That’s right, folks. Strzok may have been anti-Trump, but he hadn’t convinced himself that there was absolutely collusion, and pretty much scoffed at the idea.
Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee released the texts between Strzok and Page. They were sent on May 19, 2017, which would be two days after Mueller was assigned as special counsel.
Strzok was expressing to Page that he was curious as to if he should even join the probe, or should he take his career elsewhere. She urged him not to, but he eventually decided to join Mueller’s team.
In one text, Strzok — the FBI’s deputy counterintelligence chief — said to Page, “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concerned there’s no big there, there.”
Crazy. Compare that to the texts that have Trump loyalists routinely wetting themselves over, and it’s like even though Strzok was less than a fan of Trump, so to speak, he wasn’t on a mission to deem Trump guilty of something, no matter what.
After Strzok and Page’s texts were discovered, Mueller booted Strzok down to FBI Human Resources. Page had already finished her assignment and moved on.
Senator Johnson received a few texts from the Department of Justice last week, and revealed the new discovery earlier Tuesday, during an interview with radio station WISN-Milwaukee.
“I think that’s kind of jaw-dropping,” said Johnson in the radio interview.
“In other words, Peter Strzok, who was the FBI deputy assistant director of the counterintelligence division, the man who had a plan to do something because he just couldn’t abide Donald Trump being president, is saying that his gut sense is that there’s no big ‘there’ there when it comes to the Mueller special counsel investigation,” Johnson added.
There’s a lot of loose talk about a so-called plan, before there was even an investigation, but Strzok seems pretty clear that his belief was that there was no need for a special counsel investigation.
And just like that, Peter Strzok becomes the hero of the Trumpidian hive.
Hollywood is bending over backwards to make sure women get noticed this year. Perhaps it’s only right, seeing as how one of the largest virtue signal platforms in the world finally had to come forward and admit it harbored sexual predators of every variety around almost every corner.
But despite its current strategy of figuratively placing its lips squarely on the collective rump of female talent in Hollywood — hopefully this time with consent — one movie featuring a powerful woman is noticeably absent from the current crop of Oscar nominations despite its success and approval.
And yet, Hollywood snubbed it for Oscar nominations. Why?
For intents and purposes, it should be counted among Oscar nods left and right despite the fact that it’s a super hero movie. It fits all the criteria necessary for Hollywood love…or so you would think. Wonder Woman ran into too many political troubles to be considered safe for an Oscar nomination. Hollywood, being the left wing haven that it is, couldn’t stomach a few of Wonder Woman’s glaring politically incorrect flaws.
For one, feminists didn’t seem to think Wonder Woman was suitable as a rep for their narrative. She was too sexy, and too beautiful. She was constantly being gawked at by her male companions in the movie, which only made feminists put Wonder Woman in the “for the male gaze” column. What’s more, Diana, Wonder Woman’s real name, was reduced to mush at the site of a baby. Even worse, she learns the value of men, and even falls in love with one! The nerve!
“All of the self-congratulatory back-patting Hollywood’s been doing over Wonder Woman has been so misguided. She’s an objectified icon, and it’s just male Hollywood doing the same old thing!” said Cameron. “I’m not saying I didn’t like the movie but, to me, it’s a step backwards. Sarah Connor was not a beauty icon. She was strong, she was troubled, she was a terrible mother, and she earned the respect of the audience through pure grit. And to me, [the benefit of characters like Sarah] is so obvious. I mean, half the audience is female!”
Then there was the problem of Gal Gadot’s past. For many, the fact that a Jewish Israeli woman, who served in the Israeli military and supports Israel openly was too much. They lashed out at Gadot for any pro-Israeli posts she made. This caused conservative Americans to come to her aid, and further distance the left from Gadot who was clearly supported by what Hollywood considers the untouchables.
So a very successful film directed by a woman will get no recognition at the Oscars because it starred the wrong woman, sporting the wrong values, having the wrong looks, and promoting the wrong behaviors. For Hollywood, Wonder Woman was just too…well, American.
This is incredibly sad, as in a world that was being very honest with itself would admit that Wonder Woman is a triumph on many levels. For Hollywood, it was the wrong kind of triumph.
When a Christian suggests that we can just overlook immoral character, in favor of political policy, you know the salt has lost its saltiness and is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot (Matthew 5:13).
For those puzzling over the reference, in the New Testament times, salt was used to not only draw out the flavor (the good), but to act as antiseptic, and to preserve against decay and putrescence. To describe believers as the “salt of the earth” is a clear directive to act against moral decay and to build up good character, within ourselves, and acting as examples to draw out the good in others.
We don’t draw out good character by giving “mulligans” to those who claim to be brothers or sisters in Christ, and to do so in open view to a world that is lost and needs us to be consistent.
It’s a message I have been trying to make since the primaries of 2015, and so-called Evangelical leaders keep saying things to give me reasons to reiterate.
Perkins, president of the Family Research Council recently expressed his belief in a Politico interview that Donald Trump’s moves in office give him license to ignore what God’s Word teaches about character, the sanctity of marriage, and how we treat the weak and oppressed.
Policy and party over moral and just leadership, always, right?
“We kind of gave him—‘All right, you get a mulligan. You get a do-over here,’” Perkins, the Family Research Council president, told Politico’s “Off Message podcast.”
Perkins said evangelical Christians were “tired of being kicked around by Barack Obama and his leftists.”
I get that. I absolutely do. Former President Obama was an absolute pox on this nation, in regards to his attacks on Christians. No president before Barack Obama was as openly hostile to Christians.
Let us never forget that the Obama administration was willing to cut out police protection and school funding for the state of North Carolina, holding those things over the head of an entire U.S. state, as a means of blackmailing them into allowing men entrance into bathrooms with women and young girls.
(I thank God for a strong governor in Pat McCrory, who planted his feet and stood firm against Obama’s attacks, even as I mourn the stupidity of North Carolina voters who let McCrory go.)
But just because Obama was horrible, that doesn’t mean we should strive to have somebody equally lacking in moral clarity. It should never be about “getting even.”
“And I think they are finally glad that there’s somebody on the playground that is willing to punch the bully,” he said.
Sure. When Jesus was ridiculed, he took to Twitter and made up names for his attackers. When they spit on him and slapped him, it was ON… right?
He added that Christianity is not “all about being a welcome mat which people can just stomp their feet on.”
No, it’s not, but we are to be welcoming. In fact, that’s our mission, far above any political agenda.
That’s a little detail some of these “leaders” like Perkins, Franklin Graham, Dr. Robert Jeffress, and others seem to be missing.
This world is temporal, guys, and 1,000 political gains today mean nothing for our eternity.
Perkins’ comments came as he was questioned about Trump’s reported reference to “sh*thole countries,” as well as his alleged affair with porn star, Stormy Daniels, and the 2016 hush money payoff by his attorney, Michael Cohen.
Certainly, those are issues that should spotlight the moral character (or lack of) of the man, but Perkins insisted that some of Trump’s moves for pro-life issues (we’re still funding Planned Parenthood, so far) and religious freedoms (some recent moves are quite promising) should give the man a pass.
“I don’t think this president is using evangelicals … I think he genuinely enjoys the relationship that had developed. He has found, I think—and he’s a very transactional president,” he said.
“Trust is important to him. Loyalty is important to him, and I think in this transaction, he realizes, ‘hey, these are people I can count on, because they don’t blow with the political winds.’ “
Trump is motivated by self. As long as evangelicals are praising him, he’ll dance in that spotlight. It’s what he does. Should the moment come that they call him out or give him godly rebuke, he’ll cease to be so accommodating.
He continued: “It’s a developing relationship, but I’ll have to say this: from a policy standpoint, he has delivered more than any other president in my lifetime.”
So we’ll see how that works out, in the long run.
He also said he sees Trump as providing the kind of leadership needed for our country and culture, at this time.
How desperately depressing to hear a so-called leader of the Evangelical movement put a man’s agenda ahead of a call to return to the God and the faith of our forefathers. To champion short-term political gains over mercy, love, grace, forbearance, and hope.
This is what’s wrong with the American church. They speak of God with their lips, but deny Him by their actions and their associations.
We’re not reaching the lost, and if you want to know why, just look at Tony Perkins.
Actress Suzanne Somers is best known for her work on the 90’s television sitcom Step by Step and 70’s-80’s sitcom Three’s Company, and while she hasn’t had a gig since 2001, Somers says she’s only now made sure she’ll never get acting work again by admitting that she’s happy with the way President Donald Trump is doing things.
Asked by TMZ if she’s happy with the government shutdown, Somers responded that she Washington needs to “get it all together,” and agreeing with husband Alan Hamel who said the government needed to be shut down permanently.
But then Somers was asked what is considered by many to be a career-killing question if not answered correctly, but Somers had no problem being honest. She was asked how Trump is doing, and she gladly admitted she was happy with him and his effects on the economy.
“And now my career is over!” laughed Somers.
While it is nice to see a familiar face in Hollywood openly reject the leftist narrative, the fact that Somers declared support for Trump isn’t the real story here.
The real story is the fact that Somers acknowledged the fact that by rejecting the LA’s marching orders, she was giving us another peek inside the Hollywood ideological bubble. Somers essentially told us that Conservatism in Hollywood is taboo.
We already know that Hollywood is a cesspool of leftist narratives and ideological drives, and that should you openly declare yourself a Republican, unless you’re a hot ticket item, you’re likely not going to get work. This is a sad thing, seeing as how Hollywood is one of the biggest cultural influencers on the planet.
It’s a shame that the left has to have such a monopoly on creativity when it comes to one of the biggest stages in the world. More people should have the bravery to openly reject leftist narratives in Hollywood.
How do we count the ways that this would be a monumentally bad idea?
No doubt, John Kelly has brought a measure of sanity to the Trump White House. He has put an iron curtain between the Oval Office and some of the chaotic influences that kept the new president spastic and out of control. Leaks seem to have slowed, and while nobody is going to stop Donald Trump from saying idiotic things on Twitter, there’s a slight, but noticeable sense of maturity seeping around the edges.
That didn’t just happen as a natural procession. Kelly had a hand in it.
Now, a new report suggests that recent word of friction between Kelly, a hardnosed military veteran, used to running a tight ship. And Trump, a barely-coherent reality TV clod, used to being pampered and catered to, may be leading to a new White House chief of staff.
Two sources close to the White House have apparently told a reporter with Vanity Fair that Trump wants out of the relationship with Kelly, and that Ivanka Trump is quietly checking into suitable replacements.
The name being tossed around is David Urban, a lobbyist and political operative who helped drive Trump’s campaign in Pennsylvania.
Certainly, the optics of replacing John Kelly now, when there has already been such upheaval in the administration wouldn’t be the best move, going forward, but then, Trump and his clingers don’t think that far ahead. Trump only thinks of when he feels slighted.
But the prospect of a Trump-Kelly rupture became more probable as news of their clashes over immigration leaked. Last week, Kelly reportedly infuriated Trump when he told Fox News that Trump had “evolved” on his position to build a southern border wall. Kelly further catalyzed Trump’s ire when he told Democratic lawmakers that Trump was “uninformed” when he made his campaign promise to build the wall. The next morning Trump rebutted his chief of staff with a tweet: “The Wall is the Wall, it has never changed or evolved from the first day I conceived of it.”
A minor thing, and not untrue. Trump has proven to be ignorant of a LOT of things. It didn’t stop him from blurting them out, however.
The Vanity Fair piece goes on to say staffers call Kelly “the Church Lady,” because of his stiff-necked, military correctness.
Trump has increasingly been chafing at the media narrative that he needs Kelly to instill discipline on his freewheeling management style. “The more Kelly plays up that he’s being the adult in the room—that it’s basically combat duty and he’s serving the country—that kind of thing drives Trump nuts,” a Republican close to the White House said. In recent days, Trump has fumed to friends that Kelly acts like he’s running the government while Trump tweets and watches television. “I’ve got another nut job here who thinks he’s running things,” Trump told one friend, according to a Republican briefed on the call. A second source confirmed that Trump has vented about Kelly, mentioning one call in which Trump said, “This guy thinks he’s running the show.” (A White House official said “it’s categorically false that Trump is unhappy with Kelly. He’s only ever referred to him as the general, tough, can be rough, and commands respect.”)
All we need now is for Kellyanne Conway to appear on Fox News and say Trump has full confidence in John Kelly.
To be clear, it’s apparently not all roses and silk for John Kelly, either. I honestly don’t see how it could be. He’s got the most thankless job in the government, right now. However much we’re paying him to be the Trump Whisperer can’t possibly be enough.
Kelly, in turn, has expressed frustration with Trump’s freewheeling management style and habit of making offensive statements. In August, when Trump incited outrage with his Charlottesville comments, Kelly complained to a colleague that he was “holding it together.” The next month, cameras captured Kelly’s infamous facepalm at Trump’s U.N. speech when Trump calledKim Jong Un “rocket man” and threatened to “totally destroy North Korea.” The New York Timesreported that Kelly has threatened to quit numerous times.
Threatened, but hanging in there.
The report goes on to tell of Trump’s frustration with not getting the credit he feels he deserves for things like the stock market and the lowered unemployment numbers. He actually feels his approval numbers are in the high 50s (rather than the low to mid 30s being shown in most polls), but that “fake news” is hiding it from the world.
If he wants to see those numbers go haywire, go ahead and replace John Kelly and open the Oval Office back up to any crazed clinger with an agenda. I’m sure it’ll work out great.
There was a late attempt at face-saving on the part of Democrats on Monday after they suffered an ignominious PR defeat in the battle of the government shutdown. The #SchumerShutdown, as the GOP successfully branded it.
That defeat was not due to the magic of spin or the mysteries of the human heart, but to the simple matter of a truth that was recorded and observable and not in doubt, and which was nevertheless made even more plain by the events of Monday morning. Truth will out, they say, and so it did.
So of course, they jumped on remarks by Ted Cruz to deflect the negative spotlight. We have a statement from Senator Cruz below. But first, an extremely abbreviated review.
We know the details already, so briefly: They tried to hold the CR hostage so they could get their way on DACA. The government therefore shut down. On Monday, they relented and agreed to the same agreement they’d have had Friday. And why? Because they shut down the government, and everyone knew they shut down the government, and it was untenable.
Now lets skip ahead to the attempt at face-saving.
After some wildly unsuccessful attempts to pretend their gambit had wrangled a more Democrat-y deal, they were scrambling for a message, any message, that didn’t consist of them getting owned by, of all people, Mitch McConnell. And that’s where MSNBC comes in.
Ted Cruz was taking questions and at one point said. “I have always opposed shutting down the government.”
MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt jumped in and began peppering the Senator with objections and debate. Now they had something to gnaw on. ‘How could Ted Cruz of government shutdown Dr. Seuss fame say with a straight face that he was opposed to government shutdowns?’ they asked with every sarcasm-filled sac in their lungs.
Senator Cruz has an answer, and he gave it to us.
RedState reached out to the Senator after the Kasie Hunt clip started shooting around social media, and he gave us this exclusive statement.
There have been few policy fights more important this decade than Obamacare – one of the most disastrous laws to both our health care system and Americans’ freedom over their health care. In 2013, we faced a critical turning point: whether to let Obamacare go into effect or to try and stop it — a choice of whether to transform our healthcare system into a socialist government-run, government-mandated enterprise, rather than a patient-centered free-market system, which everyone agreed needed serious reform. The reason that stopping Obamacare in 2013 was so important is because once it took root, it would be near impossible to reverse it. We’ve seen today the complexities surrounding the repeal and replace debate, even with Republican majorities in Congress and control of the White House, but nonetheless, we are still working to accomplish that goal, because it’s the number one thing voters elected us to do.
The goal in 2013 was to stop funding Obamacare, not shut down the government. Republicans voted numerous times to fund vital government services, and I fought for measure after measure to fund different government agencies, only to be blocked by Harry Reid and the Democrats time and again. They repeatedly blocked the funding of vital government services, including the military, veterans benefits, the National Guard, and National Health Institute, among others.
We saw the same Democrat obstruction this time around too. Despite what is being reported in the media, the truth is Democrats voted to shut down the government while Republicans voted to fund it.
None of the Republican senators wanted to see a government shutdown. Democrats, on the other hand, saw a political benefit from a government shutdown. They think it energizes and excites their far-left base. Well, that may be good for the extreme left, but it’s not good for the American people. It is unfortunate that we see such a partisan and divided Senate right now. For instance, last month, we passed historic tax cuts. In the past, tax cutting has always been a bipartisan endeavor. Over and over, Republicans and Democrats have come together to cut taxes. This time, in both Houses of Congress, zero Democrats voted for tax cuts. That’s really unfortunate and it’s a manifestation of just how radical and extreme Democrats have become.
There are many contemporaneous examples of Cruz opposing shutting down government. Most of the outrageously outraged yesterday pointed to his infamous overnight filibuster, during which at one point he read aloud “Green Eggs and Ham”, as proof of his desire to shut the government down. However, during that very filibuster, the Senator made this statement.
“We should not shut down the government. We should fund every bit of the government, every aspect of the government, 100 percent of the government except for Obamacare. That is what the House of Representatives did. The House of Representatives — 232 Members of the House, including 2 Democrats — voted to fund every bit of the Federal Government, 100 percent of it, except for Obamacare.”
He also said, in an interview a few days later, that if there was a shutdown, it would be “because Harry Reid holds that absolutist position and essentially holds the American people hostage.” The absolutist position being that Obamacare was not negotiable.
Here is an important point.
Democrats on Monday, the very day they spent desperately trying to make the news cycle be about Senator Cruz’s statement, were out there saying that they oppose government shutdowns. In fact, they’ve been saying that since last week. You’ve seen them on air, on Twitter. Schumer and all the other Democrats have said over and over and over that they are opposed to government shutdowns … even as they deliberately orchestrated one!
Not incidentally, not merely creating the specter of shutdown, but actually doing it. Shutting it down was their intent, and they succeeded. Yet even as they took this intentional action, they still claimed they were opposed in principle to shutting down the government. MSNBC argued that case on their behalf.
So perhaps they’ll pardon some eye-rolling at their feigned indignant disbelief that Senator Cruz would say he was opposed in principle to the government being shut down following the 2013 episode.
In 2013, the House sent multiple attempts to fund the government and delay action on Obamacare to the Senate, each shot down by Harry Reid. In the 11th hour, Senate Republicans attempted to go to conference committee to reach an agreement, and were shot down by Reid again, who said at the time “we will not go to conference with a gun to our head.” Reid and other Democrats spent months milking outrage over that shutdown. Months. Because they were “opposed” to it. Yet it happened when they refused to go to committee.
“We will not go to conference until we get a clean CR,” said Reid in 2013. It’s worth noting that in 2014 and again in 2016 the threat of shutdown loomed again, with Democrats pressing for policy concessions and Republicans, in turn, demanding a “clean” continuing resolution on the budget. Reid demanded a clean CR in 2013, Republicans demanded the same in 2014, 2016, and 2018.
Yet through it all, every Democrat and every Republican says they oppose the government shutdown.
Ted Cruz is right to be angry about being the only Senator who ever gets held responsible for a shutdown. He is the only Senator for whom the notion of opposing shutting down the government is mutually exclusive with the government being shut down. Everyone else gets to play politics with the endless Continuing Resolutions and still claim to be opposed to the government shutting down.
But unlike Chuck Schumer in 2018, Ted Cruz in 2013 didn’t try to or design to shut the government down. At worst he played with the same loaded gun they all play with. Only Schumer went in with the intent that government actually shut down.
CRUZ: Look, we should not be shutting the government down. I have consistently opposed shutdowns. In 2013 I said we shouldn’t shut the government down. Indeed, I went to the Senate floor repeatedly asking unanimous consent to re-open the government.
HUNT: Sir you stood in the way of that.
CRUZ: Okay that’s factually incorrect.
HUNT: It’s not though.
CRUZ: It’s a wonderful media narrative. But only one thing actually causes a shutdown. When you have Senators that vote to deny cloture on a funding bill. And when that bill comes up you have a vote. A yes means fund the government, a no means don’t fund the government. In 2013 virtually every single Republican voted to fund the government include me multiple times. Virtually every, in fact every single Democrat I believe in 2013 voted to shut the government down. The same thing is true here. Virtually every single Republican voted this week to fund the government, virtually every single Democrat voted to shut it down.
You will note that Hunt’s interruptions are not punctuated by question marks.
On Monday, Vermont became the ninth state in the United States to legalize recreational marijuana, and the first to do so through state legislative action. Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, California, Nevada, Massachusetts, and Maine — plus Washington, D.C. — all passed their legalization measures through ballot initiatives.
Vermont’s approach to marijuana legalization also seems to be more limited and deliberate than the process has been in other states, undoubtedly the result of having to get through the legislative debate process and win the approval of Vermont Governor Phil Scott, a Republican who did sign the bill into law but was far from an enthusiastic supporter.
After signing the bill, Scott posted a statement on his website saying that he was signing the bill “with mixed emotions.”
“I personally believe that what adults do behind closed doors and on private property is their choice, so long as it does not negatively impact the health and safety of others, especially children,” said Scott.
Under the bill, H. 511, marijuana remains a controlled substance but a small exception is carved out for personal use. After the law takes effect on July 1, personal possession of marijuana will be decriminalized for adults who are at least 21 years old. Specifically, what is allowed is personal possession of no more than one ounce, and cultivation of two mature marijuana plants (and four immature plants) on private property.
Consumption of marijuana in public will remain illegal, as will selling marijuana, or being under its influence while operating a motor vehicle. Additional provisions allow schools, employers, landlords, and local governments to adopt their own policies or ordinances restricting the use or possession of marijuana.
A previous bill, S. 22, had been vetoed by Scott last May, and he conditioned his approval of H. 511 on the inclusion of certain provisions, including increased penalties for use by minors, or for adults who provide marijuana to minors, plus additional measures targeting highway safety.
Matt Simon, New England political director for the Marijuana Policy Project, called Vermont’s new law a “great step forward.”
“Responsible adults will soon have the freedom to enjoy a safer option legally, and law enforcement will be free to concentrate on serious crimes with actual victims,” said Simon.
The new law in Vermont follows a trend of increased public support for reducing or eliminating altogether criminal penalties for personal marijuana use. A Gallup poll from October 2017 found 64% of Americans supported legalization, the highest percentage in five decades they had polled the issue. This included, for the first time, support from the majority of Republicans.
Meanwhile, marijuana remains illegal under federal law, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions seems determined to push the federal government in the opposite direction of these states, rescinding Obama-era policies that instructed federal agents not to attempt to enforce federal law in states that opted for legalization.
The answer may lie in Congress following Vermont’s path, a step-by-step approach to adopting laws that decriminalize small amounts of marijuana for personal use, and studying the issue before rolling out a regulatory system for a commercial marijuana market. The nine states (plus D.C.) that have now allowed some level of legal recreational use, plus the additional dozens that allow medical marijuana uses, can provide data for the research studies.
Just in case it wasn’t already clear what a total garbage person Paul Nehlen is, today he spent a few hours on Twitter reminding everyone that he is an anti-Semitic nutcase.
Nehlen, who has launched another challenge for Speaker Paul Ryan’s Congressional seat despite losing by a humiliating 68 points in 2016, is annoyed that an article posted at Buzzfeed last week reported how he was coordinating with alt-right Twitter users to attack his critics in the “Jewish media.”
Nehlen attempted to refute the accusations of anti-Semitism by posting a series of tweets complaining about Jews in the media.
In a string of tweets Monday afternoon, Nehlen claimed that the private message discussions that Buzzfeed reported were merely “a coordination effort by my supporters on my behalf.” He then argued that the references in these messages to the “Jewish media” aren’t anti-Semitic, but are actually a “well-founded observation.”
Nehlen then posted several graphics with the names and photos of people employed by major media organizations, identified with Jewish stars next to their photos, to indicate if they are Jewish or have a Jewish spouse. He did this for CNN, NBC, the New York Times, NPR, and Fox News.
The graphic for Fox News includes a special red star for Rupert Murdoch, identifying him as a “Christian Zionist,” which the graphic explains as suspecting that he has Jewish ancestry, “although it’s never publicly admitted” and for being a “devoted Zionist” who has received honors from Jewish organizations.
As RedState has previously reported, Nehlen has been making nasty, racist, bigoted comments for awhile, openly promoting white supremacist and alt-right twitter accounts and memes for months, even while Breitbart and others were proudly touting him as a challenger to Ryan.
Discussing a specific person in the media who happens to be Jewish isn’t necessarily anti-Semitic. Religious background is an interesting part of a person’s biography just like their hometown or where they received their college education.
But pointing out everyone in leadership at a media organization who is either Jewish or married to someone who is — not to mention the “Christian Zionist” attack against Murdoch — and saying there is something negative and nefarious about it, well, there’s no way to interpret that as anything but anti-Semitic.
Nehlen also failed to address the substance of the Buzzfeed article. The issue wasn’t just how he was complaining about “Jewish media,” but his specific comments about how there was “a list of goys attacking me, and a separate list of Jews,” people who were “working for the Jewish media” and “fake conservatives who happened to be Jewish.”
“I’m gonna decimate them all,” wrote Nehlen to his supporters, “and y’all are going to help me.”
Memo to Nehlen: Yes, you’re an anti-Semite. And a loser. You’re not going to decimate anyone, even with the help of all your alt-right trolls. In 2016, Speaker Ryan beat you by more than 68 points. This year, you’ll be lucky to get out of the single digits.
Picking up on President Trump’s obsessive signaling, a demented redcapper from Michigan threatened to shoot and kill CNN employees.
About a week ago, the raging lunatic called CNN over 20 times, breathing threats that he probably got off of a meme.
“Fake news. I’m coming to gun you all down,” the man told a CNN operator, according to court documents obtained by WGCL-TV.
He allegedly later called CNN again, saying, “I’m smarter than you. More powerful than you. I have more guns than you. More manpower. Your cast is about to get gunned down in a matter of hours.”
“I am coming to Georgia right now to go to the CNN headquarters to f—ing gun every single last one of you,” he said.
He wasn’t smart enough to keep his call from being traced by the FBI. They found the man and he has been arrested.
They’re not releasing his name, at this time.
Trump’s loyalist will rush to say this has nothing to do with Trump.
It does. Don’t kid yourself.
Just as there were Trumpidians punching protesters during his rallies, after hearing him say he’d pay their legal bills if they got in trouble (so far, he hasn’t paid anyone’s bills), the continuous drumbeat of “fake news” and the gifs he’s so proud of, showing him attacking CNN.
His “fake news awards” was so ridiculously beneath the dignity of the office and apart from what his job is supposed to be, and there’s no way to say some unstable nutjob isn’t looking to up the stakes and go full in, as a service to Trump.
That seems to be exactly what happened here.
It’s a blessing that nobody was hurt. That doesn’t mean we’ll always be so fortunate.