You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘media’ tag.

Sooner than expected, I am writing about the Sandringham summit, held on Monday, January 13, 2020, to provide a way forward for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in their disroyalty.

Present at Sandringham were the Queen and Princes Charles, William and Harry. Contrary to earlier reports, the Duchess, in Canada, did not participate via telephone. The Daily Mail reported that aides issued a brief statement to that effect:

The Sussexes decided that it wasn’t necessary for the duchess to join.

Afterwards, the Queen issued a statement:

That would seem the most sensible solution.

No commercialisation of the Sussex titles, either. (I don’t care what arrangements are in place at present.) The Queen issues titles, and they are not the property of recipients.

The Queen’s statement reads as follows (emphases mine):

Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.

My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.

Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.

It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.

These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.

ENDS

Political pundit Guido Fawkes wrote, using a Brexit term (emphasis in the original):

Looks like an orderly transition to a Canada Plus model…

His readers, however, are sorely disappointed.

So am I.

However, the monarch is much wiser than her subjects. Her statement is probably not all it seems on the surface. She might want to take the venom out of events from the past week and let the wound begin to heal. She probably also wants to avoid a Princess Diana situation: different circumstances, granted, but the same reaction from certain quarters, which turned Prince Harry’s mother into a martyr figure.

Whilst journalist and television presenter Piers Morgan was as disappointed as I, a few of his readers think the Queen could be playing the long game:

On Monday, January 13, British GQ posted an interview with Piers Morgan:

In 2017, Morgan supported Prince Harry’s choice of future wife. He wrote an article for the Daily Mail: ‘PIERS MORGAN: Hearty congratulations, Harry, you picked a real keeper’.

Excerpts follow from the British GQ article (emphases in purple mine).

Contrary to what he thought in 2017 and 2018, Morgan believes the Duchess is a threat to the monarchy:

GQ: You have engaged in some very personal and sometimes vicious arguments over Meghan and Harry over the past few days. Did you feel passionately about this before the news about them broke or did it just get out of hand?

Piers Morgan: I’ve felt strongly about this for about 18 months, ever since I could see the way the wind was blowing. The truth about Meghan Markle is that she’s a social climbing piece of work and all the people rushing to her defence have not, I’ve noticed, had any personal dealings with her. The number of people she has used and then cut loose is long and illustrious and involves almost her entire family, most of her oldest friends, most of Harry’s best male friends and now she’s trying to extricate Harry from the royal family. I think she represents a clear and present danger to the future of the monarchy and I don’t say that lightly. If you are going to have two renegade celebrity part-time royals bestriding the globe cashing in on their royal status, I think that could accelerate an atmosphere of republicanism that can be very dangerous to the existence of the monarchy. There are very important issues here and I think it’s something people should be emotive about if they, like me, value the monarchy and the royal family.

He objects to the Sussexes wanting all the benefits of being Royals without having to put in any of the day-to-day duties:

I noticed you have focused on the Queen in these discussions.

The Queen’s a 93-year-old woman who has been on the throne for over six decades – she’s probably the most respected world leader of modern times. She’s recently had to put up with a scandal involving her middle son, whom she’s had to effectively fire; her husband is 98 and suffering serious health issues. So she’s got enough on her plate without these two upstarts deciding they’re going to rewrite the way the royal family conducts itself with their new agenda. Nobody wants a progressive royal family, nobody wants a woke royal family. This is entirely driven by Meghan Markle, who has turned Harry, I’m afraid, into a simpering doormat and the result is fairly cataclysmic. They want to leave the royal family on their terms where they get to keep all the good bits – the taxpayer-funded security and travel, the free mansion which was refurbished at our expense – but they don’t want to do the Wednesday duty at a community centre in Stoke. That’s not going to wash.

He explains why he changed his mind about the Duchess:

Do you think the mainstream media have been fair in their scrutiny of Meghan and Harry?

PM: Yes, I wrote a lot of very positive things about Meghan Markle. Then a number of stories began appearing about the way she had ghosted people. Look, I was a very minor ghosting. I thought we were good friends. She tweeted we were good friends – tweets she has now deleted. She was the one who reached out to me for media advice so I did and I thought we got on very well, but the moment she met Prince Harry, bang! And she’s done that to many people. She is a social climbing cut-and-runner. I fear what will happen to Harry.

He says that what the Sussexes are doing is not what the Royal Family is about:

How do you think the future royal relationships will pan out and could it help the royals in the long run?

You can’t be half royal and half not. You can’t take public money and flog your status off to commercial entities. I don’t see how this works. They are entitled to lead any life they want to lead, but they are not entitled to be a drain on the British taxpayer. Also, why is Meghan Markle a global star? It’s because she married into the British royal family and I think the public will take a very dim view of somebody coming into our royal family for three years and then buggering off and fleecing everything off the back of her royal status. You can’t be a part-time royal and not do the dirty work that goes with it. If they want to give up all their free stuff and pay for everything themselves then good luck to them, but even then if she makes tens of millions of dollars it won’t be because of her acting work, it will be because she married Prince Harry.

In his Daily Mail column published the same day, Morgan listed the reasons why he went off the Duchess.

However, going back further, he cites his column on the Sussexes’ wedding and reminds us of how much the British public looked forward to it (emphases mine):

From the moment Meghan Markle came on the royal scene, and it was revealed she was from a mixed-race background, she was welcomed with warm open tolerant arms by a wonderfully multi-cultural and diverse modern Britain that was thrilled to finally see a non-white member of the Royal Family.

She was showered with almost universal praise, especially when the engagement was announced.

The media, in particular, was unanimous in its verdict that this was a great thing for the country. In fact, I haven’t seen a press so united in joy for anything royal since Diana first became Charles’s girlfriend.

This extraordinary tidal wave of goodwill continued through to the big wedding in May 2018, which by common consent was a triumph.

As I wrote myself in the Daily Mail the following day, ‘it mixed the best of traditional British pomp and majesty with large dollops of Markle Sparkle and the result was a biracial, Hollywood-fused union of very different cultures that worked magnificently well.’

True! People were thrilled. Royal fans lined the streets of Windsor that day, even if they had little hope of seeing the new Royal couple.

He is criticising the Duchess — and the Duke — for the following:

… her erratic conduct – and Harry’s – since the wedding, which has been spectacularly ill-advised;

hypocritical of Meghan to have a $500,000 celebrity-fuelled baby-shower party in New York, including a lift on George Clooney‘s jet, on the same day she and Harry tweeted a plea for people to think of the poor;

… they went to such ridiculous lengths to hide basic details of their baby Archie’s birth from the public that pays for much of their lavish lives;

… appalling when Meghan’s bodyguards stopped members of the same public taking her photo at Wimbledon;

… she refused to meet President Trump during his UK state visit, despite being the only American member of the Royal Family;

… dreadfully two-faced of her and Harry to preach about the need to watch every carbon-footprint, as they jumped on Sir Elton John’s private jet every ten minutes;

she ended a tour of poverty-strewn parts of South Africa by moaning about her own ‘struggle’;

their incessant war with the media, throwing hysterical abuse-laden warnings and lawsuits out like confetti, so pathetically thin-skinned and self-defeating given how much positive press they’ve also enjoyed;

the way they’re treated the Queen so deplorable and cruel, given her age (93), the fact her 98-year-old husband Philip has been so ill, and the recent enormous stress she has suffered over having to fire her own son Andrew over the Jeffrey Epstein scandal

He concludes, in part:

The reality is that Meghan and Harry have brought this ugly situation entirely on themselves

Here is one more self-inflicted injury by the Sussexes:

The youngsters complaining about the media were too young to remember the press drubbing that the Duchess of Cambridge — Kate — received when she got engaged to Prince William. Her mother was also ridiculed for having been a former airline attendant. A few years ago, the Duchess and her mother were criticised for having young Prince George stay at the Middleton home now and then so that he could spend time with his maternal grandparents.

She got her media flak, but she rose above it. Now she can do no wrong:

As Morgan says:

That is definitely true.

Before then, there were Charles’s girlfriends from the early 1970s, all roundly sniped at in the press.

Princess Anne was similarly criticised during the same time period.

So did Princess Anne’s first husband. The media called him ‘Foggy’, not just once or twice but often. So often, in fact, that to this day, I do not remember his real name.

Before that, there was Princess Margaret — the Queen’s sister — who suffered a barrage of negative press during her adult life, from the 1950s to her death in 2002.

Conclusion: Meghan Markle is NOT the only Royal who has ever been criticised in the media. Others suffered far worse for no compelling reasons at all.

More tomorrow on other commentators’ reactions to the Sussexes.

In the meantime, for anyone compiling pub quiz stumpers, here’s one for you:

Q. What was Prince Harry’s last public engagement as a senior Royal?

A. The official draw at Buckingham Palace on January 16, 2020, for the Rugby League World Cup, which will be hosted in the UK in 2021.

Of course, that could well be subject to change in the years to come, but it’s good for the time being.

The Queen’s Chrismas Day message to the nation was as thought-provoking as ever:

The Express has a transcript. Note that the Queen says that 2020 is the start of a new decade — not 2021, as pedants say (emphases mine):

as we all look forward to the start of a new decade, it’s worth remembering that it is often the small steps, not the giant leaps, that bring about the most lasting change.

The new decade, beginning in a few days’ time, is further confirmed on Twitter:

Contrary to what the media has reported this month, she kept family issues out of the speech.

On Christmas Eve, the Mail‘s Richard Kay wrote:

After so many broadcasts the Queen, of course, is comfortably familiar in front of the camera, but even so this year she will quite possibly deliver her most difficult, her most painful and perhaps, from the monarchy’s point of view, her most crucial Christmas message ever.

Sure.

In reality, the Queen focussed on the notable anniversaries in 2019:

As a child, I never imagined that one day a man would walk on the moon. Yet this year we marked the 50th anniversary of the famous Apollo 11 mission.

As those historic pictures were beamed back to Earth, millions of us sat transfixed to our television screens, as we watched Neil Armstrong taking a small step for man and a giant leap for mankind – and, indeed, for womankind. It’s a reminder for us all that giant leaps often start with small steps.

This year we marked another important anniversary: D-Day. On 6th June 1944, some 156,000 British, Canadian and American forces landed in northern France. It was the largest ever seaborne invasion and was delayed due to bad weather …

Since the end of the Second World War, many charities, groups and organisations have worked to promote peace and unity around the world, bringing together those who have been on opposing sides.

On that subject, The Express reported her words and what lay behind them:

“It was the largest ever seabourne invasion and was delayed due to bad weather.

“I well remember the look of concern on my father’s face.

“He knew the secret D-Day plans but could of course share that burden with no one.”

This subtle nod to her father also seems to reflect on the burden of loneliness which wearing the crown can entail at times.

Mentions of family were happy ones:

Two hundred years on from the birth of my great, great grandmother, Queen Victoria, Prince Philip and I have been delighted to welcome our eighth great-grandchild into our family.

The broadcast included a clip of Prince George stirring up Christmas pudding:

As Defender of the Faith in the United Kingdom, the Queen always mentions the Reason for the Season, dispensing pragmatic wisdom when speaking of our Lord:

Of course, at the heart of the Christmas story lies the birth of a child: a seemingly small and insignificant step overlooked by many in Bethlehem.

But in time, through his teaching and by his example, Jesus Christ would show the world how small steps taken in faith and in hope can overcome long-held differences and deep-seated divisions to bring harmony and understanding.

Many of us already try to follow in his footsteps. The path, of course, is not always smooth, and may at times this year have felt quite bumpy, but small steps can make a world of difference.

As Christmas dawned, church congregations around the world joined in singing It Came Upon The Midnight Clear. Like many timeless carols, it speaks not just of the coming of Jesus Christ into a divided world, many years ago, but also of the relevance, even today, of the angel’s message of peace and goodwill.

It’s a timely reminder of what positive things can be achieved when people set aside past differences and come together in the spirit of friendship and reconciliation. And, as we all look forward to the start of a new decade, it’s worth remembering that it is often the small steps, not the giant leaps, that bring about the most lasting change.

And so, I wish you all a very happy Christmas.

The broadcast, which airs at 3 p.m. GMT every year, closed with the choir at Windsor Castle singing the famous carol, accompanied by a military band.

I wonder if outgoing Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn saw the speech, which he said was broadcast in the morning:

On Christmas Day at Sandringham in Norfolk, the Royal Family look forward to a church service and family lunch.

Normally, the Royal children do not attend the service. However, Princess Charlotte and Prince George made their first appearance this year (top photo on the left in the second tweet):

I hope that the Queen’s cousin, Princess Alexandra, had a very happy birthday:

This year’s Christmas speech by the Queen proved the media wrong once again. Why do we lean on their every word?

Instead, let us heed her words about small steps being significant in creating great transformation.

Since the early hours of Friday morning, I have said many prayers of thanksgiving for Boris Johnson’s overwhelming Conservative Party victory.

The new Conservative MP for Bishop Auckland, which has always voted Labour in living memory, spent the weekend giving thanks, too. God is good:

When I wake up now, this is one of my first thoughts:

This is another:

As is this. What a lovely scene of London, especially with the Christmas tree in the middle:

I am amazed at how the Conservatives were able to demolish the impenetrable ‘red wall’, as they called it, by winning in constituencies that had not voted Conservative ever or for a very long time. Their novice candidates beat long-standing Labour MPs.

This is incredible:

Ballots from St Ives were the last to arrive because of a storm:

This was the result (note the Father Christmas sweater):

Thursday’s election result was truly historic, the best since Margaret Thatcher 40 years ago:

See how true blue the electoral map of England has become post-election (second tweet):

Guido Fawkes has more detail (emphases in the original):

The Tories lost seven seats to the SNP and one to Labour, but won enough new seats to make up for those and more, particularly in the Midlands, Wales, and the North. The one seat Labour managed to take off the Tories was typically metropolitan Putney…

Big names to lose their seats included:

    • Jo Swinson
    • Laura Pidcock
    • Dennis Skinner
    • Chris Williamson
    • Emma Dent Coad
    • Caroline Flint
    • David Gauke
    • Antoinette Sandbach
    • Dominic Grieve
    • Anna Soubry
    • Nigel Dodds
    • Zac Goldsmith

Luciana Berger, Chuka Umunna, and Sam Gyimah also failed to win new ones.

The Tories won so evenly across the country that Michael Gove was able to triumphantly declare in the Tories’ victory event this morning that “Next year both the Durham Miners’ Gala and the Notting Hill Carnival will take place in seats held by the Conservatives.” The Tories won back Kensington which includes Notting Hill, and astonishingly Laura Pidcock was defeated in her seat of North West Durham…

Commiserations to Nigel Dodds and Zac Goldsmith. I will miss them. UPDATE (Dec. 17): Apparently, there could be plans to elevate Zac Goldsmith to the House of Lords, enabling him to keep his cabinet position.

Guido posted another list later that day, based on the BBC’s research. This one concerns all the MPs who ran as independents, so some of the same names will appear. Explanatory notes in purple are mine:

Research by the BBC’s Laurence Sleator has shown that all 18 MPs who defected in the last Parliament then stood again for this one failed in their endeavours to be re-elected to the House of Commons. Two even lost their deposits…

Liberal Democrat Losers

    • Angela Smith  (ex-Labour)
    • Chuka Umunna  (ex-Labour)
    • Phillip Lee  (ex-Conservative)
    • Luciana Berger   (ex-Labour)
    • Sarah Wollaston  (ex-Conservative)
    • Antoinette Sandbach  (ex-Conservative)
    • Sam Gyimah   (ex-Conservative)

Independent Losers

    • Frank Field  (ex-Labour; elderly, has served Birkenhead well over the years)
    • David Gauke  (ex-Conservative)
    • Dominic Grieve  (ex-Conservative)
    • Anne Milton (ex-Conservative)
    • Chris Williamson (Lost deposit) – ex-Labour
    • Ivan Lewis (Lost deposit) – ex-Labour
    • Gavin Shuker  (ex-Labour)
    • Roger Godsiff  (ex-Labour)

Tigger Losers  (TIG — The Independent Group)

    • Anna Soubry  (ex-Conservative)
    • Mike Gapes  (ex-Labour)
    • Chris Leslie  (ex-Labour)

Turns out voters don’t take too kindly to party-hopping democracy dodgers when their time comes…

I’m sorry about Frank Field, but as far as the others in that list are concerned, good riddance. Many have commented online that this is evidence of ‘draining the swamp’. True.

The ex-Conservative rebels, e.g. Dominic Grieve, David Gauke, Antoinette Sandbach and Anna Soubry, were so certain they would win. Ha!

The Press Association has a great recap of how the early hours of Friday morning unfolded. Note the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon making a fool out of herself when she found out that the then-Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson lost her Scottish constituency to the SNP. Shameful. Furthermore, the big-hitting Conservatives predicted to lose their seats WON. The media were WRONG:

Only Tom Harwood, 23, who works with Guido Fawkes, predicted a Conservative landslide. Guido posted a compilation of Harwood’s appearances on the BBC’s Newsnight where presenter Jo Coburn sneered dismissively, ‘And we’ll live happily ever after’. The media were wrong AGAIN.

Congratulations, Tom. Highly recommended viewing:

It was Tom’s idea to use ‘stonking’ at Guido Fawkes in describing the Conservatives’ majority. Now Boris is using the word, too, as did Sky News’s Kay Burley and Labour’s Ian Lavery:

Another point worth making is that we now have a record number of women MPs!

Before the election, media pundits said the rough and tumble of Parliament would be too much for them. The media were WRONG about this, too:

Here’s another thing the media got WRONG: Boris Johnson was going to be turfed out of the last Parliament.

Let us look at Boris’s Friday the 13th — an excellent day for him:

Late that morning, he went to Buckingham Palace, where the Queen invited him to form a new government:

Then he returned to 10 Downing Street:

Shortly after 3 p.m., he addressed the nation. This video is subtitled. The press await on the opposite side of the street:

This version from the Press Association (PA), also subtitled, is a bit longer:

Meanwhile:

WEDDING RING UPDATE (Dec. 21) — owner found, ring a family heirloom:

On Saturday, December 14, the PA reported that a grateful Boris was visiting some of the constituencies that had voted Conservative for the first time (emphases mine):

Boris Johnson will meet with newly-elected Conservative MPs as part of a celebratory victory lap after winning a “stonking mandate” at the General Election.

The Prime Minister secured an 80-seat majority and many of his gains came in Labour’s heartland areas across the North and the Midlands.

Some areas, such as Bishop Auckland in the North East, had never elected a Tory MP before Thursday.

Mr Johnson, speaking outside Number 10, said he would “work round the clock” to repay the trust of those who “voted for us for the first time” – including those whose “pencils may have wavered over the ballot and who heard the voices of their parents and their grandparents whispering anxiously in their ears” …

Mr Johnson will make the first move to show newly-elected MPs that the concerns of their constituents will be heard with a visit on Saturday to some of those who overturned a Labour majority.

Later that day, the PA reported that Boris poled up in Sedgefield, Tony Blair’s former constituency, which voted overwhelmingly Conservative:

Boris Johnson has vowed to repay the trust of former Labour supporters whose votes helped deliver him victory in the General Election.

The Prime Minister made a symbolic visit to Tony Blair’s old Sedgefield constituency in County Durham – which fell to the Tories on Thursday night – to pledge his commitment to spreading opportunity across the country.

“We believe in giving opportunity to everyone,” he told a crowd of cheering supporters and newly-elected MPs from the region packed into the local cricket club.

“We believe that talent is evenly distributed throughout our country, but opportunity is unfairly distributed.

“We are going to rectify that as a One Nation Conservative government, as a people’s government, that is what we are going to do.”

Sedgefield was one of a swathe of seats across the North, Midlands and north Wales in Labour’s hitherto impregnable “red wall” to go blue as the Tories stormed to an 80-seat majority in the new House of Commons.

Sedgefield residents were over the moon:

We have a lot to look forward to once we ‘get Brexit done’, as Boris says, and begin trade negotiations. That said, I will not be buying chlorinated chicken, especially as free range British chicken is the real thing and so, so tasty. Let’s hope our Conservative victory does augur a landslide victory for President Trump in 2020:

Today heralded a glorious return to Parliament!

Congratulations to Boris Johnson!

Congratulations to everyone in Britain who voted Conservative!

Congratulations to all Conservative MPs, especially the novices!

Onwards and upwards for what Conservatives are calling The People’s Government!

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas team posted a ‘hot mic’ video about ABC’s 2016 cover-up of Jeffrey Epstein. This is a must-watch:

In August 2019, ABC’s Amy Robach expressed her frustration to an ABC colleague about the network’s spiking the news story. Project Veritas has more (emphases mine):

Newly revealed footage leaked by an ABC insider has exposed how network executives rejected allegations against Jeffrey Epstein years ago, even though there was content regarding the merit of those claims in-hand.

Amy Robach, ‘Good Morning America’ Co-Host and Breaking News Anchor at ABC, explains how a witness came forward years ago with information pertaining to Epstein, but Disney-owned ABC News refused to air the material for years. Robach vents her anger in a “hot mic” moment with an off-camera producer, explaining that ABC quashed the story in its early stages. “I’ve had this interview with Virginia Roberts (Now Virginia Guiffre) [alleged Epstein victim]. We would not put it on the air. Um, first of all, I was told “Who’s Jeffrey Epstein. No one knows who that is. This is a stupid story.”

This was in 2016, during the presidential election campaign. Hillary Clinton was the Democrat candidate, and the footage, Robach says, would have implicated former president Bill Clinton. If aired, that could well have put an end to Hillary’s campaign. We all know she was supposed to win.

Robach says she and her team encouraged Virginia Roberts Giuffre to come out of the shadows and discuss her horrific years with Epstein, which she did.

At this point in 2016, ABC was weeks away from getting an interview with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge — Wills and Kate:

She continues, “The Palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways.”

Robach does not think Epstein committed suicide, as was widely reported:

Robach goes on to express she believes that Epstein was killed in prison saying, “So do I think he was killed? 100% Yes, I do…He made his whole living blackmailing people… Yup, there were a lot of men in those planes. A lot of men who visited that Island, a lot of powerful men who came into that apartment.”

Robach repeats a prophetic statement purportedly made by Attorney Brad Edwards “…[T]here will come a day when we will realize Jeffrey Epstein was the most prolific pedophile this country has ever known,” and [d]isgustedly Robach states “I had it all three years ago.”

Later on November 5, Robach and ABC issued their own statements. The images below come courtesy of Project Veritas:

The Project Veritas went viral that day:

There were another 500,000 views three hours later:

This exposé might not have been covered in much of the Western world that day, but at least it made Australia’s news …

… and Fox News in the US:

It’s hard to disagree with that.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, Sarah Sanders’s father, adds:

Later, CNN covered the story but without a reference to Project Veritas, only ‘an activist group’.

On November 6, The Daily Caller reported that ABC was looking for the person who leaked the video. The article explains how CBS could be connected:

ABC News has launched an investigation to determine who leaked the video of anchor Amy Robach alleging that the network killed her story on Jeffrey Epstein, it said in a statement Wednesday …

ABC News is trying to determine who leaked the video to Project Veritas, according to a statement from the outlet, journalist Yashar Ali wrote Wednesday.

“We take violations of company policy very seriously, and we’re pursuing all avenues to determine the source of the leak,” a spokesperson for ABC News said according to Ali.

ABC News also allegedly knows the former employee who had access to the video of Robach, two sources with knowledge of the situation told Ali. The outlet is still unsure if that person leaked the footage to Project Veritas or if they shared it with others who leaked it.

The former employee is now allegedly working at CBS News, the sources said, according to Ali. CBS News did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Daily Caller article includes part of Ali’s Twitter thread on the developing story:

Not only is there a possible CBS connection but a possible Disney one, too:

The petition is gathering strength:

I wish James O’Keefe and his team the best of luck with this and other exposés:

We know if conservatives were covering up major news stories about highly corrupt and destructive people, it would be all over the news 24/7 for months — and worse:

This story is developing:

Again, best wishes to all concerned who are helping Project Veritas.

CNN calls itself ‘the most trusted name in news’.

It might have been 40 years ago, when it actually reported news.

Since 2015, however, CNN’s chief Jeff Zucker has issued a policy of anti-Trump editorialising all the time.

On October 14, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas posted a 19-minute video full of interviews with CNN employees, most of whom complain that Jeff Zucker has gone far enough, perhaps too far, with the anti-Trump narrative. Please take time this weekend to watch this fascinating undercover exposé:

Employees interviewed say that Zucker has a mandatory 9 a.m. telephone call issuing the day’s anti-Trump theme. Most often, this is impeachment, impeachment, impeachment.

The interviewees are not Trump supporters, but even they say this is taking away from CNN’s ability — and their own desire — to cover real news, not editorials.

Staff members say that Zucker helped create the Trump media ‘monster’ by overpublicising him since 2015.

The White House has seen the film, as a campaign lawyer mentions the main CNN whistleblower Cary Poarch in writing. The letter below, dated October 16, 2019, gives notice that Donald J Trump for President, Inc., intends to take legal action against the network:

The day before, Trump tweeted:

Oh, if only.

James O’Keefe has experienced Twitter labelling portions of the Project Veritas video as ‘sensitive content’:

Twitter also omitted the Project Veritas video from their trending list, as O’Keefe explains in the next video:

This is the link to the video of Cary Poarch and Sean Hannity. This Fox News article has a brief summary of the interview.

By the time the Hannity interview took place, Poarch was no longer with the network. Hannity described him as a ‘contractor’ and ‘former satellite uplink technician at CNN’s Washington, D.C. bureau’. Poarch told Hannity that he had problems sleeping at night because of CNN’s extreme bias.

Poarch said he was a Bernie Sanders supporter in 2016 and voted for the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson that year.

He told Hannity that he and his boss discussed his resignation, which, at the time, they agreed would be voluntary. However, the Project Veritas video circulated so widely and so quickly that the network terminated his employment that day.

The next video, from October 17, features a CNN employee saying that the House of Representatives abuses its power everyday, yet Congressmen and Congresswomen are trying to impeach President Trump for no justifiable reason:

Not everyone at CNN agrees with that assessment. The next video shows an employee saying that the anti-Trump coverage will only go away if the president dies! Pathological:

There have also been sexual shenanigans going on at CNN:

This is a terrible state of affairs but one many of us already suspected.

I congratulate Project Veritas for finally being able to expose CNN.

More news from last weekend will help put the Remainers’ tricks into better context.

BBC bias — Andrew Marr Show

The flagship Sunday morning television news programme is the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show.

On September 29, 2019, Marr interviewed Prime Minister Boris Johnson, followed by the Shadow (Labour’s) Education Secretary Angela Rayner.

Boris could barely get a word in edgewise, whereas Marr let Rayner speak uninterrupted:

Language humbug

The topic of language used in the Commons on Wednesday, September 25, was still a huge issue for Remainers. The media storm continued into Monday.

Here’s Gina Miller, who is leading anti-Brexit lawsuits:

Boris somehow made dirty words out of ‘humbug’ and ‘surrender’ for them last Wednesday evening.

So did Attorney General Geoffrey Cox earlier that day:

Guido Fawkes had this (emphasis in the original):

Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox, just gave one of the most barnstorming speeches Guido has seen in many years:

This parliament is a dead parliament. It should no longer sit. It has no moral right to sit on these benches… This parliament is a disgrace. They could vote ‘no confidence’ at any time, but they’re too cowardly.

Guido has a feeling this one may go viral…

Indeed. Both the AG and the PM spoke eloquently — and wittily — getting their points across with aplomb.

On the other hand, at least one rebel Conservative used blunt language. Here’s Dominic Grieve:

Grieve was on Robert Peston’s ITV news show last Wednesday. It seems this is acceptable and non-hyperbolic language — as long as it comes from a Remainer:

A few days later, the Scottish equivalent of Gina Miller — another Remainer lawyer bringing similar lawsuits — let rip on the PM:

The women

As America’s Left did with Donald Trump, Britain’s Left — including notional Conservative Remainers — played up two news stories about Boris, involving women.

Jennifer Arcuri

This events in this story took place during Boris’s time as Mayor of London. It is developing and could be politically motivated, especially as Boris and the current Mayor of London Sadiq Khan trade occasional verbal jabs with each other.

It is strange that no one outside the London political bubble has heard of Jennifer Arcuri until now, when a) we are on the Brexit countdown and b) the Conservative Party Conference was starting at the time this news broke.

From the BBC (emphases mine):

It is alleged businesswoman Jennifer Arcuri received favourable treatment due to her friendship with Mr Johnson.

The prime minister was referred by the Greater London Authority on Friday.

Mr Johnson has denied any impropriety, while a government source described the referral as “politically motivated”.

The allegations regarding Mr Johnson’s friendship with technology entrepreneur Ms Arcuri first emerged last weekend in the Sunday Times.

They refer to claims that Ms Arcuri joined trade missions led by Mr Johnson when he was mayor of London and that her company received several thousand pounds in sponsorship grants.

The Greater London Authority’s monitoring officer – whose job it is to monitor the conduct of the mayor and other members – said it had written to the police watchdog, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).

It said it had referred the PM to the IOPC “so it can assess whether or not it is necessary to investigate the former mayor of London for the criminal offence of misconduct in public office”.

It added that it has recorded a “conduct matter” against Mr Johnson which happens when there is information that indicates that a criminal offence may have been committed.

But it does not mean that a criminal offence is proved in any way, the GLA’s monitoring officer added.

“The IOPC will now consider if it is necessary for the matter to be investigated.”

The reason the IOPC is involved is because the role of the mayor of London is also London’s police and crime commissioner

Responding to the referral, No 10 said: “The prime minister, as Mayor of London, did a huge amount of work when selling our capital city around the world, beating the drum for London and the UK.

“Everything was done with propriety and in the normal way.”

Charlotte Edwardes

Charlotte Edwardes was a young columnist for The Spectator 20 years ago, at the time when Boris was the magazine’s editor.

Last weekend, she wrote her maiden article for The Sunday Times about the time the 35-year-old editor squeezed her thigh around that time. Interestingly, Ms Edwardes’s current boyfriend is the aforementioned Robert Peston, ITV’s political editor. Timing is everything:

Not surprisingly, the story made the front page of The Sunday Times, which a proud Peston retweeted:

Both the social and the political angles merit explanation.

I remember reading about The Spectator‘s parties at this time. They were legendary. Many celebrities, authors, journalists and politicians hoped for invitations to the magazine’s summer garden party and/or the Christmas lunch.

Writer Toby Young, who also wrote for the magazine when Boris was editor, remembers the atmosphere:

Toby Young might have overstated things a bit, but Boris did have a way with the ladies, so there is probably more than a germ of truth to that.

An 82-year-old lady rang The Jeremy Vine Show (Channel 5) to say she wouldn’t mind an evening out with Boris. I do not think she is an outlier, either. Again, we should consider the timing of Miss Edwardes’s revelation and wonder why she did not come forward sooner:

That tweet makes an excellent point about timing.

Here is more information:

Yes, there was a rumour that Edwardes’s colleague, Mary Wakefield, was sitting on the other side of her and supposedly remembered that Boris touched her thigh, too.

Or, perhaps not.

Interestingly, Mary Wakefield is married to Dominic Cummings, the PM’s chief adviser on Brexit:

The story annoys both Leavers and Remainers:

No. 10 denied the story, and Labour MP Paula Sherriff, who was the first to mention the late MP Jo Cox’s name last Wednesday, offered Edwardes her moral support:

At the Conservative Party conference, the PM’s father, former Conservative MEP Stanley Johnson, defended his son eloquently to Kay Burley of Sky News:

People at home were unimpressed:

Kay Burley isn’t exactly blameless, though. You can see her red hair in the photo below from an old story:

The news story surrounding the photo is about Naomi Campbell’s appearance at Uxbridge Magistrates Court in north-west London in 2008.

Naturally, reporters raced to get quotes from the model and photographers wanted photos. Mayhem ensued, as the Daily Mail reported on June 21 that year:

Sky News presenter Kay Burley clashed with a photographer during the mayhem when Naomi Campbell arrived at court yesterday.

The newscaster, 46, was apparently hit in the cheek by a camera – and was then seen with her hand around a photographer’s throat.

Given the scrum, witness accounts differed:

There were suggestions that the photographer, Kirsty Wigglesworth from the Associated Press agency, had bumped into Miss Burley and injured her badly.

A witness said: ‘We were walking in alongside Naomi and basically, Kay got whacked in the face by a photographer.

‘Kay pushed back the photographer after she had her cheekbone smashed by this person. The photographer’s aggressive behaviour was extraordinary.

But another witness, who saw the second half on the incident, said: ‘Kay Burley had her hands around the photographer’s neck. It was really, really vicious.

‘The only way the photographer stopped her was by pulling her sunglasses off.

‘She has got marks around her throat.’ It is claimed that Miss Burley and the photographer were taken to one side by the police about the incident.

Remainer news

Whilst the Conservatives are at conference in Manchester, with some MPs flying back and forth to London via helicopter because opposition benches refused to adjourn for three days, Remainers have been busy elsewhere.

Not many opposition MPs attended Monday’s afternoon session in the Commons. Speaker Bercow spent only a couple of hours before turning over the rest of the day’s proceedings to a female Deputy Speaker.

Civil servants

Civil servants are under strain after summer holidays to deliver background work on Brexit. They complained of stress earlier in the year. They’re lucky they do not work in the private sector:

Labour and Lib Dem views

Former Home Secretary Jack Straw says that, although he disapproves of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership …

… he will still vote Labour for tribal reasons.

Party before country … not surprising.

Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson plans to block Corbyn’s possible ascendancy as temporary PM:

Rebel Conservative MPs

I am disappointed to read that David Gauke, now an Independent MP, spoke at the Conservatives’ conference:

On Monday, September 30, Sky News reported that Gauke focussed on the language issue (emphases mine):

Ex-justice secretary David Gauke spoke at the Conservative conference in Manchester despite having been effectively expelled from the party – by having the Tory whip withdrawn – for voting against Boris Johnson on Brexit earlier this month.

He accused the prime minister of a “strategy that is about stoking resentment”, with Mr Johnson having recently been criticised by opposition MPs for his use of language …

Hence we have the language of surrender, of betrayal, of collusion. Because that feeds into a strategy that is about stoking resentment, nursing grievances, provoking anger.

“It means our politics becomes debased, it means the Conservative Party becomes a much more aggressive, much more confrontational, much more divisive party …

“And we cease to follow the traditions of our great leaders. We are no longer the party of Churchill, we are more the party of Trump.”

Dominic Grieve poled up, too, although not as far as a podium. He says he received an unsettling message:

Reading out a message he received on his phone during the event, which he revealed read: “You are a foul traitor”, Mr Grieve said: “This sort of atmosphere, which is being currently – I’m sorry to say it – but bluntly encouraged by the leader of the Conservative Party… is unacceptable behaviour and it is undermining our democracy and [will] smash it up.

“We will all have to live with the consequences – not only in our constituencies but our neighbourhoods and it will extend to each one of us.”

Mr Grieve, who supports a second EU referendum and Remain, added he was “pleased” to have attended the Manchester conference despite having been advised by some not to go.

“Most people here have been rational, pleasant and engaged even when they’ve come up to disagree with me,” he said.

Alistair Burt, another rebel — and the co-author of the Benn-Burt Bill, which attempts to thwart No Deal on October 31 — insisted he was still loyal to the party:

He revealed he recently chose not to stand at the next general election as he could not recommend a no-deal Brexit, which the government insists is still a possibility on 31 October, to his North East Bedfordshire constituents.

Describing how he has been a Conservative Party member for almost 50 years – but has now had the Tory whip withdrawn – Mr Burt added: “I was also parliamentary private secretary to two Conservative leaders: Michael Howard and Iain Duncan Smith.

“I stood behind Iain Duncan Smith at one of the most difficult times in the Conservative Party’s history.

“I don’t need any lessons on loyalty from anyone in telling me what to do for the Conservative Party in the future.”

It’s not as much about the Conservative Party, Mr Burt, as it is for the nation: the 52% of Britons who voted Leave on June 23, 2016.

More to come tomorrow.

As we know, Greta Thunberg has resumed worldwide calls for children to bunk off school on Fridays in order to call attention to climate change.

Alan Jones, an Australian commentator on Sky News, had a pointed message for ‘little turds’ who should ‘get the facts’ before protesting. A partial transcript follows:

I couldn’t agree more.

Here is the partial transcript:

Also — wouldn’t it show more dedication to protesting climate change if the students got up early on a Saturday morning so to do?

Just a thought.

Most of us thought that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was safe from allegations once he was confirmed and sworn in to office nearly a year ago.

We were wrong.

On Saturday, September 14, 2019, a New York Times article raised the allegations from 2018 once more, calling for Justice Kavanaugh’s impeachment.

The paper invited the two authors of a book about the Kavanaugh accusations, The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation, to write a column about them. Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly wrote the book and the article. Part of the article (paywall) has to do with one of last year’s accusers Deborah Ramirez and a classmate, Max Stier, who are said to have witnessed Kavanaugh, a university freshman, at a dorm party. Breitbart has the excerpt of the supposed episode.

Those familiar with Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly’s book have said one must read it until the end to find this gem:

… critics pointed out: “Not only does the alleged victim not confirm the story, she is reported to be denying it.”

Nevertheless, Democrats have been on the attack, including presidential candidate and US Senator, Kamala Harris, from California:

Breitbart‘s article states:

Harris did not mention, or did not know, that the authors’ own book refutes the allegation, which the alleged victim reportedly does not recall. The accuser [Max Stier] — not the victim — also represented Bill Clinton during his impeachment …

During Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, Harris — who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee — was criticized for tweeting a deceptively edited video that made it appear as though he argued against women’s access to birth control.

Some Twitter users, including a co-author of a book on the subject, remember this story from an article in the New Yorker at the time and how it collapsed under scrutiny:

The story of Christine Blasey Ford, the most memorable of Kavanaugh’s accusers, was also resurrected — but earlier, around September 8, before the NYT article appeared.

Here’s the short version:

On September 8, Newsweek reported, in part:

A video circulating on social media shows Christine Blasey Ford’s attorney telling attendees at a feminist conference that her client’s testimony against now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was a politically motivated move to protect Roe v. Wade.

Conservatives are railing against comments attorney Debra Katz made in April in her keynote address at the University of Baltimore’s Feminist Legal Theory Conference regarding Kavanaugh’s controversial Supreme Court confirmation process. Katz represented Ford, who testified at a public hearing and accused Trump’s nominee, at the time a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, of sexually assaulting her 36 years prior while the two were in high school. Katz’s comments at the conference appeared to confirm many conservatives’ accusations that Ford’s testimony was intended in part to protect the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that established abortion access as a constitutional right.

Speaking on the theme of “Applied Feminism and #MeToo” earlier this year, Katz told attendees: “In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court.”

The self-proclaimed “women’s rights and social justice activist” continued: “We were going to have a conservative [justice] … Elections have consequences, but he will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important; it is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.”

American Lawyer Magazine reporter Ryan Lovelace authored a book released last week entitled, Search and Destroy: Inside the Campaign against Brett Kavanaugh, portraying Katz as a partisan, politically-motivated feminist who encouraged Ford to smear Kavanaugh.

Another Democrat candidate for president, Amy Klobuchar, US Senator for Minnesota, tweeted her support for Blasey Ford:

Yet, one of Blasey Ford’s oldest friends doubted the veracity of the accusation against Kavanaugh.

This is also in Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly’s book. They were the ones who wrote the recent NYT article.

On Sunday, September 15, The Federalist‘s Mollie Hemingway tweeted:

Interestingly, that same day, the NYT issued a correction to their article. One wonders how many people saw the correction and how many millions more spent time at the weekend listening or reading extensive coverage of the efforts to impeach Kavanaugh:

The correction states:

Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account, but the F.B.I. did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly. (We corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier.)

Something must be done about the media in general:

This scurrilous tactic of smearing Kavanaugh again and again, now with the goal of impeaching him, could backfire on Dems in 2020.

This is what a sampling of Americans said on Twitter:

One had a message for Kamala Harris:

So why are these accusations and calls for impeachment being raised now?

Here is another reason why. The Senate is appointing dozens of Trump nominees to US federal courts:

Citizen journalist Tracy Beanz, gives us the perspective of another citizen journalist, Harold Finch. The following thread explains that the Democrats are afraid of losing more of their cases in the higher courts. In retaliation, the Dems could try to discredit decisions from those courts — including the Supreme Court — and ignore them. Dangerous:

There it is — plain as day.

This is just one more reason NOT to vote for Democrats in 2020.

British journalist and television presenter Piers Morgan recently gave an interview to Ben Shapiro about the Left.

He says:

The Left have become unbearable.

This video, which is subtitled and runs just under two minutes and thirty seconds, is excellent. I am not necessarily a Piers Morgan fan but agree with everything he says here:

Being in media, he begins with comedians hosting awards shows. Because people cannot make — and take — jokes anymore, said shows lack hosts or are being cancelled.

Even it that is no big deal, Morgan takes the totalitarian measures of the Left further, calling them a type of ‘fascism’ (his word). He says that if you do not live your life in the way leftists dictate, they go after you in a number of ways, from personal abuse to making sure you lose your job.

Consequently, he says, ordinary people are rebelling by electing populist — he says ‘popularist’, possibly purposely — politicians who are willing to confront the Left. He cites President Trump and says this is happening in Europe, too. (Incidentally, Hungary’s Viktor Orban became prime minister long before Trump was elected. Orban assumed office in 2010, six years before the American president was elected. That said, western Europe has seen a continuing drift towards conservative and populist political parties.)

Here’s the interview in full:

In conclusion, it would be good if Piers Morgan and millions of other people would stop using the word ‘liberal’ to describe leftists. Liberal refers to classical liberalism: free markets and small government.

Let’s call these people what they are: leftists — the most illiberal of people.

A lot of Americans vote Democrat because their families have done so for generations.

A lot of Christians also vote Democrat because a) for Catholics, it was known as ‘the party of the Church’ and b) others, today, view Dems as kind people concerned about the downtrodden.

Below are three reasons why American voters should think again about voting for Democrat candidates.

New DNC resolution

At the end of August 2019, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) adopted a party resolution: ‘Resolution Regarding the Religiously Unaffiliated Demographic’.

An excerpt follows, emphases mine:

WHEREAS, the nonreligious have often been subjected to unfair bias and exclusion in American society, particularly in the areas of politics and policymaking where assumptions of religiosity have long predominated; and

WHEREAS, those most loudly claiming that morals, values, and patriotism must be defined by their particular religious views have used those religious views, with misplaced claims of “religious liberty,” to justify public policy that has threatened the civil rights and liberties of many Americans, including but not limited to the LGBT community, women, and ethnic and religious/nonreligious minorities; and

WHEREAS, the Democratic Party is an inclusive organization that recognizes that morals, values, and patriotism are not unique to any particular religion, and are not necessarily reliant on having a religious worldview at all; and

WHEREAS, nonreligious Americans made up 17% of the electorate in 2018 and have the potential to deliver millions more votes for Democrats in 2020 with targeted outreach to further increase turnout of nonreligious voters …

What nonsense.

Americans, whether religious or not, are more pluralistic at any time since the US was founded. I personally know average families who have embraced gay sons and daughters. Others have welcomed marriages of their children with those of another faith or race.

Therefore, there seems no good reason to adopt this sort of resolution.

The Stream has an article about it: ‘Democratic Party Passes Resolution Against Christianity’.

The author, Tom Gilson, a senior editor of The Stream and author of books on Christianity and modern day living, raises important points about this move. Excerpts follow:

The key paragraph:

Those most loudly claiming that morals, values, and patriotism must be defined by their particular religious views have used those religious views, with misplaced claims of “religious liberty,” to justify public policy that has threatened the civil rights and liberties of many Americans, including but not limited to the LGBT community, women, and ethnic and religious/nonreligious minorities …

The party’s hostility toward Christian beliefs and values was clear enough before. Putting it on paper this way, however, raises the message to another level.

The Democrats want to see Christians on the defense. And they’re good at putting us there. They have special skill with scare words. Even the simple word “particular” makes us look small, small-minded, and off in an intellectual corner somewhere. Of course none of that is true.

They put “religious liberty” in scare quotes, as if the concept of it weren’t in all America’s founding conversations, and in the first paragraph of the Bill of Rights. They speak, too, of “civil rights,” “liberties,” and “minorities.” America has sacralized these words, hardly ever stopping to ask when they apply, and when they’re nice-sounding words that don’t belong where they’re being used.

And there’s no simple response to this. That’s not because the answer is unclear, but because so much needs explaining to get it across. We live in different worlds, as it were. When a party takes aim at the Western world’s moral foundation, it’s no longer making mere political statements. This is a worldview statement.

In the Democrats’ world, “civil rights” are no longer endowed by our creator. They’re human products, human inventions. Gay marriage is example number one: It became a right when five Supreme Court justices said it was …

Christianity gets criticized for aligning with the Republican Party. I’m not comfortable with that myself. There’s great danger in tying ourselves to any political group. But what choice do Democrats leave us now? There are only two major parties. One of them has made its stand. It’s against us. We can’t vote Democrat and hold to our Christian values and beliefs.

Let me repeat that: We can’t vote Democrat and hold to our Christian values and beliefs. That doesn’t mean we have to agree with everything our president does. It doesn’t even mean we have to be Republicans. But for all the options seemingly open to Christians, one of them is shut tight, at least for now — by Democrats’ own decision.

Abuse of Trump donors and supporters

On August 5, Congressman Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), released a list of prominent Trump donors in the San Antonio area.

On August 10, Ronna Romney McDaniel, the chairwoman of the Republican Party, responded:

One month later, the tweet is still up.

No, Ronna, Democrats will never be forced to condemn such a heinous move. However, if Republicans did such an unthinkable thing, it would be all over the news 24/7 for months.

On August 10, MSNBC featured a discussion between host and guest about physically harming Trump supporters:

Trending Politics covered the discussion, which concerned a Trump donor’s fundraiser as well as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s harassment outside of his home while he was recovering from a recent injury. Language alert below:

On Thursday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes agreed with a guest on his show, Elie Mystal who said that Trump donors should be met with pitchforks and torches.

“People of color are already targets under this administration,” Elie Mystal said to Hayes. “I have no problem with shining the light back on the donors who fund this kind of racialized hate. I go farther, I want pitchforks and torches outside this man’s house in the Hamptons.”

“I’ve been to the Hamptons, it’s very nice, but there’s no reason why it has to be,” he added. “There’s no reason why he should be having his nice, little party. There’s no reason why people shouldn’t be able to be outside of his house and making their voices peacefully understood that they reject this stuff.”

Mystal’s comments were directed towards billionaire Stephen Ross who recently held a fundraiser for President Trump’s re-election campaign.

“Totally,” Hayes agreed. “There have been peaceful protests outside [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell’s house and I imagine there will be peaceful protests outside [Ross’s house]. Again, it’s all speech.”

The protests outside of McConnell’s house were anything but peaceful. The demonstrations were caught on camera shouting death threats. One liberal even screamed “just stab the motherfucker in the heart.”

“Trump is a bigoted demagogue and we all kind of know that. These people should be ashamed of supporting him. Right? Like, at this point you should basically only be able to contribute to the Trump campaign with bitcoin,” Mystal stated. “But Equinox man is holding an ‘Eyes Wide Shut’ party and he’s surprised the people are getting up in his grill.”

Here’s the video in full:

Can you imagine if Republicans had a conversation like that on Fox News? MSNBC would be dissecting it until Election Day next year.

Do Democrats honestly think that such extremist talk will make Trump supporters falter? Why on earth would Trump supporters want to even vote Democrat after such views were aired?

This is but one example of the hate Democrats have for Trump supporters. Here’s another, from the New York Post on September 1:

Witness Hollywood’s new ­McCarthyism. “Will & Grace” stars Debra Messing and Eric McCormack could just have boycotted a fundraiser for President Trump next month if they don’t like Republicans.

But that’s not enough for the Tolerance Taliban. They want the names of anyone who does show up at the fundraiser so they can be blacklisted.

“Please print a list of all attendees please. The public has a right to know,” Messing tweeted Friday in response to a Hollywood Reporter story about the Emmy-week function.

McCormack piled on, “Kindly report on everyone attending this event, so the rest of us can be clear about who we don’t wanna work with.”

It’s sinister that high-profile entertainers could harbor such illiberal instincts and have no shame about displaying them for all to see. But the most damage they do is to their own credibility.

I hope the reporter is correct about the credibility angle. Personally, I am less optimistic.

Number of illegals higher than estimated

Recently, Tucker Carlson discussed a Yale University study that says the number of illegals in the United States is likely to be closer to 22 million than the oft repeated 11 million figure.

Please take one minute out of your day to watch this. It has subtitles, so there’s no need for sound:

Carlson says that the Dems are soft on illegals, because they want all of them to be able to vote in 2020.

He is not wrong. The Motor Voter programmes run in various states practically guarantee that illegals are registered when they apply for driving licences.

Democrats want to go further now and are pressing for all age-appropriate illegals to be able to vote … in a country they, by law, should not even be in.

Such an act would result in millions more added to the voter rolls in overwhelmingly Democrat states as well as in marginal Republican ones.

The higher the population, the more Electoral College votes — and the more Congressional representation — those states receive. Think of California and New York.

Carlson is correct in saying that the Democrats are using this tactic not because they have any particular feeling for illegals but rather to get the votes they need to stay in power for years to come.

Imagine if there were never another Republican president. Some might cheer at that, but once one party is in power for years and years, corruption is sure to follow, not to mention the strong possibility of totalitarianism.

Conclusion

This man, who is not American, has a warning about the Democrats:

Just in case the lady’s tweet gets deleted, here is his message in full:

I could not agree more with his sense of passion and urgency.

I, too, have come to believe that the United States is in a state of spiritual war.

I pray that America recovers. I also pray that this spiritual war does not spread to other nations. No one can afford its costly consequences.

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,382 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

January 2020
S M T W T F S
« Dec    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

http://martinscriblerus.com/

Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,556,894 hits