Master of Truth. A writer who has captured the imagination of many.
MSM finally paying attention to the Biden Cartel? Back in 2020 when the stories first broke on the computer and the money payoff, no one on the left was paying attention or even cared. So we thought. Then the twitter tweets came out.
Now whistleblowers? Oh my! Is the curtain about to fall on the crime syndicate known as the Biden Cartel.Bank records, millions in payoffs, ABC,NBC, CBS, CNN, ETCC. All covering this now.
Just pick up and move Disney? We have this from Breitbart.
North Carolina State Senator Michael Garrett (D-Guilford County) has filed Senate Bill 594, the “Mickey’s Freedom Restoration Act,” which would invite Disney World to move its entities to the Tar Heel State, according to a report by WGHP.
The State Senator went on to bizarrely refer to Disney, which has declared war on children in Florida, as a company “seeking refuge.”
“I welcome The Walt Disney Company and all other businesses seeking refuge from the culture war madness currently gripping the great state of Florida,” Garrett said.
Garrett also mentioned, “We haven’t spoke to Disney yet. They were just notified today of the legislation.”
This article is a reprint from Emerald Robinson’s The Right Way.
The #1 conservative site on Substack — The Right Way is recommended by over 180 fellow Substack authors
The corporate media has been buzzing the last few months about a defamation lawsuit filed against Fox News by an electronic voting machine company. In fact, the left-wing corporate press is positively salivating at the monetary damages that might be inflicted on Fox News if the case is lost. Apparently, those purple-haired kids don’t understand that $1.6 billion is hardly a fine for Rupert Murdoch — he probably pays that much semi-annually for those routine divorces he’s always getting.
Why would the American corporate media cheer on a lawsuit that has broken all the rules for discovery, and threatens the First Amendment protections of journalists? And since when do vendors operating as third-party proxies for state governments in national elections get to sue the Fourth Estate for defamation?
That’s just the start of the trouble. Consider the plaintiff. How can you defame a company that Americans didn’t know existed until the 2020 election — in an industry that Democrats like Kamala Harris regularly defamed as corrupt in HBO specials like “Kill Chain” among others?
That’s a tough question — legally speaking. Of course, it’s an easy question in terms of politics. What can you tell Democrats that they won’t believe? For example: that boys are girls and girls are boys? There’s no basic fact of biology that Democrats won’t deny — if necessary. There’s no scientific law they won’t denounce in a pinch — gravity! chemistry! the third law of thermodynamics! — to remain in the good graces of their shameless mob.
After all, the memory of the average Democrat voter is about the same as a fruit fly dipped in Fentanyl.
That’s why the corporate media can publicize the private text messages of Fox journalists, and expect that dangerous precedent to be viewed as normal too.
That’s the only explanation for CNN covering the jury selection and calling it “historic.” Or Mediate celebrating the fact that the Delaware judge assigned to the case is clearly not neutral. Here’s a slice from that craptastic outlet’s coverage:
That was not the only time Judge Davis spoke out in colorful terms about Fox’s coverage in the aftermath of the election, which he has described in scathing terms throughout this case. “I could have a lot of fun with this case,” Davis said at one point, during a discussion of Dominion’s opportunity to cross examine Fox witnesses.
Nothing like the judge openly admitting that he views Fox News as guilty before the trial. Do you remember a time when judges tried to hide their liberal bias? I sure do. That’s the old America. In the new Amerika (thank you Kafka!) the communist judges advertise their lack of impartiality to the communist press. And why not? Maybe there’s a Soros retirement bonus waiting for any robed idiot who turns our judicial system into a modern Stalinist replica that’s suitable for the Banana Republic of Biden.
Though it’s hard to believe, MSNBC’s trashy commentary was even more toxic and absurd than Mediate’s garbage:
“There could be a lot of implications depending on how it plays out,” said Imraan Farukhi, an assistant professor at Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications. Besides the financial impact, Farukhi added, “The other question is what will they do with their talent if they lose? The majority of the stars at Fox are implicated. Any other news organization would have probably seen their hosts losing their jobs for improper reporting.”
Who’s going to tell Imraan Farukhi that if getting fired for “improper reporting” was actually a thing in American corporate media, there would no longer be American corporate media?
For that matter, who’s going to tell Imraan Farukhi that good entertainment lawyers don’t leave to become assistant professors at third-tier colleges? (I peeked at his bio.) How much does Farukhi even know about media? Or America for that matter? Did he just cross the southern border or something? I ask because he seems to be — well, you know — new here.
Of course, Assistant Professor Farukhi is not the only lunatic who’s out howling in the moonlight about the Fox lawsuit.
Everywhere you look, you find manifest absurdities on display in this lawsuit.
1st: The judge involved the case has already ruled that Fox’s claims about the electronic voting machine company are false.
In this case, it’s obvious that Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis is writing checks with his mouth that he simply can’t cash. The Constitution mandates that individual states conduct our elections. It is illegal for individual states to outsource our elections to foreign companies owned by foreigner individuals using private software that cannot be reviewed or audited.
This is basic law 101.
Why would such an absurd scenario be tolerated by our national security state (just think of all the cybersecurity spooks at the FBI, CIA, NSA and DHS) for even a moment? The answer, of course, is that it would not be tolerated — unless the national security state was the ultimate power behind it all.
That’s why you see 2020 election votes being counted in Spain by a DoD “contractor” called Scytl. That’s why you have a FBI agent posing as Arizona’s Director of Elections for the 2022 midterm disaster in Maricopa County.
And that’s why you have Delaware judges pretending to be cybersecurity experts who want you to believe that flaws in our election systems (that are published by CISA on its official website no less!) are really just “conspiracy theories.”
2nd: The plaintiff was allowed to seize the data from any journalist or producer or anchor at Fox News that it wanted. When has that ever happened in America?
A private company has never been allowed to hoover up the data from a legacy media network and embark on a fishing expedition. Never. Until now.
How was that data used?
On Monday March 6th, Tucker Carlson released the first footage of the January 6th insurrection showing police ushering protestors inside the Capitol.
On Tuesday March 7th, Tucker Carlson’s private text messages were widely published by the corporate media — as part of the “coverage” of the Fox lawsuit.
Notice the perfect timing. The data from discovery was used as leverage.
That same day, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer publicly warned Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch against running more footage: “Rupert Murdoch has a special obligation to stop Tucker Carlson from going on tonight […] our democracy depends on it.”
These are not subtle threats.
3rd: Chuck Schumer’s public threat to Rupert Murdoch gave the game away — it’s the federal government behind it all.
Why did the leader of the U.S. Senate claim that the owner of a news network had “a special obligation” to stop a TV anchor from investigating January 6th? That’s just the sort of thing that violates our democratic norms isn’t it? What was he talking about? The “special obligation” is no doubt Fox’s role in trying to sell the American people on the phony results of the stolen 2020 election — and the early Arizona call for Biden/Harris in particular.
There’s a word for this sort of threat and the word is: kompromat.
America’s national security state (FBI, DHS, CIA, NSA) is none too thrilled to be unmasked as the instigator of a phony insurrection on January 6th that stopped our duly elected senators from challenging the 2020 election certification due to fraud.
After all, subverting America is a delicate business.
Our spy agencies understand that they’ve lost their legitimacy with the American people — which is why they’re trying to seize power through the TikTok bill this week after getting caught trying to infiltrate Catholic churches last week in between investigating angry parents at school board meetings as “domestic terrorists” and stealing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell’s cellphone in a parking lot for no good reason.
It’s hard work rigging America’s elections at taxpayer expense — especially once its citizens start to notice.
What an Ass. Biden loon claims the Pandemic was a good thing. Outgoing Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs at the Department of State Monica Medina saw the Biden-Obama Pandemic as being beneficial.
So millions of people dying, the thousand upon thousands who suffered side effects was good? What a sicko. Sat what? “people really appreciated how much they enjoyed getting to be in the environment more days than they would” if they had been at work and that “we saw pollution levels go down and people went, huh, my quality of life is a little bit better now” because they didn’t have to worry as much about air pollution as they did before.
Winning. Washington Post calls for more police. Especially in cities like DC. All the MSM was calling for the defunding of police. Most called for a citizen type social worker group replacing them.
Now the Washington Post has finally admitted that it doesn’t work. More police is the answer.
WaPo editorial board shifts view on ‘Defund the Police’ since George Floyd riots: DC ‘needs more officers’
Recent editorials from the Washington Post changed the publication’s “Defund the Police” perspective with calls for increased police presence in the D.C. area.
On Friday, the paper’s Editorial Board published a piece arguing “Why police officers need to be in D.C. schools.”
“Many cities yanked officers out of schools while reassessing policing after George Floyd’s 2020 murder. However well-intentioned, the experiment has left kids more vulnerable and classrooms less safe amid surging youth violence. That’s why a notable number have already reversed course — including, in this region, Alexandria and Montgomery County. Other jurisdictions, from Boston to Phoenix, are actively debating whether to follow,” The Post wrote. “D.C. should join them.”
However, the Washington Post was one of many media outlets that entertained the idea of defunding the police after the death of George Floyd in 2020.
“Weeks of sustained anger and grief after the police killing of George Floyd have reignited a public debate over police brutality in the United States. Alongside demands for police reform, another demand has surfaced: Defund the police. This provocative slogan at its most constructive represents a welcome call to reimagine public safety in the United States,” a June 2020 editorial stated…
“Rethinking which institutions truly serve public safety and imagining new ones should be part of that conversation. This work is arduous and demanding — as many community organizers who have been doing it for decades can testify. But no one ever said reimagining public safety would be easy,” The Post wrote.
https://twitter.com/CapehartJ/status/1270711158744535040?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1270711158744535040%7Ctwgr%5Ebe914db7cc16472bd5246a02571962a8b5cf71c5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2023%2F04%2Fliberal-washington-post-editorial-board-reverses-position-on-defunding-the-police%2F
What a big difference.
The British government is reportedly planning on issuing guidance to schools that would prohibit supposedly transgender students from joining contact sports teams of the opposite sex as well as requiring teachers to inform parents if their child begins displaying signs of transgenderism.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s recent declaration that 100 per cent of women do not have penises may have some real-world applications in the coming months, with the government reportedly preparing new guidance on gender for schools across the country.
According to a report from The Times of London, the proposed guidance would require schools to inform parents if their child began expressing signs of transgenderism, such as saying they would like to change their gender, begin wearing uniforms of the opposite sex, or demanding to be called a name associated with the other gender.
The change could have widespread ramifications, given that a recent survey from the Policy Exchange think tank found that four in ten secondary schools in England are currently allowing children to change their gender without consulting parents.
The document, which is currently being drafted by the Department for Education, would also tell schools that children who claim to identify as the other gender should not be permitted into changing rooms or showers of the opposite sex. However, other facilities could be provided as is already the case for disabled students.
Sports at schools would also covered under the guidanance, with the government reportedly set to ban biologically male students from joining girls’ teams — and vice versa — for contact and competitive sports such as rugby. Yet, there will apparently be less stringent rules surrounding sports that do not involve physical contact.
The report comes after British Prime Minsiter Rishi Sunak declared this week that ‘100 per cent’ of women do not have a penis.
Sunak, who has is in the past struggled to provide a definition of what exactly constitutes a woman, has seemingly firmed up his position on the hot-button political issue of gender.
Speaking to the Conservative Home website this week, the prime minister was pressed on whether he believed that 100 per cent of women do not have male genitalia, to which the prime minister responded “yeah, of course”.
The stance comes in contrast with that laid out by the head of the opposition in the parliament, Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer, who has claimed that only 99.9 per cent of women do not have penises.
Explaining his stance, Prime Minister Sunak said that he had a “slightly different point of view” from Sir Keir, adding: “We should always have compassion and understanding and tolerance for those who are thinking about changing their gender.
“But when it comes to these issues of protecting women’s rights and women’s spaces, I think the issue of biological sex is fundamentally important.”
California’s gun control works for who? 9 mass shootings up to April 16th. And it’s not just this year. From 1982 to 2023 California leads the nation in mass shootings. More than Texas and Floridan combined. How can that possibly be? One California loon claims that every single mass shooting was with a gun bought outside of California. SMH.
Now I’m sure that the Progressives who follow this website will say the answer is simple. Pass more gun control. How crazy is that? Obvious that states like California that have these laws, either don’t enforce them, or they just don’t work.
What’s the answer? First thing is to look at who and where the shootings are happening? In minority neighborhoods? If so you set up check points and increase police presence.
Nuff said. That’s a start.
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting
https://www.statista.com/statistics/811541/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-state/
If you’re 21 and under, vote, Katie Porter says you’re immature. Especially if you vote for her. Follow this conversation with Porter.
Democrat Rep. Katie Porter Saturday night sparred with Piers Morgan and Bill Maher on “Real Time with Bill Maher.” Katie Porter accidentally admitted something about her own constituents during a debate about gun ownership. ‘Kids are immature!” Kate Porter shouted
“Not at 21,” Bill Maher said before being interrupted by Katie Porter.
“21-year-olds are immature! That’s why we don’t let them drink until they’re 21. That’s why some of us don’t think that 20 year olds, that 19-year-olds ought to be able to get AR-15s,” Katie Porter added.
“But they can go fight – they can be in the Army! They can vote!” Bill Maher said.
“I thought if you vote you should have a certain level of maturity – they’re deciding whether you should be in Congress or not,” Bill Maher said directing his statement to Kate Porter.
Katie Porter replied, “By the way, I win those votes… and I’m proud of it!”
Bill Maher interjected, “You just said you win the votes of the immature!”
Crickets.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1647434685453148160
What does President Trump, The Leaker, and Joe Biden have in common? All three had top secret documents. Only President Trump had top secret documents legally. Biden and the leaker had those top secrets illegally.
Also President Trump had the power to declassify the documents. Biden and the leaker did not. President Trump had the documents in a locked secured location where you had Secret Service Personnel on site.
President Trump did not release the documents to the public. The leaker did, and with Joe Biden, who knows. Biden wouldn’t remember if he did. And remember when sked about the documents, Biden at first denied it than said they were in his garage on the floor in boes secured.
Clarence Thomas is taking one for the team.
Did Clarence Thomas do anything wrong in accepting gifts from a wealthy Republican? Or is he the victim of years of pent-up anger at the Supreme Court by Democrats?
Yes.
According to an investigation by ProPublica, for more than twenty years, Justice Thomas received lavish and expensive gifts, including trips on a private yacht and a private jet, from Harlan Crow, a Texas billionaire and real estate developer with a long record of support for Republican politicians. Under the ethics regulations that guide Supreme Court justices, it is not clear that Thomas had to report any of this. (Thomas says the guidance he received affirmed he did not need to report any of the gifts as his angel, Crow, had no business before the Court and the trips were “personal hospitality” — a gift from a friend.)
ProPublica asserts that the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 required Thomas to report these gifts. This is probably untrue. People do not report “personal hospitality,” such as Thomas’s vacations. It wasn’t until a few weeks ago that the Judicial Conference issued new guidelines saying free trips and air travel must now be reported. This was announced as a change in policy, meaning disclosure was not required in the past but would be in the future. It is as simple as that.
So it appears that while Thomas did not break the letter of these regulations, he certainly skirted the edge of what we’ll call propriety — the appearance of being on Harlan Crow’s extended payroll. For a guy who has lived so long in Democratic crosshairs. it seemed an unwise thing for Thomas to do, even if it was legal. One theme of government ethics classes is you don’t just have to demonstrate actual impropriety; you must avoid even the possible appearance of impropriety. Accepting lavish travel perks (or operating your own email server) is just not what regular feds do.
Thomas’s long war with the left started with his confirmation hearings in 1991 after his nomination by President George H.W. Bush. Anita Hill, who worked for Thomas at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Thomas had sexually harassed her. Her testimony ignited a national conversation about sexual harassment in the workplace and the treatment of women in the legal profession. It introduced many Americans to the vocabulary of pornography long before Bill Clinton soiled the waters (small world: Senator Joe Biden was then chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversaw the confirmation process. Biden has faced criticism for his sexist handling of Hill’s testimony and for not allowing three other female witnesses to testify.)
As a jurist, criticism of Thomas has focused on three points. Many liberals disagree with his conservative judicial philosophy, which emphasizes originalism and strict interpretation of the Constitution. They argue that this approach leads to narrow interpretations of individual rights and protections, particularly for marginalized groups. Similarly, liberals criticize Justice Thomas for his opposition to affirmative action and other civil rights policies. They argue that his views on these issues are harmful to communities of color. Lastly, Thomas is known for being one of the least vocal members of the Supreme Court, rarely asking questions during oral arguments or engaging in public discourse about his opinions. Some liberals argue that this makes it difficult to understand his reasoning. There are accusations that he often makes up his mind along ideological lines before even hearing a case.
Thomas has more recently become a lightning rod for everything Democrats have come to hate about the Supreme Court, as the Court has shifted rightward and Roe v. Wade was overturned. They see Thomas’s “corruption” as emblematic of the Court’s outsize power due to lifetime appointments, isolation from traditional constitutional checks and balances, and virtual immunity from public pressure, making it a magnet for corruption and influence-peddling. They see Harlan Crow as having purchased direct access to one of the most influential and powerful men in America and argue that while Crow may not have a specific issue in front of the Court, he holds a generic interest in right-wing causes and thus has bought himself a sympathetic judge for his broader conservative agenda.
Things only got worse when it was discovered that Thomas’s spouse Ginni donated to Republican causes and sent texts cheering on the protests of January 6. A woman with political thoughts of her own!
The only real check and balance on Supreme Court justices is formal impeachment and removal from the bench, so it’s not surprising that at the first sign of impropriety Democrats like AOC immediately called for Thomas to be impeached. It won’t happen: the standards for impeachment are high, whether what Thomas did actually qualifies is far from clear, and a partisan Congress will never go along with it. Only one Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached: Samuel Chase, in 1804, for alleged political bias in his judicial conduct. The Senate held a trial, but ultimately acquitted Chase of all charges. In addition, Justice Abe Fortas did resign more than fifty years ago over money issues, ahead of a likely try at impeachment.
Some have already gone further than the expected calls for hearings and investigations. The New Republic writes, “The Democrats need to destroy Clarence Thomas’s reputation. They’ll never successfully impeach him. But so what? Make him a metaphor for every insidious thing the far right has done to this country.” The magazine went on to call him the “single worst Supreme Court justice of all time. Clarence Thomas is an embarrassment to the Supreme Court and the country, and the worship of this man on the right is one of the greatest symbols of their contempt for standards, the law, precedent, and democracy.”
The hyperbole gives it away — this is another tempest to fill the dead space between Orange Man Bad stories. Thomas should not be proud of his actions, but nor should he face impeachment, never mind some sort of public drawing and quartering of his reputation. Clarence Thomas is taking one for the team.
