conservativefreepress
Conservative Free Press
1373 posts
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
Last Seen Blogs
Text
New Post has been published on Conservative Free Press
New Post has been published on https://www.conservativefreepress.com/uncategorized/why-the-justice-department-is-suing-georgia/
Why the Justice Department Is Suing Georgia
The US Department of Justice is suing the state of Georgia over a Republican-backed law designed to limit voter fraud.
“Our complaint alleges that recent changes to Georgia’s election laws were enacted with the purpose of denying or abridging the right of Black Georgians to vote on account of their race or color,” argues Attorney General Merrick Garland.
Signed by Governor Brian Kemp (R) in March, the law adds new voter ID requirements, tightens rules for absentee and mail-in voting, expands early voting access, and prevents bystanders from offering food to people waiting in line at polling stations.
Georgia’s law is among several proposals introduced by Republicans to uphold election integrity following the controversial 2020 election; at least 20 have been signed into law.
Garland went on to argue that because minority voters in Georgia are more likely to vote in person, they often experience long wait times and deserve to be offered food and drink.
Keep in mind the new law does not prohibit voters from bringing their own food and/or beverages with them and only applies to voters standing within 150 feet of a polling station.
The passing of the new law was “rushed,” continues Garland. “These legislative actions occurred at a time when the Black population in Georgia continues to steadily increase, and after a historic election that saw record voter turnout across the state, particularly for absentee voting, which Black voters are now more likely to use than white voters.”
Voter turnout was high across the board because traditional restrictions were eased in the name of COVID-19. With more than three years to prepare for the next presidential election, I fail to see how any new rules could prevent a US resident who wants to vote from voting.
Nonetheless, Garland has vowed to expand the number of voter enfranchisement lawyers at the Justice Department in order to examine voting laws that other states have passed.
In response to the lawsuit, Governor Kemp accused the Biden Administration of “weaponizing” the Justice Department to carry out the Biden Administraiton’s “far-left agenda that undermines election integrity and empowers federal government overreach in our democracy.”
Author’s Note: Ironically, Kemp and Garland are both fighting for the right of all eligible citizens to vote. The difference here is that Kemp understands restrictions are necessary in order to prevent fraud while Garland wants to open the polls to everyone.
Democrats will always push for relaxed voting procedures becuase ineligible voters who make it to the polls undetected are more likely to vote for Democrats.
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on Conservative Free Press
New Post has been published on https://www.conservativefreepress.com/uncategorized/is-this-the-end-of-female-sports/
Is this the end of female sports?
The Supreme Court on Monday passed on a long-winding legal battle over transgender students’ rights to use bathrooms that match their gender identity.
Gavin Grimm, a transgender man, sued his school board in 2015 over its policy that barred him from using the boys restroom. Gloucester County School Board in Virginia had implemented a policy that forced Grimm to use unisex restroom facilities.
“I am glad that my years-long fight to have my school see me for who I am is over,” Grimm said in a statement.
“Being forced to use the nurse’s room, a private bathroom, and the girl’s room was humiliating for me, and having to go to out-of-the-way bathrooms severely interfered with my education,” he added. “Trans youth deserve to use the bathroom in peace without being humiliated and stigmatized by their own school boards and elected officials.”
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with Grimm twice, ruling the policy is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. The court also said barring students from using the bathroom that matches their gender identity violates Title IX, an education law that prohibits sex-based discrimination.
For several years, the case has bounced around the courts through a turbulent political tug of war over the interpretation of Title IX. The court backed Grimm in 2016 and again last August. The Supreme Court was set to hear the case in 2017 but sent it back to the lower courts after the Trump administration scrapped Obama-era guidance on the rights of transgender students.
The Education Department’s new interpretation of Title IX, announced in June, now includes prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The decision was based on the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County. However, the opinion issued about transgender rights in the workplace specifically said it did not address rights to use bathrooms or locker rooms.
This is the second time this term that the Supreme Court has sidelined a lawsuit aimed at barring transgender students from bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity. In December, the high court decided not to hear the case aimed at ending an Oregon school district’s policy of allowing transgender students to use facilities that match their gender identity.
The court order said Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari in Grimm’s case. Thomas and Alito dissented in Bostock.
In their dissent, the justices warned that the high court’s decision to interpret sex-based discrimination as encompassing of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity “is virtually certain to have far-reaching consequences.” They pointed to issues surrounding the use of bathrooms, locker rooms and campus housing, and alluded to the brewing battle over transgender athlete’s rights.
The Supreme Court’s decision to leave the lower court’s ruling in place is seen as a major victory for transgender student rights, especially as a number of conservative states pass laws to challenge them.
“This is an incredible victory for Gavin and for transgender students around the country,” said Josh Block, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Our work is not yet done, and the ACLU is continuing to fight against anti-trans laws targeting trans youth in states around the country.”
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on Conservative Free Press
New Post has been published on https://www.conservativefreepress.com/uncategorized/the-next-battle-in-the-war-against-big-tech/
The next battle in the war against Big Tech
The House Judiciary Committee this week advanced five proposals designed to rein in the power of tech giants including Facebook, Google, and Amazon.
Primary objectives of the proposals include:
Prohibit dominant platforms from prioritizing their own products and services (for example, when Alexa asks you to order products from Amazon).
Prohibit tech giants like Facebook from acquiring competitors.
Prohibit tech giants from owning/operating business lines that present conflicts of interest (such as those that could incentivize a platform to favor its own services).
Establish new requirements for interoperability and data portability.
Shift the burden of proof onto dominant platforms to show that proposed mergers do not violate antitrust laws.
Increase filing fees for mergers worth more than $500 million and decrease fees for merges worth less than $500 million.
Ensure state attorneys general can remain in the court they choose (for antitrust cases).
Increase the Federal Trade Commission’s budget.
The proposals – which will affect platforms with over $600 billion in market cap and at least 50 million monthly users in the United States – are the result of a 15-month antitrust investigation led by Rep. David Cicilline(D-RI). The investigation accuses Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple of abusing their market power by charging excessive fees, imposing brutal contact terms, and collecting valuable data from individuals and businesses that rely on them.
Tech giants that could be broken up under the new proposals and have asked lawmakers to reconsider.
“Antitrust laws should promote competition and protect consumers, not punish successful American companies,” said a Facebook spokesperson. “These bills underestimate the unrelenting competition within the tech sector, including competition from foreign companies such as TikTok, WeChat, and Alibaba. The proposed bills aren’t a solution to the ever-changing challenges of the consumer Internet; they are a poison pill for America’s tech industry at a time our economy can least afford it.
The FTC, now led by antitrust scholar Lina Khan, has already sued Facebook over its acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram.
Representatives from Google and Amazon have voiced concerns regarding the potential disruption of services. Mark Isakowitz, Google’s Vice President of government affairs, claimed the proposals would force Google to “degrade” services used by hundreds of millions of people.
Brian Huseman, Amazon’s Vice President of public policy, warned the new policies could make it harder for small- and medium-sized businesses that operate through Amazon’s marketplace to find buyers. “Removing the selection of these sellers from Amazon’s store would also create less price competition for products and likely end up increasing prices for consumers.”
The National Venture Capital Association claims the bill affecting merges will result in fewer start-up companies.
Getting purchased by a larger company is often the “most likely liquidity opportunity” for entrepreneurs, argued an NVCA spokesperson. “Barring acquisitions of companies by select acquirers would close the door to this opportunity for many startups, depressing the economics of startup investment, and therefore creating a signifiant disincentive for new company formation.”
Each antitrust proposal has a degree of support from both political parties, though Republicans seek to add language addressing Big Tech’s anti-conservative bias.
Author’s Note: It’s about time we did something to break up the Big Tech monopolies and lessen the control they have over the economy and our lives.
Sources:
House advances five bills targeting Big Tech after overnight slugfest
Google, Amazon accuse lawmakers of harming small businesses as Big Tech antitrust bills move through Congress
From Biden to Congress, Big Tech is under mounting pressure
House panel pushes legislation targeting Big Tech’s power
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on Conservative Free Press
New Post has been published on https://www.conservativefreepress.com/uncategorized/hero-who-killed-cop-killer-shot-dead-by-police/
‘Hero’ Who Killed Cop Killer Shot Dead by Police
A “hero” who fatally shot a cop killer was then shot dead himself by another officer called to the scene.
Johnny Hurley, 40, shot Ronald Troyke after the latter had gunned down Colorado officer Gordon Beesley with a 12-gauge semi-automatic shotgun.
Video footage shows Troyke, who had described police as the “enemy” and “expendable”, driving his pick-up truck to an area near a library, shops and restaurants in Arvada, about seven miles from Denver.
He gets out of the vehicle carrying a gun before proceeding to kill Beesley and shoot out the windows of police cars in the area.
After returning to his pick-up to retrieve an AR-15 rifle, Troyke was confronted by Hurley, who shot him with a handgun.
When another officer arrived, Mr Hurley was holding Troyke’s AR-15 and the responder opened fire, killing him, the local force said.
A retail worker said Mr Hurley had been shopping when he heard shots and ran out of the store.
“He did not hesitate – he didn’t stand there and think about it. He totally heard the gunfire, went to the door, saw the shooter and immediately ran in that direction,” Bill Troyanos told Denver TV station KMGH-TV.
Mr Hurley fired five or six shots and Troyke fell against a parked vehicle, Mr Troyanos added.
Image: Gordon Beesley was shot dead in Arvada. Pic: AP
In a video statement, head of police Link Strate said Mr Hurley was a “hero” who had saved lives.
He did not offer an apology, however, describing Mr Hurley’s death as “equally tragic” to Gordon Beesley’s.
Mr State said: “The threat to our officers and our community was stopped by a hero named Johnny Hurley.
“Johnny’s actions can only be described as decisive, courageous and effective in stopping further loss of life.”
Image: Police cars line up to pay tribute to Gordon Beesley. Pic: AP
Police said a document written by Troyke suggested he planned to kill as many Arvada police officers as he could.
Troyke wrote: “We the people were never your enemy, but we are now.
“This is what you get – you are the people who are expendable.”
Mr Hurley’s family said they had received support from the city and police and are waiting for the outcome of a third-party investigation into the shooting.
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on Conservative Free Press
New Post has been published on https://www.conservativefreepress.com/uncategorized/hero-who-killed-cop-killer-shot-dead-by-police/
‘Hero’ Who Killed Cop Killer Shot Dead by Police
A “hero” who fatally shot a cop killer was then shot dead himself by another officer called to the scene.
Johnny Hurley, 40, shot Ronald Troyke after the latter had gunned down Colorado officer Gordon Beesley with a 12-gauge semi-automatic shotgun.
Video footage shows Troyke, who had described police as the “enemy” and “expendable”, driving his pick-up truck to an area near a library, shops and restaurants in Arvada, about seven miles from Denver.
He gets out of the vehicle carrying a gun before proceeding to kill Beesley and shoot out the windows of police cars in the area.
After returning to his pick-up to retrieve an AR-15 rifle, Troyke was confronted by Hurley, who shot him with a handgun.
When another officer arrived, Mr Hurley was holding Troyke’s AR-15 and the responder opened fire, killing him, the local force said.
A retail worker said Mr Hurley had been shopping when he heard shots and ran out of the store.
“He did not hesitate – he didn’t stand there and think about it. He totally heard the gunfire, went to the door, saw the shooter and immediately ran in that direction,” Bill Troyanos told Denver TV station KMGH-TV.
Mr Hurley fired five or six shots and Troyke fell against a parked vehicle, Mr Troyanos added.
Image: Gordon Beesley was shot dead in Arvada. Pic: AP
In a video statement, head of police Link Strate said Mr Hurley was a “hero” who had saved lives.
He did not offer an apology, however, describing Mr Hurley’s death as “equally tragic” to Gordon Beesley’s.
Mr State said: “The threat to our officers and our community was stopped by a hero named Johnny Hurley.
“Johnny’s actions can only be described as decisive, courageous and effective in stopping further loss of life.”
Image: Police cars line up to pay tribute to Gordon Beesley. Pic: AP
Police said a document written by Troyke suggested he planned to kill as many Arvada police officers as he could.
Troyke wrote: “We the people were never your enemy, but we are now.
“This is what you get – you are the people who are expendable.”
Mr Hurley’s family said they had received support from the city and police and are waiting for the outcome of a third-party investigation into the shooting.
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on Conservative Free Press
New Post has been published on https://www.conservativefreepress.com/uncategorized/conservatives-the-unacceptable-minority/
Conservatives: The Unacceptable Minority
Positive opinions on government health care, increased immigration, increased NATO involvement, public schooling, implicit racism, and increased welfare spending – once debated in arenas of public thought – now find themselves in the sanctified air religious tenets enjoy in friendly ethnostates. They are the bedrock in which all dialogue within the social sciences rests, the ideals of the bloviating elite our youth aspire to be, and the only readily available opinions in mass media.
Sadly, the religion in this ethnostate is not even our own – and the social price of apostasy is great.
This process of reducing the scope of acceptable dialogue only accelerated when a small band of misfits publicly planned and then stormed an intentionally open (1,2) Capitol on some solemnly, reverentially, and endlessly mentioned date that’s supposed to evoke some false similarity with 9/11 or 12/7.
The Censorship Industry
In America, we see our government taking an unnatural concern in the workings of private companies. Subsidies aside, we watched the industry leaders in tech be dragged into Congress, threatened, and blamed for any information published on their sites that was not cohesive with a globalist ideology. Because such barriers on speech rely on the castigated private industry to serve as muscle, the stagnant, reactionary portion of the Libertarian and Republican parties even defend the suppression of speech thinking they’re defending “private company” rights.
As discussed in “The Spectacle of Mass Media: Debord was almost right,” in 1983, 90 percent of the county’s media was spread out between 50 corporations. Today, that number is 5 – all of which equate small-government advocacy and constitutional traditionalism with white supremacy.
We’ve already seen the results of this blunt force marketing campaign.
A recent Gallup/Knight Foundation poll asked 1,269 Americans about their social media views, freedom of expression, and the 2020 election, and came to an alarming conclusion: 56 percent of Americans in 2020 believe in the right to freely express views on social media, compared to 65 percent in 2019. It’s of great importance to point out that this study was done just before the 2020 election, so the data doesn’t reflect the impact of a coordinated media attack demanding more restrictions on speech.
Democrats are five times more likely than Republicans to say they are trying to avoid certain family members because of their political views. While only 13 percent of the general public blocked, unfriended, or stopped following someone on social media because of a political posting, 30 percent of Democrat women acted as proper agents of the state and dismissed naysayers of state power.
Current Administration
Discussing his order to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan during his first State of the Union speech, Biden noted that global terror networks had largely been dealt with and “white supremacists” posed a bigger threat than foreign actors.
“We won’t ignore what our intelligence agencies have determined to be the most lethal terrorist threat to our homeland today: White supremacy is terrorism,” Biden warmed “White supremacy is terrorism, and we’re not going to ignore that either. My fellow Americans, look, we have to come together to heal the soul of this nation,” the blabbering husk of the former Democrat senator finished.
In case you’re missing the context here, this rhetoric is justifying the full use and power of America’s intelligence apparatus against anyone who falls under an often misused, indeterminate category. Given our current trajectory, any violation of our Bill of Rights that occurs in the process of stopping “hate” will be cheered by those who are currently celebrating democracy after two consecutive rigged primary seasons.
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on Conservative Free Press
New Post has been published on https://www.conservativefreepress.com/uncategorized/the-fate-of-rudy-giuliani/
The Fate of Rudy Giuliani
New York’s highest court on Thursday took the unprecedented action of suspending lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s license to practice law in the state even though he has yet to stand trial.
In contesting the results of the 2020 election in defense of former President Donald Trump, Giuliani made “demonstrably false and misleading statements” that posed “an immediate threat to the public,” said the court.
“This country is being torn apart by continued attacks on the legitimacy of the 2020 election and of our current president. The hallmark of our democracy is predicated on free and fair elections. False statements intended to foment a loss of confidence in our elections and resulting loss of confidence in government generally damage the proper functioning of a free society.”
The court went on to link Giuliani directly to the January 6th “attack,”claiming his actions “directly inflamed tensions that bubbled over into the events of January 6th, 2021 in this nation’s Capitol.”
The court added that it needs no evidence to illustrate a connection between Giuliani’s so-called “misconduct” and the events of January 6th.
“This event only emphasizes the larger point that the broad dissemination of false statements, casting doubt on the legitimacy of thousands of validly cast votes, is corrosive to the public’s trust in outmost important democratic institutions,” said the court, adding that Giuliani is likely to face “permanent sanctions.”
—
This is the perfect example of cancel culture. Just like Facebook’s banishment of Donald Trump, the state of New York is trying to remove Giuliani from the public eye because they don’t agree with his views.
In a statement, Giuliani’s lawyers said they were “disappointed” in the court for suspending his license before he was granted a hearing.
“We believe that once the issues are fully explored at a hearing, Mr. Giuliani will be reinstated as a valued member of the legal profession that he has served so well in his many capacities for so many years.”
Giuliani, who served as mayor of New York City from 1994 to 2001, denies the allegations but has promised not to discuss the 2020 election in public.
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on Conservative Free Press
New Post has been published on https://www.conservativefreepress.com/uncategorized/parents-vs-woke-education/
Parents VS Woke Education
Philadelphia resident Elana Fishbein was shocked last year when the elementary school two of her three children attended introduced “cultural proficiency” classes she describes as “totally racist.” The “woke” education classes are based in critical race theory, which divides society into “oppressors” and “oppressed” based on traits including race and sex.
Fishbein, a former social worker with a doctorate in child welfare, took a close look at the course material before making the decision to move her children to a private school.
“The material selected for this indoctrination pumps their brains with LIES that puts unbearable emotional burdens on them for years to come,” wrote Fishbein in a letter to the superintendent. “Why must our kids feel like villains and hate themselves for something they had no control over – the color/pigmentation of their skin?”
Fishbein received no response to her letter and was harassed by other parents when she posted the letter online. “I was blown away,” said Fishbein. “They won’t even discuss it. They just call you a name.”
In August, Fishbein launched an organization called “No Left Turn in Education” to try to stop Critical Race Theory.
She reached out to a conservative news source to run her story. A month later, she was invited to speak on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight and her Facebook page received more than 1 million views.
Today, No Left Turn in Education has tens of thousands of members in more than 20 states.
Among those who reached out to Fishbein was Nevada resident Gabrielle Clark, who took issue with a sociology class her son William was forced to attend.
During the class, students were asked to identify which groups they belonged to based on factors such as race, religion, sexual identity, family income, and disability. The students were then given labels such as “privileged” or “oppressed.”
Clark is a black single mother with five kids. William is the only one of her children to inherit his deceased father’s light skin tone and blond hair. He is the only student perceived as “white” in his class.
“All I could think of was, ‘How in the world is my son supposed to function in his life normally with his siblings and with his mother with this idea in the back of his head that he is somehow privileged and oppressing us?” asks Clark. “I couldn’t allow that to be the way my son felt about himself.”
William refused to complete his homework for the class. So, the school threatened to give him an F, which would have prevented him from graduating. Clark begged for alternatives but the school refused.
With help from No Left Turn in Education, Clark was able to file a lawsuit against the school. William’s failing grade was removed.
“The class materials appear to teach critical race theory as both morally superior and factual, rather than as a theory,” said Ilana Redstone, an Illinois professor that served as an expert witness in Clark’s case. Any lesson that puts students in a hierarchy based on innate characteristics is “unacceptable and discriminatory.”
Clark’s situation is not unique. In fact, battles like this are being played out throughout the country as more schools introduce “woke” education.
Also, according to NBC News, there are over 165 groups fighting to stop the teaching of critical race theory in schools. Campaigns have been launched to unseat more than 120 school board members this year (a new record). And critics expect the issue to play a major role in the 2022 midterm elections.
Parents like Fishbein and Clark are also supported by conservative think tanks, PACs, news outlets, and politicians.
Critical race theory “seeks to find racism in every part of American society. It is poisonous. It should have o place in our schools,” argues Rhode Island State Rep. Patricia Morgan (R). In his famous speech, Martin Luther King Jr. “looked forward to the day when all of us would be judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin,” continues Morgan. “America embraced that goal and we have made great progress. Alarmingly, critical race theory does the opposite.”
More than 20 states have introduced proposals to ban, restrict, or monitor critical race theory. Five states have turned those proposals into law.
Florida’s proposal to ban CRT from public schools became law last week, with Governor Ron DeSantis (R) promising to construct a “political apparatus” to ensure “not a single school board member [in the state] supports critical race theory.”
Sources:
National Parent Group Emerges to Fight ‘Woke’ Education, Says it Harms Children
Critical race theory battle invades school boards – with help from conservative groups
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on Conservative Free Press
New Post has been published on https://www.conservativefreepress.com/uncategorized/biden-asked-how-afghanistan-will-protect-itself/
Biden asked how Afghanistan will protect itself
With the Biden Administration more than halfway through its planned troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, people are starting to raise serious concerns about the nation’s future.
Troop withdrawal “will have an impact on the negotiation with the Taliban,” warns Abdullah Abdullah, head of Afghanistan’s National Reconciliation Council. “[Taliban leaders] may find themselves further emboldened and they may think – some of them at least – that with troop withdrawal, they can take advantage of the situation militarily.”
Already, Taliban forces have started to reclaim land lost during the past 20 years. As reported by The Hill, there is fighting in at least 80 of Afghanistan’s roughly 400 districts.
When asked last week by NATO officials how he plans to aid the Afghan government after troop withdrawal, Biden offered few answers:
“Our troops are coming home, but we agreed that our diplomatic, economic, and humanitarian commitment to the Afghan people and our support for the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces will endure,” he said.
US Army General Mark Milley confirmed Biden’s intentions to maintain an embassy in Afghanistan and to continue funding Afghan security forces, but added there is “no guarantee” these things will actually happen.
In February 2020, former US President Donald Trump signed a landmark deal with the Taliban designed to end the war and bring US troops home. President Joe Biden has continued that effort with plans to pull all 2,500 US troops from Afghanistan by September 11th, 2021. The withdrawal also applies to NATO troops stationed in the region, of which there are roughly 7,000.
Both Trump and Biden understand the Taliban may fail to uphold their end of the deal, but remain committed to troop withdrawal even if things end poorly for the Afghan government.
It is the responsibility of the Afghan people to lead their country, said Biden during a televised speech in April.
“Our diplomacy does not hinge on having boots in harm’s way,” said Biden. “We have to change that thinking. American troops shouldn’t be used as a bargaining chip between warring parties in other countries.”
Our reasons for staying in the country following the assassination of Osama bin Laden in 2011 are “unclear,” he continued. “It’s time to end America’s longest war. It’s time for American troops to come home.”
In addition, the threat of terror has spread far beyond the borders of Afghanistan and it just doesn’t make sense to keep “thousands of troops grounded and concentrated in just one country.”
Instead, we should focus on current threats such as China, cyber warfare, and the coronavirus pandemic.
“[We’ll] be much more formidable to threat adversaries and competitors over the long term if we fight the battles for the next 20 years, not the last one,” said Biden.
Critics, however, warn that troop withdrawal could allow terror organizations to flourish and create a new threat.
Speaking to lawmakers last week, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin warned that an extremist group such as al-Qaeda or ISIS could rise to power within two years if American troops are not present.
Keeping US troops in Afghanistan was “an insurance policy against the rise of radical Islam in Afghanistan that could pave the way for another attack against our homeland or our allies,” warns Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
Removing that insurance is “dumber than dirt and devilishly dangerous,” he said. “To announce full withdrawal sends a signal of incredible weakness to adversaries like al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah, China, Russia, and Iran.”
Other critics, including Senators Jeanna Shaheen (D-NH) and Susan Collins (R-ME), worry about the effects of troop withdrawal on women and children.
“I’m very concerned that Afghanistan is going to fall to the Taliban and that we once again will see the imposition of Sharia law and that girls and women will not be allowed to pursue an eduction or participate fully in society,” laments Collins.
Lawmakers have also asked President Biden to evacuate and grant visas to Afghans who helped US troops during the war.
“If he doesn’t act and he doesn’t get these people out, blood will be on his hands and on his administration’s hands,” argues Rep. Michael Waltz (R-FL). “The time for talk, the time for debate, is over.”
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on Conservative Free Press
New Post has been published on https://www.conservativefreepress.com/uncategorized/a-new-call-for-secession/
A new call for secession
Because of the deep division in America between red states and blue states, there has been much talk of secession. Is the United States too big? Would people be happier in smaller communities? Frank Buckley, a distinguished professor at the Scalia Law School, breaks with most of his fellow legal academics by taking these questions seriously.
In a recent article in the American Mind, he suggests that secession today would be difficult but not impossible. “As I argued in American Secession (2020), a civil war would be unlikely, and we’d be more likely to see a pacific James Buchanan in the White House than an indominable Abraham Lincoln.”
Against those who argue that secession is unconstitutional, Buckley offers some strong arguments: “Finally, the legal barriers to secession are weaker than most think. Originalists on the Court would recognize that the framers had thought secession permissible, while its more liberal members would find it difficult to ignore the expressed wishes of voters in a state. Is an indissoluble union a more fundamental constitutional norm than democracy?
Canada and Great Britain posed that question, and answered no. While the Supreme Court held that secession was unconstitutional in Texas v. White, that was a decision of a unionist Court right after the Civil War. Moreover, the decision assumed that the 1781 Articles of Confederation, which spoke of a “perpetual” union, had survived when the Constitution was adopted. Had that been the case, however, the Constitution would not have been ratified until the last state signed on in 1790, and George Washington’s election two years earlier would have been a nullity.”
Buckley is someone who “thinks outside the box,” and we badly need this quality today.
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on Conservative Free Press
New Post has been published on https://www.conservativefreepress.com/uncategorized/our-foreign-policy-is-a-failure/
Our Foreign Policy is a Failure
When discussing lowering the defense budget, many fall into accepting a false dichotomy: on one side is spending more than the next ten countries; each dollar removed from this ideal represents an incremental move towards the side containing all imagined dangers.
Contrarily, the connection between spending and American safety is not always so directly positive, with our often incendiary and erratic foreign policy leading to anti-American sentiment abroad and continued military entanglements. During the earliest days of this pandemic, when supplies were at a premium and the expensive intelligence was without value, even those without a great imagination could see the opportunity costs of this expenditure.
The Great Lie
According to the Brookings Institute, those people who believe $714 billion, 2020’s defense budget, is too much for a nation to spend are not looking at the historical context.
While $714 billion is substantially impressive, the spending as a percentage of the Nominal GDP has dropped since the Cold War.
In the past 3 years, our defense budget has hovered around 3% of the overall GDP, while defense spending in the 1960s was closer to 8-9%.
Given those facts and their presentation, one has to wonder if Brookings is actually just a propaganda mill funded by foreign powers.
As the 2018 National Defense Strategy envisions, the United States must “maintain a strong nuclear deterrent; protect the homeland from attack by missiles, aircraft, terrorists, and others; defeat China or Russia in conventional combat, and deter North Korea while doing so; and sustain momentum in the “war on terror.”
All that muscle for only a few percentage points worth of GDP can’t be wrong, right?
Despite the Brookings argument that America should be thankful for the bang-per-buck they receive – they’re not.
What is causing the American people to so ungratefully snub their noses at this great value?
In addition to wanting to end the War on Terrorism because of the amount of innocent people who have been killed in its wake (some estimate 12 million people have been killed and 37 million displaced), Americans might be getting suspicious about the health of our economy.
While the Nominal GDP indicates a healthy and growing economy, when adjusted for inflation, we see the graph below:
When we adjust for inflation, we’re seeing a far flatter incline than the commonly reported Nominal GDP. Using the Nominal GDP as a gauge for spending has failed because the perceived spending permitted by the GDP doesn’t accurately reflect the value of the dollar taken from the taxpayer.
At the peak of “Defense Spending per GDP,” we also see that corporate America provided a much larger percentage of the total tax revenue than during our more recent campaigns. The result is that the American taxpayer shoulders the blame in wars largely entertained for corporate interests. Finally, this money the American taxpayer spends to the American war industry goes into the GDP – where it justifies more spending.
In 1962, the defense budget was $54 billion (out of $605 billion GDP). Adjusted for inflation, that’s $473 billion today. Our 2020 defense bill was $714 billion. The American taxpayer is spending more than we did in 1962 by a good deal, experiencing inflation and slowed growth, and is burdened with the costs of foreign adventurism while corporations benefit without their previous risk.
To do all this in the absence of the Soviet Union, and with largely contrived threats – well, that is American exceptionalism.
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on Conservative Free Press
New Post has been published on https://www.conservativefreepress.com/uncategorized/leaks-show-media-is-above-the-law/
Leaks Show Media Is Above the Law
We often hear that America is a nation based on the rule-of-law and that no man (or woman, I presume) is above the law. As with any such overarching claims, there are exceptions. We see that being played out in the reporting of Trump’s Justice Department investigation of information leaks going out of Congress to major media outlets.
The left-wing media is inflating the story to blockbuster proportions. To put an old analogy into proper perspective, they are making a Mount Everest out of an ant hill.
This latest narrative flying out of the anti-Republican media spin machine charges President Trump, former Attorney General William Barr and others at the Department of Justice with abusing power by spying on members of Congress who have been critical of the Trump administration. They accuse the accused of acting on an enemy’s list for political purposes.
The media even “quotes” some unnamed bureaucrat who said it SEEMED politically motivated – the kind of secret testimony that can only be used in the lawless court-of-public-opinion and by dictators.
The issue centers around subpoenas that the Justice Department issued to Apple and Microsoft to secure the phone records of at least two members of the House Intelligence Committee – Chairman Adam Schiff and member Eric Swalwell – and some members of the media.
The subpoenas also requested information on some of the family members of the principles – including one who it only describes as “a minor.” The media seems to imply it is a child, but I suspect they do not know the age because it is an older teenager. That makes a big difference, as explained below.
We should note – because the press will not – that the request was not for the content of phone conversations. The Justice Department was not eavesdropping. The data only covered who was calling whom.
The media gave the story maximum sensationalism – hour after hour of coverage and condemnation of Trump, Barr and Republican leaders. It was another of the left’s hyperbolic “the Republic is falling” narratives.
Imagine … the Executive Branch investigating members of the Legislative Branch. These equal but separate Branches are not ever to do that – is the media implications.
But … hold your horses!!! The Justice Department often investigates members of Congress. AND … no Branch investigates the other more than … yes, you guessed it … the Legislative Branch. Congress has scores of investigations of the Trump administration throughout his four-year presidency – and since. In modern times, Democrat legislators arguably investigate more than they legislate.
The slant of the anti-Trump media is that the solicitation of the phone records was an abuse of political power by Trump for the sole purpose of punishing political enemies – an enemies list, as the call it. But that is a very narrow and prejudicial view. The media narrative leaves out several very important facts for consideration.
There have been a growing number of leaks of confidential information in Washington in the past few years – reaching astronomical levels during the Trump administration.
Now here is the point that we must keep in mind. THE LEAKS ARE ILLEGAL. They are crimes – felonies. And those leaking the information and accepting it like stolen goods, are potentially criminals. Investigating the leaks is the obligation of law enforcement – and in the case of information leaks from federal agencies, the duty to investigate falls on the … Department of Justice.
But the news media and the leakers no longer see it that way. The hysterical hyperbole over the Justice Department’s investigation of leaks clearly demonstrates that Democrats and the media do not believe in the rule-of-law. How dare the folks at the Justice Department look for the leakers for prosecution?
News services are not breaking the law if they publish leaked information even if it was illegally leaked. To better understand how this makes the media above common law, consider this. If you or I accept what we know to be stolen goods for our own benefit or gain, we are guilty of a felony. If a newspaper accepts illegal goods – in this case leaked information – for its own benefit or gain, they are exempt from the law.
Democrats are claiming that Barr and others at the Justice Department are simply doing the bidding of President Trump. They play video clips of Trump calling on the Department to investigate leakers as proof of an abuse of power. If a person is not a critical thinker, that may sound credible.
But then, what is so corrupt about the President calling for an investigation of illegal leaking? Previous Presidents have called for investigations into information leaks. It is exceedingly rare, however.
There have only been about one dozen cases of leakers being prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act – and interestingly, two-thirds of those were during the Obama administration.
And as far as Trump’s public calls for investigations, he can do more than that. The President is the top law enforcement person in the national government. What you say? You thought the Department of Justice was an “independent agency?” Not so. It is – and always has been – part of the President’s Cabinet. The Attorney General is appointed by the President, reports to the President and serves at the pleasure of the President. The President has the constitutional authority to end investigations or order them.
If you have been taken in by all the current malarky spewing from the left, you need to recall how the left had their undies in a bunch because they claimed (falsely, as it turned out) that Trump was going to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Trump calling for an investigation is not an abuse of power. It would not be an abuse of power if he even ordered an investigation.
The evidence clearly showed that many of the politically motivated information leaks could only have come from the House Intelligence Committee – and there were a couple of prime suspects, House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff and Congressman Eric Swalwell. The Justice Department also subpoenaed the phone records of Don McGahn, Trump’s own White House lawyer – demonstrating that they did not pardon the investigation. If the lawyers at the Justice Department were doing Trump’s bidding, your would not have seen Trump’s White House counsel’s phone records subpoenaed.
Family members also had phone records subpoenaed – including a minor.
If that minor was a teenager, as I suspect, the request for phone records is understandable. If the congressmen were making incriminating phone calls, they could have easily and cleverly used other than their own personal phones. Any serious investigations would have checked-out any other phones the suspects might have used.
Schiff is a suspect because he was spreading false information in the news media to hurt Trump and the Republicans. He even lied that he had seen conclusive hard evidence that Trump had conspired with Russia in the election – a claim totally refuted by the Mueller Report.
Rather than an abuse of power, the failure of the Justice Department to investigate political crimes would be a dereliction of duty. That is how a criminal investigation works. You see a crime. You try to identify suspects based on ability and motivation. And then you investigate. You gather information.
We know who received the purloined information because they published it. The fact that we have not prosecuted news outlets that traffic in stolen information, does not make it any less onerous.
Finally, the press is again assuming that Trump ordered or motivated the investigation and Barr carried it out – but that is malicious partisan speculation. Trump, Barr and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein have denied knowledge of the investigation – and so far, there is no evidence to refute their claim. In that case, the entire investigation – and the request for phone records – could have been the result of an ongoing practice of tracking down information leaks.
Based on the facts currently known, there is no reason to disparage the Department of Justice investigation at this time. The agencies job is to investigate federal crimes – and we know that federal crimes were committed in conjunction with leaked information. We should let them do their job without prejudging the case in the court-of-public-opinion.
So, there ‘tis.
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on Conservative Free Press
New Post has been published on https://www.conservativefreepress.com/presidential-campaign/lgbt-discrimination-ban-clears-the-house/
Russia Provokes US as Leaders Meet
A US carrier strike group patrolling the waters east of Hawaii was ordered to move closer to the island Sunday as Russia conducted its largest exercise in the region since the Cold War just before Biden and Putin met in Geneva.
Three missile-armed F-22 stealth fighters were also called in to assess the situation.
“US Indo-Pacific Command is monitoring the Russian vessels operating in international waters in the Western Pacific,” said spokesman Captain Mike Kafka. “We operate in accordance with international law of the sea and in the air to ensure that all nations can do the same without fear or contest and in order to secure a free and open Indo-Pacific. As Russia operates within the region, it is expected to do so in accordance with international law.”
Russia’s show of force, which officials described as an “operational exercise,” included surface ships, anti-submarine aircraft, and long-range bombers.
“I’m not looking for conflict with Russia, but we will respond if Russia continues its harmful activities and…we will not fail to defend the Transatlantic Alliance or stand up for democratic values,” said President Joe Biden. He met face-to-face with his Russian counterpart Wednesday during a summit in Geneva.
In the meantime, US Department of Defense officials have urged Russia to be more transparent regarding its troop movements. It continues to flex its military muscle in Ukraine. Back in April, President Biden declared a national emergency and expelled 10 Russian diplomats after Russia warned US ships heading towards the Black Sea to “stay away for their own good.”
In addition to military operations, Russia has also been blamed for a series of ransomeware attacks. Such attacks have affected JBS Foods, Colonial Pipeline, and other businesses in the United States.
Author’s Note: Russia is doing to the Biden Administration exactly what President Trump did to North Korea. When you prepare to negotiate with a party you think is weak, you begin by raising the stakes.
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on Conservative Free Press
New Post has been published on https://www.conservativefreepress.com/featured/the-difficult-decision-of-2016/
Democrats fail to stand up against anti-Semitism
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();
In these days of dishonest knee-jerk attacks from the left, it is necessary to inoculate against the false accusations of some “ism” – you know, racism, sexism, etc. — if you offer up ANY criticism of ANY member of a group sheltered by political correctness. So, I must first explain that I am not anti-Semitic. In fact, not long ago, I wrote a commentary on how much I love Jews – as a culture, as employers and as close personal friends. I have been an unwavering supporter of Israel.
With that said, I will proceed to the subject of this commentary.
Recently, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar issued a public statement comparing actions of the United States and Israel with Hamas and the Taliban – two designated international terrorist organizations. There is no misunderstanding what she believes. She made it perfectly clear. Here is what Omar wrote.
“We must have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity. We have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban.”
As you might imagine that little Tweet set off a political tsunami of criticism from Republicans and a lot of Democrats – as it should have. In fact, most of the Jewish members of Congress issued a letter of condemnation. In their open letter, they said, “Equating the United States and Israel to Hamas and the Taliban is as offensive as it is misguided…”
The letter went on to point out that “… false equivalencies give cover to terrorist groups.” Those members of Congress are literally accusing Omar of aiding and abetting terrorists.
Criticism of Omar came from the top ranks of congressional Democrats – including Speaker Nancy Pelosi. They issued their own statement, which began with a bit of political sugar-coating.
“Legitimate criticism of the policies of both the United States and Israel is protected by the values of free speech and democratic debate. And indeed, such criticism is essential to the strength and health of our democracies …”
It then got to the point.
“But drawing false equivalencies between democracies like the U.S. and Israel and groups that engage in terrorism like Hamas and the Taliban foments prejudice and undermines progress toward a future of peace and security for all.”
The statement was nothing more than platitudes since it did name Omar. And since that supposed rebuke, Pelosi as called Omar “a valuable member” of the Democratic caucus.
Under mounting pressure, Omar issued a “clarification” – but only after initially attacking the letter, from her Jewish colleagues by saying that it contained “Islamophobia tropes.”
In her “clarification,” Omar said (highlights added):
“To be clear: the conversation was about accountability for specific incidents regarding those [International Criminal Court] cases, not a moral comparison between Hamas and the Taliban and the U.S. and Israel.”
Really. Take a moment and go back and re-read what Omar tweeted. (I’ll wait). Did you see her claim that she was not making a “moral comparison?” Me neither.
Now here is where I get in trouble with the political correctness police – and subject myself to the slander as anti-Semitic by those who have a genetic hatred for anything conservative.
I found the response from the Jewish members of the Democrat caucus in Congress to be … well … a bit wimpish — snd the quick acceptance of Omar’s “clarification” more than slightly pathetic. It got worse when Democrat Congresswoman Kim Schrier appeared on CNN as one of the signers of the letter calling out Omar.
Schrier generally accepted Omar’s explanation and cautioned that members of Congress – and people in general – must be careful how they say things. Hearing Schrier, I was reminded of Jews in Nazi Germany who did not stand up to Hitler – some of whom were even too cozy with the regime for personal and political reasons.
There were no calls from Democrats in Congress to boot Omar off the Foreign Relations Committee as was done to Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. And arguably, Omar’s comments have been far more disloyal, dishonest and dangerous than Greene’s – although I am not defending Greene’s crackpot statements.
Omar’s tweet was NOT an inadvertent or one-off poor choice of words. She was tweeting what she believes. How do we know that? We know it because Omar has consistently and repeatedly expressed her anti-Semitic views – views starkly in opposition to American interests and policies.
It is by far not the first time that she had to be called out by her fellow Democrats – and Republicans. There was no resolution by the full body condemning Omar’s tweet. And you will recall that the previous resolution was also a generalization against Omar-type comments without specifically naming Omar for what she had said. What utter cowardice.
Even more disturbing is the fact that her anti-Semitic rants have been defended by other Democrats who also manifest anti-Semitic and anti-Israel sentiments – most notably Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Pramila Jayapal and Ayanna Pressley, Minnesota, New York, Washington State and Massachusetts, respectively.
In this instance, they again sided with Omar, calling the condemnation of her remarks as sexist and racist. They accused fellow Democrats of attacking congressional women-of-color. They and a few other Democrat members have become what might be called the anti-Israel caucus – maybe even the anti-Semitic caucus in Congress.
And yet, the Jewish Democrats in Congress treat Omar’s clearly hostile and inappropriate language with dangerous timidity. They seem to be loyal to Party solidarity than appropriately repulsed by the Minnesota congresswoman’s obnoxious statements.
There is concern over the rise of anti-Semitic language and actions at the grassroots. The failure of the Democrat Jewish members of Congress to mount a full-court fight against the anti-Semitism in their own ranks can only encourage the cancer of anti-Semitism among the populace to spread.
Jews often relate to the Nazi experience with a poetic homily by German Lutheran cleric Martin Niemöller that concluded with “Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.”
While it was an admonition for all people to speak out against oppression, it places an additional burden on members of the Jewish community to speak out boldly – and take action — against anti-Semitism. It takes more than the pathetic response we have seen from the Democratic Leadership in the House – and especially the lockstep response of the Jewish members of the Democrat caucus.
I would be remiss if I did not note that the Jewish members of the Republican House caucus have called for a stronger retribution against Omar. Shame on the Jewish Democrats.
One of the mantras of the post-World War II Jewish community is to never forget the insidiousness of anti-Semitism. It appears many of the Democrat Jewish members of Congress have forgotten.
So, there ‘tis.
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on Conservative Free Press
New Post has been published on https://www.conservativefreepress.com/featured/the-difficult-decision-of-2016/
Democrats fail to stand up against anti-Semitism
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();
In these days of dishonest knee-jerk attacks from the left, it is necessary to inoculate against the false accusations of some “ism” – you know, racism, sexism, etc. — if you offer up ANY criticism of ANY member of a group sheltered by political correctness. So, I must first explain that I am not anti-Semitic. In fact, not long ago, I wrote a commentary on how much I love Jews – as a culture, as employers and as close personal friends. I have been an unwavering supporter of Israel.
With that said, I will proceed to the subject of this commentary.
Recently, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar issued a public statement comparing actions of the United States and Israel with Hamas and the Taliban – two designated international terrorist organizations. There is no misunderstanding what she believes. She made it perfectly clear. Here is what Omar wrote.
“We must have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity. We have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban.”
As you might imagine that little Tweet set off a political tsunami of criticism from Republicans and a lot of Democrats – as it should have. In fact, most of the Jewish members of Congress issued a letter of condemnation. In their open letter, they said, “Equating the United States and Israel to Hamas and the Taliban is as offensive as it is misguided…”
The letter went on to point out that “… false equivalencies give cover to terrorist groups.” Those members of Congress are literally accusing Omar of aiding and abetting terrorists.
Criticism of Omar came from the top ranks of congressional Democrats – including Speaker Nancy Pelosi. They issued their own statement, which began with a bit of political sugar-coating.
“Legitimate criticism of the policies of both the United States and Israel is protected by the values of free speech and democratic debate. And indeed, such criticism is essential to the strength and health of our democracies …”
It then got to the point.
“But drawing false equivalencies between democracies like the U.S. and Israel and groups that engage in terrorism like Hamas and the Taliban foments prejudice and undermines progress toward a future of peace and security for all.”
The statement was nothing more than platitudes since it did name Omar. And since that supposed rebuke, Pelosi as called Omar “a valuable member” of the Democratic caucus.
Under mounting pressure, Omar issued a “clarification” – but only after initially attacking the letter, from her Jewish colleagues by saying that it contained “Islamophobia tropes.”
In her “clarification,” Omar said (highlights added):
“To be clear: the conversation was about accountability for specific incidents regarding those [International Criminal Court] cases, not a moral comparison between Hamas and the Taliban and the U.S. and Israel.”
Really. Take a moment and go back and re-read what Omar tweeted. (I’ll wait). Did you see her claim that she was not making a “moral comparison?” Me neither.
Now here is where I get in trouble with the political correctness police – and subject myself to the slander as anti-Semitic by those who have a genetic hatred for anything conservative.
I found the response from the Jewish members of the Democrat caucus in Congress to be … well … a bit wimpish — snd the quick acceptance of Omar’s “clarification” more than slightly pathetic. It got worse when Democrat Congresswoman Kim Schrier appeared on CNN as one of the signers of the letter calling out Omar.
Schrier generally accepted Omar’s explanation and cautioned that members of Congress – and people in general – must be careful how they say things. Hearing Schrier, I was reminded of Jews in Nazi Germany who did not stand up to Hitler – some of whom were even too cozy with the regime for personal and political reasons.
There were no calls from Democrats in Congress to boot Omar off the Foreign Relations Committee as was done to Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. And arguably, Omar’s comments have been far more disloyal, dishonest and dangerous than Greene’s – although I am not defending Greene’s crackpot statements.
Omar’s tweet was NOT an inadvertent or one-off poor choice of words. She was tweeting what she believes. How do we know that? We know it because Omar has consistently and repeatedly expressed her anti-Semitic views – views starkly in opposition to American interests and policies.
It is by far not the first time that she had to be called out by her fellow Democrats – and Republicans. There was no resolution by the full body condemning Omar’s tweet. And you will recall that the previous resolution was also a generalization against Omar-type comments without specifically naming Omar for what she had said. What utter cowardice.
Even more disturbing is the fact that her anti-Semitic rants have been defended by other Democrats who also manifest anti-Semitic and anti-Israel sentiments – most notably Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Pramila Jayapal and Ayanna Pressley, Minnesota, New York, Washington State and Massachusetts, respectively.
In this instance, they again sided with Omar, calling the condemnation of her remarks as sexist and racist. They accused fellow Democrats of attacking congressional women-of-color. They and a few other Democrat members have become what might be called the anti-Israel caucus – maybe even the anti-Semitic caucus in Congress.
And yet, the Jewish Democrats in Congress treat Omar’s clearly hostile and inappropriate language with dangerous timidity. They seem to be loyal to Party solidarity than appropriately repulsed by the Minnesota congresswoman’s obnoxious statements.
There is concern over the rise of anti-Semitic language and actions at the grassroots. The failure of the Democrat Jewish members of Congress to mount a full-court fight against the anti-Semitism in their own ranks can only encourage the cancer of anti-Semitism among the populace to spread.
Jews often relate to the Nazi experience with a poetic homily by German Lutheran cleric Martin Niemöller that concluded with “Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.”
While it was an admonition for all people to speak out against oppression, it places an additional burden on members of the Jewish community to speak out boldly – and take action — against anti-Semitism. It takes more than the pathetic response we have seen from the Democratic Leadership in the House – and especially the lockstep response of the Jewish members of the Democrat caucus.
I would be remiss if I did not note that the Jewish members of the Republican House caucus have called for a stronger retribution against Omar. Shame on the Jewish Democrats.
One of the mantras of the post-World War II Jewish community is to never forget the insidiousness of anti-Semitism. It appears many of the Democrat Jewish members of Congress have forgotten.
So, there ‘tis.
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on Conservative Free Press
New Post has been published on https://www.conservativefreepress.com/uncategorized/donald-trump-and-bill-oreilly-launch-speaking-tour/
Donald Trump and Bill O’Reilly Launch Speaking Tour
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();
“The History Tour,” will feature four live conversations across the country between Trump and O’Reilly. The former President and former Fox News host say the tour will “provide a never before heard inside view of [Trump’s] administration.”
They “will discuss exactly how things were accomplished, as well as challenges, both good and bad,” according to a press release announcing the series.
In a statement, Trump said the conversations will be “wonderful but hard-hitting sessions” that will discuss the “real problems” occurring in the U.S.
“I will be focusing on greatness for our Country, something seldom discussed in political dialogue. If we don’t make our Country great again, we will soon no longer have a Country! I look forward to working with Bill, who right now has the #1 bestselling book, to openly discuss the real problems of our Country, and how to solve them,” Trump said.
“Additionally, it will be fun, fun, fun, for everyone who attends!” he added.
O’Reilly, the former host of Fox News’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” who was ultimately ousted from the network in 2017 following sexual harassment allegations, said the conversations with Trump “will not be boring.”
“My job as a historian/journalist is to get important things on the record in a fact-based way. These conversations with the 45th President will not be boring,” O’Reilly said in a statement.
The tour opens on Dec. 11 in Sunrise, Fla., and will then travel to Houston and Dallas. One of the conversation dates has not yet determined a venue.
The release announcing the tour says Trump was “the dominant decision-maker and the most powerful person in the world,” citing a number of issues he handled during his presidency.
“From the pandemic that killed hundreds of thousands, to the speedy development of the vaccine, to the rise of the economy, to the global challenge from China, Donald Trump was the dominant decision-maker and the most powerful person in the world,” the release reads.
Tickets for the tour are set to go on sale next week.
News of the speaking tour with O’Reilly comes as Trump looks for additional ways to amplify his message, as more traditional means of communication become unavailable.
Last week, Facebook announced that it was suspending Trump from the platform until Jan. 7, 2023, a full two years after he was first barred.
That decision followed Twitter’s move in January to permanently suspend the former president from the platform, even if he decides to run for president again in 2024.
Additionally, Trump’s blog, where he started sharing statements following his exile from social media, was permanently shut down last week.
Trump senior aide Jason Miller told The Hill at the time that the blog, dubbed “From the Desk of Donald Trump,” would not be returning, calling it “auxiliary to the broader efforts we have and are working on.”
Trump is also expected to turn to rallies as an additional form of communication. An adviser confirmed to The Hill that the former president will likely return to the stage before his supporters this month.
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on Conservative Free Press
New Post has been published on http://www.conservativefreepress.com/memes/meme-roundup-week-of-2-21-2-27/
Meme Roundup: Week of 2/21-2/27
With Congress set to ram through the Democrats’ Wish-List-a-Thon COVID bill, rockets raining down in Syria, and the cultural loss of “Mr.” Potato Head, it’s time to take a break from the nonsense and enjoy the week’s best political memes.
It was another banner week for media hypocrisy. The Biden administration unveiled their brand new child migrant detention facilities to a collective yawn from everyone on the left (with the notable exception of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez). The Washington Post appeared to completely forget that keeping “kids in cages” was an act of pure Nazi evil when they covered the story:
Wow, if you didn’t know better, you’d almost think that Biden had done something wonderful for migrant children. But then, maybe something broke down during the negotiating process:
The media’s coverage of “kids in cages” wasn’t the only clue we got as to their agenda, though. This week, conservative legend Rush Limbaugh passed away, and the coverage of his passing was stunning in its viciousness. Some noticed that the MSM was much harder on Limbaugh’s legacy than they were on…certain other people:
Of course, who can forget the time the Washington Post referred to deceased ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi as an “austere religious scholar” in his obituary!
This week also saw the continued onslaught of WOKENESS from all corners of the culture, including corporate America. Coca-Cola got called out on social media after it was revealed they put their employees through a training on “how to be less white.”:
Then again, maybe Jim just hasn’t been introduced to the right teachers:
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();
President Biden is under pressure from the left flank of his party to forgive up to $50,000 in student loans – pressure he has resisted thus far. While all the Gender Studies majors suffering under the burden of those loans are undoubtedly praying that he’ll cave, others are a bit more skeptical about this plan:
Speaking of Biden, it came out this week that Kamala Harris has been making calls to foreign leaders in lieu of the president. Could be we don’t have to wait:
And we’ll round things out with one that pretty much sums it all up:
Seems pretty accurate.
0 notes