Sometime between the years of 2018 and 2023, Left-leaning news outlet <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/the-guardian" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Guardian</a> went from writing their own exposes about child sex trafficking to denigrating a movie that does the same by calling it “QAnon-adjacent.”
Reviewer Charles Bramesco makes no effort to hide his abhorrence for the massively popular Angel Studios film “Sound of Freedom,” which recounts the true story of Tim Ballard, a federal agent who quit his job to save a young girl from sex slavery in South America. The newly released movie shocked Hollywood industry insiders with its impressive box office numbers despite a lack of major promotion.
“Sound of Freedom” was in the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/sound-of-freedom-takes-top-spot-at-box-office-on-fourth-of-july" target="_blank" rel="noopener">number one spot</a> at the U.S. box office on July 4, beating out Disney’s highly-anticipated “Indiana Jones and The Dial of Destiny” and other huge releases during the 4th of July holiday.
Bramesco won’t even admit that success was valid. The reviewer <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jul/06/sound-of-freedom-movie-qanon-jim-caviezel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> that “Sound of Freedom” only outperformed “Indiana Jones” for a “fleeting moment this past Fourth of July, while the intended audience of Indy’s latest outing was presumably spending time with their families and friends at barbecues or in other social situations.”
He further called the undeniably impressive box office ticket sales reports “selective” and as having “almost willfully misleading framing” to create a “David-and-Goliath narrative.”
Box office earnings aside, it’s hard to see how a formerly bipartisan issue such as working to end the horror of human trafficking could possibly be seen as primarily Right-wing, or as controversial in the slightest.
Conservative commentator Jack Posobiec pointed out how The Guardian itself did an in-depth expose on child trafficking in 2018. The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/dec/23/child-sex-trafficking-rife-colombia-cartagena" target="_blank" rel="noopener">piece</a>, titled “Child sex trafficking rife in Colombia&#8217;s picturesque Cartagena,” featured interviews with victims of the practice, including teenage girls who were kidnapped, raped, and otherwise abused.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The Guardian ran a huge exposé on child sex trafficking in Columbia in 2018
Now they are saying it&#39;s a conspiracy theory to watch a movie about child sex trafficking set in Columbia <a href="https://t.co/sQHVUpaKlM">pic.twitter.com/sQHVUpaKlM</a>
&mdash; Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) <a href="https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1677297575227973632?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 7, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Writer Mathew Charles described trafficking as the country’s “shameful problem” that had become “out of control” in the city. The expose also highlighted the thriving sex tourism industry where younger victims fetched the highest prices. One interviewee said underage workers “earn a lot more.”
“Clients pay more for them, but sometimes they can be scared. Often, they’re given drugs first or lots of alcohol to get them drunk. I think it makes it easier,” the 24-year-old sex worker explained.
This coverage stands in stark contrast to the “Sound of Freedom” review, which paints the panic over child sex trafficking as some kind of Right-wing conspiracy theory. Bramesco focuses much of his vitriol at the film’s lead actor Jim Caviezel.
“Even if he did not literally have the face of Christ, Ballard would still exude an angelic aura as he gently hoists dirty-faced moppets out of peril with the gravely uttered catchphrase: ‘God’s children are not for sale,’” the Guardian reviewer writes of Caviezel’s performance, referencing his former role as Jesus in Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ.”
Bromesco admits that the movie is solely about trafficking and doesn’t delve into any fringe conspiracy theories. But the reviewer insists that “Sound of Freedom” is a Trojan horse in that respect, implying that viewers are being tricked into believing more elaborate conspiracies just by accepting the film at face value.
“The trafficking follows no motivation more elaborate than the servicing of rich predators, eliding all talk of body-part black markets and the precious organic biochemical of adrenochrome harvested as a Satanic key to eternal life,” he writes. “The first rule of QAnon: you don’t talk about QAnon where the normals can hear you.”
The Guardian reviewer next accuses “Sound of Freedom” of “prend[ing] to be a real movie” just as he accuses crisis pregnancy centers, which offer mothers-to-be resources and prenatal care, of “masquerading” as “bona fide health clinic(s).”
Bromesco concludes by mocking Angel Studios for providing a QR code that would allow viewers to purchase tickets for other prospective attendees. He sees the whole thing as a shameless money grab rather than as a way for creators to find a creative way to spread the message.
The Guardian review of “Sound of Freedom” is not common. Moviegoers are mostly stunned and moved by the effort by Mexican filmmaker Alejandro Monteverde.
Reviewer Aaron Gleason at The Federalist <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/07/sex-trafficking-drama-sound-of-freedom-is-a-heartbreaking-and-hopeful-call-to-action/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">called the film</a> “a heartbreaking and hopeful call to action.” Unlike Bromesco, he believed the central aim of “Sound of Freedom” creators was to inspire viewers to take action against these atrocities. Gleason notes how Caviezel gives a stunning performance, but ultimately it’s the young actors who drive the message home.
“It’s about the children — lost, invisible children who suffer in the depths of hell every single day. While the rich and powerful try to indoctrinate us with critical race theory and other ideological moralisms, true victims suffer in literal cages and chains,” he writes.
Even more mainstream reviewers found the movie effective. A Variety <a href="https://variety.com/2023/film/reviews/sound-of-freedom-review-jim-caviezel-1235660035/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reviewer</a> said Caviezel “anchors” this “solidly made and disquieting thriller.” They also wrote that while it’s “been sold as a ‘conservative’ thriller,” you “don&#8217;t need that mindset to find it compelling.”
“You needn’t hold extreme beliefs to experience ‘Sound of Freedom’ as a compelling movie that shines an authentic light on one of the crucial criminal horrors of our time, one that Hollywood has mostly shied away from,” Variety writer Owen Gleiberman concluded after stating he does not believe in Pizzagate.
The movie currently has a 79% rating on movie review site Rotten Tomatoes and a 100% audience score.
Interestingly, The Guardian released their own short film about child trafficking in June. “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/video/2023/jun/13/sex-trafficking-the-fight-to-recover-indias-stolen-children" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The hunt for India’s stolen children</a>” tells the shocking story of teens and younger children who go missing in the Sundarbans, a mangrove forest located in India’s Bay of Bengal.
The 15-minute video has many of the same elements as “Sound of Freedom.” There are survivors who recount some of the horrors they experienced after being drugged, kidnapped, and gang raped. At one point, a non-profit coordinator admits that at least one victim was kidnapped specifically for traffickers to sell their blood.
The Guardian’s video also features police staging a rescue of two sisters who were trafficked to another region and sold as sex slaves. Viewers could argue that their story was a shorter version of Agent Ballard’s quest to reunite trafficked siblings.
The major difference between “Sound of Freedom” and “India’s stolen children” is the framing. The Guardian’s expose blames trafficking on poverty in the region that’s exacerbated by climate change, which has caused the already impoverished region to become poorer and less stable.
“The Sundarbans is the world’s largest mangrove forest and one of the most climate vulnerable locations on the planet,” the video description says. “Climate change has taken an enormous toll on the rainforest in recent years, repeatedly uprooting families and decimating the incomes of residents who have traditionally relied heavily on agriculture and fishing for their livelihoods.”
“Now, repeated natural disasters and environmental changes to the region have created a highly vulnerable population increasingly at risk of participating in or becoming victims of child trafficking,” it reads.
Ending child trafficking is still a topic leftists will champion. But only when it fits the rest of their narrative.
The title of this article was changed for clarity. Previous title was &#8220;‘Sound Of Freedom’ Mocked As ‘QAnon Adjacent’ Despite Sex Trafficking Being Non-Partisan.&#8221;

GettyImages-652329212-e1680206549796

Leftists Mock Anti-Sex Trafficking Film As ‘QAnon Adjacent’

Child Sex Abuse

Hollywood

Jim Caviezel

Media

Movies

Readers Pass

Sex Trafficking

The Guardian

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/el-salvador">El Salvador</a>&#8216;s crackdown on violent gangs, which has reduced the country&#8217;s murder rate by over half is problematic actually, according to The Guardian.
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/02/the-guardian-view-on-el-salvadors-crackdown-a-short-term-high-cost-fix">The Guardian</a> published an editorial on Sunday criticizing El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele for his unsparing crackdown on violent organized crime, saying his methods do not address the root cause of the crime, among other issues, Townhall <a href="https://townhall.com/tipsheet/juliorosas/2023/07/06/the-guardian-takes-issue-with-el-salvador-reducing-murders-by-90-percent-n2625373" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted</a>.
The Guardian acknowledged that the crackdown has made the country safer, made Bukele more popular, and even made other Latin countries want to copy El Salvador and rid their streets of crime the same way.
&#8220;Even long-term critics acknowledge that extortion appears to have fallen sharply and that many in communities which lived in terror are enjoying the freedom to live their lives unmenaced. Yet others, many of them innocent of any crime, have paid a high price for a campaign that has trampled over basic rights: at least 153 people have died,&#8221; the editorial said.
The Guardian questioned Bukele&#8217;s power as well as the crackdown.
&#8220;Some may consider that a price worth paying. But even focusing purely on results, the story is more complicated than it appears,&#8221; The Guardian said, saying the murder rate has been falling since 2015.
El Salvador&#8217;s murder rate <a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2023-01-03/el-salvador-murders-plummet-by-over-half-in-2022-amid-gang-crackdown" target="_blank" rel="noopener">plummeted</a> 56.8% in 2022, with authorities counting 496 homicides last year, down from 1,147 in 2021.
The editorial also said the crackdown does not address the underlying causes of organized crime.
&#8220;[Critics] also say the fall in crime is unsustainable – with good reason,&#8221; the editorial continued. &#8220;Previous hardline drives in the region have ended badly, followed by surges in offending. They do nothing to tackle underlying causes such as poverty and discrimination. They breed resentment and enable the recruitment and hardening of those not entrenched in gangs. Many of the criminal organisations that now terrorise parts of Latin America were born in prisons.&#8221;
The Guardian said one critic said the &#8220;real success story is not of the defeat of gangs, but the perpetuation of Mr Bukele’s power.&#8221;
&#8220;This is a man who dubbed himself &#8216;the coolest dictator in the world&#8217; in response to criticism,&#8221; The Guardian said.
&#8220;It is assumed that the popularity of his crackdown will sweep him back into power next year, even though multiple experts say that would violate the country’s constitution. What worries opponents, scholars, lawyers and civil society most is what he may do after that, with renewed authority,&#8221; the editorial said.
&#8220;&#8216;Bukelismo&#8217; should not be admired, or emulated,&#8221; The Guardian concluded.
Last month, Bukele encouraged journalists to speak to El Salvadorans on the street about the crackdown.
&#8220;Given that we have over 300 international media outlets in the country today, I want to ask you to go speak with people on the street, ask anyone you meet at random,&#8221; Bukele said in a video message to journalists posted to Twitter.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Mensaje a los periodistas / Message to journalists <a href="https://t.co/CigeHXXTKW">pic.twitter.com/CigeHXXTKW</a>
&mdash; Nayib Bukele (@nayibbukele) <a href="https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1673115754093506560?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 25, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Here, in El Salvador, you are free to go anywhere you want. It&#8217;s totally safe,&#8221; Bukele said. &#8220;Nothing will happen to you. Nobody will stop you.&#8221;
El Salvador’s crackdown on violent criminals began last year when the government declared a state of emergency as the country battled a spike in murders.
The crackdown <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/el-salvadors-crime-crackdown-could-push-gangs-north-toward-u-s-expert-warns" target="_blank" rel="noopener">has seen</a> thousands of suspected gang members locked up in the country’s new maximum security prison in central El Salvador, which can hold up to 40,000 inmates. Striking video footage showed lines of shirtless, heavily-tattooed prisoners with shaved heads running bent over and handcuffed as they were moved to the new prison facility.
“They are never going to return to the communities, the neighborhoods, the barrios, the cities of our beloved El Salvador,” <a href="https://apnews.com/article/el-salvador-gang-crackdown-prison-state-of-emergency-d95e1fcd5b806c38077ffb060c8c2f48" target="_blank" rel="noopener">declared</a> El Salvador’s justice minister Gustavo Villatoro at the time.

El Salvador Continues With Controversial Anti-Gang Plan

The Guardian Says El Salvador Reducing Murders By Over Half Is Problematic, Actually

Crime

El Salvador

gangs

Mainstream Media

MS-13 Gang

Murder

Readers of the British newspaper, The Guardian, are accusing the outlet of deactivating <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/dec/15/tell-us-who-is-your-2021-person-of-the-year">an online poll</a> that asked readers to vote on “Person of the Year” after it became apparent that J.K. Rowling would handily win.
“Tell us: who is your 2021 person of the year?” ran the headline, posted on Dec. 15, with the subtitle, “Time Magazine chose billionaire Tesla boss Elon Musk – but who would be your choice?” A short time later, when Rowling was far and away in the lead, the voting form disappeared, as did the results. A message in small print stated, “This form has been deactivated and is closed to any further submissions.”
Rowling has been at the center of numerous cancel culture storms this year for her refusal to deny the reality of biological sex. Earlier this month she stirred up controversy by mocking Scotland’s law enforcement policy that allows accused rapists to self-identify as female. “War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. The Penised Individual Who Raped You Is a Woman,” she <a href="https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1470092815506063365?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1470092815506063365%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2Fthe-penised-individual-who-raped-you-is-a-woman-j-k-rowling-slams-scotland-police-for-move-to-record-male-rapists-as-women-based-on-self-identity">tweeted</a> in reference to an article titled, “Absurdity’ of police logging rapists as women.”
As The Daily Wire previously reported, trans activists have retaliated against her refusal to capitulate to their agenda by threatening to send her <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/jk-rowling-blasts-trans-activists-after-death-threat-this-movement-poses-no-risk-to-women-whatsoever">pipe bombs</a> and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/j-k-rowling-speaks-out-after-doxxing-so-many-death-threats-i-could-paper-the-house">publishing</a> her home address on social media. Showing the flair for dark humor that runs through her novels, the world&#8217;s richest author wryly joked that she&#8217;s received &#8220;so many death threats [she] could paper the house.&#8221;
The Guardian, which is generally known for being left-of-center, has so far provided no explanation for why it took its poll offline with Rowling firmly in the lead. But that didn’t stop the public from taking to social media to share their suspicions.
“JK Rowling was voted Guardian&#8217;s person of the year. Rather than acknowledge this, Guardian killed the competition. What utter cowardice, Guardian,” said one <a href="https://twitter.com/cubedreamer/status/1475872676077993985?s=20">tweet</a> that received nearly 3000 “likes.” Another, which more than 7000 people approved, read, “BREAKING: Guardian deactivated the poll on ‘Person of the Year 2021’ because JK Rowling was in the lead. Pathetic!”
One person even photoshopped a <a href="https://twitter.com/nikkicraft/status/1476068145571975169?s=20">fake Guardian article</a> that satirically reported:
<blockquote>The Guardian has had to announce that cis-woman writer and notorious transphobe J.K. Rowling will be the 2021 Person of the Year. Rowling was awarded the honor after 112 recounts of the votes and will have the award reluctantly sent to her via second class post after a brief, secret ‘ceremony’ at the Guardian’s well-appointed and upmarket offices in King’s Place in London, which in no way betrays the paper’s working class roots.</blockquote>
It seems the Guardian’s politically awkward popularity contest isn’t going to be easily forgotten. When the outlet <a href="https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1473716105415909383?s=20">posted</a> the question, “What’s the funniest thing you saw on the internet in 2021,” to Twitter, numerous people responded in the same vein as one user who <a href="https://twitter.com/AthenaNike4/status/1475769207694536706?s=20">replied</a>, “The Guardian closing its Person of the year award because JK Rowling got so many votes — that was totalitarian levels of funny.”
&nbsp;

US-ENTERTAINMENT-FINDING THE WAY

British Newspaper Cancels ‘Person Of The Year’ Poll After J.K. Rowling Runs Away With Top Spot   

JK Rowling

Abortion — which has claimed the lives of 63 million preborn babies since 1973 — provokes some measure of righteous indignation among American evangelicals. One progressive journalist, however, believes that they should have the opposite response.
In reaction to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — a Supreme Court case regarding the state of Mississippi’s ban on abortions past 15 weeks’ gestation — Jessica Glenza of The Guardian wrote an <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/05/abortion-opposition-focus-white-evangelical-anger">article</a> blasting “white, evangelical anger” over abortion. In essence, she argued that state legislators’ attempts to restrict “abortion access” have made 2021 “the most hostile year to abortion rights on record” — even though “about four in five Americans believe abortion should be legal, at least in some circumstances.”
“The religious right in the US has been laying the foundations of this decisive challenge to abortion rights for years,” she said of the Dobbs case. “According to historians and researchers, it has taken decades of political machinations for the campaign to reach this zenith. The movement has intersected with nearly every major issue in American politics for the last five decades, from segregation to welfare reform to campaign finance.”
While arguing that the pro-life movement was born from “Republican operatives” channeling evangelicals’ “collective anxieties” away from segregation and toward “defense of the fetus,” Glenza observed that the issue of abortion boosted election turnout among American Christians. She links evangelical disdain of abortion to racism — for example, by asserting that President Ronald Reagan casted “the politics of reproduction through a new racist prism” while using the term “welfare queen.”
In the next breath, however, Glenza mourned that “young, poor people of color will disproportionately suffer, forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term” if Roe v. Wade is overturned by the Supreme Court. Glenza added that such an outcome is “so severe” that “human rights advocates” — namely, Safe Abortion Action Fund board member Tlaleng Mofokeng — “have said state abortion bans would violate United Nations conventions against torture and place the US in the company of a shrinking number of countries with abortion bans.”
In an interview with The Daily Wire, James Silberman — communications director of <a href="https://freethestates.org/">Free The States</a>, a Christian organization seeking the immediate abolition of abortion — pointed out that there is a “demented irony in claiming that young people of color will suffer if abortion is abolished.” 
Indeed, “more black babies are murdered than born in some parts of the country.”
“One side of the abortion debate is rooted in outright white supremacy, and it&#8217;s not those who oppose abortion,” said Silberman. “Planned Parenthood was founded almost exclusively by eugenicists including KKK Exalted Cyclops Lothrop Stoddard.”
Silberman also responded to the fact that four in five Americans support abortion in some circumstances, even though roughly half of Americans call themselves “pro-life” — a phenomenon discussed by the new documentary <a href="https://vimeo.com/ondemand/astormcomesrolling?autoplay=1">A Storm Comes Rolling Down The Plain</a>, which Free The States helped to produce.
“This is a function of the establishment pro-life strategy rooted in compromise,” he argued. “Many of those who pray for and celebrate ‘moderate restrictions’ will come to understand those restrictions as what it means to be pro-life.”
“We must stand on conviction and pass laws consistent with the truth, lest we come to believe lies. We must demand the total and immediate abolition of abortion.”
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Santa Fe, New Mexico

Article From The Guardian Bashes ‘White Evangelicals’ For Their ‘Anger’ Over Abortion

Abortion

A left-leaning news outlet has retracted a headline concerning Daily Wire host Candace Owens, following her move to send &#8220;legal pit bulls upon them.&#8221;
&#8220;Pleased to announce that after I set legal pit bulls upon them—the [Guardian] retracted their grossly libelous headline which claimed that I suggested America invade Australia,&#8221; Owens posted to Twitter on Wednesday. 
&#8220;While we all know the Guardian is <a class="css-4rbku5 css-18t94o4 css-901oao css-16my406 r-1cvl2hr r-1loqt21 r-poiln3 r-bcqeeo r-qvutc0" role="link" href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FakeNews?src=hashtag_click">#FakeNews</a>, it’s still nice to make them admit it from time to time,&#8221; she added.
Last month, The Guardian ran with a headline claiming Owens called for U.S. Military intervention in Australia. “Rightwing pundit Candace Owens suggests US invade Australia to ‘free an oppressed people,’” the headline said.
To land on such a wildly misleading headline, The Guardian took commentary from Owens&#8217; show “Candace” out of context and made it seem as if the conservative politico called for the United States to “invade” Australia. Though, Owens noted in her monologue that she was being facetious, underscoring her anti-interventionist beliefs, but also decrying the dire conditions Australians are facing relative to other places to which the U.S. has deployed troops, namely Afghanistan.
Owens swiftly demanded a &#8220;full retraction.&#8221;
Now, The Guardian&#8217;s headline reads as follows: &#8220;Rightwing US pundit Candace Owens compares Australian government to the Taliban, calling it a ‘tyrannical police state.’”
<div class="dcr-zjgnrw">
<div class=" dcr-mj1r7n" data-print-layout="hide">
And the sub-headline reads, &#8220;The high-profile conservative commentator quips: ‘When do we deploy troops to Australia?’”
</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Pleased to announce that after I set legal pit bulls upon them—the <a href="https://twitter.com/guardian?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@guardian</a> retracted their grossly libelous headline which claimed that I suggested America invade Australia. 
While we all know the Guardian is <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FakeNews?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#FakeNews</a>, it’s still nice to make them admit it from time to time. <a href="https://t.co/e3D2eX8bP3">pic.twitter.com/e3D2eX8bP3</a>
&mdash; Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/1455964391313219588?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 3, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In a video posted last month, Owens railed at The Guardian for their &#8220;full lie,&#8221; <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/i-want-a-full-retraction-candace-owens-posts-fierce-response-video-to-media-smears-over-her-australia-commentary">The Daily Wire</a> reported:
<blockquote>Owens said in the video that she plans on having her lawyers reach out to The Guardian over their “full lie,” noting … the U.K.’s libel laws.
“The U.K. has very strong libel laws, and you can’t just lie like that. And I want a full retraction,” the BLEXIT founder said. “To pretend that I was not joking, when I quite literally said, ‘I say that in jest’ — it’s demonic, it’s satanic.”
&#8230; “The AUDACITY of Twitter and [The Guardian] to run with a FULL LIE of a headline that I suggested America should invade Australia,” Owens captioned her Instagram response video. “I am in full dragon mode right now.”
“Are you awake yet?! Do you see the evil?” she added. “Do you understand there is value for these evil globalists in your perpetual state of fear?”
Continuing her commentary in the video, Owens said the media smear is part of the “reason that this world is so divided, it’s the reason why everywhere in the world people are being impoverished and imprisoned by their governments, who have launched a war against their own people.”
“It’s an information war,” she emphasized. “They are lying to you about what is happening everywhere. They are lying to you about your own body, right? You don’t even trust your own body anymore. People are afraid when anyone sneezes. Because the government has launched a war, a propaganda war, a psychological war against its own people. Because fear gives them more power. That’s the truth.”</blockquote>
Below is the clip of what Owens actually said during her monologue concerning Australia:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
If you want an exercise in how journalists ruthlessly lie—please examine the <a href="https://twitter.com/guardian?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@guardian</a> current headline claiming that I suggested we “invade Australia”, absent my following sentence, “I say that of course, in jest”. 
Why the rush to lie? Because I told the TRUTH. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FreeAustralia?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#FreeAustralia</a> <a href="https://t.co/CsAY17ahVv">pic.twitter.com/CsAY17ahVv</a>
&mdash; Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/1451560125370667009?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 22, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/i-want-a-full-retraction-candace-owens-posts-fierce-response-video-to-media-smears-over-her-australia-commentary">‘I Want A Full Retraction’: Candace Owens Posts Fierce Response Video To Media Smears Over Her Australia Commentary</a>

“Candace” Hosted By Candace Owens

Media Retracts Headline About Candace Owens After Conservative Harnesses ‘Legal Pit Bulls’

Candace Owens

One of President Trump&#8217;s chief critics in the press, CNN&#8217;s Jim Acosta, will be releasing a new book that makes a variety of juicy claims about the president&#8217;s conduct.
According to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/25/jim-acosta-cnn-white-house-trump-book-enemy-of-the-people">The Guardian</a>, which published several excerpts of Acosta&#8217;s upcoming book, aptly titled &#8220;The Enemy of the People,&#8221; the CNN White House correspondent makes the claim that President Trump&#8217;s so-called war on the press began as an act that snowballed into a strategy.
After a confrontation in which Trump denounced Acosta as &#8220;fake news&#8221; and &#8220;very fake news,&#8221; White House aide Hope Hicks allegedly approached Acosta afterward to say the president thought he was &#8220;very professional today.&#8221;
&#8220;He said, &#8216;Jim gets it,&#8217;&#8221; Jim Acosta quotes Hope Hicks as saying in his book. &#8220;When he called us &#8216;fake news,&#8217; it was, in his mind, an act.&#8221;
Throughout the book, Acosta quotes anonymous sources that supposedly spoke off-the-cuff in private about their opinions on President Trump
&#8220;They are often blunt in their assessment of their boss,&#8221; reports The Guardian of Acosta&#8217;s book. &#8220;A &#8216;senior White House official&#8217; tells Acosta: &#8216;The president&#8217;s insane.&#8217; A &#8216;former White House national security official&#8217; says staffers were not sure the president had not been &#8216;compromised&#8217; by Russia.&#8221;
Acosta goes on to allege in his book that President Trump decided to attack the mainstream media due to the spate of anonymous sources at CNN, NBC, The Washington Post, and The New York Times attacking his administration. He claims that since Republicans controlled Congress, the president needed an enemy to attack. Three unnamed sources Acosta quotes cited former White House aide Steve Bannon as the architect for the attack.
Of his own tumultuous relationship with President Trump, Jim Acosta admits that he sometimes reduces himself to &#8220;grandstanding&#8221; and &#8220;showboating,&#8221; claiming he &#8220;opts for the bait&#8221; when questioning Trump. In response to those who would accuse him of having a bias against President Trump, Acosta bluntly says, &#8220;Neutrality for the sake of neutrality doesn&#8217;t really serve us in the age of Trump.&#8221;
The White House correspondent has even been criticized by some of his own colleagues in the press pool for his often rude behavior at press conferences, which often involves filibustering the mic and attacking President Trump with ideological talking points. In November of last year, shortly after Acosta had his press pass taken away for another one of his grandstanding episodes, Republican strategist Arthur Schwartz <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/38325/isnt-jim-fing-acosta-show-journalists-unload-cnns-ryan-saavedra">said that some CNN reporters</a> were quite infuriated with Acosta&#8217;s behavior.
&#8220;A few CNN reporters told me that they&#8217;re embarrassed by Acosta &amp; CNN,&#8221; Schwartz said at the time. &#8220;A WH correspondent from a major network (not Fox) told me &#8216;This isn&#8217;t the Jim F*ing Acosta Show. We all hate him. He&#8217;s an a**hole and he actually is disrespectful to the president.'&#8221;
Just this week, <a data-link-name="in body link" href="https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/cnn-jim-acosta-book-reporter-paid-pundit">Fox News</a> quoted an anonymous CNN employee as saying Jim Acosta is notorious for constantly making the moment about him.
&#8220;Jim Acosta is, a lot of times, asking the right questions, but it doesn&#8217;t always need to be about him and his grandstanding,&#8221; said the employee. &#8220;Acosta is supposed to be a correspondent reporting the facts but you can&#8217;t tell the difference between him and a paid pundit.&#8221;

Acosta’s New Book: ‘The President Is Insane’

Jim Acosta

Our media peddles more propaganda with each passing year.
In 2013, the AP Stylebook told news outlets to <a href="https://blog.ap.org/announcements/illegal-immigrant-no-more">stop using</a> the legally appropriate term &#8220;illegal alien&#8221; or &#8220;illegal immigrant&#8221; and to start calling them &#8220;undocumented immigrants&#8221; to avoid hurtful labels.
Now The Guardian <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment?CMP=share_btn_tw">wants to change the language</a> surrounding climate change, which used to be global warming or global cooling depending on the decade. The news outlet published an article on Friday from its environmental editor, Damian Carrington, saying the outlet would now write &#8220;climate emergency, crisis, or breakdown&#8221; instead of climate change and &#8220;global heating&#8221; instead of &#8220;global warming.&#8221;
The original terms have not been banned, Carrington wrote.
&#8220;We want to ensure that we are being scientifically precise, while also communicating clearly with readers on this very important issue,&#8221; Editor-in-Chief Katharine Viner said in a statement provided in the article. &#8220;The phrase &#8216;climate change,&#8217; for example, sounds rather passive and gentle when what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity.&#8221;
&#8220;Increasingly, climate scientists and organisations from the UN to the Met Office are changing their terminology, and using stronger language to describe the situation we&#8217;re in,&#8221; she added.
The Guardian based its decision on the use of these terms by several prominent climate scientists, without noting that studies that find a possibility of catastrophe rate that possibility at a low percent. No change or a beneficial change are also possible due to some aspects of climate change, yet the hysteria sells more papers and gets more clicks.
The Guardian is not stopping at these terms, however, and will also change some other words and phrases.
&#8220;Other terms that have been updated, including the use of &#8216;wildlife&#8217; rather than &#8216;biodiversity,&#8217; &#8216;fish populations&#8217; instead of &#8216;fish stocks&#8217; and &#8216;climate science denier&#8217; rather than &#8216;climate sceptic,&#8217;&#8221; the outlet wrote.
Ryan Maue, a meteorologist with a Ph.D., mocked The Guardian on Twitter for the changes.
&#8220;Of course, from a scientific and literal point of view, this is idiotic. But if you read the Guardian for your climate change news, then you deserve to be misinformed,&#8221; he wrote.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Of course, from a scientific and literal point of view, this is idiotic. But if you read the Guardian for your climate change news, then you deserve to be misinformed.
&#8212; Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) <a href="https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1129372769039339521?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
Michael Bastasch, who writes about climate science for The Daily Caller (pointing out that the hysteria surrounding the issue often ignores what&#8217;s in the actual studies) suggested an alternate headline for The Guardian&#8217;s article about writing changes.
&#8220;ALT headline: The Guardian will now only use activist talking points meant to scare people,&#8221; Bastasch wrote.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
ALT headline: The Guardian will now only use activist talking points meant to scare people <a href="https://t.co/IFxil3QpOn">https://t.co/IFxil3QpOn</a>
&#8212; Mike Bastasch (@MikeBastasch) <a href="https://twitter.com/MikeBastasch/status/1129373152239341568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
One should also point out that not a single person who uses phrases like &#8220;climate crisis&#8221; lives the way a person who truly believes destruction is imminent would live. Hollywood celebrities and politicians still take private jets to climate meetings and put forth a bigger carbon footprint than the average American.

The Guardian Plans To Start Using Climate Alarmist Language Instead Of Accurate Scientific Terms

Climate Change

Media Bias

On Tuesday, the Guardian dropped a &#8220;bombshell&#8221; report alleging that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had personally met with WikiLeaks&#8217; founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in &#8220;secret talks,&#8221; at one point presumably about Clinton campaign-damaging emails. But with WikiLeaks emphatically declaring the story false and both Manafort and Assange making legal threats over the &#8220;libelous&#8221; claims, the Guardian has edited the article to soften the language.
&#8220;Donald Trump&#8217;s former campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and visited around the time he joined Trump&#8217;s campaign, the Guardian has been told,&#8221; the outlet <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy">reported</a> Tuesday. &#8220;Sources have said Manafort went to see Assange in 2013, 2015 and in spring 2016 &#8211; during the period when he was made a key figure in Trump&#8217;s push for the White House. &#8230;. A well-placed source has told the Guardian that Manafort went to see Assange around March 2016. Months later WikiLeaks released a stash of Democratic emails stolen by Russian intelligence officers.&#8221;
In response, WikiLeaks posted a series of tweets blasting the outlet for having &#8220;permitted a serial fabricator to totally destroy the paper&#8217;s reputation.&#8221;
&#8220;Remember this day when the Guardian permitted a serial fabricator to totally destroy the paper&#8217;s reputation. @WikiLeaks is willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor&#8217;s head that Manafort never met Assange,&#8221; WikiLeaks wrote in a series of tweets ripping the outlet and the article&#8217;s lead author.
&#8220;The Guardian &#8216;journalist&#8217;, Luke Harding, behind the fake Manafort story also claimed the NSA was secretly deleting his words, won &#8216;Pliagiarist of the Year&#8217; and was savaged by Julian Assange in this book review,&#8221; WikiLeaks added in another tweet.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Remember this day when the Guardian permitted a serial fabricator to totally destroy the paper&#8217;s reputation. <a href="https://twitter.com/wikileaks?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@WikiLeaks</a> is willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor&#8217;s head that Manafort never met Assange. <a href="https://t.co/R2Qn6rLQjn">https://t.co/R2Qn6rLQjn</a>
&#8212; WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) <a href="https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1067430101548027906?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The Guardian &#8220;journalist&#8221;, Luke Harding, behind the fake Manafort story also claimed the NSA was secretly deleting his words, won &#8220;Pliagiarist of the Year&#8221; and was savaged by Julian Assange in this book review: <a href="https://t.co/DDnkSoczut">https://t.co/DDnkSoczut</a>
&#8212; WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) <a href="https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1067510468678483969?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
Manafort adamantly denied the allegations. &#8220;This story is totally false and deliberately libelous,&#8221; Manafort said in the <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/manafort-claims-guardian-report-assange-meeting-story-totally-false-and-libelous">statement </a>Tuesday. &#8220;I have never met Julian Assange or anyone connected to him. I have never been contacted by anyone connected to Wikileaks, either directly or indirectly. I have never reached out to Assange or Wikileaks on any matter. We are considering all legal options against the Guardian who proceeded with this story even after being notified by my representatives that it was false.&#8221;
In an update to its article, the Guardian includes Manafort&#8217;s statement, but conspicuously leaves out the opening and closing lines threatening legal action.
With WikiLeaks continuing to keep up pressure online, the Guardian quietly edited a few key lines, which WikiLeaks made sure to document. &#8220;Guardian walks away from fake &#8216;Manafort visited Assange at embassy&#8217; story with stealth edits,&#8221; WikiLeaks wrote, with screenshots of the two versions:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Guardian walks away from fake &#8220;Manafort visited Assange at embassy&#8221; story with stealth edits. <a href="https://t.co/JgEXSTXFzg">https://t.co/JgEXSTXFzg</a> <a href="https://t.co/O84WrRKNbl">pic.twitter.com/O84WrRKNbl</a>
&#8212; WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) <a href="https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1067718469683167232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 28, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
The edits &#8212; which serve to qualify the phrasing in two instances and make the number of sources more vague in another &#8212; are in bold:
<blockquote>
It is unclear why Manafort would have wanted to see Assange and what was discussed. But the last apparent meeting is likely to come under scrutiny and could interest Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor who is investigating alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. [&#8230;]
According to the [changed from &#8220;two&#8221;] sources, Manafort returned to the embassy in 2015. He paid another visit in spring 2016, turning up alone, around the time Trump named him as his convention manager. The visit is tentatively dated to March.
</blockquote>
The title of the article was likewise qualified with the addition of &#8220;sources say&#8221;: &#8220;Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy, sources say.&#8221;
The updated article also includes this new line: &#8220;In a series of tweets WikiLeaks said Assange and Manafort had not met. Assange described the story as a hoax,&#8221; as well as an excerpt of Manafort&#8217;s statement.
WikiLeaks later announced that Assange has instructed his lawyers to sue the Guardian &#8220;for libel over fabricated Manafort story&#8221; and has &#8220;launched a legal fund to boost the action&#8221;:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
BREAKING: <a href="https://twitter.com/wikileaks?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@WikiLeaks</a> publisher Julian Assange has instructed his lawyers to sue the Guardian for libel over fabricated Manafort story and launched a legal fund to boost the action <a href="https://t.co/VaoMESN5RO">https://t.co/VaoMESN5RO</a>
&#8212; WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) <a href="https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1067531696143241217?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/38741/wikileaks-guardian-just-let-serial-fabricator-james-barrett">WikiLeaks: The Guardian Just Let A &#8216;Serial Fabricator&#8217; &#8216;Totally Destroy&#8217; Its Reputation With False Report About Manafort</a>

Assange, Manafort Threaten Legal Action Against The Guardian As It ‘Softens’ Report

Donald Trump

Julian Assange

Paul Manafort

Russia

WikiLeaks

On Tuesday, The Guardian published a &#8220;bombshell&#8221; report alleging that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort held &#8220;<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy">secret talks</a>&#8221; at the Ecuadorian embassy with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, including one alleged meeting that took place around the time Manafort joined the Trump campaign in 2016. The report was based on unnamed sources and the outlet noted that the embassy has no record of Manafort&#8217;s alleged 2016 visit.
WikiLeaks has since responded to the report by declaring its publication as the moment The Guardian let a &#8220;serial fabricator&#8221; &#8220;totally destroy&#8221; the paper&#8217;s credibility. WikiLeaks is so confident of its claim, that it announced it&#8217;s willing to put its money &#8212; and Assange&#8217;s life &#8212; on the table.
&#8220;Remember this day when the Guardian permitted a serial fabricator to totally destroy the paper&#8217;s reputation,&#8221; the organization said in a tweet. &#8220;@WikiLeaks is willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor&#8217;s head that Manafort never met Assange.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Remember this day when the Guardian permitted a serial fabricator to totally destroy the paper&#8217;s reputation. <a href="https://twitter.com/wikileaks?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@WikiLeaks</a> is willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor&#8217;s head that Manafort never met Assange. <a href="https://t.co/R2Qn6rLQjn">https://t.co/R2Qn6rLQjn</a>
&#8212; WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) <a href="https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1067430101548027906?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
The organization followed up that tweet by retweeting a post by Hanna Jonasson, stating, &#8220;The authors of the bogus Guardian story, Dan Collyns and Luke Harding, were in Ecuador 10 days ago with US-funded Villavicencio, who they have previously bylined with in bogus stories. This picture was taken last week.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The authors of the bogus Guardian story, Dan Collyns and Luke Harding, were in Ecuador 10 days ago with US-funded Villavicencio, who they have previously bylined with in bogus stories. This picture was taken last week. <a href="https://t.co/hK4SFCJgKI">pic.twitter.com/hK4SFCJgKI</a>
&#8212; Hanna Jonasson (@AssangeLegal) <a href="https://twitter.com/AssangeLegal/status/1067435292745854995?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
&#8220;Sources have said Manafort went to see Assange in 2013, 2015 and in spring 2016 &#8211; during the period when he was made a key figure in Trump&#8217;s push for the White House,&#8221; The Guardian reports. &#8220;It is unclear why Manafort wanted to see Assange and what was discussed. But the last meeting is likely to come under scrutiny and could interest Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor who is investigating alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.&#8221;
The Guardian&#8217;s claim about the alleged spring 2016 meeting, which the outlet &#8220;tentatively dated to March,&#8221; is based on an unnamed &#8220;well-placed source.&#8221; The source says Manafort visited Assange at the embassy for around 40 minutes and provided the detail that Assange was wearing &#8220;sandy-coloured chinos, a cardigan and a light-coloured shirt.&#8221;
But The Guardian also notes that there&#8217;s no record of the visit.
&#8220;Visitors normally register with embassy security guards and show their passports. Sources in Ecuador, however, say Manafort was not logged,&#8221; The Guardian reports. &#8220;Embassy staff were aware only later of the potential significance of Manafort&#8217;s visit and his political role with Trump, it is understood.&#8221;
The outlet&#8217;s sources say the first alleged meeting between Manafort and Assange occurred in 2013; The Guardian cites an internal Ecuadorian intelligence document that lists a &#8220;Paul Manaford&#8221; as one of the visitors; the list also allegedly cites &#8220;Russians.&#8221; The second visit, according to the sources, took place in 2015.
Manafort&#8217;s lawyers declined answering The Guardian&#8217;s questions about the alleged &#8220;secret talks&#8221; with Assange. Manafort has repeatedly denied any involvement in the hacking and called the claim &#8220;100% false,&#8221; The Guardian reports.
The Guardian&#8217;s Manafort report comes a day after Special Counsel Robert Mueller filed a complaint against Manafort for allegedly <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/38727/trump-taunts-mueller-key-witnesses-frustrate-probe-james-barrett">violating his plea deal</a> and being guilty of various &#8220;crimes and lies&#8221; that were left unspecified. Manafort&#8217;s legal team denies that he is in breach of the deal. Legal experts say he could face more than ten years in prison.

WikiLeaks: The Guardian Just Let A ‘Serial Fabricator’ ‘Totally Destroy’ Its Reputation With False Report About Manafort

Robert Mueller

On Monday, Special Counsel Robert Mueller accused former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort of being in breach of his plea deal by lying to investigators &#8212; accusations Manafort denies. On Tuesday, the Guardian, citing unnamed sources, published a report alleging that Manafort held &#8220;<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy">secret talks</a>&#8221; with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, including one right around the time he joined the Trump campaign.
Manafort denies the claim, and the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where Assange has been holed up in asylum for years, has no record of the alleged visit.
&#8220;Sources have said Manafort went to see Assange in 2013, 2015 and in spring 2016 &#8211; during the period when he was made a key figure in Trump&#8217;s push for the White House,&#8221; the Guardian reports. &#8220;It is unclear why Manafort wanted to see Assange and what was discussed. But the last meeting is likely to come under scrutiny and could interest Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor who is investigating alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.&#8221;
Citing a &#8220;well-placed source,&#8221; the Guardian reports that Manafort allegedly visited Assange for about 40 minutes in March 2016. &#8220;Months later WikiLeaks released a stash of Democratic emails stolen by Russian intelligence officers.&#8221;
Manafort called the claim &#8220;100% false&#8221; and has repeatedly denied any involvement with the hacking of Clinton campaign aides, a major focus of the Mueller investigation. Manafort&#8217;s lawyers declined answering the Guardian&#8217;s questions about the alleged visits.
The Guardian reports that while visitors to the Ecuadorian embassy usually register and provide security guards with identifying papers, there is no record of Manafort&#8217;s alleged visit, which is &#8220;tentatively dated to March.&#8221;
Manafort reached a plea deal with Mueller in September, agreeing to fully cooperate with the investigation, but Mueller said Monday in a court filing that Manafort <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/38727/trump-taunts-mueller-key-witnesses-frustrate-probe-james-barrett">violated the deal</a> and accused him of being guilty of various unspecified &#8220;crimes and lies,&#8221; claims Manafort&#8217;s legal team denies. Legal experts told The Wall Street Journal that Manafort could face ten or more years in prison.
The Guardian&#8217;s sources say that Manafort&#8217;s first visit to Assange came in 2013, a year after Assange first sought asylum at the embassy. An internal Ecuadorian intelligence document lists a &#8220;Paul Manaford&#8221; as having visited the embassy, as well as &#8220;Russians.&#8221;
The Guardian&#8217;s sources say the second alleged visit occurred in 2015. Manafort then allegedly returned in 2016 in a visit that one source said lasted around 40 minutes. The source specified that Manafort was supposedly wearing &#8220;sandy-coloured chinos, a cardigan and a light-coloured shirt,&#8221; the Guardian notes.
The Guardian underscores that the claims could be of importance to Mueller in &#8220;shed[ding] new light on the sequence of events in the run-up to summer 2016, when WikiLeaks published tens of thousands of emails hacked by the GRU, Russia&#8217;s military intelligence agency. Hillary Clinton has said the hack contributed to her defeat.&#8221;
Mueller&#8217;s new accusations against Manafort came the same day as another key potential asset for the special counsel&#8217;s investigation, Roger Stone associate Jeremy Corsi, announced that he would not agree to a plea deal.
&#8220;They can put me in prison the rest of my life. I am not going to sign a lie,&#8221; Corsi told <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/26/politics/jerome-corsi-plea-deal-robert-mueller/index.html">CNN</a> on Monday. After engaging in talks with investigators for two months, Corsi said that the special counsel wants him to state in a sworn testimony that he is a &#8220;felon,&#8221; but he denies that charge, stating that while he recently amended some of his testimony, he did not intentionally mislead or misstate anything.
UPDATE: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/38741/wikileaks-guardian-just-let-serial-fabricator-james-barrett">WikiLeaks: The Guardian Just Let A &#8216;Serial Fabricator&#8217; &#8216;Totally Destroy&#8217; Its Reputation With False Report About Manafort</a>

Guardian: Manafort Held ‘Secret Talks’ With Julian Assange Ahead Of 2016 Election

A feminist writer at The Guardian is having a hard time coping with President Donald Trump&#8217;s election win. She can&#8217;t even open jars now.
On Thursday, in a piece that belongs on The Onion, Brigid Delaney took to publicly <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/05/i-stopped-going-to-the-gym-because-of-trump-now-i-cant-open-jars">blaming</a> Trump for her decision to stop going to the gym and now, subsequently, being so out of shape that she&#8217;s unable to open jars and carry groceries.
That&#8217;s right, it&#8217;s now Trump&#8217;s fault feminists are out of shape. (Add it to the list!)
The unhinged piece takes us through Delaney&#8217;s shocking heartbreak over the election and her decision to skip the gym altogether. It started with a bet. Delaney, sure Hillary Clinton would take the White House, made a wager over the 2016 presidential election with her gym owner, the &#8220;only person&#8221; she knew who thought Trump would win. She, of course, was wrong. Thus, Delaney said she begrudgingly stayed faithful to her word and lifted the heavy amount of weight she promised she would:
<blockquote>
After Trump claimed victory, I went up to the gym in a foul mood. &#8220;Just f***ing load up the f***ing sled, all right, and let&#8217;s get it over with,&#8221; I said without much grace as I strapped a belt around my waist. &#8230; I pulled the sled like a human oxen while being filmed and the gym staff cheered. I did it. 
</blockquote>
Doubling her personal best, though, was not enough to cheer up the feminist: &#8220;Yeah, I could pull a pretend sled. But how was that going to help me when the world had been destroyed by nuclear weapons or climate change?&#8221;
After the gym, she made her way to a nearby restaurant and had an awful experience, as the food was &#8220;unspeakably awful.&#8221; This experience helped trigger Delaney&#8217;s move to give up fitness entirely.
&#8220;I never went back,&#8221; she said. &#8220;But I also didn&#8217;t return to the gym. I associated it now with Donald Trump, the bad meal and pulling the sled.&#8221;
Delaney says she adopted Trump-style fitness, as opposed to Obama-style. &#8220;In the spirit of the Donald, I drank more bottles of Diet Coke and ate more McDonald&#8217;s,&#8221; she mockingly wrote, adding, &#8220;I didn&#8217;t want to die young, so I didn&#8217;t go to the gym.&#8221;
The writer became so weak that she was no longer &#8220;strong enough to open jars and carry groceries.&#8221;
Delaney says she finally hit the gym this week.
&#8220;I returned again this week &#8211; to the boredom and pain of the gym &#8211; trying to build up back to the strength I had before Trump became president,&#8221; wrote Delaney. &#8220;The struggle is Sisyphean.&#8221;
To recap: It&#8217;s President Trump&#8217;s fault that a feminist writer quit the gym and is so weak that she can no longer open jars. And, for those keeping score at home, it took her some 500 days to muster the strength to work out during a Trump presidency again. #ShePersisted

Feminist Writer Blames Trump For Being Out Of Shape: ‘Now I Can’t Open Jars’

Feminism

A reporter for The Guardian asked a Democratic official about the allegations made against President Donald Trump on Friday regarding The Wall Street Journal&#8217;s report that Trump&#8217;s attorney paid off a porn star before the 2016 election. The official gave a memorable response.
<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-lawyer-arranged-130-000-payment-for-adult-film-stars-silence-1515787678">The Journal</a> reported on the alleged porn star pay-off on Friday:
<blockquote>
A lawyer for President Donald Trump arranged a $130,000 payment to a former adult-film star a month before the 2016 election as part of an agreement that precluded her from publicly discussing an alleged sexual encounter with Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the matter.
Mr. Cohen also sent a two-paragraph statement by email addressed &#8220;TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN&#8221; and signed by &#8220;Stormy Daniels&#8221; denying that she had a &#8220;sexual and/or romantic affair&#8221; with Mr. Trump.
</blockquote>
Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs asked a Democratic &#8220;source&#8221; for their reaction to the report. &#8220;Hillary Clinton was truly the worst candidate in American history,&#8221; the source responded.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
A Dem source&#8217;s reaction to the Trump/porn star/hush money story: &#8220;Hillary Clinton was truly the worst candidate in American history.&#8221;
&#8212; Ben Jacobs (@Bencjacobs) <a href="https://twitter.com/Bencjacobs/status/951916121778741253?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 12, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
Trump&#8217;s lawyer, Michael Cohen, criticized the Journal for their report, stating this is &#8220;the second time&#8221; they have tried to smear his client.
&#8220;This is now the second time that you are raising outlandish allegations against my client,&#8221; Cohen said. &#8220;You have attempted to perpetuate this false narrative for over a year; a narrative that has been consistently denied by all parties since at least 2011.&#8221;

Menu