Thursday Top Headlines

by Media Editors: Dow hits record, surpassing January level (CNBC)

Grassley tells Ford, dummycrats-Democrats to use scheduled hearing or lose opportunity (The Washington Times)

Kirsten Gillibrand: Kavanaugh’s accuser shouldn’t participate in this “sham hearing” (Hot Air)

No surprise: Claire McCaskill waits until coast is clear to announce she’s opposing Kavanaugh (Townhall)

dummycrats-Democrat congressman threatens “judicial impeachment” of Kavanaugh (CNS News)

dummycrats-Demo endgame: Poll shows 46% believe accusation against Kavanaugh, 19% don’t (Hot Air)

“She denied it to Bill’s victims”: Juanita Broaddrick blasts liar-Hillary calling for “due process” on Kavanaugh accuser (Fox Insider)

scumbag-Ellison accuser releases 2017 medical document saying she feared “retribution” (The Washington Times)

Trump again eviscerates Sessions: “I don’t have an attorney general” (The Hill)

FBI sought to elevate anti-Trump dossier to official intelligence file despite CIA, DNI objections (The Washington Times)

Pulosi bid to regain House speaker role facing new threat from rebel dummycrats-Democrats (Fox News)

Catholic bishops announce new rules for sexual abuse accusations (The Hill)

March for Our Lives cofounder quits, has regrets about things he said (The Daily Wire)

Illegal alien charged with murder of Mollie Tibbetts pleads not guilty (Des Moines Register)

Rapist identifies as trans woman, gets sent to women’s prison, sexually assaults four inmates (Washington Examiner)

Drug overdoses, suicides push life expectancy in U.S. behind other developed nations (The Washington Times)

Google’s prototype Chinese search engine links searches to phone numbers (The Guardian)

Humor: Ford may not testify before Senate Judiciary Committee because she’s not sure exactly when or where the hearing happens (ScrappleFace)

Policy: The Accountable Capitalism Act: socialist and unconstitutional (National Review)

Policy: Two visions for market-based health care reform (Real Clear Policy)

~The Patriot Post


Personal email accounts of senators, staffers targeted by foreign government hackers: Ron Wyden

by Naomi Lim

{ } ~ A top Senate dummycrats-Democrat claims the personal email accounts of a number of senators and their aides have been targeted by foreign government hackers… An unnamed technology company has warned select senators and their staff their accounts may have been breached, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., wrote in a letter Wednesday asking Senate leadership to support his push to grant Senate security officers greater power to help protect personal devices and accounts. “Given the significance of this threat, I was alarmed to learn that U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms cybersecurity personnel apparently refused to help Senators and Senate staff after these attacks,” Wyden wrote in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Senate Minority Leader Chuck scumbag/clown-Schumer, D-N.Y., and leadership of the Senate Rules Committee. “The SAA confirmed to my office that believes it may only use appropriated funds to protect official government devices and accounts,” said Wyden. “This approach must change to keep up with changing world realities.” Pentagon officials and other intelligence community personnel have resources available to them to shield personal devices and accounts, Wyden said. Wyden, aside for support of his proposed legislation, also called on Senate leadership to poll senators and their aides to understand how many have been contacted by tech companies regarding similar intrusions…


Kavanaugh Accuser’s Brother Worked for Law Firm That Hired Fusion GPS

by Melanie Arter

{ } ~ The brother of Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault… worked for a law firm that hired Fusion GPS, which produced the fake dossier on President Donald Trump, reported. The website cited blog sites and, which are reporting that Ralph Blasey III, once worked for the law firm Baker & Hostetler LLP. He left the firm in 2004. The Daily Caller reported in 2017 that Baker & Hostetler LLP paid Fusion GPS several payments, totaling more than a half million dollars in 2016. Fusion GPS was also hired by Planned Parenthood to use fake forensic analysis debunk the undercover videos that the Center for Medical Progress made in 2015 showing the abortion providers’ executives discussing the sale of aborted baby body parts…


scumbag-Cory Booker Stunner: 17-Year Olds Too Immature to Be Held Accountable for Actions


{ } ~ New Jersey Senator scumbag-Cory Booker has a very interesting view of Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged actions… You might even call this a “Spartacus” moment for the Senator, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. As the world knows, Judge Kavanaugh, 17 years old at the time, is being accused of assaulting a 15-year-old Christine Blasey now Ford when both were in high school. Blasey did not report the incident to authorities or apparently anyone else at the time. Thus, no charges were filed much less was Kavanaugh prosecuted. Again, if the charges are true — and there is zero evidence that is the case, not to mention that Kavanaugh not only denies the incident but also that he was even at the party in question — true high schooler Kavanaugh was 17 years old at the time. As it happens, Senator scumbag-Booker is a sponsor of something called the REDEEM Act — with the GOP’s Senator Rand Paul. The proposed legislation centers on expunging the records of juveniles convicted of non-violent crimes, thus ensuring some teenage mistake does not follow them for a lifetime. While what Kavanaugh is accused of presumably would be classified as “violent,” again, he was never charged much less prosecuted for this. But in an explanation of his concern for teenagers who get in trouble, as here at the Senator’s website, scumbag-Booker says this, bold print supplied: In other words? The activities of a 17-year-old Brett Kavanaugh, not to mention 15-year-old Christine Blasey, were the result of immature teenagers whose “decision-making functions” were impaired to begin with because they had brains that were not “fully” developed. Not to mention that if scumbag-Booker is literally sponsoring legislation that would make it the law of the land to seal youthful criminal records, there is no way that Ford’s 36-years later allegation — when no charges were even filed in the day — should be relevant in the first place. There is zero evidence — say again zero — that Kavanaugh has ever exhibited this behavior in his adult life. Say again, zero. To the contrary. One woman after another has come forward to describe him in terms of being a gentleman on a personal level and an utter professional in the workplace…


If Christine Blasey Ford Doesn’t Testify, Brett Kavanaugh Will Be Confirmed

by Jim E

{ } ~ This is the only course of action that will actually yield any tangible results. dummycrats-Democrats put the entire country in this mess… And they will pay the repercussions for their recalcitrance. By now, if you aren’t skeptical of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school, then, frankly, we have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. dummycrats-Democrats raised this stink, now they refuse to smell it. Fein-stein and her colleagues are refusing to have anything to do with the congressional investigation into Ford’s accusations. If they truly cared about what Ford is alleging, they’d do their best to gather information. But it gets worse. Some Senate dummycrats-Democrats are privately upset that Fein-stein withheld Ford’s accusation for so long. Sen. Fein-stein held onto Ford’s letter for months and decided to air it just before the Kavanaugh vote. People are understandably suspicious of the timing. Washington isn’t a place where accidents usually happen. Where things go out with strike three is Christine Ford’s refusal to actually testify before Congress. Ford made it known that she will not be testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee and is demanding an FBI investigation into her claims first. This is nonsense on stilts. Ford made her allegations in July. If she wanted an FBI investigation, she should have asked then. There is absolutely no excuse for waiting until now to make this demand. It only belies a lack of seriousness. Now, it looks like all of these facts have gathered into a perfect storm that is going to put Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. Senate Republicans are indicating that if Ford doesn’t testify, they’ll vote to confirm Kavanaugh anyway. rino-Bob Corker, a notorious never-Trump senator, said as much…


Grassley Sets Friday Deadline For Kavanaugh Accuser

by sundance

{ } ~ Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassleyhas submitted a letter to ranking member Dianne Fein-stein setting a deadline for Friday… September 21st, for Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Ford, to respond on whether or not she will appear for testimony to support her claims. As you know, the Senate Judiciary Committee has extended invitations to Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh to testify on Monday, September 24. They have until this Friday at 10:00 a.m. to let us know whether they are coming. Dr. Ford has asked for the opportunity to be heard in a hearing, and I believe she should have that opportunity. I recognize that testifying publicly about sexual assault allegations may be difficult for Dr. Ford, so I have offered her the opportunity to testify in any of four possible venues: (1) a public hearing; (2) a private hearing; (3) a public staff interview; or (4) a private staff interview. I am even willing to have my staff travel to Dr. Ford in California—or anywhere else—to obtain her testimony.


Twitter’s Initial Classification of ‘Illegal Alien,’ ‘Criminal Alien’ as Hateful Shows Social Media’s Censorship Potential

by Hans von Spakovsky

Twitter made headlines recently when it denied the Center for Immigration Studies, a nonpartisan group, the ability to promote four tweets that — according to Twitter — contained “hateful content.”

What was that hateful content? The legally correct phrases “illegal alien” and “criminal alien.”

To be clear, those who follow the Center for Immigration Studies on Twitter were able to see these tweets, but the organization was prevented from paying Twitter to disseminate the posts beyond its own followers.

Twitter subsequently decided that the group could promote the tweets after it protested.

In recent years, those on the progressive left has decided to censor terms that, despite being accurate and legally correct, do not meet their views of the prevailing political orthodoxy.

They prefer terms such as “undocumented immigrant” that are intended to disguise the illegality of aliens who cross our borders without permission. The difference in meaning between these terms is actually crucial when understanding and correctly discussing different types of immigration.

As noted in a previous article, “Under federal law, any individual in this country who is not a citizen is an alien.”

“And any alien who is here without permission is here illegally. End of story.”

The terminology is clearly correct under both immigration law and Supreme Court precedents, but the left understands that controlling language and content is the key to controlling public discourse.

Not only did the tweets contain accurate language, they also included key information and facts relevant to the debate over enforcement of our immigration laws.

Apparently, however, talking about sanctuary cities and the safe haven they provide for criminal aliens or talking about the often-violent crimes committed by illegal aliens is unacceptable in the eyes of the Twitter censors.

This is not the first time that a major social media company has been in the hot seat for deciding which opinion will be deemed worthy and which one can’t be allowed to see the light of day where it might actually influence the opinions of the public.

Facebook recently announced that it will expand its current “fact-checking” process of articles, pictures, and videos, where a highly subjective determination of supposed “falsehood” can decrease an article’s reach on Facebook by 80 percent.

But who are the fact-checkers? According to Facebook, its approved third-party fact-checking groups are, PolitiFact,, the Associated Press, and The Weekly Standard. Of the five groups, The Weekly Standard is the only outlet that made a recent decision by these organizations to mark a ThinkProgress article as false. (If two fact-checkers disagree on a rating, then Facebook won’t take action to reduce the article’s distribution, according to Fox News.)

The controversy arose from the title of the article, “Brett Kavanaugh said he would kill Roe v. Wade last week and almost no one noticed.”

Similar to the Center for Immigration Studies’ tweets, the controversy hinges on semantics. In the same way that it is factually incorrect to refer to “illegal aliens” as “undocumented immigrants,” it is patently false to assert that Kavanaugh “said” something that there is zero evidence of him saying.

The determination made by the fact-checkers, including The Weekly Standard, put the left in an uncomfortable situation. Some chose to recognize the dishonesty of the headline and offer better wording, while others chose to double down on the supposed ideological nature of the controversy.

The author of the article, Ian Millhiser, responded to The Weekly Standard, saying that it has “a history of placing right-wing ideology before accurate reporting.” The author went on to defend his false title by claiming its “fact-check appears to hinge on the definition of the word ‘said.’” (Sound familiar?)

The author then claimed that “said” can also mean “indicate,” but the author chose to use the word “said” to describe events that never actually occurred.

He then attacked the credibility of The Weekly Standard as a fact-checker and claimed that it was chosen by Facebook “as part of a deliberate effort to pander to conservatives.”

On the front lines to defend the duplicitous title was Zack Beauchamp at Vox. He published a response, “Facebook blocked the spread of a liberal article because a conservative told it to.” If the title doesn’t make his point of view obvious enough, he writes that the “feud is less about facts and more about abortion rights.”

He conceded that the headline of the ThinkProgress article is misleading, but thinks that the publication should have gotten a warning and a chance to correct the mistake.

Would he have taken such a soft approach if the ideological positions had been reversed? Beauchamp claims that the issue of censorship is difficult because the platform “hasn’t grappled with the very long history of conservatives using allegations of bias to discredit neutral media and elevate their own perspective.”

He ignores the numerous studies by organizations such as the Media Research Center that have documented the overwhelmingly left-wing bias of the media.

Others on the left took a different approach. William Saletan at Slate pointed out the real issue here is that “most of us, including me, are good at seeing other people’s biases, but lousy at seeing our own.”

Saletan makes the important observation that ThinkProgress has proved “the opposite of what they intended” and that “the press is full of left-leaning journalists who sometimes can’t see or acknowledge congenial falsehoods.”

~The Patriot Post


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *