%2F8%2F1324&amp;usg=AOvVaw2EunpYa249SvA-oBwwFrS2">federal immigration law</a>, ignore ICE detainers on <a href="https://www.conservativereview.com/news/another-illegal-alien-arrested-brutal-rape-notorious-sanctuary-montgomery-county/">violent criminal aliens</a>, and aid and abet the work of the transnational Mexican cartels that traffick drugs and criminals alike into the homeland. Why isn&#8217;t Trump proposing more aggressive policies to strip federal funding away from sanctuary jurisdictions and effectively message to suburban voters that the government will act to help prevent MS-13 thugs from terrorizing their neighborhoods?
There are a myriad other examples, to be sure. But to maximize its 2020 re-election chances, the Trump campaign ought to focus more intensively on appealing to moderates and suburban swing voters. In order to do so, there is no better platform than a safety and security agenda tailored to the very &#8220;security moms&#8221; that President Bush so effectively courted in 2004.

Menu

PRAGER: An Open Letter To Sergey Brin

NBC Won’t Open New Investigation Into Matt Lauer; Megyn Kelly Responds

Kimberley Strassel To Klavan: Comey Had ‘First Undiagnosed Case Of Trump Derangement Syndrome’

Neil deGrasse Tyson To Shapiro: Transgender Athletes Leave The Future Of Sports ‘Unresolved’

Impeachment Wire: The Latest On The Effort To Impeach President Trump

Sunday Special Ep. 73: Dana Perino

Ep. 352 - Maybe We Should Actually Build The Wall

Ep. 880 - Quid Pro Quo?

Ep. 4 - Into the Storm

Tulsi Gabbard Lights Up Hillary Clinton For Suggesting She’s A Russian Asset: ‘The Queen Of Warmongers’

Abortion Doctor Doesn’t Get The ‘Big Deal’ About Changing Procedures To Get More Valuable Hearts, Lungs, Livers

China Stalls ‘Once Upon A Time In Hollywood’ Release Over Bruce Lee Depiction

Talking Media Bias w/ Ashe Schow

10/22 - Latest Craziness from the Left w/ Amanda Prestigiacomo

AMA w/ Michael Knowles