Connect with us

News

BUSTED ON HOT MIC!!! CNN Caught Revealing Plan To Sabotage Trump On Live TV- WE KNEW IT!

They tried to screw us!

Published

on

As reported previously, CNN’s Jim Acosta was an utter embarrassment at the North Korean summit, shouting out questions at President Trump and Kim Jong-Un. He just would not quit. Kim ignored him and President Trump actually answered his questions, which is far more than he deserved if you ask me. And it gets even worse. Acosta was caught on a hot mic bragging that he purposefully disrupted the historic peace summit in an act of pettiness that just boggles my mind. It was done out of revenge for not being allowed to sit in on their denuclearization meeting. Just juvenile. He really needs to have his press credentials pulled permanently.

Acosta justified his actions this way, “Hey if they’re not going to let me in the f***ing meeting, that’s what happens… That’s the way it goes, baby.” That should earn this hack a final kick out of the door at the White House and to be told not to ever bother coming back. Breitbart’s Joshua Caplan posted the audio on Twitter. Acosta didn’t even bother denying he said it… it’s obvious he made the comments. Disgusting.

As I said the other day, while the world collectively held their breath during the historic signing of the denuclearization agreement between Trump and Kim, Acosta shouted out: “Mr. President, did we agree to denuclearize?” Trump answered and Acosta had the nerve to shout an even more insulting question… “Did you talk about Otto Warmbier, sir?” Trump did discuss human rights with Kim, but the media spun it as if he didn’t. After that outburst, Acosta stepped way over the line and yelled at Kim, “Mr. Kim will you give up your weapons, sir?” No answer and I’m not surprised by that either. Why should Kim bother to answer some rude American reporter?

Trending: First Video of Latest Trump Star Vandal Swinging Pickaxe Shows What Happened – Spread Like Wildfire

President Trump’s 2020 campaign manager, Brad Parscale, had plenty to say about Acosta’s disgraceful behavior. He tweeted that Acosta’s press credentials should be revoked. Amen to that! Acosta violated the first rule of journalism; he is far more interested in making himself the story than reporting on it. Parscale has nailed Acosta before and rightly so. He also said that Acosta’s press credentials should be stripped after he trolled President Trump when he was interacting with children during the White House Easter egg roll. “I think the White House should pull his credentials because he yelled questions, as he continues to do at inappropriate times, while the President was coloring books with children,” Parscale tweeted in April 2018. “Disrespectful, and would have never been allowed previously.”

Acosta has been a flaming embarrassment from the beginning. He’s always harassing White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders during her press conferences and he tries to embarrass President Trump every chance he gets. You don’t see real reporters acting like this. None of the people from Fox News act like this. Every time it happens, it’s some leftist media hack. CNN’s Jim Acosta, April Ryan and a number of others hate President Trump so much that they are determined to make a newsworthy spectacle every time they get an opportunity. These are politicized media attacks and should not be allowed. Remember that Acosta was the one that got President Trump to label CNN as fake news in the first place.

From BizPac Review:

“Since President Trump took office, Acosta has repeatedly hijacked high-profile meetings and White House events in his desperate bid to become the day’s viral YouTube sensation.

“In June 2017, Acosta played the “You-Ignored-Me” card when he accused WH press secretary Sarah Sanders of not calling on him even though there were many other media outlets at the press briefing besides CNN.

“In December 2017, Sanders shut Acosta down when he repeatedly interrupted her as she was trying to reply to his question.

“Like his CNN colleague April Ryan, Acosta has thirstily raised his public profile by attacking President Trump and his aides and using the WH press briefings to draw attention to himself.

“In January 2017, Acosta rudely interrupted President Trump during one of his first press conferences since taking office. Trump shut down the CNN clown in epic fashion when he quipped: “You are fake news!””

Acosta hit back at President Trump’s 2020 campaign manager’s call for his press credentials to be revoked, saying the practice happens in “dictatorships…not democracies.” “Dear Brad.. dictatorships take away press credentials. Not democracies,” Acosta tweeted at Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale on Tuesday. First off, we are a Republic. Second, you are allowed into the White House press pool at the President’s discretion and it has always been that way. The reason you haven’t seen credentials revoked in the past is you haven’t seen this kind of rude behavior before. Yes, there is freedom of the press, but that does not mandate that a hack like Acosta be allowed to cover White House press conferences. If he can’t act even remotely professional, he should be barred from attending.

Acosta also defended his decision to shout a question at North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un while in Singapore and said the world would have thought less of the White House press corps if reporters stayed silent. “I couldn’t think of anything else to ask North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un, but whether he’s going to give up his nuclear weapons,” he said Wednesday on CNN. “There’s a dictator right in front of you who has nuclear weapons. Why on Earth would you not ask that question?” he asked.

“The question I have is, if you play the same video of him walking past us with President Trump, and you turn the sound down, and the reporters covering this trip didn’t ask any questions, what would the rest of the world have said about the White House press corps, if we hadn’t asked any questions of Kim Jong-Un when he was right in front of us?” he asked. “He’s threatened to vaporize parts of the United States. My goodness, I could not have thought of anything else better to ask at that moment than that question.”

There is a time and place to ask those questions and a peace summit is not it. The world sees a reporter like Acosta and then think that all Americans are rude like he is. They aren’t and he makes all of us look bad. President Trump is about to drop the hammer on this guy – pull his credentials and send him packing. The rest of the CNN gaggle can join him.

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.

News

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

Published

on

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

News

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

Huge problems and everyone needs to know!

Published

on

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

Recent

Trending