The Media’s Trump Outrage Has a Memory Problem

Government-media confrontations are not unique to the Trump era. The Obama administration’s Justice Department aggressively pursued journalists and their sources, including the seizure of AP phone records and the investigation of Fox News reporter James Rosen. The Trump administration is now engaged in a different kind of confrontation, restricting certain outlets’ White House workspace while arguing that they remain free to report and that the restrictions are justified by concerns over reporting practices and, according to administration officials, national security.

Whether the current restrictions are legally justified is a separate question from whether similar conflicts occurred under previous administrations. The historical record shows that the relationship between the White House, the DOJ and the press has been contentious under administrations of both parties.

The Obama-Era Press Battles—and the Current White House Fight

The controversy over the Obama administration and the press was not limited to rhetoric. During the Obama years, the Department of Justice pursued an aggressive series of leak investigations involving journalists, their sources, and major news organizations. At the same time, the current Trump administration is facing its own controversy over restricting certain news organizations’ access to the White House. The two situations are not identical, but the history is relevant when evaluating claims that government-media confrontations are uniquely a feature of one administration or political party.

The Obama-era record

In 2013, it became public that the Department of Justice had secretly obtained two months of telephone records involving the Associated Press, including records from 20 AP office lines as well as reporters’ home and cellphone numbers. The investigation concerned an AP story about a foiled al-Qaida terrorist plot in Yemen. The AP strongly objected to the seizure, arguing that it could compromise confidential sources and interfere with the organization’s newsgathering.

One important clarification is necessary: the DOJ obtained telephone records; it did not wiretap the AP reporters’ phones or listen to the contents of their calls. That distinction matters, even though the records seizure itself generated significant press-freedom concerns.

The DOJ’s actions also extended to Fox News reporter James Rosen. Investigators obtained his phone records, tracked his movements through State Department security-badge records, and obtained a warrant for his personal emails while investigating a classified-information leak. An FBI affidavit characterized Rosen as a possible criminal “co-conspirator” under the Espionage Act, although Rosen himself was never charged under the Espionage Act. The episode became one of the most controversial examples of the Obama DOJ’s treatment of journalists and their sources.

The Fox investigation also involved obtaining records associated with multiple Fox News telephone numbers, including a number reportedly connected to Rosen’s parents. Again, however, the government’s action involved obtaining telephone records, not wiretapping the phones. The U.S. Attorney’s Office denied that it had wiretapped reporters or news organizations or tracked the parents’ calls.

The broader issue went beyond the AP and Fox cases. The Obama administration made extensive use of the 1917 Espionage Act in leak cases involving government employees who provided information to journalists. The Freedom of the Press Foundation identifies eight people charged under the Espionage Act in connection with leaks to the media during the Obama administration, including Thomas Drake, Chelsea Manning, Jeffrey Sterling, John Kiriakou and Edward Snowden.

The Associated Press later reported on a Committee to Protect Journalists study that concluded the Obama administration’s aggressive prosecution of sources and seizure of journalists’ records had created a “chilling effect” on journalism. Reporters and editors interviewed for the study said potential government sources had become more reluctant to communicate with journalists. The Obama administration disputed the broader characterization and pointed to its own transparency and whistleblower initiatives.

An AP fact-check published during the Trump era also noted that Obama’s criticism of Trump’s treatment of the press overlooked some of the aggressive actions taken by his own Justice Department, including the AP records seizure and the investigation of Rosen.

What is happening with the Trump administration?

The current controversy is different in an important way.

The Trump administration has restricted CNN, MS NOW and Politico’s access to workspace inside the White House, while maintaining that these organizations remain free to report on the administration from outside that workspace. Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized this distinction:

“They can cover the White House — they just can’t have a desk there.” 

The administration’s stated rationale has several components.

Trump has accused the affected organizations of publishing what he describes as false or misleading reporting and has characterized the broader legacy-media environment as biased. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, while saying he did not know enough about the specific decision to comment on it directly, argued that the media’s coverage of the administration was badly out of balance and that Americans deserve better reporting.

Administration officials have also raised national-security concerns. In discussing the policy with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, Ambassador Mike Waltz pointed specifically to reporting based on anonymous sources concerning ammunition levels, military vulnerabilities and deployment orders during an ongoing conflict. Waltz argued that disclosure of genuinely classified operational information could constitute a national-security threat.

That is an important part of the administration’s argument—but it is also important to distinguish the administration’s stated justification from the factual and legal dispute surrounding the policy. Critics argue that restricting particular organizations because of their reporting raises serious First Amendment and viewpoint-discrimination concerns. The affected organizations have sued the administration, describing the restrictions as an unconstitutional assault on press freedom.

The important distinction

This is where the Obama-era history becomes relevant—but not because the two situations are the same.

The Obama-era AP and Fox cases involved government investigations, obtaining journalists’ phone records and emails, tracking a reporter’s movements, and aggressive leak prosecutions. The present Trump controversy concerns access and workspace inside the White House for particular news organizations.

Those are materially different government actions.

At the same time, the historical record demonstrates that serious government-media conflicts did not begin with Trump. The Obama administration’s DOJ took actions against journalists and their sources that generated substantial criticism from press organizations and press-freedom advocates. The current Trump administration, meanwhile, is defending restrictions on particular outlets by arguing that White House workspace is not an inherent entitlement, that the outlets remain free to report, and that some of their reporting has raised concerns about accuracy, sourcing and national security.

AS A REMINDER OF JUST CNN HOAXES:

RUSSIA / 2016 ELECTION

  • Trump-Russia “Collusion” Narrative
  • Steele Dossier / “Pee Tape”
  • Alfa Bank Server
  • Trump Campaign–Russia Back Channel
  • Michael Cohen–Prague
  • WikiLeaks Email “Breaking News” Error
  • “Trump Was a Russian Asset”

2020 ELECTION / BIDEN

  • Hunter Biden Laptop = Russian Disinformation
  • 51 Intelligence Officials
  • Laptop Censorship / “Russian Influence” Narrative

TRUMP / RACE

  • Very Fine People
  • Covington Catholic
  • Rittenhouse
  • Jussie Smollett
  • Hands Up, Don’t Shoot
  • NASCAR Noose
  • Border Patrol “Whipping” Story
  • Georgia “Jim Crow 2.0”

TRUMP / JANUARY 6

  • Arlington Cemetery
  • “Mostly Peaceful” January 6
  • Trump/Secret Service “Beast” Story
  • Trump “Execute Liz Cheney” Claim

COVID

  • Lab-Leak Theory
  • “Lab Leak Is Racist”
  • Trump/Bleach
  • COVID Death-Count Reporting

CURRENT / SECOND TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

  • Tariffs
  • Gaza Baby/Starvation Reporting
  • Gaza Food-Distribution Claims
  • Hamas Hospital Reporting
  • Trump “Destroying the White House”
  • Trump “All-White Party”
  • Etc.

Before TDS There Was BDS

This post was originally posted here Feb 2011 with the title: “What You Are not Seeing On Mainstream News Shows-Some Carry Signs Likening Republicans to Hitler and Nazis.” I found the videos again, and re-uploaded the graphics. I added an article as well.

NEWS BUSTERS HAT-TIP:

BREITBART HAT-TIP:

Democrats rhetoric has changed zero-percent since President Ford (full archived article). Democrats have called Republicans racist and Nazis for 62 years. I saw some signs at the SCV No Kings protest showing Trump to be the same. Just like Bush. Just like Romney…. on and on. TO WIT:

….. Let’s start with former Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) and his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in 1964. Over 50 years before Trump decided to run for president, celebrities, journalists, politicians, and other politicos warned that the GOP presidential nominee was an extreme fascist who would cause considerable harm to the country. Goldwater, who served as a pilot during World War II, was likened to Nazis and fascists for promoting conservatism during his presidential campaign.

For example, the then-Democratic governor of California, Edmund Gerland “Pat” Brown, remarked about Goldwater’s acceptance speech, claiming it “had the stench of fascism. All we needed to hear was Heil Hitler.” It should be noted that Goldwater served as a pilot in the military during WWII. Brown didn’t have any military service at all.

Other comments about Goldwater included a scathing rebuke from civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

“We see dangerous signs of Hitlerism in the Goldwater campaign,” King said.

Baseball legend Jackie Robinson, who broke Major League Baseball’s color barrier, said of Goldwater’s speech, “I would say that I now believe I know how it felt to be a Jew in Hitler’s Germany.”

The then-mayor of San Francisco, the city where the 1964 Republican National Convention was held, said the GOP “had Mein Kampf as their political bible.”

The despicable comments continued the following election in 1968. Then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey, and Democratic nominee for president, remarked about the election, “If the British had not fought in 1940, Hitler would have been in London, and if Democrats do not fight in 1968, Nixon will be in the White House.”

Former President Richard Nixon won the election, but the Hitler, Nazi, and fascist comparisons never stopped. For example, in 1970, a political poster featured an image of Adolf Hitler, wearing a Nazi armband, holding a mask of Nixon.

Meanwhile, a news article from October 1972, available for viewing on the CIA’s website, referred to “Nixon’s Nazis” as part of commentary criticizing Nixon. Then there is a photograph from October 1973 of someone wearing a Nixon mask with a crown, giving the Nazi salute.

Gerald Ford followed Nixon as president and as a Republican who was called a fascist. In 1974, a member of the American Civil Liberties Union criticized Ford for his lack of punitive action against Nixon.

“If [President] Ford’s principle had been the rule in Nuremberg,” he said, “the Nazi leaders would have been let off, and only the people, who carried out their schemes, would have been tried,” the ACLU said at the time.

Additionally, in the Gerald Ford Library Museum, a document describes an interaction with a woman in 1975 in which Ford was harassed and repeatedly called a “fascist” and a “fascist pig.”

Surely, over a decade of accusations and allegations of fascism never coming to fruition would stop Democrats from calling Republicans Nazis, fascists, or comparing them to Hitler, right?

Wrong.

Former President Ronald Reagan was the next target in the Democrats’ line of unsubstantiated accusations of fascism.

Rep. William Clay (D-MO) stated that Reagan wanted to “replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from Mein Kampf.”

The Los Angeles Times cartoonist Paul Conrad drew a panel depicting Reagan plotting a fascist putsch in a darkened Munich beer hall. Harry Stein (later a conservative convert) wrote in Esquire that the voters who supported Reagan were comparable to the “good Germans” in “Hitler’s Germany.”

American Enterprise Institute scholar Steven Hayward highlighted another incident in which the intelligentsia and academia also contributed to the Reagan fascist comparisons when John Roth, a Holocaust scholar from the Claremont Colleges, commented about Reagan’s election:

“I could not help remembering how 40 years ago economic turmoil had conspired with Nazi nationalism and militarism — all intensified by Germany’s defeat in World War I​—to send the world reeling into catastrophe. … It is not entirely mistaken to contemplate our postelection state with fear and trembling.”

Former President George W. Bush might have been the Republican politician who faced the harshest and most vile criticism before Trump. Bush was regularly called every dirty name in the book, from racist to Nazi to fascist to war criminal. There are many examples of linking Bush to Hitler, Nazis, and fascists.

In 2012, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), the same Romney so many Democrats love today, was also linked to Nazis and fascism. One delegate from Kansas (at the time) said Romney was a habitual liar and likened him to Hitler “while criticizing the accuracy of Romney’s campaign talking points.”

A chairman of the California Democratic Party compared then-vice presidential candidate (and eventual former Speaker of the House) Paul Ryan, again, the same Ryan loved by many Democrats today, to Nazi filmmaker and propagandist Joseph Goebbels.

Does any of this sound familiar? It should. It is the same line of attacks Democrats have used against Trump. …..

The below is just a reminder of some of the anti-war marches, the May Day marches, and the anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-capitalist liberals/Democrats of years past (most of these pics come from Zombie Time):

<?xml version=”1.0″?><on:exif_data version=”3.0″> <on:picture_id>0</on:picture_id> <on:file_checksum>0</on:file_checksum></on:exif_data>

Trump’s “Lies” as Catalogued by the Washington Post | FLASHBACK

I have — over the years — collected responses in my Microsoft Word to a myriad of topics. The Washington Post’s article used often by Lefties and Democrats is an example of this: “In four years, President Trump made 30,573 false or misleading claims” (WaPo | The HILL)

I am about to offer my services in a discussion on the “inter webs” and I can see into the future [foreknowledge] this may be mentioned. Just guessing. If not, this is a good slight refreshing of a response written back in March of 2021. Keep in mind, this was a response to a person in debate a half decade ago:

Originally written 3-28-2021, with a slight update today (January 2026)

WAPO DATABASE

You are going off of WaPo’s numbers which other news orgs (CNN, ABC, etc.) use (actually one guy did most of the “fact chacking” –Glenn Kessler [DAILY CALLER]) — and the public assumes is proven by this widespread dissemination of WaPo’s database. Many “misleading claims” or what people mistaken for lies are just typical grandiose statements almost all politicians make:

★ TRUMP: Among the most repeated false claims that Trump spread was that he was responsible for the greatest economy in history. As the Post notes, former Presidents Eisenhower, Johnson and Clinton all were responsible for larger economic growth than Trump when using modern metrics.

★ BIDEN: “I said I was running to unite the country. And generically speaking, all of you said no, you can’t do that,” the president told the press. He still believes this, he added, but with caveats. “I’ve not been able to unite the Congress, but I’ve been united in the country, based on the polling data.”

BIAS CONFIRMED

But WaPo has already said – unlike it immediately did with Trump — The Post said it does “not have plans to launch a Biden database at this time” (NEWSBUSTERS | FOX) … This is bias by omission Ross. (FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE)

LOOKING INTO THE “LIES”

For instance, WaPo lists over 30,000 false, or misleading statements made by Trump in 4-years. You are basing your claims on the many media sources using this database by them. Here is one example from when that database reached the 5,000 mark:

  • The Post attributed nearly 140 of the 5,000 lies to Trump claiming the Russia investigation was made up or a hoax. It claims a report from the intelligence community had “’high confidence’ it was correct.” (AIM – now a disappeared article)

This is just one example that would kill 140 off the 5,000 list. (Now over 30,000: WASHINGTON POST | SEATTLE TIMES ) In a “lie” from the newer list of over 30,000 is this one:

  • “We also built the greatest economy in the history of the world…Powered by these policies, we built the greatest economy in the history of the world.”

This was repeated 493 times. Oh no, say it isn’t so! *Gasp* — that is so unlike a politician. And, may I say, many of these are arguable. Another example looked at two statements made by Trump said to be lies but were in fact not. These would remove 63:

  • Together, these two statements would remove 63 from Trump’s total of lies, leaving him 62 short of the 5,000-mark. (AIM – now a disappeared article)

ADMINS: TRUMP vs. OBAMA

So, for instance, to COMPARE. Trump exaggerated the crowd size of his inauguration. Is this out the realm of a politician? Let alone a braggadocious one?

IRAN

…Ben Rhodes, the man who majored in creative writing and then ended up the Deputy National Security Adviser for President Obama, told The New York Times about the “echo chamber” he was able to create and feed:

  • In the spring of last year, legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. ‘We created an echo chamber,’ [Rhodes] admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. ‘They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.’

“The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. … They literally know nothing,” Rhodes bragged.

And the know-nothing millennials loved him for it. And, apparently, they still do….

(RPT)

That calculated political lie did more harm to the nation than any “lie” Trump told, like, crowd sizes.

OBAMACARE

Remember these?

  • “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Because nothing should get in the way of the relationship between a family and their doctor.”
  • His specific language varied on the stump, but Obama promised that his health care plan would reduce premiums “up to $2,500 a year per family” or “an average of $2,500 a year per family.” (and, Deductibles would go down)

OBAMA’S MOMO’S BATTLE w/INSURANCE

Here is another one you probably have not heard about:

… Barack Obama repeatedly said that his mother, Ann Dunham, fought with insurance carriers to pay her medical and hospital bills as she lay dying from cancer. Obama told this story repeatedly during the 2008 campaign, as well as after he became president, when making the case for Obamacare. After all, if the dastardly insurance companies battle a woman with a doctorate and her son with a law degree from Harvard, imagine what insurance carriers will do to you.

During the campaign, Obama said: “She was 52 years old when she died of ovarian cancer, and you know what she was thinking about in the last months of her life? She wasn’t thinking about getting well. She wasn’t thinking about coming to terms with her own mortality. She had been diagnosed just as she was transitioning between jobs. And she wasn’t sure whether insurance was going to cover the medical expenses because they might consider this a pre-existing condition. I remember just being heartbroken, seeing her struggle through the paperwork and the medical bills and the insurance forms.” He also said: “For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.”

But ex-New York Times reporter Janny Scott wrote a flattering book about Obama’s mom. Scott describes Obama’s mom’s “battle” with insurance carriers quite differently. Scott said Dunham had employer-provided health insurance that “covered most of the costs of her medical treatment. … The hospital billed her insurance company directly, leaving Ann to pay only the deductible and any uncovered expenses, which, she said, came to several hundred dollars a month.” The only quarrel was over a disability policy Dunham had, but her pre-existing condition disqualified her. So much for the mean old insurance company, but Obama’s tale helped get Obamacare passed…

(LARRY ELDER: “If Trump Is ‘Liar-In-Chief,’ What of Obama’s Lies?”)

MORE

I think these lies did waay more harm to the country. Even the lies made before the FISA Court to jump start the Russian Hoax against Trump!

Also, here are some lies the “WaPo Database ‘reporter’” made himself:

  • NBC News Reporter Caught Lying about Michael Cohen Testimony on Trump and WikiLeaks (PJ-MEDIA)
  • Washington Post Caught Red Handed Peddling Anti-Trump Fake News (IBD, Archived)
  • Why the Washington Post Has No Credibility (TOWNAHALL)
  • Washington Post Caught Blatantly Lying To Their Readers Yet Again (Jimmy Dore Show, YouTube)

I also compiled a list — again, a long while back — responding to the “lies” thing again, with a slight update (a linked FEDERALIST article). BTW, I always truncate names as to not malign a person, but Miss Fiene was a salty-bitch if memory serves:

 I wish to note that the DOJ has agreed with me and not with you. What do I mean? Here is a Tweet and a pic of the official report:

  • they said he [Biden] was too old and decrepit [memory loss] in 2015 for a jury to think he could have knowingly and willingly done these actions. (pic included)

Are they dropping the same charges against Trump for the same reasons? No. You want to know why? Because he [Trump] has a good grasp on reality and a good memory. Trump doesn’t “Spins Yarns That Often Unravel” – as the New York Times says of Biden. Like,

  • Taught Classes At The University Of Pennsylvania;
  • Visited Ground Zero Day After 9/11;
  • Half his House ‘Almost Collapsed’ After a Fire;
  • House Burn Down with My Wife In It — She Got Out Safely;
  • Claims He Convinced Strom Thurmond To Support The Civil Rights Act;
  • He Began Career as Civil Rights Activist;
  • Saw Pittsburgh Bridge Collapse;
  • Ended Cancer;
  • Appointed To The [U.S. Naval] Academy In 1965;
  • Son Died in Iraq;
  • He Formed the Quad Alliance;
  • Born in the Same Hospital Where His Grandfather Died;
  • Was ‘Involved’ in Civil Rights Movement;
  • Went to a Black Church as a Teen;
  • Biden Says He Attended HBCU;
  • Biden Claims He Has Cancer (“That’s why I and so damn many other people I grew up [with] have cancer”);
  • Wrote Law Review Articles About Right to Privacy (claimed he had written “a number of law review articles” about the right to privacy referenced in the now-overturned Roe v. Wade decision)
  • Was A ‘Full Professor’ At The University Of Pennsylvania;
  • Grandfather Died In The Hospital I Was Born In Six Days Before He Was Born;
  • Offered A Job by An Idaho Lumber Company;
  • Used To Drive An 18-Wheeler;
  • Visited Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life Synagogue After The 2018 Massacre;
  • Chatted With an Amtrak Conductor in His Seventh Year As Vice President, When The Guy Retired 15 Years Before;
  • Detained By South African Authorities While Trying To Visit Nelson Mandela In Prison In The 1970s.

Etc., Etc., Etc. I left out the many political lies because all politicians try to spin the economy, inflation, debt, etc. I chose those because they are lies that show cognitive dissonance. Even after staff telling him to zip it this stuff never happened, he told some again months down the road. What THE FEDERALIST does is list Biden’s lies… but does not count multiples of the same ones like WaPo did: “Here’s The Authoritative List Of Lies Joe Biden Has Told As President: 439 And Counting”

FLASHBACK: Contessa Brewer’s Bias (Updated w/Jake Tapper)

(Originally posted here November 2011) YouTube nixed this a long time ago from my Channel. So I grabbed it from a hard-drive and with new A.I. TECH, I made the audio waaay better.

(ABC 15 News Phoenix) On August 17, 2009 an unidentified black man carried an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle during an ObamaCare protest outside of the Phoenix Convention Center in Arizona. At a safe distance, President Barack Obama was speaking to Veterans of Foreign Wars for a health care reform rally.

On August 18, 2009 on MSNBC Morning Meeting, Contessa Brewer portrayed the man, displayed above, as a gun carrying white man — near the President ( ‘a man of color.’)

Here’s what she brewed up:

  • “The reason we’re talking about this — a LOT of talk here, Dylan [Ratigan] — cause people feel like — ‘Yes, there are Second Amendment Rights’ for sure, but also there are questions about whether this has a racial overtones (sic) — I mean — here you have a man of color in the presidency and there’s white people showing up with guns strapped to their waist, or onto their legs.” ….

(Background via: Arlington Cardinal)

Usually I upload so there are no ads, but this way more people can see it:


Jake Tapper UPDATE


Jake Tapper Let It Slip On CNN. It Was The WORST Mistake He’s Made

Larry O’Connor rips apart Jake Tapper’s spin on the January 6th pipe bomb arrest, exposing how CNN, the FBI and Democrat media allies built a fake “white supremacist MAGA bomber” narrative while ignoring their own evidence. We walk through the clips, the race baiting, and the years of delay to ask the real question: was this incompetence, or weaponized lawfare? Plus, the show breaks down how this arrest undercuts the entire J6 storyline they’ve sold since 2021.

Charlie Kirk’s Death 100% MSM and Democrats Fault

  • Any Rep. or Senator who says Trump, his supporters, or other Republicans is Hitler or a Nazi doesn’t care about minimizing the horrors of the Holocaust. Any reporter who doesn’t challenge that disgusting statement is just as bad. (THE LID, May 2025 | See also NYP, July 2024 | )
  • Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA) is under fire after widespread airing of four-year-old remarks in which he called former President Donald Trump’s voters a “horde of budding blood-and-soil fascists.” (Washington Examiner, June 2024)

Clay Travis has a blunt response to Barack Obama’s claim that he “doesn’t know” what motivated Charlie Kirk’s murder. In just two minutes, Travis summed up what every angry American is feeling right now.

“YOU CAUSED THIS!”

“You can’t call the president of the United States Adolf Hitler for 10 years… you cannot say that anyone who voted for Trump or advocated for him like you, me, Riley, and Charlie Kirk are Nazis, and then when someone tries to kill us, suddenly say, ‘We condemn this violence.’ You caused it!”

“Look at me right now! You caused this! When you tell people that someone is Hitler, you are telling crazy people: go kill them. And I’m sick of pretending that is anything other than what they are doing. … Charlie Kirk bore the brunt of that left-wing violence.”

Also see,

“How We Got Here“

And yes, Lefties [similar to Islamo-Fascists], Thinks Lawns Are Racist. Add to that Math. Even showing up to work on time is “systematic white supremacy.” When everything is racist there’s no room for reason. And this is what we are seeing, when horticulture is considered racist, you have a whole generation that is ill prepared for real life:

It is this generation of young adults, with safe rooms with videos of kittens when a disagreeing speaker comes to their campus… “what are these kids to do when something bad happens?”

Reason is gone, not offending someone is the new gospel: “…demanding the campus be made more of a “sanctuary” as they protested classism, sexism, discrimination and ethnic intimidation.” (Detroit News) | Milk and cookies, crayons and coloring books, therapy dogs and ducks (Campus Reform). When the real world and these people collide, escape goats are the outcome:

  • So, in the West as these “well-meaning” ideals works themselves out, expect more legal, cultural, and violent expression against those who hold to a historical, conserving theology and expressing this in public life. (ME/RPT in 2015)

Need more examples to support the Left’s [read here Democrats and the MSMS] push to label Republicans such horrible things that people want to kill us?

Which brings me to Nick Freitas’ response to the Left…

There is a civil war that Prager said was not bloody, that became bloody with the attempted assassinations of Trump, and the successful assassination of Charlie Kirk.

America’s Second Civil War

It is time for our society to acknowledge a sad truth: America is currently fighting its second Civil War.

In fact, with the obvious and enormous exception of attitudes toward slavery, Americans are more divided morally, ideologically and politically today than they were during the Civil War. For that reason, just as the Great War came to be known as World War I once there was World War II, the Civil War will become known as the First Civil War when more Americans come to regard the current battle as the Second Civil War.

This Second Civil War, fortunately, differs in another critically important way: It has thus far been largely nonviolent. But given increasing left-wing violence, such as riots, the taking over of college presidents’ offices and the illegal occupation of state capitols, nonviolence is not guaranteed to be a permanent characteristic of the Second Civil War.

There are those on both the left and right who call for American unity. But these calls are either naive or disingenuous. Unity was possible between the right and liberals, but not between the right and the left.

Liberalism — which was anti-left, pro-American and deeply committed to the Judeo-Christian foundations of America; and which regarded the melting pot as the American ideal, fought for free speech for its opponents, regarded Western civilization as the greatest moral and artistic human achievement and viewed the celebration of racial identity as racism — is now affirmed almost exclusively on the right and among a handful of people who don’t call themselves conservative.

The left, however, is opposed to every one of those core principles of liberalism.

Like the left in every other country, the left in America essentially sees America as a racist, xenophobic, colonialist, imperialist, warmongering, money-worshipping, moronically religious nation.

Just as in Western Europe, the left in America seeks to erase America’s Judeo-Christian foundations. The melting pot is regarded as nothing more than an anti-black, anti-Muslim, anti-Hispanic meme. The left suppresses free speech wherever possible for those who oppose it, labeling all non-left speech “hate speech.” To cite only one example, if you think Shakespeare is the greatest playwright or Bach is the greatest composer, you are a proponent of dead white European males and therefore racist.

Without any important value held in common, how can there be unity between left and non-left? Obviously, there cannot.

There will be unity only when the left vanquishes the right or the right vanquishes the left. Using the First Civil War analogy, American unity was achieved only after the South was vanquished and slavery was abolished.

How are those of us who oppose left-wing nihilism — there is no other word for an ideology that holds Western civilization and America’s core values in contempt — supposed to unite with “educators” who instruct elementary school teachers to cease calling their students “boys” and “girls” because that implies gender identity? With English departments that don’t require reading Shakespeare in order to receive a degree in English? With those who regard virtually every war America has fought as imperialist and immoral? With those who regard the free market as a form of oppression? With those who want the state to control as much of American life as possible? With those who repeatedly tell America and its black minority that the greatest problems afflicting black Americans are caused by white racism, “white privilege” and “systemic racism”? With those who think that the nuclear family ideal is inherently misogynistic and homophobic? With those who hold that Israel is the villain in the Middle East? With those who claim that the term “Islamic terrorist” is an expression of religious bigotry?

The third significant difference between the First and Second Civil Wars is that in the Second Civil war, one side has been doing nearly all the fighting. That is how it has been able to take over schools — from elementary schools, to high schools, to universities — and indoctrinate America’s young people; how it has taken over nearly all the news media; and how it has taken over entertainment media.

The conservative side has lost on every one of these fronts because it has rarely fought back with anything near the ferocity with which the left fights. Name a Republican politician who has run against the left as opposed to running solely against his or her Democratic opponent. And nearly all American conservatives, people who are proud of America and affirm its basic tenets, readily send their children to schools that indoctrinate their children against everything the parents hold precious. A mere handful protest when their child’s teacher ceases calling their son a boy or their daughter a girl, or makes “slave owner” the defining characteristic of the Founding Fathers.

With the defeat of the left in the last presidential election, the defeat of the left in two-thirds of the gubernatorial elections and the defeat of the left in a majority of House and Senate elections, this is likely the last chance liberals, conservatives and the right have to defeat the American left. But it will not happen until these groups understand that we are fighting for the survival of America no less than the Union troops were in the First Civil War.

FLASHBACK!

JOE ROGAN learns live:

TMZ Caught Celebrating Charlie’s Death

Trump/Epstein: MSM vs. RigoStaRR

I love this guy: Twi-X | Facebook. Hands down — great work on the simplifying of tough “media narratives” exploded with truth. Here’s a couple of his videos:

ONE


TWO

4th of July ~ History 101

What Follows

  • Videos Of People Who Do Not Know History…
  • Followed By Some History,
  • Patriotism, Remembreance

Just a quick word regarding Mark Dice — who is the guy in the first video (and 3rd n 4th):

While I like their rants (Paul Watson, Mark Dice, and others) and these commentaries hold much truth in them, I do wish to caution you… he is part of Info Wars/Prison Planet network of yahoos, a crazy conspiracy arm of Alex Jones shite. Also, I bet if I talked to him he would reveal some pretty-crazy conspiratorial beliefs that would naturally undermine and be at-odds-with some of his rants. Just to be clear, I do not endorse these people or orgs.

Media analyst Mark Dice asks beachgoers in San Diego, California some basic questions about America’s 4th of July Independence Day celebration and their answers are quite disturbing.

MORE SADNESS:

FOR THE HISTORICAL RECORD:

The signers of the Declaration of Independence (ALL BIOS HERE)

Delaware

George Read | Caesar Rodney | Thomas McKean

Pennsylvania

George Clymer | Benjamin Franklin | Robert Morris | John Morton | Benjamin Rush | George Ross | James Smith | James Wilson | George Taylor

Massachusetts

John Adams | Samuel Adams | John Hancock | Robert Treat Paine

New Hampshire

Josiah Bartlett | William Whipple | Matthew Thornton |

Rhode Island

Stephen Hopkins | William Ellery |

New York

Lewis Morris | Philip Livingston | Francis Lewis | William Floyd |

Georgia

Button Gwinnett | Lyman Hall | George Walton |

Virginia

Richard Henry Lee | Francis Lightfoot Lee | Carter Braxton | Benjamin Harrison | Thomas Jefferson | George Wythe | Thomas Nelson, Jr. |

North Carolina

William Hooper | John Penn |

South Carolina

Edward Rutledge | Arthur Middleton | Thomas Lynch, Jr. | Thomas Heyward, Jr. |

New Jersey

Abraham Clark | John Hart | Francis Hopkinson | Richard Stockton | John Witherspoon |

Connecticut

Samuel Huntington | Roger Sherman | William Williams | Oliver Wolcott |

Maryland

Charles Carroll | Samuel Chase | Thomas Stone | William Paca |


Reagan, Cash, and Harvey



Dennis Prager


Video Description:

Dennis Prager reads from the popular leftist website, VOX. From newspapers such as the N.Y. TIMES, the L.A. TIMES, and the N.Y. DAILY NEWS. These mainstream opinion pieces bemoan and degrade America to the point of hatred. Anti-Americanism is growing on the Left, and in taking these positions these people benighted themselves as our cultural commissars… dishing out their version of history to those unintelligent lap-dog readers they call customers.


Some More History


I want to thank Israel Matzav for the following, good stuff!

With thanks to the Heritage Foundation:

During the 1700s, Philadelphia was an unpleasant place in the summer. Malaria and yellow fever were rampant. There were no cures and no known ways to prevent infection. Most people of means tried to escape the city, if they could.

But in the scorching summer of 1776, scores of our country’s leading men remained behind closed doors in Philadelphia. They were kept there by their work. And what a monumental work it turned out to be.

The 56 leaders, representing all 13 British colonies, signed a declaration that would birth a great nation and illuminate the very future of humankind. It’s this Declaration of Independence that Americans celebrate each July 4.

The document’s first job was to officially announce to the world that all the colonies had decided to declare themselves free and independent states, absolved from any allegiance to Great Britain. That was momentous enough for the years ahead, since in order to make good on that declaration, the colonies would have to defeat the British in a war that stretched until 1783.

But the greater meaning of the Declaration — then as well as now — is as a statement of the conditions that underlie legitimate political authority and as an explanation of the proper ends of government.

The signers proclaimed that political power would spring from the sovereignty of the people, not a crowned hereditary monarch. This idea shook Europe to its very core.

The Declaration appealed not to any conventional law or political contract but to the equal rights possessed by all men and “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and nature’s God” entitled them.

What is revolutionary about the Declaration of Independence is not that a particular group of Americans declared their independence under particular circumstances. It’s that they did so by appealing to –and promising to base their particular government on — a universal standard of justice.

It is in this sense that Abraham Lincoln praised “the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times.”

Of course, it required another war to extend those rights to all Americans, but the fact that they were written down in the Declaration was crucial in 1865, in 1965 and remains so today as well.

“If the American Revolution had produced nothing but the Declaration of Independence,” wrote noted historian Samuel Eliot Morrison, “it would have been worthwhile.”

As Thomas Jefferson, lead author of the Declaration, put it in 1821, “The flames kindled on the 4th of July 1776, have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism; on the contrary, they will consume these engines and all who work them.”

Those flames, the flames of freedom and opportunity, continue to spread. That’s a truth worth celebrating on the Fourth — and all year ’round.

From, The Spirit of the American Revolution:

Even the Minutemen reflected strong religious involvement. While they are generally recognized for their exploits as a group, few today know many specifics about them. For example, these men who stood to fight for their liberties and defend their town were often groups of laymen from local congregations led either by their pastor or a deacon!  Records even indicate that it was not unusual that following their militia drills they would go to church “where they listened to exhortation and prayer.”

The spiritual emphasis manifested so often by the Americans during the Revolution caused one Crown-appointed British governor to write to Great Britain complaining that:

If you ask an American who is his master, he’ll tell you he has none. And he has no governor but Jesus Christ.

Letters like this, coupled with statements like that delivered by Ethan Allen, and sermons like those preached by the Reverend Peter Powers (“Jesus Christ the King”), gave rise to a motto of the American Revolution. Most of us are unaware that the American Revolution even had a motto, but most wars do (e.g., World War II—”Remember Pearl Harbor”; the Texas’ war for independence—”Remember the Alamo”; etc.). The motto of the American Revolution was directed against King George III—considered the primary source of the conflict; for it was he who was arbitrarily, capriciously, and regularly violated “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” The motto was very simple and very direct:

No King but King Jesus!

The Fall of Minneapolis | 5-Year Anniversary

HOT AIR has a 5-year anniversary marker of the FALL OF MINNEAPOLIS. The entire post should be read and watched… but here is the documentary that busts holes in the narrative. It is long, but so is the depravity of the Democrat Party:

We have reached the 5-year anniversary of the George Floyd riots, which began here in my hometown of Minneapolis and spread throughout the country.

2020 was the year of unrelenting propaganda. By May 2020, you could just assume that anything you were told by the “experts” was a steaming pile of bovine excrement.

The whole point was to create hysteria, because hysteria makes people look to authorities for help. Fear about COVID was ramped up to such a level that only a few people had a decent grasp on reality.

When George Floyd, who died from a drug overdose and not asphyxiation, as we were constantly told, was videoed resisting arrest and dying while being restrained by a white police officer, it became a national obsession, and the world became even more insane. 

Liz Collins’ The Fall of Minneapolis carefully takes you through the facts of that and the subsequent days–something the news media never did–and conclusively demonstrates that Floyd was not “murdered,” that officials committed perjury to cover that fact up, and that Governor Tim Walz and other Minnesota officials allowed–you could even say encouraged–the destruction of the civil peace and of much of my city. 

 

Neil Young All Of a Sudden Believes In Free Speech?

A year ago Joe Rogan said this:

This is a partial excerpt of an excellent article by NEWSBUSTERS…

I will reproduce the WaPo article that is behind a paywall following the Newsbusters piece:

…. Young eventually returned his music to Spotify. Time has been kind to some of Rogan’s “problematic” pandemic views.

Meanwhile, Young said nothing about the media’s misinformation campaign tied to COVID-19. Remember how the jab would prevent the recipient from getting the virus and spreading it?

What about the six-foot rule? [article below – JUMP] St. Anthony Fauci? The serial attacks on the lab leak theory?

Young stayed mum through it all, even though he was outraged by Rogan’s so-called lies.

It gets worse.

In recent years, Young has said nothing publicly while Cancel Culture ravaged the arts. “Sensitivity readers” sliced and diced novels by Ian Fleming, Roald Dahl and Agatha Christie. Comedians watched what they said for fear of career repercussions.

The Twitter Files scandal found a major tech platform silenced right-leaning Americans. Competing platforms booted a former President from their digital shelves.

The Biden administration, along with the disinformation czar dubbed “Scary Poppins,” vowed to censor more “misinformation” (like the Hunter Biden laptop story).

Where was Young during this crisis? Some free speech hero.

Now, Young is warning us that President Donald Trump might prevent him from touring stateside due to his negative comments about the 47th president.

“If I talk about Donald J. Trump, I may be one of those returning to America who is barred or put in jail to sleep on a cement floor with an aluminum blanket…That is happening all the time now.”

His proof? He has nothing save innuendo from a UK punk outfit who lobbed similar complaints without backing them up with facts.

Suddenly, Young cares about free speech again. That’s all well and good, but his silence during the Cancel Culture years and eagerness to shut down Rogan tell a different story.

He’s a fraud, a partisan who only pipes up when it suits his self-interests or political ideology. ….

Until just a few days ago saying some of these things could get you BANNED from Twitter, Facebook, or Youtube for spreading “COVID misinformation”—and now the experts are finally admitting many of the claims they originally dismissed as “conspiracy theories” were true all along.

In March of 2021, Rachel Maddow aired a segment about the COVID vaccines that was chock full of misinformation and outright deceptions, as the MSNBC host alleged that vaccines prevented both infection and transmission — statements that did not reflect the science at the time nor have they been borne out by subsequent research. Yet the segment remains viewable on social media platforms and Maddow faces ZERO consequences for perpetuating these blatant lies.

Jimmy shares his disgust with Maddow’s duplicity.

See the NEW YORK POST’S: 10 myths told by COVID experts — and now debunked

WASHINGTON POST (via ARCHIVE) June 2024

In The Pandemic, We Were Told To Keep 6 Feet Apart. There’s No Science To Support That.

In a congressional appearance, infectious-disease expert Anthony S. Fauci characterized the recommendation as “an empiric decision that wasn’t based on data.”

The nation’s top mental health official had spent months asking for evidence behind the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s social distancing guidelines, warning that keeping Americans physically apart during the coronavirus pandemic would harm patients, businesses, and overall health and wellness.

Now, Elinore McCance-Katz, the Trump administration’s assistant secretary for mental health and substance use, was urging the CDC to justify its recommendation that Americans stay six feet apart to avoid contracting covid-19 — or get rid of it.

“I very much hope that CDC will revisit this decision or at least tell us that there is more and stronger data to support this rule than what I have been able to find online,” McCance-Katz wrote in a June 2020 memo submitted to the CDC and other health agency leaders and obtained by The Washington Post. “If not, they should pull it back.”

The CDC would keep its six-foot social distance recommendation in place until August 2022, with some modifications as Americans got vaccinated against the virus and officials pushed to reopen schools. Now, congressional investigators are set Monday to press Anthony S. Fauci, the infectious-disease doctor who served as a key coronavirus adviser during the Trump and Biden administrations, on why the CDC’s recommendation was allowed to shape so much of American life for so long, particularly given Fauci and other officials’ recent acknowledgments that there was little science behind the six-foot rule after all.

“It sort of just appeared, that six feet is going to be the distance,” Fauci testified to Congress in a January closed-door hearing, according to a transcribed interview released Friday. Fauci characterized the recommendation as “an empiric decision that wasn’t based on data.”

Francis S. Collins, former director of the National Institutes of Health, also privately testified to Congress in January that he was not aware of evidence behind the social distancing recommendation, according to a transcript released in May.

Four years later, visible reminders of the six-foot rule remain with us, particularly in cities that rushed to adopt the CDC’s guidelines hoping to protect residents and keep businesses open. D.C. is dotted with signs in stores and schools — even on sidewalks or in government buildings — urging people to stand six feet apart.

Experts agree that social distancing saved lives, particularly early in the pandemic when Americans had no protections against a novel virus sickening millions of people. One recent paper published by the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan think tank, concludes that behavior changes to avoid developing covid-19, followed later by vaccinations, prevented about 800,000 deaths. But that achievement came at enormous cost, the authors added, with inflexible strategies that weren’t driven by evidence.

“We never did the study about what works,” said Andrew Atkeson, a UCLA economist and co-author of the paper, lamenting the lack of evidence around the six-foot rule. He warned that persistent frustrations over social distancing and other measures might lead Americans to ignore public health advice during the next crisis.

The U.S. distancing measure was particularly stringent, as other countries adopted shorter distances; the World Health Organization set a distance of one meter, or slightly more than three feet, which experts concluded was roughly as effective as the six-foot mark at deterring infections, and would have allowed schools to reopen more rapidly.

The six-foot rule was “probably the single most costly intervention the CDC recommended that was consistently applied throughout the pandemic,” Scott Gottlieb, former Food and Drug Administration commissioner, wrote in his book about the pandemic, “Uncontrolled Spread.”

It’s still not clear who at the CDC settled on the six-foot distance; the agency has repeatedly declined to specify the authors of the guidance, which resembled its recommendations on how to avoid contracting the flu. A CDC spokesperson credited a team of experts, who drew from research such as a 1955 study on respiratory droplets. In his book, Gottlieb wrote that the Trump White House pushed back on the CDC’s initial recommendation of 10 feet of social distance, saying it would be too difficult to implement.

Perhaps the rule’s biggest impact was on children, despite ample evidence they were at relatively low risk of covid-related complications. Many schools were unable to accommodate six feet of space between students’ desks and forced to rely on virtual education for more than a year, said Joseph Allen, a Harvard University expert in environmental health, who called in 2020 for schools to adopt three feet of social distance.

“The six-foot rule was really an error that had been propagated for several decades, based on a misunderstanding of how particles traveled through indoor spaces,” Allen said, adding that health experts often wrongly focused on avoiding droplets from infected people rather than improving ventilation and filtration inside buildings.

Social distancing had champions before the pandemic. Bush administration officials, working on plans to fight bioterrorism, concluded that social distancing could save lives in a health crisis and renewed their calls as the coronavirus approached. The idea also took hold when public health experts initially believed that the coronavirus was often transmitted by droplets expelled by infected people, which could land several feet away; the CDC later acknowledged the virus was airborne and people could be exposed just by sharing the same air in a room, even if they were farther than six feet apart.

“There was no magic around six feet,” Robert R. Redfield, who served as CDC director during the Trump administration, told a congressional committee in March 2022. “It’s just historically that’s what was used for other respiratory pathogens. So that really became the first piece” of a strategy to protect Americans in the early days of the virus, he said.

It also became the standard that states and businesses adopted, with swift pressure on holdouts. Lawmakers and workers urged meat processing plants, delivery companies and other essential businesses to adopt the CDC’s social distancing recommendations as their employees continued reporting to work during the pandemic.

Some business leaders weren’t sure the measures made sense. Jeff Bezos, founder of online retail giant Amazon, petitioned the White House in March 2020 to consider revising the six-foot recommendation, said Adam Boehler, then a senior Trump administration official helping with the coronavirus response. At the time, Amazon was facing questions about a rising number of infections in its warehouses, and Democratic senators were urging the company to adopt social distancing.

“Bezos called me and asked, is there any real science behind this rule?” Boehler said, adding that Bezos pushed on whether Amazon could adopt an alternative distance if workers were masked, physically separated by dividers or other precautions were taken. “He said … it’s the backbone of trying to keep America running here, and when you separate somebody five feet versus six feet, it’s a big difference,” Boehler recalled. Bezos owns The Washington Post.

Kelly Nantel, an Amazon spokesperson, confirmed that Bezos called Boehler and said the Amazon founder’s focus was the discrepancy between the U.S. recommendation and the WHO’s shorter distance. The company soon said it would follow the CDC’s six-foot social distancing guidelines in its warehouses and later developed technologies to try to enforce those guidelines. “We did it globally everywhere because it was the right thing to do,” Nantel said.

Boehler said he spoke with Redfield and Fauci about testing alternatives to the six-foot recommendation but that he was not aware of what happened to those tests or what they found. Fauci declined to comment. Redfield did not respond to requests for comment.

But challenging the six-foot recommendation, particularly in the pandemic’s early days, was seen as politically difficult. Rochelle Walensky, then chief of infectious disease at Massachusetts General Hospital, argued in a July 2020 email that “if people are masked it is quite safe and much more practical to be at 3 feet” in many school settings.

Five months later, incoming president Joe Biden would tap Walensky as his CDC director. Walensky swiftly endorsed the six-foot distance before working to loosen it, announcing in March 2021 that elementary school students could sit three feet apart if they were masked. Walensky declined to comment.

The most persistent government critic of the social distancing guidelines may have been McCance-Katz, who did not respond to requests for comment for this article. Trump’s mental health chief had spent several years clashing with other Department of Health and Human Services officials on various matters and had few internal defenders by the time the pandemic arrived, hampering her message. But while her pleas failed to move the CDC, her warnings about the risks to mental health found an audience with Trump and his allies, who blamed federal bureaucrats for the six-foot rule and other measures.

“What is this nonsense that somehow it’s unsafe to return to school?” McCance-Katz said in September 2020 on an HHS podcast, lamenting the broader shutdown of American life. “I do think that Americans are smart people, and I think that they need to start asking questions about why is it this way.”

Jeff Bezos/WaPo Have Been Trumpified! | Larry O’Connor

On this full, LIVE episode of LARRY with Larry O’Connor, we discuss Jeff Bezos’ decision to COMPLETELY OVERHAUL the editorial direction of “The Washington Post,” liberal reporters and journalists RAGING over the decision, Jake Tapper’s new book that PROVES he’s a complete moron, Scott Jennings going ALL IN on CNN, and MUCH, much more!

Yes, The Central Park Five Are Guilty (Updated)

Posted/Updated in September 2019 ~ Re-Posted Today

This is an update to the post by way of a visual adaptation by the interviewer, Larry Elder. How anyone can even think these kids weren’t involved is beyond me. A great video update to the original post. (Video description to follow)


UPDATE


Larry takes a look at the accuracy of the Netflix mini-series When They See Us. The series was inspired by the 1989 Central Park jogger case where 28-year-old Trisha Meili was raped and assaulted, while other victims were attacked and robbed. Five black teens were indicted for attempted murder and other charges in the attack. They were found guilty, but the charges were later vacated. Claims of mistreatment and abuse by police were claimed by the defendants, popularizing the incident. Larry takes a look at the details and shares his interview with black detective Eric Reynolds, who was on the scene at the time, to see just who was to blame for what in this incident. See the interviews for yourself: https://centralpark5joggerattackers.com

Below are three separate shows, weeks apart, by LARRY ELDER. The first upload garnered a mass amount of thumbs down and negative comments. All by people who didn’t listen to it and are incurable victicrats. If you listen to these three uploads — below — and still believe the crap peddled over at NETFLIX… you may also be an incurable victicrat.


PART ONE


This is basically an excoriation of the idea that the “Central Park Five” are innocent. Psalm 97:10 says, “Let those who love the LORD hate evil.” I think of that when Trump mentions society “hating” these rapists (12:05 mark) Larry Elder plays how Van “commie” Jones and Chris Cuomo deal with one of the few Republicans left over at CNN (a MUST read article about CNN can be found at the WASHINGTON TIMES) who differed on the “Central Park Five.” Around the 6:00 mark Larry interviews (from last year) Ann Coulter, and then later (at the 14:41 mark) reads from a DAILY BEAST article, “The Myth of the Central Park Five”

Ann Coulter has a couple good articles on the topic:

The refusal to allow dissenting views is a BIG issue at CNN and MSNBC. In fact, Larry Elder says this episode where Lawrence O’Donnell refused to let John O’Neill of Swift Boat fame speak is what got him a job on MSNBC. NOT ONLY does the MSM censor conservative and Republicans, by doing so they perpetuate the innocence of thugs and killers. Thus, bringing a net evil to society in various ways (attacking truth, attacking innocent civilians, allowing criminal to be emboldened).

See also:

  • 7 Things You Need To Know About The Central Park Jogger Case (DAILY WIRE, August 2016)
  • Donald Trump Isn’t Alone in Believing “Central Park Five” Are Guilty (LAW and CRIME, October 2017, )
  • The “Central Park Five”: Still Guilty (FRONT-PAGE MAGAZINE, August 2014)

PART TWO


Larry Elder reads from various sources, one being the Wall Street Journal piece by Linda Fairstein entitled, “Netflix’s False Story of the Central Park Five: Ava DuVernay’s miniseries wrongly portrays them as totally innocent—and defames me in the process“. A previous upload can really be PART ONE to this audio: “Yes, The Central Park Five Are Guilty“. I highly suggest LEGAL INSURRECTION’S post on this topic as well.

Enjoy… I will share a thought from a comment from part one:

  • “The comments are filled with people who didn’t listen to the video and didn’t look at the evidence independently.”

I can only assume the same will happen here.


PART THREE


Larry Elder interviews Detective Eric Reynolds regarding his intimate knowledge of the Central Park Five.

This really is a death knell for the lies regarding this case. Detective Reynolds mentions a website where one can view all the confessions and read the judges ruling and the police report. The website is called: “THE CENTRAL PARK FIVE JOGGER ATTACKERS: Guilty – In Their Own Words”. This is great radio, enjoy, and I hope to get the detectives book at some point when (not if) he is published.

Detective Reynolds recently appeared on CNN to discuss the matter as well:

Dems/MSM Were Against Pre-Emptive Pardons Before They Were For Them

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” shares a DM clip of his talk with co-host Russell Brand about Joy Reid, Adam Schiff, and other mainstream media pundits having their previous comments on Pre-Emptive Pardons blow up in their faces now that Joe Biden has issued a flurry of pre-emptive pardons of his family members. Watch Dave Rubin’s FULL SHOW:

Schumer/Schiff Flashback!