Connect with us


WATCH: MSNBC Host Slips And Makes Alarming Admission About ‘Stupid’ Americans On Live TV

Then it got worse!



A panel of news anchors was discussing President Trump’s attitude towards the mainstream media and urging the American public to question the press. It became even more bizarre. Mika Brzezinski actually admitted that if the economy takes a downturn the American public may start to trust President Trump over them.

Brzezinski continued by saying that she considered the dangerous edges here were that President Trump was trying to undermine the media by trying to make up his own facts, and people might start to believe him over the media if the economy worsens and the unemployment gets worse than it is.

“Well, I think the dangerous edges here are that he’s trying to undermine the media, trying to make up his own facts, and it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could have undermined the messaging…”

Trending: BIG Billboard Goes Up On Busy California Highway Overnight With 4 Words That Makes Maxine Waters PANIC

According to Mika Brzezinski, it’s the media’s job to tell people what they think.

Here is more on how Morning Joe was pro-Trump during the primaries because they saw him as the easiest for Hillary to beat via National Review:  “Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski have taken to insufferable gloating about their prescience and condescending snootiness aimed at anyone or anything that might disrupt the Trump narrative they’ve bought into and helped to create. When it comes to the presidential race, the set of Morning Joe increasingly resembles the mean-girls table at the high-school cafeteria.

When a presidential candidate (goes after) Trump or simply proves inconvenient to Trump’s campaign, the response from the mean girls is typically, “Oh no she didn’t!” Mika Brzezinski’s favorite reactions to any suggestion that criticism of Trump will stick to him include eye rolls, poses of shock and disgust, and sarcastic bewilderment. Scarborough, meanwhile, loves to rehearse all the past times people said Trump was doomed and pretend in mock seriousness that this time he really is toast. The upshot is always the same: Nothing touches the Donald.

Mika Brzezinski’s favorite reactions to any suggestion that criticism of Trump will stick to him include eye rolls, poses of shock and disgust, and sarcastic bewilderment.

This is a key distinction. You don’t get in much trouble with the Morning Joe crew for criticizing Donald Trump, so long as you keep it low-energy. What earns you pushback is any suggestion that Trump can be vanquished. You can call Trump a racist or a fool, but don’t you dare suggest his racism or foolishness will cost him with voters!

Scarborough knows what a lot of people in Washington have been slow to learn: Trump doesn’t care what you say about his views, statements, and positions, so long as you describe him as a winner — in the polls and in life.

It’s a strange kind of worshipfulness that’s easy to misread. The ancient gods of, say, Norse and Greek mythology had flaws. They were prone to jealousy and vanity — and it was okay to say so. You could still be a faithful disciple of Thor or Zeus so long as you also praised their strength and power and feared their wrath. That’s how it is with Trump. He doesn’t care what you think about his ideas — because he doesn’t either. He cares deeply about being described as a winner.

For instance, Scarborough and Brzezinski insist they’re not in the tank for Trump. I think this is . . . untrue. Yet their defense has superficial plausibility according to the normal rules of politics, because they have in fact criticized Trump for some of his comments in the past.

Well, think about that for a second. If his comments were disqualifying, shouldn’t Trump be disqualified from being president? Good luck finding any suggestion that Scarborough and Brzezinski actually think that should be the case.

And that has been Morning Joe’s great gift to Trump. By constantly pushing the narrative that Trump is unstoppable, that he’s “in a different league,” that he’s inevitable and on the right side of history, and, most importantly, that substantive criticisms of Trump just don’t matter, Morning Joe (and a great many others in the media) has been making in-kind donations to his campaign. The Morning Joe crowd and others hide behind their transitory and evanescent criticisms of Trump as proof they are being objective, all the while insisting that such criticisms are irrelevant because Trump is the fleshy manifestation of an Idea Whose Time Has Come.

Thus, any efforts or stratagems designed to stop Trump are the stuff of desperate establishmentarians and incompetent hacks. Indeed, they gussy up all of this celebrity- and power-worship with claims that Trump has “tapped into” something real and important. He’s given voice to the voiceless white working class — never mind that, by their own admission, the voice Trump’s imparting to them is “disqualfying.”

And that brings me to this morning. The mean girls were at their bitchiest today because Ted Cruz dared to go out and talk to some Trump-supporting protestors. Mika was making faces and shaking her head over the whole episode the way a high-school Queen Bee might when the bespectacled president of the knitting club stands up to make an announcement at lunchtime. Scarborough literally succumbed to a giggle fit. Did Cruz really think he could persuade the Trump supporter? How could he think this was a good idea?

I thought what Cruz did was fine, even admirable. It was also risky and went on too long. But the notion that what Cruz did was politically idiotic is itself what’s idiotic here. First of all, the point of engaging the protester wasn’t to convince the protester — it was to convince the convincible viewers of the video. If I debate a crazy leftist on a college campus, the goal isn’t to persuade my opponent, it’s to persuade the audience.

Moreover, Cruz has done this many times before. Bill Clinton engaged protestors and was celebrated for it. So did Ronald Reagan. And you know that if Trump did something like this, the response on Morning Joe would be rapturous applause (particularly since we all know Trump is incapable of the kind of reasoned and civil debate Cruz conducted). Cruz is in a bad place, and he is doing everything he can to change the dynamic on the ground in Indiana. The response from the cool kids? “What a loser!”

But what really infuriates me is that these people have been saying for months that Donald Trump is succeeding because no other politicians take his constituency seriously. The establishment takes the white working class for granted. They don’t treat them like adults. Etc. Well, here comes Cruz and he does exactly that. He shows this lunkhead protester a level of respect and courtesy he doesn’t deserve and addresses the issues he cares about seriously and maturely — and the response from Morning Joe is giggles and insults. I was almost expecting Mika to say, “Ted Cruz needs to stop trying to make ‘fetch’ happen.”

Join the conversation

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Dem Candidate Pushing ‘Irresponsible Breeder’ Tax On Certain Parents Because Of ‘Privilege’



Scott Wallace is a multimillionaire running in Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District against current incumbent Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-R). Considered an elite, even amongst the wealthy, he boasts a net worth of between $127 million and $309 million, according to his financial disclosure statement. This would make him the third-richest member of Congress if he were elected to the House today.

From a hardline leftist pedigree, his grandfather was Henry Wallace, the “New Deal visionary” and one-time vice president under former President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His wealth is inherited, stemming from a seed company his grandfather founded that was purchased by DuPont for $10 billion in the 1990s, along with a large number of stocks with the largest being DowDuPont.

His campaign is largely self funded with Wallace claiming he is “putting a significant amount of my own assets into this because this is the most important thing I can imagine doing for America at this point in my life — this is a very expensive district to run in, but it is crucial in the Democrats’ efforts to retake the House.”

But just why this is so incredibly important to Wallace goes beyond the typical party lines of Republican and Democrat. Receiving endorsements from both Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women (NOW), Wallace is a population control zealot who believes families who choose to have more than two children are “irresponsible breeders” and should be taxed. Wallace has donated nearly $7 million dollars to various population control groups over the past 20 years, with the majority going through his own Wallace Global Fund.  In addition to its efforts towards population control, the foundation has also reportedly donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-Israel groups that support a boycott of the Jewish State.

Fox News reports:

“Zero Population Growth (ZPG) was among the organizations that received the money from the fund. According to public records, it received $420,000 between 1997 and 2003.

The group, shortly after being founded in 1968, released a brochure advocating abortion to stabilize population growth and claimed that “no responsible family should have more than two children.” To deal with larger families, it also called for families to be “taxed to the hilt” for “irresponsible breeding.”

It also blamed the overpopulation on the ‘white middle-class’ that ‘use up more than their share of resources and do more than their share of polluting‘ and urged them to ‘voluntarily limit their families to two children.’

Paul Ehrlich, who co-founded the ZPG, once called abortion “a highly effective weapon in the armory of population control.” The goal of the organization, which changed its name to Population Connection in 2002, has remained the same since its inception, arguing that the world needs to contain population growth with particular emphasis on American families.

The organization’s political arm, Population Connection Action Fund, publicly endorsed Wallace for Congress, saying his support for their cause is “exactly the kind of dedication we need in Congress.”

Wallace’s fund also gave $20,000 in 2010 to the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE), a group that sees the economic growth as undesirable and instead supports an economy with ‘stable or mildly fluctuating levels’ and a society where birth rates equal death rates.

The organization openly supports zero population growth and its executive board member, Herman Daly, advocated issuing reproduction licenses, allowing women to have only two children unless they buy the license for more children from other women. Daly called it the ‘best plan yet offered’ to limit population growth.”

The group advocates strongly for abortion and along with taxing families “to the hilt” for having more than two children, as noted in a Yale Law School publication about the “voices that shaped the abortion debate before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court’s ruling.”

The group advocates that –

  1. That no responsible family should have more than two children. Any family wanting to care for more than two children should adopt further children. Adopting children does not increase the population.
  2. All methods of birth control, including legalized abortion, should be freely available—and at no cost in poverty cases.
  3. Irresponsible people who have more than two children should be taxed to the hilt for the privilege of irresponsible breeding.

Fox News continued:

Zoe Wilson-Meyer, communications director for Wallace’s campaign, didn’t answer Fox News’ questions on whether Wallace still supports the ideas expressed by the groups.

“The Wallace Global Fund has for decades been a leader in helping women gain access to family planning. Former Co-Chair Scott Wallace is proud of the work of grantees like Planned Parenthood in empowering women and protecting reproductive rights and will stand up for Pennsylvania women,” she said in an email.

“In Washington, Brian Fitzpatrick voted to defund Planned Parenthood and supports Donald Trump’s effort to take away a woman’s right to choose,” she added.

Largely reminiscent of Nazi Germany who exercised eugenics to its full and most horrific potential, this policy of so-called “irresponsible breeders” also resembles the one-child policy from China that saw forced abortions or other forced invasive birth control procedures. Yet eugenics practices had their roots in America as well. American newspapers frequently offered praise for eugenics just prior to WWII and The Holocaust …. that is until Adolf Hitler revealed the true horrors of what eugenics really looked like. They avoided the subject for decades thereafter.

Nine out of ten eugenicists in the 20th Century were also Progressives or Socialists, and the most central component to the eugenic creed is the desire to engineer and centrally plan human reproduction, weeding out the unwanted or undesirable, according to a report on eugenics by PBS.

Yet where does that end? Who determines who is undesirable? Is it the unborn child conceived at an inconvenient time? The elderly mother? The child with cerebral palsy? Those with PTSD? Autism? Blue eyes? White skin? You cannot get to genocide without first visiting identity politics and they say the propagandist’s job is to effectively make the people forget his “enemy” is, in fact, a human being just as he is. It seems we never really do learn from history, do we?

Continue Reading


Trump Issued Major Warning: ‘We Will Look Into Discriminatory and Illegal Practice’ – It’s On!

Huge problems and everyone needs to know!



President Donald Trump voiced his concerns over “discriminatory and illegal practice” when he posted about the alleged controversy going on with Republicans being censored on Twitter. The tactic is sometimes referred to as “shadow banning” and it seems to be a strategy that social media platforms use to limit the visibility of some people. For example, ever wonder why someone who is genuinely popular might have tons of followers but their posts don’t seem to get many responses? It could be one of several reasons. Either they have fake followers, the post is no good, or they are being censored. In many cases, it’s a form of censorship that’s the obvious result. When a social media user goes from getting a lot of replies and views on their posts, then all of a sudden there’s very little replies and it seems like no one has seen the post – then they were hit with that form of censorship or suppression.

Social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have been called out for suppressing the content of certain Republican voices or those who support President Donald Trump. Well-known stars like Diamond and Silk have made it very public that they feel targeted for the views and opinions on their pages. That’s just the tip of the iceberg because the problem spans from targeting well-known mainstream people all the way down to the independent publishers. Censorship like this is affecting people’s careers and causing an unbalanced platform in which people with certain views are being limited. It might not be listed as a “ban” but it’s certainly limiting the viewership of certain people. The content that would once appear in people’s feed or timeline now requires a fine-tooth comb to find and it seems like people are realizing this more often and being upset with it.

Trump spoke about it on Twitter and Vice News completed a report on it.

Vice News reported: “Twitter is limiting the visibility of prominent Republicans in search results — a technique known as “shadow banning” — in what it says is a side effect of its attempts to improve the quality of discourse on the platform.

The Republican Party chair Ronna McDaniel, several conservative Republican congressmen, and Donald Trump Jr.’s spokesman no longer appear in the auto-populated drop-down search box on Twitter, VICE News has learned. It’s a shift that diminishes their reach on the platform — and it’s the same one being deployed against prominent racists to limit their visibility. The profiles continue to appear when conducting a full search, but not in the more convenient and visible drop-down bar. (The accounts appear to also populate if you already follow the person.)

Democrats are not being “shadow banned” in the same way, according to a VICE News review. McDaniel’s counterpart, Democratic Party chair Tom Perez, and liberal members of Congress — including Reps. Maxine Waters, Joe Kennedy III, Keith Ellison, and Mark Pocan — all continue to appear in drop-down search results. Not a single member of the 78-person Progressive Caucus faces the same situation in Twitter’s search.

“The notion that social media companies would suppress certain political points of view should concern every American,” McDaniel told VICE News in a statement. “Twitter owes the public answers to what’s really going on.”

Presented with screenshots of the searches, a Twitter spokesperson told VICE News: “We are aware that some accounts are not automatically populating in our search box and shipping a change to address this.” Asked why only conservative Republicans appear to be affected and not liberal Democrats, the spokesperson wrote: “I’d emphasize that our technology is based on account *behavior* not the content of Tweets.”

Twitter directed VICE News to a May 15 blog post that explained the company’s new approach to combating “troll-like behaviors.” After making changes to its platform, the company said that “[t]he result is that people contributing to the healthy conversation will be more visible in conversations and search.”

Twitter did not respond to a follow-up question.

Twitter’s troll hunt, however, has ensnared some of the most prominent Republicans in the country. Type in the names of McDaniel, conservative members of Congress like Reps. Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, and Matt Gaetz, and Trump Jr.’s spokesman Andrew Surabian, for example, and Twitter’s drop-down search bar does not show their profiles. The search menu also does not display the verified profile of Rep. Devin Nunes of California, only his unverified one that he seldom uses to post.

That limits their visibility and the ease of finding their profiles compared to their liberal counterparts.

UPDATE: July 26, 10:00 AM: Twitter appears to have adjusted its platform overnight to no longer limit the visibility of some prominent Republicans in its search results.”

At what point do social media platforms give the control back to the people? Users should not have to worry about their views being censored by the machine.

Censoring any content that is not illegal should not be tolerated by the users.

Continue Reading

Like Us on Facebook



No trending posts found at this time.