The White House is calling out headline bias at the New York Times after the outlet published multiple slanted reports relating to the impeachment hearings on Wednesday.
Hogan Gidley, deputy assistant to the president and principal deputy press secretary, posted a tweet Wednesday afternoon with a screenshot of multiple Times headlines with annotations pointing out various points of bias in allegedly straight news reporting.
“Media bias is real, it’s wrong, it’s dangerous, and it must be called out and exposed. Here are four <a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes">@nytimes</a> headlines and six clear, egregious examples of bias,” Gidley tweeted. “Can you spot more? (Keep in mind, these are JUST the headlines&#8230;we didn’t even post all examples IN the articles.)”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Media bias is real, it’s wrong, it’s dangerous, and it must be called out and exposed. Here are four <a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nytimes</a> headlines and six clear, egregious examples of bias. Can you spot more? (Keep in mind, these are JUST the headlines&#8230;we didn’t even post all examples IN the articles.) <a href="https://t.co/Bkwy0haLBc">pic.twitter.com/Bkwy0haLBc</a>
— Hogan Gidley (@hogangidley45) <a href="https://twitter.com/hogangidley45/status/1202323558266855424?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 4, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The examples included relate to how the Times referred to law professor Jonathan Turley, who was called by Republicans to testify at the Judiciary Committee’s first impeachment hearing, and the three other professors, who were called by Democrats.
The main headline from the Times read: “Trump Committed Impeachable Offenses, 3 Scholars Tell Judiciary Committee.” Gidley noted that the Times did not say the three scholars who supported impeachment were all called by Democrats, but did note that the lone voice against the impeachment proceedings was called by Republicans.
The second headline from the Times read: “But Expert Invited by Republicans Says Case Is ‘Slipshod.’” As Gidley explained, the Times not only made this “GOP perspective” headline smaller than the “anti-Trump headline,” it also put in quotes the “anti-impeachment perspective” while stating the “pro-impeachment perspective” authoritatively without quotes.
Further, the Times twice noted that the anti-impeachment scholar was invited by Democrats while never mentioning the three pro-impeachment scholars were invited by Democrats.
Another headline read: “The Republicans’ lone expert witness, the law professor Jonathan Turley, has represented whistle-blowers and terrorism suspects.” Gidley claimed this headline “implies GOP could only find one but hides that Dems prevented GOP from inviting more” (emphasis original). He also suggests the Times “cherry-picked experience highlights” to make Turley look bad and a Democrat-called scholar, Pamela Karlan, look good. To be fair, representing whistle-blowers is probably not seen as a bad thing, but many might think differently about terrorism suspects. The Times did not include information for Karlan that the paper would view as a negative.
The headline about Karlan read: “Pamela Karlan, also a law professor, counts a landmark gay rights case as among her litigation experience.” Now, perhaps the Times felt some readers would view that as a negative, but it was clearly not worded in a way that would allow readers to make that decision. The Times called the case a “landmark gay rights case,” emphasizing that it was important and about rights, something everyone should support. This is a common tactic the media uses in allegedly unbiased news articles – they add “rights” to the end of the cause they support, such as gay rights or abortion rights, to signal which side people should be on.
The reaction to Gidley’s tweet was predictably mixed, with right-leaning accounts asking for the White House to put out more diagrams such as this one, and left-leaning accounts demanding Gidley do the same for Fox News’ bias, ignoring the fact that Democrats have an entire apparatus, Media Matters for America, that does just that and is declared a serious, non-partisan watchdog group by left-wing media outlets.

New York Times

White House Highlights NYT Bias In Coverage Of Impeachment Hearings

Media Bias

On Tuesday’s episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” the Daily Wire editor-in-chief talks about a New York Times article that raises the issue of “self-coupling.” Video and partial transcript below: 
This is why the culture wars matter so much — I present to you, as Exhibit A in the pitch that the Left is making, this article from yesterday in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/02/opinion/emma-watson-self-partnering-marriage.html">The New York Times</a> by an associate professor of religious studies at Skidmore College, Bradley Onishi, [who asks], “Could I be my own soulmate?”
Are you your own soulmate? The article describes Emma Watson, the actress, and Lizzo, the rapper and flautist, who are both saying that they are their own One — that they are self-coupling. This religion, Professor Onishi, he says: 
<blockquote>For most people, the idea of self-coupling may be jarring, but a closer look might reveal it to be more of an end point of a trend. Marriage rates have been declining steadily since the 1970s. Many of us are &#8220;dating&#8221; more, but somehow going on fewer dates. Sex is safer and less burdened with shame than in the past, and seemingly more available, but we’re having less of it than we were a generation ago. And despite all these mixed signals, most of us are still looking for The One&#8230;
According to Stephanie Coontz, the author of the 2005 book “Marriage: A History,” finding The One used to be about completion. In the 19th century, the rise of the market economy divided the sexes — men into the world of bread-winning work and women into that of unpaid domestic labor. “When these two spheres were brought together in marriage,” Ms. Coontz wrote, “they produced a perfect well-rounded hole.”</blockquote>
That&#8217;s ignoring the several thousand years before that, where marriage was actually a pretty congenial relationship. 
<blockquote>This approach to partnership, wherein two members of opposite sex complete each other, was essentially religious in origin — “complementarianism,” for the theologians out there — a well-known example being the biblical adage that “two shall become one.” It also recalls Plato&#8217;s “Symposium” — one of the earliest purveyors of the soul mate myth — where the comic poet Aristophanes explains that humans were once united in pairs, but were then split into unhappy halves by Zeus&#8230;
The ideal of completion hearkens to a time when women were economically and socially dependent on men and marriage was reserved for heterosexual couples. Today, instead of a life-defining relationship, many of us now see partnership as one part of a puzzle that includes a career (which often demands geographic mobility), family, a social life, personal wellness, volunteer work and creative or recreational outlets. A relationship is not the foundation of selfhood, but only a piece.</blockquote>
The redefinition of marriage into one choice among many, just something that you do if you feel like it — the problem is that that may work for a very, I would say very, very limited coterie of people who read The New York Times. It does not work broadly across the United States. But our cultural institutions are all nationalized: Hollywood is nationalized, Netflix is nationalized, The New York Times is nationalized, Facebook is nationalized, and that means that the social bleed over effect, the social trickle-down effect of leftist social policy, which, by the way, is not even engaged in by people at the upper echelons in places like New York and California. 
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/M9vqfoY79NM?start=2562" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
One of the peculiar things you&#8217;ll find about Hollywood is the same people who are routinely preaching the virtues of bleeding-edge social leftism — get rid of marriage, have any relationship you want, open marriages, polyamory — those same people tend to get married at higher rates than a lot of people who are actually not living in those areas. They tend not to have kids out of wedlock, particularly a lot, and if they do have kids out of wedlock, they can afford it because they&#8217;re very wealthy. Those social messages do not apply equally to everyone.
In other words, just as with every other policy in human life, not all policies affect everybody equally. The fact that folks on the Left seem to think that policies undertaken by liberal elites over at The New York Times or in Hollywood, that those policies affect people in downtrodden economic areas the same way that they do in upper/elite establishments that discarded religion as a social fabric decades ago, just demonstrates a tremendous level of ignorance. Trying to re-shift these definitions of fundamental institutions — that is indeed creating a phenomenon in which the United States is dividing. These [three] phenomena — income inequality rising, the changes in the economy, and the bleed over of social liberalism — this is leading to a toxic brew. 
Now, there are people on the Right and the Left who think that the way to fix this is to fix the economic side. The way we&#8217;re gonna do this with redistributionism! You&#8217;ve got Andrew Yang proposing universal basic income on the Democratic side, or you have people like — as I&#8217;ve said — Tucker Carlson talking about regulating out of existence self-driving cars, stopping economic progress, limiting trade, bringing back all these jobs to manufacturing areas, as though that&#8217;s ever really going to happen. I have serious doubts about that, considering the technology has basically put a lot of these jobs out of commission.
Then, there is the stuff that is actually in the control of the people who are living today, and that is making the next right decision. The fact is that there are certain factors in your life that are fundamentally going to guarantee [that you] have a better shot at life — finishing high school, not having kids out of wedlock, getting married. These things actually change your life in ways for the better, and the fact that our culture is so focused in on a sort of Marxist materialism, in which if we solve your economic circumstance, that this will solve all of your other problems — this is not right. 
Solving the problem of making right and moral decisions that better your life — that is how your life gets better. That means taking seriously the fundamental social institutions that [have] been broken by the Left since the 1960s, focusing on restoring those — because those are things you can do. Not things that you have to wait for some government savior to do — and, by the way, those government saviors ain’t showing up.
Income inequality is breaking out in major blue cities, where they&#8217;ve gotten rid of the social institutions and where the ladder to success doesn&#8217;t exist even for the underclass in those cities themselves. Forget about red areas versus blue areas — in the cities themselves. You need a restoration of personal responsibility in order to lead to a restoration of the ladder to success that does exist for people who make the best possible decision.
<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>

2018 Vanity Fair Oscar Party Hosted By Radhika Jones &#8211; Arrivals

SHAPIRO: ‘Self-Coupling’: The Newest Frontier On The Culture War

Millennials

In a series of recent interviews, prominent historians criticized The New York Times&#8217; &#8220;1619 Project&#8221; — which describes itself as seeking &#8220;to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are&#8221; — as an &#8220;unbalanced, one-sided account,&#8221; which lacks important &#8220;context and perspective&#8221; on the complexity of slavery&#8217;s role in America&#8217;s history.
&#8220;In August of 1619, a ship appeared on this horizon, near Point Comfort, a coastal port in the English colony of Virginia. It carried more than 20 enslaved Africans, who were sold to the colonists,&#8221; the &#8220;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/1619-america-slavery.html">1619 Project</a>&#8221; splash page reads. &#8220;No aspect of the country that would be formed here has been untouched by the years of slavery that followed. In the 400th anniversary of this fateful moment, it is finally time to tell our story truthfully.&#8221;
Recent interviews with three highly regarded historians published by the <a href="https://www.wsws.org">World Socialist Web Site</a>, which presents analysis and news from a socialist perspective, focus on the degree of historical accuracy and perspective fueling key claims made in the Times&#8217; highly touted series and found it glaringly &#8220;biased&#8221; and at times even &#8220;anti-historical&#8221; (h/t HotAir&#8217;s <a href="https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2019/11/30/prominent-historians-criticize-ny-times-1619-project/">John Sexton</a>).
For the first of the interview series, published Nov. 14, WSWS spoke with Princeton University&#8217;s <a href="https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/14/mcph-n14.html">James McPherson</a>, &#8220;the author of dozens of books and articles, including thePulitzer Prize-winning Battle Cry of Freedom, widely regarded as the authoritative account of the Civil War.&#8221; Asked about his initial reaction to the &#8220;1619 Project,&#8221; McPherson delivered a rather scathing rebuke of its &#8220;biased&#8221; and &#8220;narrow view&#8221; of the country&#8217;s history:
<blockquote>McPherson: Well, I didn’t know anything about it until I got my Sunday paper, with the magazine section entirely devoted to the 1619 Project. Because this is a subject I’ve long been interested in I sat down and started to read some of the essays. I’d say that, almost from the outset, I was disturbed by what seemed like a very unbalanced, one-sided account, which lacked context and perspective on the complexity of slavery, which was clearly, obviously, not an exclusively American institution, but existed throughout history. And slavery in the United States was only a small part of a larger world process that unfolded over many centuries. And in the United States, too, there was not only slavery but also an antislavery movement. So I thought the account, which emphasized American racism — which is obviously a major part of the history, no question about it — but it focused so narrowly on that part of the story that it left most of the history out. So I read a few of the essays and skimmed the rest, but didn’t pursue much more about it because it seemed to me that I wasn’t learning very much new. And I was a little bit unhappy with the idea that people who did not have a good knowledge of the subject would be influenced by this and would then have a biased or narrow view.</blockquote>
In an interview published four days later, City University of New York&#8217;s <a href="https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/18/oake-n18.html">James Oakes</a> — author of two Lincoln Prize-winning books, &#8220;The Radical and the Republican: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the Triumph of anti-slavery Politics&#8221; (2007) and &#8220;Freedom National: The Destruction of Slavery in the United States, 1861–1865&#8221; (2012), as well as &#8220;The Scorpion’s Sting: anti-slavery and the Coming of the Civil War&#8221; (2014) — likewise expressed his dismay at the degree of bias and lack of context permeating the &#8220;1619 Project.&#8221;
Asked to discuss the claim that &#8220;the horrors of contemporary American capitalism are rooted in slavery,&#8221; as suggested by Matthew Desmond in a piece for the &#8220;1619 Project,&#8221; Oakes noted that the attempt to connect chattel slavery and capitalism has received &#8220;some very strong criticism from scholars in the field&#8221; and mocked the overly simplistic thinking that guides Desmond&#8217;s argument:
<blockquote>Oakes: There’s been a kind of standard bourgeois-liberal way of arguing that goes all the way back to the 18th century, that whenever you are talking about some form of oppression, or whenever you yourself are oppressed, you instinctively go to the analogy of slavery. At least since the 18th century in our society, in western liberal societies, slavery has been the gold standard of oppression. The colonists, in the imperial crisis, complained that they were the “slaves” of Great Britain. It was the same thing all the way through the 19th century. The leaders of the first women’s movement would sometimes liken the position of a woman in a northern household to that of a slave on a southern plantation. The first workers’ movement, coming out of the culture of republican independence, attacked wage labor as wage slavery. Civil War soldiers would complain that they were treated like slaves. Desmond, following the lead of the scholars he’s citing, basically relies on the same analogy. They’re saying, “look at the ways capitalism is just like slavery, and that’s because capitalism came from slavery.” But there’s no actual critique of capitalism in any of it. They’re saying, “Oh my God! Slavery looks just like capitalism. They had highly developed management techniques just like we do!” Slaveholders were greedy, just like capitalists. Slavery was violent, just like our society is. So there’s a critique of violence and a critique of greed. But greed and violence are everywhere in human history, not just in capitalist societies. So there’s no actual critique of capitalism as such, at least as I read it.</blockquote>
In a third &#8220;1619&#8221; interview, published Nov. 28, WSWS spoke with Brown University&#8217;s <a href="https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/28/wood-n28.html">Gordon Wood</a> — author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book &#8220;The Radicalism of the American Revolution&#8221; and &#8220;Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789–1815&#8221; — who likewise expressed disappointment, and even disbelief, at the reductive nature of the Times&#8217; series:
<blockquote>Wood: I was surprised when I opened my Sunday New York Times in August and found the magazine containing the project. I had no warning about this. I read the first essay by Nikole Hannah-Jones, which alleges that the Revolution occurred primarily because of the Americans’ desire to save their slaves. She claims the British were on the warpath against the slave trade and slavery and that rebellion was the only hope for American slavery. This made the American Revolution out to be like the Civil War, where the South seceded to save and protect slavery, and that the Americans 70 years earlier revolted to protect their institution of slavery. I just couldn’t believe this. I was surprised, as many other people were, by the scope of this thing, especially since it’s going to become the basis for high school education and has the authority of the New York Times behind it, and yet it is so wrong in so many ways.</blockquote>
Asked to expand on his comment about not being approached about the project, Wood said, &#8220;None of the leading scholars of the whole period from the Revolution to the Civil War, as far I know, have been consulted. &#8221; Asked for his perspective on the relationship between the American Revolution and the institution of slavery, Wood replied:
<blockquote>Wood: One of the things that I have emphasized in my writing is how many southerners and northerners in 1776 thought slavery was on its last legs and that it would naturally die away. You can find quotation after quotation from people seriously thinking that slavery was going to wither away in several decades. Now we know they couldn’t have been more wrong. But they lived with illusions and were so wrong about so many things. We may be living with illusions too. One of the big lessons of history is to realize how the past doesn’t know its future. We know how the story turned out, and we somehow assume they should know what we know, but they don’t, of course. They don’t know their future any more than we know our future, and so many of them thought that slavery would die away, and at first there was considerable evidence that that was indeed the case. At the time of the Revolution, the Virginians had more slaves than they knew what to do with, so they were eager to end the international slave trade. But the Georgians and the South Carolinians weren’t ready to do that yet. That was one of the compromises that came out of the Constitutional Convention. The Deep South was given 20 years to import more slaves, but most Americans were confident that the despicable transatlantic slave trade was definitely going to end in 1808.</blockquote>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/livestream-ben-shapiro-america-wasnt-built-on-slavery">WATCH: Ben Shapiro Dismantles The Left’s Claim That America Was Built On Slavery</a>

New York Times HQ

Historians Shred NYT ‘1619 Project’ That Claims Slavery Defines America

American History

Racism

Slavery

Ahead of the release of the highly anticipated report by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz due out on Dec. 9, The New York Times has published a series of reports based on sources &#8220;familiar with a draft&#8221; indicating that Horowitz&#8217;s findings will largely disappoint Trump and his supporters.
Last week, the Times reported that its sources say the draft of the report will criticize FBI leaders for how they handled the Trump-Russia investigation and detail a series of &#8220;errors and omissions&#8221; in the obtaining of the wiretap for Trump associate Carter Page, but will ultimately say that the FBI did not take &#8220;politically motivated&#8221; action against Trump.
Now, in a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/27/us/politics/fbi-trump-campaign-inspector-general.html?smtyp=cur&amp;smid=tw-nytimes">report</a> published Wednesday, the Times says that Horowitz&#8217;s final report is expected to conclude that the FBI &#8220;never tried to place undercover agents or informants inside the Trump campaign.&#8221; The claim has raised questions about a  Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/fbi-government-investigator-trump.html">report</a> from May on how the &#8220;F.B.I. sent [an] investigator posing as [his] assistant to meet with [a] Trump aide in 2016.&#8221;
&#8220;The Justice Department’s inspector general found no evidence that the F.B.I. attempted to place undercover agents or informants inside Donald J. Trump’s campaign in 2016 as agents investigated whether his associates conspired with Russia&#8217;s election interference operation,&#8221; the Times reported Wednesday, citing sources familiar with a draft of the report, which the Times has not seen.
The finding &#8220;contradicts some of the most inflammatory accusations hurled by Mr. Trump and his supporters, who alleged not only that F.B.I. officials spied on the Trump campaign but also at one point that former President Barack Obama had ordered Mr. Trump’s phones tapped,&#8221; the Times adds.
While the Times stresses that the report is expected to find that the FBI did not try to place informants &#8220;inside&#8221; the Trump campaign, the paper has reported in the past about the FBI&#8217;s attempts to get information out of people connected to the Trump campaign, most famously through an investigator disguised as an assistant to academic Stefan Halper in order to try to get information out of Trump aide George Papadopoulos. The Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/fbi-government-investigator-trump.html">reported</a> in May:
<blockquote>
The conversation at a London bar in September 2016 took a strange turn when the woman sitting across from George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser, asked a direct question: Was the Trump campaign working with Russia?
The woman had set up the meeting to discuss foreign policy issues. But she was actually a government investigator posing as a research assistant, according to people familiar with the operation. The F.B.I. sent her to London as part of the counterintelligence inquiry opened that summer to better understand the Trump campaign’s links to Russia.
The American government’s affiliation with the woman, who said her name was Azra Turk, is one previously unreported detail of an operation that has become a political flash point in the face of accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Last year, he called it Spygate.
The decision to use Ms. Turk in the operation aimed at a presidential campaign official shows the level of alarm inside the F.B.I. during a frantic period when the bureau was trying to determine the scope of Russia’s attempts to disrupt the 2016 election, but could also give ammunition to Mr. Trump and his allies for their spying claims.
</blockquote>
The Times addresses this incident in its new report by claiming that while Halper and the undercover agent were trying to get information out of Trump associates, they were not &#8220;seeking inside campaign information or a role in the organization.&#8221;
Horowitz &#8220;found no evidence that Mr. Halper tried to infiltrate the Trump campaign itself, the people familiar with the draft report said, such as by seeking inside campaign information or a role in the organization,&#8221; the Times reports. &#8220;The F.B.I. also never directed him to do so, former officials said. Instead, Mr. Halper focused on eliciting information from Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos about their ties to Russia.&#8221;
<div class="css-53u6y8">
In its <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/us/politics/russia-investigation-inspector-general-report.html">report</a> last week, the Times announced that the IG report will &#8220;sharply criticize lower-level F.B.I. officials as well as bureau leaders involved in the early stages of the Trump-Russia investigation,&#8221; but ultimately will &#8220;absolve the top ranks of abusing their powers out of bias against President Trump.&#8221;
The report &#8220;portrays the overall effort to seek the wiretap order and its renewals as sloppy and unprofessional,&#8221; the Times explains, and it &#8220;will also sharply criticize as careless one of the F.B.I. case agents in New York handling the matter and say that the bureau and the Justice Department displayed poor coordination during the investigation.&#8221;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-heres-the-real-reason-i-held-back-money-from-ukraine-blocked-impeachment-testimony">Trump: Here’s The Real Reason I Held Back Money From Ukraine, Blocked Impeachment Testimony</a>
</div>

Michael Horowitz

NYT: IG Found FBI Didn’t Spy On Trump Campaign; Here’s How That Fits With Our Past Report On Undercover Agent Meeting With Trump Aides

Donald Trump

Citing &#8220;two people familiar with the matter,&#8221; <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/us/politics/trump-whistle-blower-complaint-ukraine.html">The New York Times</a> reported Tuesday that President Trump was informed about the whistleblower&#8217;s complaint about his alleged &#8220;quid pro quo&#8221; with Ukraine before he decided to release U.S. security aid to the country.
&#8220;Lawyers from the White House counsel’s office told Mr. Trump in late August about the complaint, explaining that they were trying to determine whether they were legally required to give it to Congress, the people said,&#8221; the Times reported.
<div class="css-53u6y8">
&#8220;The revelation could shed light on Mr. Trump’s thinking at two critical points under scrutiny by impeachment investigators: his decision in early September to release $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine and his denial to a key ambassador around the same time that there was a &#8216;quid pro quo&#8217; with Kyiv. Mr. Trump used the phrase before it had entered the public lexicon in the Ukraine affair,&#8221; the Times continues.
The Times also notes that the Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the Trump administration &#8220;did not have to hand over the [whistleblower] complaint&#8221; due to executive privilege. Despite that ruling, Trump decided to release the full complaint along with the transcript of his call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, maintaining consistently that he has nothing to hide from the &#8220;perfect&#8221; call.
The Times report was published the same day that <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-impeachment-witness-deposition-reveals-why-they-were-told-to-hold-ukraine-aid">transcripts</a> were released from the deposition of White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) official Mark Sandy which undermined the Democrats&#8217; claim that Trump was withholding the aid as an attempt to &#8220;bribe&#8221; Ukraine into investigating alleged corruption involving former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
In response to being asked what explanation the White House gave OMB official Michael Duffey for why the aid to Ukraine was being delayed, Sandy said Duffy told him it was &#8220;the President’s concern about other countries not contributing more to Ukraine.&#8221;
<div class="css-53u6y8">
Trump made a similar statement in a series of tweets on Monday, stating that he &#8220;held back the money from Ukraine because it is considered a corrupt country, [and] I wanted to know why nearby European countries weren’t putting up money also.&#8221;
&#8220;The D.C. Wolves and Fake News Media are reading far too much into people being forced by Courts to testify before Congress,&#8221; Trump wrote in the posts Monday. &#8220;I am fighting for future Presidents and the Office of the President. Other than that, I would actually like people to testify. Don McGahn’s respected lawyer has already stated that I did nothing wrong. John Bolton is a patriot and may know that I held back the money from Ukraine because it is considered a corrupt country, &amp; I wanted to know why nearby European countries weren’t putting up money also. Likewise, I would love to have Mike Pompeo, Rick Perry, Mick Mulvaney and many others testify about the phony Impeachment Hoax. It is a Democrat Scam that is going nowhere but, future Presidents should in no way be compromised. What has happened to me should never happen to another President!&#8221;
</div>
The Democrat-led impeachment inquiry was prompted by a whistleblower&#8217;s complaint alleging that Trump imposed a quid pro quo in an attempt to &#8220;pressure&#8221; Ukraine to investigate his political rival. However, Zelensky has repeatedly stated that there was no pressure, and the transcript of Trump&#8217;s famous July 25 call with Zelensky shows that while Trump did ask him to &#8220;look into&#8221; the Biden corruption allegations, no quid pro quo was issued.
“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,” Trump told Zelensky in the much-analyzed call. “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.”
</div>
<aside class="css-ew4tgv" aria-hidden="false" aria-label="companion column">
<div class="css-ke163a" data-testid="article-companion-wrapper">
<div id="newsletter-module" class="css-48vsi0">
<div class="css-1k9ek97">
<div class="css-tjpxhb">
<div class="css-sefkcv">
<div id="story-ad-1-wrapper" class="css-1r07izm">
<div id="story-ad-1-slug" class="css-l9onyx">Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-heres-the-real-reason-i-held-back-money-from-ukraine-blocked-impeachment-testimony">Trump: Here’s The Real Reason I Held Back Money From Ukraine, Blocked Impeachment Testimony</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</aside>

NYT: Trump Knew About Whistleblower Complaint Before He Released Ukraine Aid

Impeachment

Ukraine

Volodymyr Zelensky

An analysis by former Bill Clinton speechwriter David Kusnet published on Monday suggests that another speechwriter is the anonymous author of the new anti-Trump book &#8220;A Warning&#8221; and a similar &#8220;warning&#8221; published last year by The New York Times that famously praised the deep state — or as the author puts it, &#8220;the steady state&#8221; — for undermining Trump.
In his op-ed for <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/155840/guy-wrote-anonymouss-warning">The New Republic</a> Monday, Kusnet engages in the &#8220;parlor game&#8221; of identifying the anonymous author of &#8220;A Warning.&#8221; The author, Kusnet claims, is likely Guy Snodgrass, former speechwriter for former Defense Secretary James Mattis:
<blockquote>I suspect, based on my own close reading of the text, that the author is an apolitical retired Navy commander who became chief speechwriter for former Defense Secretary James Mattis. If so, he behaved ethically when he wrote an unsigned op-ed and contracted to expand it into a book.
But now that a whistleblower’s complaint has triggered impeachment hearings, and current and former diplomatic, intelligence, and military officials have testified publicly, anonymity deflects accountability. Because the book includes previously unpublished anecdotes about Trump’s transgressions against constitutional governance and seemingly informed conclusions about his unfitness for office, readers should know who wrote the book and why. My entry in the guess-who-wrote it sweepstakes is the former Pentagon aide Guy Snodgrass, who would know about many events described in the book. He would have honorable reasons to render his judgments. And revealing the author to be an apolitical Navy officer, not a renegade Republican operative, would elevate the nature of his very serious concerns about Trump’s fitness to hold the office of the presidency.</blockquote>
With speculation running rampant online, Snodgrass initially inflamed the situation, writing a cryptic tweet that about how &#8220;the swirl continues.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The swirl continues&#8230;<a href="https://t.co/BCth6lqnLM">https://t.co/BCth6lqnLM</a>
&mdash; Guy Snodgrass (@GuySnodgrass) <a href="https://twitter.com/GuySnodgrass/status/1199005425447899136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 25, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
He then appeared on Fox News on Monday and gave another enticing non-denial.
Asked if he is in fact &#8220;anonymous,&#8221; Snodgrass <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/former-trump-official-does-not-deny-being-anonymous-author-after-article-suggests-that-he-is">replied</a>: &#8220;Great question. I have a book out with my name on it called Holding the Line. I do appreciate that the New Republic said the writing was excellent across both books, but if I was going to make an announcement like that I would come into the studio with you in New York City.&#8221;
&#8220;So you are not denying that you are Anonymous,&#8221; pressed Fox News&#8217; Trace Gallagher, to which Snodgrass replied: &#8220;I just heard this reporting as I was coming over to the studio, I got invited on to talk about national security. There is a lot to talk about there.&#8221;
Asked why he wouldn&#8217;t &#8220;just deny it outright,&#8221; Snodgrass said, &#8220;It’s the latest in a long series of D.C. parlor games, not unique to this point in time, it’s been going on for decades.&#8221;
But, as reported by <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/tv/guy-snodgrass-denies-being-anonymous-author-of-a-warning-no-im-not-the-writer/">Mediaite</a>, Snodgrass finally slammed the door on the &#8220;anonymous&#8221; speculation in a discussion Tuesday morning with CNN&#8217;s Alisyn Camerota
<div id="ntv1061864-358657-3691" class="ntv-moap ntv1061864-358657-3691">
&#8220;There’s been lots of speculation that it is you,&#8221; said the New Day host. &#8220;What is your answer? Are you the writer?”
&#8220;No, I’m not the writer,&#8221; said Snodgrass. &#8220;To put it to rest, no, I’m not the author of A Warning,&#8221; he added unequivocally. &#8220;I’m not the anonymous op-ed writer.”
The famous Times op-ed, published on Sept. 5, 2018 and  titled &#8220;I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration,&#8221; begins with an explanation by the editors of why they&#8217;re taking the &#8220;rare step&#8221; of publishing an anonymous piece:
<blockquote>The Times is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers.</blockquote>
The &#8220;resistance&#8221; piece begins by admitting that the deep state really is working against the duly elected president, as he and his supporters have long claimed, but portraying it as a positive for the country:
<blockquote>
President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.
It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.
The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
</blockquote>
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html">Read the full op-ed here</a>.
</div>

Rumored Author Of Anonymous Anti-Trump Book Throws Cold Water On Speculation

China is not happy that the New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/16/world/asia/china-xinjiang-documents.html">exposed leaked documents</a> that show the lengths the country has gone toward oppressing Muslim’s in the communist country.
The Associated Press <a href="https://apnews.com/51dbe61264804117bc75baad8213c4c0">reported</a> Monday that China’s foreign ministry accused the Times of “hyping up” the reports and creating a “clumsy patchwork” of reporting based on “selected interpretation” of the documents.
Spokesman Geng Shuang took the Times to task for its coverage of the documents, but did not dispute the document’s authenticity. He also suggested that the fact that China’s Xinjiang region hasn’t had a terrorist attack in three years should be proof that whatever policy they have implemented is correct. It was about three years ago that China began forcibly putting Muslim minorities in concentration camps, which they claim are educational facilities.
“It is hyping up these so-called internal documents to smear China’s efforts in Xinjiang. What is the agenda?” he said, according to the AP.
“Xinjiang’s continuing prosperity, stability, ethnic unity and social harmony are the strongest refutation to the allegations by certain media and individuals,” he added.
The Daily Wire previously <a href="http://dailywire.com/news/internal-chinese-documents-reveal-how-the-country-implemented-its-mass-internment-of-muslims">reported</a> that the documents revealed that students returning home in Xinjiang would find their families missing. China provided authorities pre-written scripts to follow when answering the students’ questions. For example, authorities were to respond, “They’re in a training school set up by the government,” when asked by students what had happened to their families. If the students pressed, authorities were to say their families weren’t criminals, but could not leave the “schools.”
Authorities were also told to make implicit threats to the students suggesting that their behavior could influence how long their relatives would remain detained.
“I’m sure that you will support them, because this is for their own good and also for your own good,” authorities would say.
The documents also showed that Chinese authorities demanded people who complained about the detention policies were told to be grateful to the Chinese Communist Policy and to stop speaking out.
It has also been alleged that Xinjiang’s continued “prosperity,” as Geng claimed, is an illusion. Earlier this month The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/china-stages-towns-for-visiting-journalists-and-diplomats-using-stand-ins-with-prepared-answers-to-questions-report-says">reported</a> that Chinese authorities allegedly stage towns for visiting journalists and diplomats. Muslims in the region are paid to pray at their local mosques &#8212; something they avoid for fear of being detained &#8212; when visitors come to inspect the towns. Other townspeople are played by police officers, teachers, retirees, whomever, and are assigned roles and scripts with about 50 different questions and answers to memorize. For example, one man who was paid to pray was instructed to tell visitors that they were not prohibited from praying or entering the mosque, even though it was a lie.
The camps are also not educational facilities, as the Chinese government claims. One woman who was detained and forced to teach others in the camp <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/former-prisoner-in-one-of-chinas-re-education-camps-speaks-out-torture-and-rape-were-common">spoke out</a> against the rampant torture, sexual abuse, and human experimentation that occurs in the camps.
Others who have left the camp tell similar stories, and say those detained are forced to denounce Islam and swear their allegiance to the Chinese Communist Party.

Chinese flag

China Outraged At NYT For Leaked Documents Showing Country&#8217;s Oppression Of Muslims

China

On Tuesday’s episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show,&#8221; the Daily Wire editor-in-chief talks about the latest artist on the “Cancel Culture” chopping block, Paul Gauguin. Video and partial transcript below:  
Paul Gauguin died in 1903, age 54, and it wasn&#8217;t like people haven&#8217;t known that he was kind of a scumbag for a really long time. His personal life was in shambles, he treated people horribly — but I was not aware that we are now going to be in the business of going back into history and determining when people did bad stuff and then canceling them. 
There&#8217;s literally a piece in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/18/arts/design/gauguin-national-gallery-london.html">The New York Times</a> called, “Is It Time Gauguin Got Canceled?”
<blockquote>Museums are reassessing the legacy of an artist who had sex with teenage girls and called the Polynesian people he painted &#8220;savages.&#8221;</blockquote>
Okay, so that&#8217;s bad stuff. [But] also, is his art good? I&#8217;m highly irritated by this notion that we can&#8217;t separate the art from the artist in terms of appreciating art. Now, it may give you a better understanding of their motivations when they were painting to understand what they were thinking, but that does not change the actual art. It doesn&#8217;t change the art itself, right. 
If the art itself is good, then the art itself ought to be seen as good. It should not be based purely on the sort of deconstructionist narrative that people in the past did bad stuff, therefore, we can&#8217;t look at their art anymore. This is stupid. So according to The New York Times: 
<blockquote>“Is it time to stop looking at Gauguin altogether?&#8221;
That’s the startling question visitors hear on the audio guide as they walk through the “Gauguin Portraits” exhibition at the National Gallery in London. The show, which runs through Jan. 26, focuses on Paul Gauguin’s depictions of himself, his friends and fellow artists, and of the children he fathered and the young girls he lived with in Tahiti.
The standout portrait in the exhibition is “Tehamana Has Many Parents” (1893). It pictures Gauguin’s teenage lover, holding a fan.
The artist “repeatedly entered into sexual relations with young girls, ‘marrying’ two of them and fathering children,” reads the wall text. “Gauguin undoubtedly exploited his position as a privileged Westerner to make the most of the sexual freedoms available to him.&#8221;</blockquote>
In other words, he was a douchebag. But everybody knows he was a douchebag. I&#8217;m fine with examining Paul Gaugin’s life. That&#8217;s fine, we should always understand the dark sides of history. But this attempt to quote unquote “cancel” a dude 120 years after his death is fairly ridiculous, is it not? Can&#8217;t we just appreciate the art for what it is — understand that it came from a bad place, this was a bad man — and then also recognize that the art is interesting and has something to say. 
If we are now going to get into the business of examining the sins, great or small, of any person who creates art, there&#8217;s not gonna be a lot of art. Turns out that a huge number of artists were horrible, horrible people. As my friend Andrew Klavan likes to say, “talent falls on the smart and the dumb, on the good and the evil alike.&#8221; But according to The New York Times, it&#8217;s time to cancel Gauguin. 
<blockquote>Born in Paris, the son of a radical journalist, Gauguin spent his early years in Peru before returning to France. He took up painting in his 20s, while working as a stockbroker, a profession he would soon give up — along with his wife and children — to make art full time. He set sail for Tahiti in 1891, searching for the exotic surroundings he had known as a boy in Peru. Gauguin spent most of the 12 remaining years of his life in Tahiti and on the French Polynesian island of Hiva Oa, cohabiting with adolescent girls, fathering more children, and producing his best-known paintings.
In the international museum world, Gauguin is a box-office hit. There have been a half-dozen exhibitions of his work in the last few years alone, including important shows in <a href="https://www.grandpalais.fr/en/event/gauguin-alchemist">Paris</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/09/arts/design/gauguin-its-not-just-genius-vs-monster.html?module=inline">Chicago</a> and <a href="https://deyoung.famsf.org/exhibitions/gauguin-spiritual-journey">San Francisco</a>. Yet in an age of heightened public sensitivity to issues of gender, race and colonialism, museums are having to reassess his legacy.
A couple of decades ago, an exhibition on the same theme “would have been a great deal more about formal innovation,” said Christopher Riopelle, a co-curator of the National Gallery show. Now, everything must be viewed “in a much more nuanced context,” he added.</blockquote>
So in other words, it used to focus on his art, [but] now it&#8217;s going to focus on the fact we don&#8217;t like him anymore. By the way, for a long time, the Left was very much in vogue with Paul Gauguin because Paul Gauguin had abandoned his wife and kids and was seen as a political radical. So only now are they beginning to realize, “Oh, you mean that the political radicalism went along with him mistreating young girls and treating native peoples horribly?”
<iframe title="Leaning Left And Letting Fly | The Ben Shapiro Show Ep. 900" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/e2ix57-znGY?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<blockquote>&#8230;The show was co-produced with the National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa and opened in Ottawa in late May. A few days before the opening, the museum’s newly appointed director, Sasha Suda, and the exhibition’s curators decided to edit some of the wall texts after touring the show. Nine labels were changed to avoid culturally insensitive language, according to the museum’s press office.
In Ottawa, the title “Head of a Savage, Mask” was shown with an extended label explaining that the words ‘savage’ and ‘barbarian,’ “considered offensive today, reflect attitudes common to Gauguin’s time and place.” Elsewhere, his “relationship with a young Tahitian woman” was changed to “his relationship with a 13- or 14-year-old Tahitian girl.”</blockquote>
By the way, those changes are fine. I don&#8217;t see any real problem with being more specific in your description of Gauguin, but as far as quote unquote, “canceling” him, I don&#8217;t know what that is supposed to mean.
<blockquote>To other museum professionals, re-examining the lives of past artists from a 21st-century perspective is risky, because it could lead to the boycott of great art.
“The person, I can totally abhor and loathe, but the work is the work,” said Vicente Todolí, who was Tate Modern’s director when it staged a major Gauguin exhibition in 2010, and is now the artistic director of the Pirelli HangarBicocca art foundation in Milan.”
“Once an artist creates something, it doesn’t belong to the artist anymore: It belongs to the world,” he said. Otherwise, he cautioned, we would stop reading the anti-Semitic author Louis-Ferdinand Céline, or shun Cervantes and Shakespeare if we found something unsavory about them.</blockquote>
That, of course, is correct. But because he was a bad guy, apparently we&#8217;re now supposed to cancel him. &#8230; The notion that we are going to quote unquote, “cancel” people 120 years after the death because they were bad when they lived — there&#8217;s no limit, there&#8217;s no limiting principle here. It turns out that by historic standards, most people were bad. It turns out in a hundred years, most people will think we&#8217;re bad. So if you like what is being done with Paul Gauguin, then by all means, recognise that in 100 years it will be done to you. 
That is not to justify Gaugin&#8217;s behavior, [he] was, again, for the war for the fourth time, a douchebag when he was alive. But the attempt to cancel artist and say we can&#8217;t show their exhibitions anymore because they&#8217;re very bad people, that is not going to end well for the artistic community above all. 
<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>

Paul Gauguin

SHAPIRO: NYT Prepares To ‘Cancel’ Painter Who Died Over 100 Years Ago

Ben Shapiro

The New York Times responded to FedEx on Monday after the courier delivery service challenged the left-wing newspaper to a public debate over tax policy. FedEx had responded to the Times alleging in an article that FedEx no longer paid taxes under President Donald Trump&#8217;s tax-cut bill.
“FedEx’s colorful response does not actually challenge a single fact in our story. We’re confident in the accuracy of our reporting,” Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha said in a statement. “FedEx’s invitation is clearly a stunt and an effort to distract from the findings of our story.”
The Times statement came in response to a statement from FedEx CEO Frederick Smith, who challenged the Times to a debate on Sunday in response to their story, saying in a <a href="https://about.van.fedex.com/newsroom/statement-from-frederick-w-smith-chairman-and-ceo-of-fedex-corporation/">statement</a>:
<blockquote>The New York Times published a distorted and factually incorrect story on the front page of the Sunday, November 17 edition concerning FedEx and our billions of dollars of tax payments and billions of dollars of investments in the U.S. economy.  Pertinent to this outrageous distortion of the truth is the fact that unlike FedEx, the New York Times paid zero federal income tax in 2017 on earnings of $111 million, and only $30 million in 2018 – 18% of their pretax book income.  Also in 2018 the New York Times cut their capital investments nearly in half to $57 million, which equates to a rounding error when compared to the $6 billion of capital that FedEx invested in the U.S. economy during that same year.
I hereby challenge A.G. Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times and the business section editor to a public debate in Washington, DC with me and the FedEx corporate vice president of tax.  The focus of the debate should be federal tax policy and the relative societal benefits of business investments and the enormous intended benefits to the United States economy, especially lower and middle class wage earners.
I look forward to promptly hearing from Mr. Sulzberger and scheduling this open event to bring further public awareness of the facts related to these important issues.</blockquote>
It is worth noting that the Times did not appear to dispute the allegations from Smith that the newspaper did not pay any federal income taxes in 2017  on earnings of $111 million.
After Smith released his statement, FedEx released an independent statement responding to The New York Times story:
<blockquote>The New York Times article is a deliberate distortion of our company’s actions before and after tax reform. FedEx has paid federal income tax every year, including fiscal year 2018. Following passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), FedEx invested billions in capital items eligible for accelerated depreciation and made large contributions to our employee pension plans. These factors have temporarily lowered our federal income tax, which was the law’s intention to help grow GDP and generate investment in the U.S. The accelerated depreciation deductions are only temporary with higher depreciation and lower taxes early in the life of a new capital asset. This is then offset by lower depreciation and higher taxes later in that asset’s life. These temporary deductions FedEx received for capital investments are minimal compared to the overall impact the company has on the economy.
FedEx made extensive investments in our team members and our global network to better serve our customers following passage of the TCJA. These investments included a voluntary contribution of $1.5 billion to the FedEx pension plan to ensure it remains a well-funded retirement program, more than $200 million in increased team member compensation – about two-thirds of which went to hourly team members – and more than $3 billion to significantly expand and modernize our Memphis and Indianapolis hubs through 2025.
FedEx takes pride in paying its full share of taxes and has paid almost $10 billion in total taxes in the U.S. during the last five fiscal years, contributing to tax revenues of the U.S. government. We have supported tax increases in some cases, particularly federal diesel and gasoline taxes, to fund badly-needed infrastructure in the United States. The decrease in U.S. investment over the past year is due to the slowdown in global trade which has a significant impact on the asset-intensive industrial economy, including FedEx.</blockquote>
The statements from Smith and FedEx came in response to the Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/17/business/how-fedex-cut-its-tax-bill-to-0.html">reporting</a> on Sunday that FedEx went from paying $1.5 billion per year in taxes to paying nothing after Trump signed the tax cut bill into law.
&#8220;In the 2017 fiscal year, FedEx owed more than $1.5 billion in taxes. The next year, it owed nothing. What changed was the Trump administration’s tax cut — for which the company had lobbied hard,&#8221; the Times reported. &#8220;The public face of its lobbying effort, which included a tax proposal of its own, was FedEx’s founder and chief executive, Frederick Smith, who repeatedly took to the airwaves to champion the power of tax cuts.&#8221;
&#8220;Four months later, President Trump signed into law the $1.5 trillion tax cut that became his signature legislative achievement. FedEx reaped big savings, bringing its effective tax rate from 34 percent in fiscal year 2017 to less than zero in fiscal year 2018, meaning that, overall, the government technically owed it money. But it did not increase investment in new equipment and other assets in the fiscal year that followed, as Mr. Smith said businesses like his would,&#8221; the Times added. &#8220;Nearly two years after the tax law passed, the windfall to corporations like FedEx is becoming clear. A New York Times analysis of data compiled by Capital IQ shows no statistically meaningful relationship between the size of the tax cut that companies and industries received and the investments they made.&#8221;
&nbsp;

Fedex

New York Times Responds To FedEx’s Debate Challenge While FedEx Releases Additional Statement

FedEx

Last May, The New York Times decided to refer to a baby’s heartbeat in the womb with a term designed to camouflage there was a real baby there, using the term “embryonic pulsing” to describe the heartbeat. On Monday, the Times decided to utilize another euphemism for the baby’s heartbeat, referring to it as “the pulsing of what becomes the fetus’s heart.”
In both cases, the article in May and the article on Monday, the Times was discussing the state of Louisiana. In May, in an article titled, “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/louisiana-abortion-heartbeat-bill.html">Louisiana Moves to Ban Abortions After a Heartbeat Is Detected</a>,” the Times wrote:
<blockquote>A State House vote on Wednesday moved the abortion measure to the governor’s desk, after lawmakers rejected a series of amendments including an exception for cases of rape or incest. The measure would require an ultrasound test for any woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy, and forbid abortion if the test detects embryonic pulsing — which can occur before many women know they are pregnant. Abortions would be permitted only to save a woman’s life or to prevent a “serious risk” to her health.</blockquote>
The Times usage was noted by Alexandria DeSanctis of National Review, who <a href="https://twitter.com/xan_desanctis/status/1134462765500964864?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1134462765500964864&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fsarahd-313035%2F2019%2F05%2F31%2Fpaging-alyssa-milano-nyt-unveils-a-twisted-n">tweeted</a>, “In an article on the Louisiana heartbeat bill, @nytimes refers to a fetal heartbeat as ‘embryonic pulsing,’ taking its cues from the euphemisms of abortion-rights activists.”
On Monday, the Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/16/us/louisiana-governor-edwards-rispone.html">returned to Louisiana</a> as it discussed the reelection of Governor John Bel Edwards, writing:
<blockquote>Throughout the campaign, Mr. Edwards, a rare Democrat holding statewide office in the South, shined a spotlight on his conservative bona fides, like his support for <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/us/louisiana-abortion-heartbeat-bill.html?searchResultPosition=3&amp;module=inline">a state law barring abortion</a> after the pulsing of what becomes the fetus’s heart can be detected.</blockquote>
DeSanctis tweeted, “Here’s the @nytimes referring to a fetal heartbeat as ‘the pulsing of what becomes the fetus’s heart,’ but at least they managed to upgrade from ‘embryonic pulsing,’ which is what they used in their reporting earlier this year.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Here’s the <a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nytimes</a> referring to a fetal heartbeat as “the pulsing of what becomes the fetus’s heart,” but at least they managed to upgrade from “embryonic pulsing,” which is what they used in their reporting earlier this year. <a href="https://t.co/eD9NpeN4gz">pic.twitter.com/eD9NpeN4gz</a>
&mdash; Alexandra DeSanctis (@xan_desanctis) <a href="https://twitter.com/xan_desanctis/status/1196455475367292928?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 18, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/alyssa-milano-mocks-heartbeat-bills-calls-them-hank-berrien">The Daily Wire</a> has noted, the Times is not alone in using euphemisms for the unborn baby’s heartbeat; last May, after heartbeat bills had been passed in several states, actress and pro-abortion enthusiast Alyssa Milano admonished the media, “Dear Press, stop calling them “heartbeat” bills and call them ‘fetal pole cardiac activity’ bills.”
Milano was quoting the headline from a <a href="https://drjengunter.com/2016/12/11/dear-press-stop-calling-them-heartbeat-bills-and-call-them-fetal-pole-cardiac-activity-bills/">2016 article</a> by abortion champion Dr. Jen Gunter in which Gunter ranted:
<blockquote>It’s bad enough that these bills exist, but the press needs to do a better job of calling them what they are. If politicians want to play doctor they should be using medical terms. If they refuse to use the correct terminology the press should correct them. People who vote for the a**holes who write these s*** shows know them as “heartbeat bills” not because they follow them as they groan through committee, but because that is how they read or hear about them in the news. The politicians know exactly what they are doing as a “heartbeat” bills is a way of making a 4 mm thickening next to a yolk sac seem like it is almost ready to walk … I expect nothing less than a campaign of misinformation from the misogynistic degenerates who hold office in these places.
… when most people think of a heartbeat they don’t think of a 4.3 mm thickening next to a blob they think of something like this… No one passing these laws gives a shit about the medicine or the science or the statistics … I really believe the a**holes in Ohio who voted for the fetal pole cardiac activity bill truly believe that the more than 21,000 women in Ohio who get abortions each year are just doing so because the greedy doctors who run the abortion spa at the mall have frequent BOGOs on pleasure abortions and if these little women just had a firmer hand from the patriarchy they would see the error of their ways.</blockquote>
<a href="https://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancy-complications/early-fetal-development/">Americanpregnancy.org</a> noted, “Between 5 ½ to 6 ½ weeks, a fetal pole or even a fetal heartbeat may be detected by vaginal ultrasound.” According to <a href="https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/the-first-trimester">Johns Hopkins medicine</a>, in a section titled, “First Trimester Fetal Growth and Development Benchmarks,&#8221; “By the end of four weeks: All major systems and organs begin to form. The embryo looks like a tadpole. The neural tube (which becomes the brain and spinal cord), the digestive system, and the heart and circulatory system begin to form. The beginnings of the eyes and ears are developing. Tiny limb buds appear, which will develop into arms and legs. The heart is beating.”
&nbsp;

Cute baby boy, child after bath with towel on head

New York Times Comes Up With ANOTHER Euphemism For Baby’s Heartbeat

Abortion

The New York Times accused FedEx on Sunday of essentially having lobbied President Donald Trump to sign tax cuts into law with the promise of businesses using the saved money to reinvest in and further grow their companies, and then failing to invest the billions of dollars that it reportedly saved as a result of the tax cuts.
&#8220;In the 2017 fiscal year, FedEx owed more than $1.5 billion in taxes. The next year, it owed nothing. What changed was the Trump administration’s tax cut – for which the company had lobbied hard,&#8221; The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/17/business/how-fedex-cut-its-tax-bill-to-0.html">reported</a> on Sunday. &#8220;The public face of its lobbying effort, which included a tax proposal of its own, was FedEx’s founder and chief executive, Frederick Smith, who repeatedly took to the airwaves to champion the power of tax cuts.&#8221;
&#8220;Four months later, President Trump signed into law the $1.5 trillion tax cut that became his signature legislative achievement. FedEx reaped big savings, bringing its effective tax rate from 34 percent in fiscal year 2017 to less than zero in fiscal year 2018, meaning that, overall, the government technically owed it money. But it did not increase investment in new equipment and other assets in the fiscal year that followed, as Mr. Smith said businesses like his would,&#8221; the Times added. &#8220;Nearly two years after the tax law passed, the windfall to corporations like FedEx is becoming clear. A New York Times analysis of data compiled by Capital IQ shows no statistically meaningful relationship between the size of the tax cut that companies and industries received and the investments they made.&#8221;
Late on Sunday, FedEx CEO Frederick Smith <a href="https://about.van.fedex.com/newsroom/statement-from-frederick-w-smith-chairman-and-ceo-of-fedex-corporation/">responded</a> to The New York Times&#8217; story by calling it factually incorrect, claiming that The New York Times is the company that does not pay federal income taxes, and challenging the publisher of The New York Times to a debate on tax policy.
&#8220;The New York Times published a distorted and factually incorrect story on the front page of the Sunday, November 17 edition concerning FedEx and our billions of dollars of tax payments and billions of dollars of investments in the U.S. economy,&#8221; Smith wrote. &#8220;Pertinent to this outrageous distortion of the truth is the fact that unlike FedEx, the New York Times paid zero federal income tax in 2017 on earnings of $111 million, and only $30 million in 2018 – 18% of their pretax book income.  Also in 2018 the New York Times cut their capital investments nearly in half to $57 million, which equates to a rounding error when compared to the $6 billion of capital that FedEx invested in the U.S. economy during that same year.&#8221;
&#8220;I hereby challenge A.G. Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times and the business section editor to a public debate in Washington, DC with me and the FedEx corporate vice president of tax,&#8221; Smith continued. &#8220;The focus of the debate should be federal tax policy and the relative societal benefits of business investments and the enormous intended benefits to the United States economy, especially lower and middle class wage earners.&#8221;
Smith concluded, &#8220;I look forward to promptly hearing from Mr. Sulzberger and scheduling this open event to bring further public awareness of the facts related to these important issues.&#8221;

New York Times Accuses FedEx Of Not Paying Taxes. FedEx’s Response Is Priceless.

Taxes

The following is satirical.
There seems to be some confusion in the media about the difference between the Right and the Alt-Right. For instance, the Alt-Right is famously anti-Semitic and yet The New York Times, a former newspaper, has associated them with Orthodox Jew Ben Shapiro in such sentences as, “Ben Shapiro is Alt-Right, and if you believe that, we have a yarn about Trump colluding with the Russians you’re really going to love, you sucker.” I guess the New York Times isn’t even pretending anymore.
In any case, as a public service to the Times and other dishonest organs of misinformation strangling on their hatred of ordinary people’s freedom, here is a handy guide on how to distinguish between right-wingers, who believe in the noble concepts of liberty handed down to us by our forefathers, and Alt-Righters, who are sniggering little femboys spewing hatred on YouTube. It’s a subtle distinction but with a little help, even the New York Times might figure it out.
One. Real right-wingers come in all different skin colors and religions and no religion and various sexualities and also include a startling number of women who somehow manage to be extremely intelligent and also smoking hot, which is an amazing side benefit of the whole movement.
Alt-Righters have never been with a woman because they hate everybody who doesn’t look like them, and, I mean, look at them.
Two. Real right-wingers believe in ordered liberty as established over centuries of western history and enshrined in the Constitution.
Alt-Righters don’t even believe the Holocaust happened, so they’re evil melonheads.
Three. Real right-wingers believe in essentially Christian principles, like a fallen humanity made in the image of God and therefore deserving of equality and freedom.
Alt-Righters express their &#8220;Christian principles&#8221; by waving rosaries at people, then doing absolutely nothing they were commanded to do by Jesus, because they found out he was a Jew.
I hope this handy guide will help the media either distinguish between right-wingers and Alt-Right-wingers, or get stuffed.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-shapiro-dismantles-the-alt-right-and-radical-lefts-dangerous-game">WATCH: Shapiro Dismantles The Alt-Right And Radical Left’s ‘Dangerous Game’</a>

A Media Guide For Distinguishing Conservatives From Alt-Right Lunatics [Satire]

Alt-Right

Anti-Semitism

Conservatism

Satire

The New York Times and The Washington Post admitted that mass immigration and changes in demographics were a significant reason that Democrats took complete control of Virginia last week.
Democrats now control the governor&#8217;s seat, both chambers of the state&#8217;s legislature and the lieutenant governor&#8217;s seat for the first time in nearly 30 years.
Following the Democrats&#8217; dominate night in Virginia, The New York Times admitted that years of mass immigration are starting to radically change the electoral map &#8220;from Richmond to Atlanta, Houston, Denver and elsewhere and Democrats are starting to breach Republicans’ firewalls in elections.&#8221;
The New York Times <a href="https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/10/ny-times-tidal-wave-mass-immigration-hands-virginia-democrats/">reported</a>:
<blockquote>Not long ago, this rolling green stretch of Northern Virginia was farmland. Most people who could vote had grown up here. And when they did, they usually chose Republicans.
The fields of Loudoun County are disappearing. In their place is row upon row of cookie-cutter townhouses, clipped lawns and cul-de-sacs — a suburban landscape for as far as the eye can see. Unlike three decades ago, the residents are often from other places, like India and Korea. And when they vote, it is often for Democrats.
&#8230;
Once the heart of the confederacy, Virginia is now the land of Indian grocery stores, Korean churches and Diwali festivals. The state population has boomed — up by 38 percent since 1990, with the biggest growth in densely settled suburban areas like South Riding. One in 10 people eligible to vote in the state were born outside the United States, up from one in 28 in 1990. It is also significantly less white. In 1990, the census tracts that make up Mr. Katkuri’s Senate district were home to about 35,000 people — 91 percent of them white. Today, its population of 225,000 is just 64 percent white.
“It’s a totally different world,” said Charles Poland, 85, a retired history professor whose family has lived in Loudoun County for four generations. His family farm is now dotted with subdivisions filled with four and five-bedroom homes that sell for $750,000. The family legacy is a road named Poland. “If my parents came back today, they wouldn’t recognize the place. The changes came like a tidal wave.”</blockquote>
The Washington Post essentially <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-virginia-republicans-confront-a-fearful-electoral-future/2019/11/09/2bbdc7aa-026b-11ea-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html">reported</a> the same thing following last week&#8217;s election results:
<blockquote>Virginia now stands as a fearful avatar for Republicans of what the nation’s unrelenting demographic and cultural changes mean for the party, as the moderate-to-liberal urban and suburban areas grow and more conservative rural areas lose ground. Similar shifts are starting to hit such states as North Carolina, Arizona, Georgia and Texas, as minority populations increase and white college-educated voters continue to turn away from the Republican brand.</blockquote>
The Wall Street Journal&#8217;s Kimberley Strassel <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-holder-takes-virginia-11573167564">noted</a> that another significant factor that went into the Democrats&#8217; electoral sweep in Virginia was former Democrat Attorney General Eric Holder&#8217;s redistricting program in which he used the legal system to get Virginia&#8217;s congressional districts redrawn in a manner that was favorable for Democrats.
&#8220;While most prominent Democrats spent the months following Donald Trump’s election plotting future runs, Mr. Holder was launching the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, committed to domination of electoral map making through the courts and legislatures,&#8221; Strassel wrote. &#8220;The NDRC spent its first years aggressively litigating legislative maps it didn’t like, to great success. Virginia’s election was the first test of the electoral piece of Mr. Holder’s strategy, and it will now serve as the model by which Democrats attempt to gain redistricting power in 11 other key states next year.&#8221;
&#8220;The NDRC claims its efforts are aimed at simple &#8216;fairness in the electoral system.&#8217; It says it’s working to overturn gerrymanders that &#8216;disenfranchise&#8217; voters,&#8221; Strassel continued. &#8220;Don’t be fooled. Mr. Holder’s group has never engaged in blue states where Democrats routinely draw maps to disadvantage Republicans, such as Maryland, Massachusetts or New Jersey.&#8221;
Strassel concluded: &#8220;Democratic groups threw at least $54 million at Virginia—an unprecedented sum in an election that didn’t feature a single federal office—outspending Republicans by some $12 million. Outside groups accounted for at least $22 million of the Democratic effort, nearly four times what they spent in 2015. Three billionaires—Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer and George Soros—and their organizations spent more than all outside Republican contributors combined.&#8221;

Honduran Migrants

NYT, WaPo: Mass Immigration, Demographic Changes Fueled Democrat Wins In Virginia

Democratic Party

Eric Holder

Virginia

Washington Post

In the days after nine American citizens — three women and six of their children — were brutally massacred by a suspected drug cartel in the Mexican state of Sonora, the mainstream media posted widely-ridiculed pieces focusing on the victims&#8217; alleged ties to &#8220;violence&#8221; and &#8220;religious fundamentalism.&#8221;
Members of the related LeBarón and Langford families were victimized by one of the Mexican drug cartels while traveling to a wedding on Monday. The cartel repeatedly shot at their vehicles and set them on fire, killing nine — including a three-year-old — and injuring three others, including a seven-month-old baby girl.
Notably, the seven-month-old who survived, baby Faith Marie Johnson, was reportedly saved by her mother. Christina Marie Langford Johnson, 29, who was killed in the attack, reportedly sacrificed her own life to shield little Faith from bullets flying into one of the cars. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/moms-selfless-act-saves-young-childs-life-in-mexican-cartel-attack-on-u-s-family">The Daily Wire</a> reported Tuesday:
<blockquote>Kendra Lee Miller, a relative of the victims, writes in an <a href="https://www.facebook.com/kendraleemiller92/posts/10162303510900316">account</a> on Facebook about the discovery of Faith hours after the attack, her mother’s quick-thinking actions apparently having saved the child’s life. Family members “found Christina’s baby Faith with the vehicle around her riddled with bullet holes,” Miller writes. “Somehow she had remained untouched, and alive. She was in her car seat, which looked to have been hurriedly placed on the floor of the vehicle by her mother for protection.”
After apparently moving Faith’s car seat to a safer position, Christina, Miller explains, “jumped out waving her arms to let the attackers know that it was women and children in the vehicles. She gave her life to try and save the rest.”</blockquote>
The victims had U.S. citizenship and belonged to a religious community in Mexico. As noted by The Daily Wire, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not recognize the religious community to which the members belonged as part of the Mormon Church.
The day following the news of the attack, the Los Angeles Times focused on the deceased&#8217;s alleged ties to violence.
&#8220;U.S. victims in Mexico massacre were tied to family with a long history of violence,&#8221; the headline said. However, the headline, according to Townhall senior writer <a href="https://twitter.com/Julio_Rosas11/status/1192150693676822528">Julio Rosas</a>, was later changed to read: &#8220;Massacre of U.S. citizens aims spotlight at Mormon community with deep roots in Mexico.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
U.S. victims in Mexico massacre were tied to family with a long history of violence <a href="https://t.co/tNUdw20wKx">https://t.co/tNUdw20wKx</a>
&mdash; Los Angeles Times (@latimes) <a href="https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1192117695153618945?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Some of the victims shared the last name LeBaron,&#8221; the Times story outlined, adding:
<blockquote>&#8220;The LeBarons are among &#8216;a handful of major groups of fundamentalists,&#8217; said Patrick Mason, a historian of Mormonism at Utah State University. But, he added: &#8216;The LeBaron name in recent decades has been most often linked to violence. Unfortunately, this incident only adds to that association.'&#8221;</blockquote>
&#8220;The family is perhaps best known for a series of killings perpetrated in the 1970s and 1980s, in both Mexico and the United States, by Ervil LeBaron — once called the &#8216;Mormon Manson&#8217; — and a group of his followers,&#8221; the piece continued.
Some also took issue with The New York Times for focusing on the victims&#8217; &#8220;religious fundamentalism.&#8221;
&#8220;The brutal killing of [nine] members of an American family in northern Mexico on Monday highlights the long history of religious fundamentalist settlers in the region. Our religion reporter, Elizabeth Dias, details their history back to the early 20th century,&#8221; the Times posted.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The brutal killing of 9 members of an American family in northern Mexico on Monday highlights the long history of religious fundamentalist settlers in the region. Our religion reporter, Elizabeth Dias, details their history back to the early 20th century. <a href="https://t.co/rfvtzdTN9i">https://t.co/rfvtzdTN9i</a>
&mdash; The New York Times (@nytimes) <a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1191822530727829506?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 5, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The reactions to the pieces blew up online, many accusing the outlets of &#8220;victim blaming.&#8221;
&#8220;Well the NY Times and the LA Times found who is really to blame for a drug cartel brutally murdering and torching 9 people to death, including kids — the victims,&#8221; said FoxNews.com contributor Stephen Miller.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Well the NY Times and the LA Times found who is really to blame for a drug cartel brutally murdering and torching 9 people to death, including kids &#8211; the victims. <a href="https://t.co/cvDgKKPqA7">pic.twitter.com/cvDgKKPqA7</a>
&mdash; Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) <a href="https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1192127369353416704?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Comedian and former Playboy writer Bridget Phetasy bluntly wrote, &#8220;This is disgusting victim blaming [L.A. Times] and you should be ashamed.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
This is disgusting victim blaming <a href="https://twitter.com/latimes?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@latimes</a> and you should be ashamed. <a href="https://t.co/bJWQC5j0sw">https://t.co/bJWQC5j0sw</a>
&mdash; Bridget Phetasy (@BridgetPhetasy) <a href="https://twitter.com/BridgetPhetasy/status/1192136991200006144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Nine Americans, including children, were brutally murdered, and the New York Times doesn&#8217;t call out the evil of the cartels, but labels the family &#8216;fundamentalist settlers?'&#8221; the account for PragerU questioned. &#8220;Shame on you, [New York Times].&#8221; 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Nine Americans, including children, were brutally murdered, and the New York Times doesn&#39;t call out the evil of the cartels, but labels the family &quot;fundamentalist settlers&quot;?
Shame on you, <a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nytimes</a>. <a href="https://t.co/CkFUfVhugo">https://t.co/CkFUfVhugo</a>
&mdash; PragerU (@prageru) <a href="https://twitter.com/prageru/status/1192126655478693888?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Did the cartel write this?&#8221; Rosas blasted the LA Times.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Did the cartel write this? <a href="https://t.co/72RB4jaixH">https://t.co/72RB4jaixH</a>
&mdash; Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) <a href="https://twitter.com/Julio_Rosas11/status/1192125884205064194?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Breitbart News&#8217; Brandon Darby similarly posted, &#8220;Serious question, [L.A. Times]. Did someone in Mexico promise you access or exclusives if you agreed to help smear these victims of cartel violence? Trying to understand why you’d do this.&#8221;
&#8220;Or is it that &#8216;the border is safe&#8217; narrative means so much to your editors politically that you just decided to piss on the bodies of the women and children killed in order to protect that narrative?&#8221; he added. 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Or is it that “the border is safe” narrative means so much to your editors politically that you just decided to piss on the bodies of the women and children killed in order to protect that narrative? <a href="https://twitter.com/latimes?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@latimes</a>
&mdash; Brandon Darby (@brandondarby) <a href="https://twitter.com/brandondarby/status/1192126127797440514?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Is the idea here that the victims had it coming? This is an insane piece,&#8221; Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Is the idea here that the victims had it coming? This is an insane piece. <a href="https://t.co/8xEVTZnVez">https://t.co/8xEVTZnVez</a>
&mdash; Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) <a href="https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1192127080625885184?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Steve Cortes, a CNN political commentator, posted: &#8220;What a disgraceful tweet and article from corporate media [L.A. Times]. The clear message: &#8216;[W]ell, these women and children who were gunned down by cartel monsters, they themselves had some pretty crazy relatives &#8230; or something&#8217; &#8230;&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
What a disgraceful tweet and article from corporate media <a href="https://twitter.com/latimes?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@latimes</a>. The clear message: “well, these women and children who were gunned down by cartel monsters, they themselves had some pretty crazy relatives&#8230;or something”&#8230; <a href="https://t.co/9H6Ddaz721">https://t.co/9H6Ddaz721</a>
&mdash; Steve Cortes (@CortesSteve) <a href="https://twitter.com/CortesSteve/status/1192150296656527360?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;&#8216;The [eight-]month old baby that was shot by a cartel member deserved it&#8217; &#8211; Journos,&#8221; mocked popular political Twitter account Comfortably Smug, adding: &#8220;&#8216;Actually a family getting pulled from their cars, raped, shot and set on fire is good&#8217; – L.A. Times.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&quot;Actually a family getting pulled from their cars, raped, shot and set on fire is good&quot; &#8211; LA Times
&mdash; Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) <a href="https://twitter.com/ComfortablySmug/status/1192123371041050630?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 6, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
President Donald Trump&#8217;s reaction was not the same at the media&#8217;s. Taking to his Twitter account on Tuesday morning, Trump declared &#8220;war&#8221; on drug cartels as he recalled what was known at the time of the brutal assault on the &#8220;wonderful&#8221; Utah &#8220;family and friends.&#8221;
“A wonderful family and friends from Utah got caught between two vicious drug cartels, who were shooting at each other, with the result being many great American people killed, including young children, and some missing,” the president posted.
“If Mexico needs or requests help in cleaning out these monsters, the United States stands ready, willing [and] able to get involved and do the job quickly and effectively,” Trump continued. “The great new President of Mexico has made this a big issue, but the cartels have become so large and powerful that you sometimes need an army to defeat an army!”
“This is the time for Mexico, with the help of the United States, to wage WAR on the drug cartels and wipe them off the face of the earth,” the president concluded. “We merely await a call from your great new president!”
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/moms-selfless-act-saves-young-childs-life-in-mexican-cartel-attack-on-u-s-family">Mom’s Selfless Act Saves Young Child’s Life In Mexican Cartel Attack On U.S. Family</a>

Members of the Lebaron family look at the burned car where part of the nine murdered members of the family were killed and burned during an ambush in Bavispe, Sonora mountains, Mexico

‘Victim Blaming’: L.A. Times Ridicules Family Murdered By Mexican Cartel, Gets Ripped Online

Los Angeles Times

Mexico

Religion

Violence

As revealed in another selectively released testimony this week, a key witness in the House Democrats&#8217; impeachment inquiry offered a &#8220;substantial&#8221; update to his previous testimony on President Trump&#8217;s alleged &#8220;quid pro quo&#8221; with Ukraine involving military aide and a corruption investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.
U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland told congressional investigators that testimony from other witnesses — William Taylor Jr., the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, and Timothy Morrison, the senior director for Europe and Russia at the National Security Council — &#8220;refreshed my recollection&#8221; about whether he believed Trump was attempting to pressure Ukraine to address corruption by withholding military aide.
Sondland&#8217;s expanded testimony &#8220;offered several major new details beyond the account he gave the inquiry in a 10-hour interview last month,&#8221; <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.html">The New York Times</a>  reported Tuesday. &#8220;In his new testimony, Mr. Sondland said he believed that withholding the aid — a package of $391 million in security assistance that had been approved by Congress — was &#8216;ill-advised,&#8217; although he did not know &#8216;when, why or by whom the aid was suspended.&#8217; But he said he came to believe that the aid was tied to the investigations.&#8221;
&#8220;I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anticorruption statement,&#8221; said Sondland, according to four new pages of testimony released by the Democrat-controlled investigative committee Tuesday. He reportedly said that he had begun to &#8220;presume&#8221; that by early September, the Times notes.
Sondland said that in his discussion with Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to the Ukrainian president, on Sept. 1 while Vice President Mike Pence was meeting with President Volodymyr Zelensky, he told Yermak that the U.S. military aid &#8220;would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks.&#8221;
&#8220;I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,&#8221; said Sondland in the newly expanded testimony.
In a previously released series of texts between Sondland and Taylor, Sondland, an Oregon hotelier who donated to Trump&#8217;s 2016 campaign, assured Taylor that there was no quid pro quo imposed by Trump for the military aide.
During his famous July 25 call with Zelensky, President Trump asked for a &#8220;favor&#8221;: that he look into &#8220;this whole situation with Ukraine&#8221; in 2016, including the role played by Ukrainian-based cybersecurity company Crowdstrike, which the Democratic National Committee used to review the hacking of its emails.
&#8220;I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it,&#8221; Trump told Zelensky. &#8220;I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.&#8221;
Trump also asked Zelensky to &#8220;look into&#8221; the allegations against the Bidens. &#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;
Though Trump did not offer a clear quid pro quo in the conversation, the request, the Democrats maintain, is a potentially impeachable offense, particularly if they can prove that Trump withheld U.S. military aide in an attempt to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political opponent. Trump contends that he offered no quid pro quo for the investigation into the Bidens, while some of his defenders argue that even if he had, that would not be an impeachable action.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-hunter-bidens-ukraine-gas-firm-urged-obama-admin-to-end-corruption-allegations-report-says">Hunter Biden’s Ukraine Gas Firm Urged Obama Admin To End Corruption Allegations, Report Says</a>

NYT: Pro-Trump Diplomat Makes ‘Substantial’ Update To His Impeachment Testimony On Quid Pro Quo

Joe Biden

Attorneys for the whistleblower whose complaint about President Trump&#8217;s July 25 phone call with Ukraine&#8217;s president sparked the Democrats&#8217; impeachment inquiry issued a statement Thursday threatening legal action against journalists who publish &#8220;the name of any person who may be suspected to be the whistleblower.&#8221;
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/politics/who-is-whistleblower.html">The New York Times</a> was first to provide some details about the whistleblower behind the complaint that started the impeachment inquiry, reporting in late-September that the whistleblower is allegedly a CIA agent who was &#8220;detailed to work at the [Trump] White House at one point.&#8221; The Times noted that the whistleblower&#8217;s attorneys confirmed their client&#8217;s position with the CIA. In the following weeks, speculation continued to swirl and pressure mounted from Republicans, including Trump, for the identity of the whistleblower to be revealed.
This week, multiple outlets revealed the name that, as <a href="https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/10/30/whistleblower_exposed_close_to_biden_brennan_dnc_oppo_researcher_120996.html">RealClearInvestigations&#8217;</a> Paul Sperry put it, is reportedly &#8220;an open secret inside the Beltway.&#8221; In response, the whistleblower&#8217;s attorneys, Andrew P. Bakaj and Mark S. Zaid, issued a release Thursday addressing &#8220;speculation&#8221; on the whistleblower&#8217;s identity.
&#8220;Our client is legally entitled to anonymity,&#8221; the statement reads. &#8220;Disclosure of the name of any person who may be suspected to be the whistleblower places that individual and their family in great physical danger. Any physical harm the individual and/or their family suffers as a result of disclosure means that the individuals and publications reporting such names will be personally liable for that harm. Such behavior is the pinnacle of irresponsibility and is intentionally reckless.&#8221;
Below is the full text of the release (formatting adjusted):
<blockquote>In correspondence dated October 22, 2019, the Counsel of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency made it clear that &#8220;Whistleblowers play an essential public service on coming forward by reporting their reasonable belief of waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct, and that whistleblowers &#8220;should never suffer reprisal or even the threat of reprisal for doing so.&#8221; Significantly, the letter quotes Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), Chairman and co-founder of the U.S. Senate&#8217;s Whistleblower Caucus, who noted recently regarding this matter that whistleblowers &#8216;ought to be heard out and protected&#8217; and &#8216;we should always work to respect whistleblowers&#8217; request for confidentiality. Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire — himself an appointee of President Trump — stated in his public testimony on September 26, 2019, that the whistleblower &#8216;acted in good faith and followed the law every step of the way.&#8217;
Members of the media have a similar role in protecting those who lawfully expose government wrongdoing.
Accordingly, we neither confirm nor deny the identity of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower. Our client is legally entitled to anonymity. Disclosure of the name of any person who may be suspected to be the whistleblower places that individual and their family in great physical danger. Any physical harm the individual and/or their family suffers as a result of disclosure means that the individuals and publications reporting such names will be personally liable for that harm. Such behavior is the pinnacle of irresponsibility and is intentionally reckless.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Attorneys for Ukraine call whistleblower new statement on speculation about the intelligence community employee’s identity. <a href="https://t.co/UdsmSQ226P">pic.twitter.com/UdsmSQ226P</a>
— Kelly O&#8217;Donnell (@KellyO) <a href="https://twitter.com/KellyO/status/1190081824514555904?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 1, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In his report Wednesday revealing the &#8220;one name&#8221; that Beltway sources say is the whistleblower, Sperry explained the outlet&#8217;s rationale for revealing it. &#8220;RealClearInvestigations is disclosing the name because of the public’s interest in learning details of an effort to remove a sitting president from office,&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;Further, the official&#8217;s status as a &#8216;whistleblower&#8217; is complicated by his being a hearsay reporter of accusations against the president, one who has &#8216;some indicia of an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate&#8217; — as the Intelligence Community Inspector General <a href="https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20190826_-_icig_letter_to_acting_dni_unclass.pdf">phrased it</a> circumspectly in originally fielding his complaint.&#8221;
Citing federal documents, Sperry reported that the whistleblower is allegedly a 33-year-old &#8220;registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia &#8216;collusion&#8217; investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.&#8221; The whistleblower reportedly &#8220;left his National Security Council posting in the White House’s West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns about negative leaks to the media&#8221; and &#8220;has since returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.&#8221;
<div class="body-photo-left">
&#8220;He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump,&#8221; a former NSC official told RealClearInvestigations.
When <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/politics/who-is-whistleblower.html">The New York Times</a> first revealed that the whistleblower was a CIA agent who was previously detailed to the Trump White House, and that the whistleblower&#8217;s attorneys confirmed their clients&#8217; CIA status, the Times&#8217; Executive Editor Dean Baquet defended the decision to print the information because they wanted readers &#8220;to make their own judgments about whether or not he is credible.&#8221;
&#8220;We decided to publish limited information about the whistle-blower — including the fact that he works for a nonpolitical agency and that his complaint is based on an intimate knowledge and understanding of the White House — because we wanted to provide information to readers that allows them to make their own judgments about whether or not he is credible,&#8221; said Baquet. &#8220;We also understand that the White House already knew he was a C.I.A. officer.&#8221;
</div>

President Trump

Alleged Identity Of Whistleblower Leaked; Whistleblower&#8217;s Lawyers Release Statement Threatening Journalists

The very first political video I ever made was entitled “Shut Up.” That’s ten years ago, though it seems like more. The vid is still up on YouTube.
“The left here has been making the ‘shut up’ argument at least since the seventies, when it became clear that all their other arguments had failed,” says my younger and incredibly handsome self. “Since it was the only argument remaining to them, they had to invent different ways to say it. If you pointed out that their weakness allowed the murderous tyranny of Communism to expand, for instance, well, you were a McCarthyite. Shut up. If you proved their leniency toward criminals turned our cities into cesspools, you were a fascist. Shut up. When you pointed out that their welfare policies destroyed black families and created a social disaster of vast proportions, you were a racist, a sexist, uncivil, worse than Hitler, all just different ways of saying: shut up.”
It is sad to see how relentlessly the left has adhered to this approach. With the collapse of their utopia, the Soviet Union, with socialism a drag on life everywhere (yes, including Scandinavia), with leftist Europe sinking under the weight of unrestrained immigration and lack of assimilation and with the presidency of light worker savior Barack Obama an economic and foreign policy failure, leftists, rather than change their minds and their policies, have instead committed to creating a Big Silence meant to hide the truth from all of us, perhaps even from themselves.
This may have once seemed possible given the left’s near monopoly over the means of communication in this country. Hollywood, the news media, the academy — all are nearly wholly populated by leftists. But as the internet and social media began to eat holes in this firewall of disinformation, the left began to fear the truth might reach the people. It was then that their commitment to free speech waned to nothing.
“Free Speech is Killing Us,” headlines a recent story in the leftist New York Times by leftist New Yorker writer Andrew Marantz.
“In the early years of this decade, back when people associated social media with Barack Obama or the Arab Spring, Twitter executives referred to their company as ‘the free-speech wing of the free-speech party.’ Sticks and stones and assault rifles could hurt us, but the internet was surely only a force for progress. No one believes that anymore,” Marantz writes.
Translating that from Leftist into Truth, it means: “Free speech was okay when people said things we like, but not now that people are saying other things.” No one seems to have explained to Marantz that that’s the way freedom feels to everyone: great for you, horrific for anyone you disagree with.
Fearful of Donald Trump’s talent for communicating with Americans without the hate-filled filter of the press, the Left and their media have now launched wars on Facebook and Twitter, trying to cut off the flow of information they dislike. Democratic congressmen grilled Mark Zuckerberg on his failure to censor politicians while, suspiciously in concert, 22 separate news outlets launched attacks on Zuck and his site. Twitter, which was exposed by Project Veritas for shadow banning conservative speech, has announced it will no longer allow political or issue ads. Whose voice do you think they’re trying to silence?
Appallingly, journalists themselves have signed on to this assault on the most basic of American values. In an article in the latest City Journal entitled “Journalists Against Free Speech,” John Tierney describes how journalists from the Atlantic, the Times, Huffpo and other venues have endorsed the version of leftist shut-uppery known as Cancel Culture — though they are shocked when anyone tries to use it on them.
And, according to a recent survey by Campaign for Free Speech, these tactics may be working. Fifty-one percent of Americans want to rewrite the First Amendment to exclude “hate speech.”
Of course, you only have to think logically for half a minute to start asking yourself questions. 1) Who decides the definition of hate speech? 2) Why do they want to? 3) What are they trying to hide?
If you answered: 1) Leftists, 2) Because they want power and 3) The fact that leftism leads to slavery&#8230;
&#8230;shut up.

Protesters

KLAVAN: The Big Silence: The Left Wages War On Free Speech

Facebook

First Amendment

Free Speech

Twitter

When I first saw the <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1189601417469841409?s=20">image</a> tweeted by President Trump of a dog being awarded the Medal of Honor, like any reasonable person I immediately assumed that it was completely real and accurate. Granted, I’d heard dark tales of a black magic known as “photoshop,” but I couldn’t believe the President of the United States would ever engage in such sorcery. I was wrong.
As has since been exposed by the tireless work of our courageous news media, the picture was a fraud. A fake. A forgery. It has been <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/us/politics/trump-dog.html">altered</a>, the New York Times confirmed in an article with two authors. After its own extensive investigation, the Washington Post agreed that the photo was &#8220;<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2019/10/30/trump-tweeted-photo-medal-honor-recipient-who-was-edited-out-replaced-by-dog/">edited.</a>&#8221; CNN&#8217;s Jim Acosta ran down his own leads and <a href="https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/1189658623431102465">discovered</a> that &#8220;the dog is not at the White House.&#8221; Another fearless journalist immediately <a href="https://twitter.com/W7VOA/status/1189603619391320065">called</a> the White House and found that there had been no &#8220;canine events.&#8221; After a whole day spent on this important subject, it became clear that the picture was an elaborate ruse. Most disturbing of all: the Daily Wire was behind it.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
AMERICAN HERO! <a href="https://t.co/XCCa2sGfsZ">pic.twitter.com/XCCa2sGfsZ</a>
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1189601417469841409?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 30, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As it turns out, our very own social media team created this image as a “joke.” But this is no joking matter. We have learned time and again throughout Trump&#8217;s presidency that memes are nothing to laugh about. So, I want to say this loudly and unequivocally: I do not approve of such a dastardly misuse of photoshop. If I had been consulted ahead of time, I would have cautioned against going down this fateful path. I would have warned our social media team that humorously editing a photo of a Medal of Honor ceremony will send the entire nation — or at least the media, at any rate — into a spiral of confusion and despair. Anarchy will follow. Cannibalism won’t be far behind. The very survival of human civilization is at stake. Stop, dear God stop, I would have shouted with tears in my eyes. This is not who we are. Put the photoshop down, damn you! Turn back now before it&#8217;s too late! You don&#8217;t have to do this!
But I never had the chance. The decision was made and we all must live with the consequences. A disturbing question now inevitably arises: can we even trust the things we see on the internet? If the dog photo was fake, what else is fake? I saw a picture on Facebook last week of a velociraptor riding a shark while shooting a machine gun. I spent days trying to figure out which aquarium has this interesting exhibit, but now I&#8217;m starting to wonder if it was just propaganda. Reality itself suddenly seems unstable.
In closing, I can only express my deep gratitude to the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and all of the other news outlets that exposed this wicked hoax. And though the culprits here at the Daily Wire appear to be entirely lacking in remorse, I will apologize on their behalf. I pledge that, from now on, so help me God, photoshops and memes will be treated with the respect and seriousness they deserve.

Adobe Photoshop Downloadable software logo seen displayed on

WALSH: The Daily Wire Created A Doctored Photo Of A Dog Receiving The Medal Of Honor. I Apologize For This Evil Hoax.

The Daily Wire

On Tuesday’s episode of “The Andrew Klavan Show,” Klavan talks about Ross Douthat’s column in the New York Times, in which he presents three arguments for why the “collapse of American Christianity” may be “overstated.” Video and partial transcript below: 
They’re trying to convince us Christianity [and] spirituality [are passing away]. They are working overtime trying to convince us that it&#8217;s passing away. But also in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/opinion/american-christianity.html">The New York Times</a>, the one guy over there that I really respect, Ross Douthat, has a column where he says [paraphrasing] “You know, not so fast.”
He sounds a little bit like me here saying, [paraphrasing] “I know that fewer people are going to church, but maybe it doesn&#8217;t mean what we think it means.” 
One of the things he says in this argument — it&#8217;s actually a really good argument — he talked about the fact that maybe the Christianity that&#8217;s fading away, that the polls show fading away, is the lukewarm Christianity, but an intense belief is still remaining strong. 
He also talks about the fact that young people are actually [going to church more] — because young people stop going to church when they go to college, they stopped going to church, and then later, when they start to have children, when they start to deal with reality, when they start to deal with mortality, they go back to church. But young people are actually going to church a little bit more than young people in the past, which bodes fair for the fact that as they grow older, and more serious, more knowledgeable, and more experienced, they may go back to church in greater numbers. 
&nbsp;
<iframe title="Pelosi Blinks | The Andrew Klavan Show Ep. 791" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZTSJ8zTBwWE?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
He also points out that really the crisis in Christianity is a crisis in Catholicism, and there&#8217;s no question why they&#8217;re having that crisis. It&#8217;s not just the scandal, but it&#8217;s also the liberalization of Catholicism. 
So let me end with this: Kanye West. Obviously, you&#8217;ve all heard that he&#8217;s dropped this new album, “Jesus is King.” I&#8217;m in no position to judge Kanye West’s music, it&#8217;s not my kind of music…
In some ways, Kanye West may not be the spokesman we want to lean on, but he may be a good representation of American culture because he&#8217;s a crazy narcissist. The American culture is a crazy narcissistic culture, and suddenly with his conversion to Christianity — and again, I&#8217;m not judging his lyrics or anything — he&#8217;s saying a lot of things that make him sound very much like a religious conservative. 
<blockquote>WEST: The culture has you focused so much on [expletive] somebody&#8217;s [expletive] and pulling up in a foreign [car] and rapping about things that could get you locked up, and then saying you about prison reform, like bro? We brainwashed our here, bro. Come on, man, this is a free man talking. Democrats had us voting Democrat for food stamps for years, bro. What is you talking about? Guns in the 80s, taking fathers out the home, plan B, lowering our votes, making us abort our children. God should not kill. </blockquote>
Maybe not the most articulate argument, but those things go together. He is talking about a different version of human beings than the version that the Left has been selling. When he says this is a free man talking, he&#8217;s right. You&#8217;re not a free man talking until you understand the reasons why you should be free, which have to do with what a human being is, and those are the arguments we have to start making because again, we&#8217;re going to win political victories over time. 
We&#8217;re going to lose political victories, but overtime, we&#8217;re going to lose the argument if we&#8217;re not making the argument that we should be making — the real argument about what a human being is.
<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>

Woman praying with Bible

KLAVAN: NYT Columnist Calls ‘Collapse’ Of American Christianity ‘Overstated.’ He’s Got A Point.

Catholicism

Christianity

Kanye West

The following is satirical.
Media pundits seem to be discovering the hidden charms of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Ever since President Donald Trump arranged for the erasure of the ISIS leader, press anti-Trumpers seem to be asking themselves: If Trump ordered him killed, can he really have been so bad?
The Washington Post, where Democracy dies strangling on hatred after taking a heavy dose of mindless venom, called the terrorist leader an “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/58280">austere religious scholar</a>,” and blamed the United States invasion of Iraq for distracting this “academic” from his intention to live a “quiet life as a professor of Islamic law.”
Never Trumper Max Boot, meanwhile, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/28/al-baghdadis-death-could-have-been-trumps-finest-hour-he-messed-it-up-anyway/">objected</a> to President Trump calling the austere scholar a coward saying, after all, the terrorist had been brave enough to blow himself and three children to smithereens.
I’ve prayed God would allow me to wake up in a world where I’m making all that up, but so far no dice. I haven’t even gotten to the satire part yet.
We can now look forward to articles from, say, The New York Times, a former newspaper, praising al-Baghdadi for his wistful appreciation of female beauty, and maybe Chuck Todd will chime in on al-Baghdadi’s artistic camera work as he made videos of innocent people being beheaded in order to recruit more austere scholars to his cause of slaughtering everybody in sight.
There was, of course, also al-Baghdadi’s fabulous fashion sense which led MSNBC to offer him a hosting spot on their new show &#8220;Muslim Eye for the Christian Guy,&#8221; which has now unfortunately been canceled due to Trump’s brutal indifference to fostering really good TV.
Meanwhile, McCarthyite Congressman Adam Schiff is whining because Trump didn’t inform him of the operation ahead of time. Trump said he worried Schiff would leak the mission to the press. But Schiff said that was absurd, according to anonymous sources on the Intelligence Committee who spoke with the Times.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/58280">Washington Post Changes Headline About Terrorist Leader’s Death, Calling Him An ‘Austere Religious Scholar’</a>

Menu