The Police Benevolent Association (PBA) of the City of New York, the largest police union representing police officers of the New York Police Department, said late on Monday that at least one officer had consumed a beverage that they believe contained bleach.
“Several police officers assigned to a protest detail drank beverages with a toxic substance in them at a Manhattan Shake Shack,” PIX11 News reported. “The officers were hospitalized after drinking the beverages from a Shake Shack near Broadway and Fulton on Monday and are expected to recover.”
The news comes as law enforcement officials have been demonized across the country over the last few weeks after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
A little over a week ago, Attorney General William Barr told CBS News’ “60 Minutes” that for the week preceding the interview, 750 officers had been hurt across the country.
<div id="attachment_50604" style="width: 2410px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-50604" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-50604 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2020/06/shake-shack-landscape.jpg" alt="" width="2400" height="1600" srcset="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2020/06/shake-shack-landscape.jpg 2400w, https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2020/06/shake-shack-landscape-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2020/06/shake-shack-landscape-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2020/06/shake-shack-landscape-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2020/06/shake-shack-landscape-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2020/06/shake-shack-landscape-2048x1365.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 2400px) 100vw, 2400px" />Shake Shack location on West 36th accused of poisoning milkshakes</div>
In December, Barr warned that there was a crisis brewing throughout the United States where rates of people becoming police officers had declined.
“We’re in a crisis right now; it’s not something that has been adequately covered by the media, but we’re in a full employment economy,” Barr said. “And one of the toughest jobs we have in the country is policing. And it’s getting tougher and tougher, these are the points I was making in that recent more abbreviated version.”
“So it’s very hard to recruit people these days in this full employment economy for these tough jobs,” Barr continued. “That’s why virtually every police force in the country is way under strength. They have vacancies. As the jobs get tougher, we’re seeing a very high suicide rate now among police and I’m saying that we have to focus on this and start valuing the people who serve us as police officers and show them support and respect. Just the way we do our military forces. Or else, we’re not going to be able to attract people into this profession and we’re not going to end up with police forces, that was my point.”
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" class="alignnone wp-image-50605 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2020/06/shake-shake-portrait.jpg" alt="" width="1360" height="1814" srcset="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2020/06/shake-shake-portrait.jpg 1360w, https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2020/06/shake-shake-portrait-225x300.jpg 225w, https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2020/06/shake-shake-portrait-432x576.jpg 432w, https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2020/06/shake-shake-portrait-768x1024.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2020/06/shake-shake-portrait-1152x1536.jpg 1152w" sizes="(max-width: 1360px) 100vw, 1360px" /></div>
Pellentesque arcu metus, dignissim vel lectus ut, sodales <a href="http://dailywire.com/news">fringilla</a> velit. Aenean sollicitudin, augue eget porttitor varius, augue tortor porta leo, a pellentesque orci velit ut lorem. Vivamus mollis sollicitudin sodales. Donec non lacus magna. Fusce hendrerit ligula aliquam, semper leo nec, finibus velit. Maecenas at dui dapibus sem feugiat luctus ac non tortor. Ut condimentum, felis ac volutpat vulputate, tellus diam blandit mi, ut fringilla tortor elit a turpis.
Aenean pharetra enim non <a href="https://api.dev-the-daily-wire.pantheonsite.io/news/this-should-break-the-site-due-to-a-linked-image-from-a-post-in-the-trash/">scelerisque</a> vehicula. Quisque vitae purus consectetur ante pretium tempus et at turpis. Morbi et nisi neque. Nullam vel cursus ligula. Donec sit amet libero ornare nunc rhoncus congue. Mauris justo sem, varius in tincidunt sit amet, luctus ut nunc. Duis eget vulputate libero. Vestibulum placerat eros quis neque ornare volutpat.

Ted-Cruz-1-1 copy

Ted Cruz On ‘The Fundamental Fight’

Election Night

Ted Cruz

Last week, Democrats held their first true presidential debate. With the field winnowed down to 10 candidates &#8212; three of them actual contenders for the nomination &#8212; only one moment truly stood out. That moment came not from Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders but from a candidate desperate for attention: Beto O&#8217;Rourke.
O&#8217;Rourke ran in 2018 for a Senate seat in Texas and lost in shockingly narrow fashion to incumbent Republican Sen. Ted Cruz. But his persona at the time was more Biden than Bernie: He ran as a unifying quasi-moderate, an Obama-esque figure determined to bring Americans together. In the early going of the presidential race, Beto was figured to be a prime contender: An April poll showed him in a solid third place. But he&#8217;s faded dramatically; now the once-media darling is polling below 3%.
So O&#8217;Rourke has refashioned himself into a woke warrior. He&#8217;s declared that he wants to forcibly remove guns from law-abiding Americans (&#8220;Hell, yes, we&#8217;re going to take your AR-15&#8221;), that President Trump is a &#8220;white supremacist&#8221; posing a &#8220;mortal threat to people of color&#8221; and that the time has come for race reparations. Most dramatically, O&#8217;Rourke has refashioned his vision of American history. In this debate, he laid out his retelling of the American story, saying: &#8220;Racism in America is endemic. It is foundational. We can mark the creation of this country not at the Fourth of July, 1776, but Aug. 20, 1619, when the first kidnapped African was brought to this country against his will and in bondage, and as a slave built the greatness and the success and the wealth that neither he nor his descendants would ever be able to fully participate in and enjoy.&#8221;
This version of history is cribbed from &#8220;The 1619 Project&#8221; by The New York Times, a retelling of American history as a story rooted in white supremacy &#8212; not colored by or affected by white supremacy but rooted in it. Capitalism, criminal justice, lack of universal health care, traffic patterns, Donald Trump&#8217;s election &#8212; all of it, according to &#8220;The 1619 Project,&#8221; is fundamentally based on America&#8217;s legacy of slavery and racial discrimination.
That perspective on American history, in turn, is merely warmed over Howard Zinn. Zinn, the Marxist author of &#8220;A People&#8217;s History of the United States,&#8221; sought to recast America&#8217;s story as a story of hideous ugliness covered with the hypocritical facade of goodness. Never mind that &#8220;A People&#8217;s History&#8221; is, in fact, rotten history &#8212; factually inaccurate, wildly disjoined from a more comprehensive examination of time and place, near plagiarized from the work of better leftist historians. Zinn&#8217;s history has now infused the teaching of American history in high schools and colleges across the country.
But that historical retelling is at odds with the better, truer story of America: the story of a nation founded on eternally good and true principles, principles only fully realized for many Americans at the cost of blood and sweat and death. Ex-slave Frederick Douglass&#8217;s take on American history remains the most honest, as well as the most visionary. While acknowledging that to the American slave, Independence Day represents &#8220;more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim,&#8221; Douglass recognized that the Constitution is a &#8220;glorious liberty document,&#8221; the Declaration of Independence a charter of &#8220;saving principles.&#8221;
American history is our common history. O&#8217;Rourke&#8217;s pathetic rewriting of American history is designed not to unify us as a nation but to divide us &#8212; to call us away from the unifying principles that lie at the foundation of America, in favor of divisive principles of tribal partisanship. We must recognize the evils of American history &#8212; that is part of our common story. In fact, our quest to rid ourselves of those evils is our common story. But if we wish to survive as a nation, we must also recognize that the story of America lies in the constant purification of our actions to align with our founding principles, not oppose them.

gettyimages-1167636144

SHAPIRO: The Alternative History Of The United States

Ben Shapiro

Beto O'Rourke

New York Times

Patriotism

United States

It&#8217;s now been nearly a full generation since September 11, 2001. There are people currently serving in the U.S. military who weren&#8217;t born when that act of evil took place &#8212; and the military still has thousands of troops in Afghanistan, the home base of the Taliban-supported al Qaida attack on the United States that took nearly 3,000 American lives.
With time comes forgetfulness. The same period of time has now elapsed since Sept. 11 that elapsed between the end of World War I (1918) and the German re-occupation of the Rhineland in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles (1936). Believing that World War I had ended all war, the Allied powers did nothing. That same year, Germany concluded its Axis alliance with Italy, as well as its Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan. Less than three years later, the world would be at war.
Forgetfulness is easy, because immediate costs are painful and steep. American foreign policy nearly always vacillates between two poles: isolationism and reactive interventionism. The American people (correctly) don&#8217;t like the consequences of isolationism &#8212; increased attacks on America and her allies, maximization of influence by our enemies &#8212; but we also dislike (correctly) the consequences of maintaining a global military presence. It was easy to tear into the Clinton administration&#8217;s weakness on defense in the aftermath of the Cold War, but there was almost no political cost in it for Clinton at the time. The sepia glow of media coverage regarding Barack Obama hasn&#8217;t been darkened by his single-minded quest to minimize American influence around the world.
But every so often, we&#8217;re reminded that the world is filled with enemies.
We were reminded of that unfortunate fact this week when President Trump withdrew an apparently secret invitation to the Taliban to visit Camp David. The Taliban was, is, and will remain an Islamic terror group; it has continuously sought the murder of American soldiers and citizens for two decades. Why would the Trump administration think it a good idea to sign an agreement with radicals who seek to overthrow the administration of Afghanistan, support terrorism and despise the United States? Do members of the administration truly believe that any agreement signed by the Taliban will be binding?
The answer, of course, is no. That&#8217;s why the talks fell apart, according to The New York Times &#8212; a response from inside the administration in the aftermath of a terror attack on American soldiers this week, a recognition of the obvious.
The problem, of course, is that there are no easy solutions when it comes to foreign policy in the worst parts of the world. Everyone of good heart wants American soldiers out of Afghanistan and home. But how many Americans are willing to risk the increase in terrorism likely to follow such a withdrawal?
So long as we remember 9/11, the answer will be: very few.
Now, perhaps we should withdraw from Afghanistan. Perhaps the withdrawal is worth the risk. But American history isn&#8217;t replete with circumstances in which precipitous withdrawal is followed by peace and security.
All of which means that American troops are likely to remain in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future. Few politicians will be bold enough to simply state that truth. After all, when John McCain said as much in 2008, he was roundly mocked by Barack Obama &#8212; the same Obama who escalated the war in Afghanistan and retained thousands of troops there, despite promising withdrawal repeatedly. But our politicians should be brave enough to recognize that a weaker America on the world stage means a more vulnerable America at home. If we didn&#8217;t learn that lesson on 9/11, we&#8217;re bound to repeat it.

Rescuers work to free a victim from under the rubble at the

SHAPIRO: Did We Learn the Lesson of 9/11?

Afghanistan

Iraq

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum vestibulum libero quam, ac porta ex hendrerit non. Suspendisse tempus lorem ut quam congue, id dictum nibh rutrum. Suspendisse potenti. Aliquam ac commodo eros, ut consequat turpis. Vivamus ultricies vehicula risus, sit amet rutrum justo blandit nec. Duis a eleifend orci. Quisque lorem urna, porta non ligula at, egestas cursus diam. Aenean vel purus auctor, ultrices felis dictum, dictum enim. Duis mi nulla, laoreet in leo nec, volutpat dictum metus.
<h1>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.</h1>
Ut feugiat, mi nec pulvinar fringilla, lorem quam aliquam ante, eu tincidunt est quam fermentum lacus. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Cras vitae quam ac arcu posuere interdum. Aenean in nisi non nisl facilisis vehicula at ac augue. Pellentesque nec consectetur ante. Nullam faucibus leo urna, at laoreet arcu imperdiet id.
<h2>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.</h2>
Integer id vulputate nisi. Phasellus at accumsan leo, non ullamcorper sem. Proin placerat arcu eu orci consequat blandit. Cras sed scelerisque purus. Fusce luctus convallis massa, in tristique justo condimentum quis. Donec arcu massa, sollicitudin eget risus id, vestibulum fringilla enim. Pellentesque libero erat, aliquam sed mauris et, pellentesque accumsan ipsum.
<h3>Vestibulum quis suscipit ex. Integer ut dolor vulputate</h3>
Vestibulum quis suscipit ex. Integer ut dolor vulputate, accumsan eros nec, iaculis sem. Ut sit amet nibh sodales, molestie lorem et, vulputate felis. Nam pellentesque ac tellus ut condimentum. Suspendisse commodo nisi non sapien dignissim, ut tempor tellus suscipit. Vestibulum ullamcorper, diam nec molestie fringilla, justo ipsum pulvinar odio, faucibus auctor urna neque at diam. Fusce vestibulum, nisi ac vulputate ultricies, ipsum purus efficitur ex, eget auctor tellus erat ut velit. Sed imperdiet vel lorem ut maximus. Nullam sed auctor elit. Nunc enim dui, venenatis fermentum gravida sed, scelerisque vitae risus. Donec eget ipsum posuere, dapibus felis id, hendrerit velit.
<h4>Vivamus lectus felis, ultrices vitae sem a</h4>
Aliquam mollis, quam in cursus placerat, dolor urna fringilla ante, sit amet rutrum risus turpis vestibulum enim. Donec quam libero, lacinia eu orci vitae, dictum sollicitudin urna. Mauris viverra nec sem at ultricies. Fusce vel commodo tellus, at porta mi. Vestibulum ornare, felis sed commodo pellentesque, dolor nulla sagittis enim, eu aliquam eros purus in turpis. Etiam gravida felis non quam bibendum, sit amet egestas enim ultrices. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Duis <a href="http://google.com">volutpat, metus a suscipit ultrices</a>, nibh dolor accumsan elit, et convallis justo ex et dolor. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. In imperdiet sapien quis purus dapibus, ut vehicula elit dictum. Quisque eget imperdiet ex. Donec nec dolor nec mauris feugiat molestie.
<blockquote>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum vestibulum libero quam, ac porta ex hendrerit non. Suspendisse tempus lorem ut quam congue, id dictum nibh rutrum. Suspendisse potenti.</blockquote>
Vivamus lectus felis, ultrices vitae sem a, pellentesque efficitur nibh. In varius elit vel nibh tristique fringilla. Mauris euismod eget purus sed efficitur. Fusce congue diam ut iaculis hendrerit. Duis non lobortis erat. Cras consequat ut ante sed molestie. Duis vitae aliquet arcu, quis sollicitudin libero. Donec gravida et elit at fringilla.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum vestibulum libero quam, ac porta ex hendrerit non. Suspendisse tempus lorem ut quam congue, id dictum nibh rutrum. Suspendisse potenti. Aliquam ac commodo eros, ut consequat turpis. Vivamus ultricies vehicula risus, sit amet rutrum justo blandit nec. Duis a eleifend orci. Quisque lorem urna, porta non ligula at, egestas cursus diam. Aenean vel purus auctor, ultrices felis dictum, dictum enim. Duis mi nulla, laoreet in leo nec, volutpat dictum metus.
<ul>
<li>Vivamus lectus felis, ultrices vitae sem a, Duis non lobortis erat. Cras consequat ut ante sed molestie.</li>
<li>pellentesque efficitur nibh. In varius elit vel nibh tristique fringilla.</li>
<li>Mauris euismod eget purus sed efficitur. Fusce congue diam ut iaculis hendrerit.</li>
<li> Duis vitae aliquet arcu, quis sollicitudin libero. Donec gravida et elit at fringilla.</li>
</ul>
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum vestibulum libero quam, ac porta ex hendrerit non. Suspendisse tempus lorem ut quam congue, id dictum nibh rutrum. Suspendisse potenti. Aliquam ac commodo eros, ut consequat turpis. Vivamus ultricies vehicula risus, sit amet rutrum justo blandit nec. Duis a eleifend orci. Quisque lorem urna, porta non ligula at, egestas cursus diam. Aenean vel purus auctor, ultrices felis dictum, dictum enim. Duis mi nulla, laoreet in leo nec, volutpat dictum metus.
Vivamus lectus felis, ultrices vitae sem a, pellentesque efficitur nibh. In varius elit vel nibh tristique fringilla. Mauris euismod eget purus sed efficitur. Fusce congue diam ut iaculis hendrerit. Duis non lobortis erat. Cras consequat ut ante sed molestie. Duis vitae aliquet arcu, quis sollicitudin libero. Donec gravida et elit at fringilla.
<ol>
<li>Vivamus lectus felis, ultrices vitae sem a, Duis non lobortis erat. Cras consequat ut ante sed molestie.</li>
<li>pellentesque efficitur nibh. In varius elit vel nibh tristique fringilla.</li>
<li>Mauris euismod eget purus sed efficitur. Fusce congue diam ut iaculis hendrerit.</li>
<li> Duis vitae aliquet arcu, quis sollicitudin libero. Donec gravida et elit at fringilla.</li>
</ol>
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum vestibulum libero quam, ac porta ex hendrerit non. Suspendisse tempus lorem ut quam congue, id dictum nibh rutrum. Suspendisse potenti. Aliquam ac commodo eros, ut consequat turpis. Vivamus ultricies vehicula risus, sit amet rutrum justo blandit nec. Duis a eleifend orci. Quisque lorem urna, porta non ligula at, egestas cursus diam. Aenean vel purus auctor, ultrices felis dictum, dictum enim. Duis mi nulla, laoreet in leo nec, volutpat dictum metus.
<hr />
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum vestibulum libero quam, ac porta ex hendrerit non. Suspendisse tempus lorem ut quam congue, id dictum nibh rutrum. Suspendisse potenti. Aliquam ac commodo eros, ut consequat turpis. Vivamus ultricies vehicula risus, sit amet rutrum justo blandit nec. Duis a eleifend orci. Quisque lorem urna, porta non ligula at, egestas cursus diam. Aenean vel purus auctor, ultrices felis dictum, dictum enim. Duis mi nulla, laoreet in leo nec, volutpat dictum metus.
<blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/CAbgVF3nxRm/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="12" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:500px; min-width:326px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);">
<div style="padding:16px;"> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CAbgVF3nxRm/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" background:#FFFFFF; line-height:0; padding:0 0; text-align:center; text-decoration:none; width:100%;" target="_blank"> 
<div style=" display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;">
<div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;">
<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div>
<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div>
<div style="display:block; height:50px; margin:0 auto 12px; width:50px;"><svg width="50px" height="50px" viewBox="0 0 60 60" version="1.1" xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g stroke="none" stroke-width="1" fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd"><g transform="translate(-511.000000, -20.000000)" fill="#000000"><g><path d="M556.869,30.41 C554.814,30.41 553.148,32.076 553.148,34.131 C553.148,36.186 554.814,37.852 556.869,37.852 C558.924,37.852 560.59,36.186 560.59,34.131 C560.59,32.076 558.924,30.41 556.869,30.41 M541,60.657 C535.114,60.657 530.342,55.887 530.342,50 C530.342,44.114 535.114,39.342 541,39.342 C546.887,39.342 551.658,44.114 551.658,50 C551.658,55.887 546.887,60.657 541,60.657 M541,33.886 C532.1,33.886 524.886,41.1 524.886,50 C524.886,58.899 532.1,66.113 541,66.113 C549.9,66.113 557.115,58.899 557.115,50 C557.115,41.1 549.9,33.886 541,33.886 M565.378,62.101 C565.244,65.022 564.756,66.606 564.346,67.663 C563.803,69.06 563.154,70.057 562.106,71.106 C561.058,72.155 560.06,72.803 558.662,73.347 C557.607,73.757 556.021,74.244 553.102,74.378 C549.944,74.521 548.997,74.552 541,74.552 C533.003,74.552 532.056,74.521 528.898,74.378 C525.979,74.244 524.393,73.757 523.338,73.347 C521.94,72.803 520.942,72.155 519.894,71.106 C518.846,70.057 518.197,69.06 517.654,67.663 C517.244,66.606 516.755,65.022 516.623,62.101 C516.479,58.943 516.448,57.996 516.448,50 C516.448,42.003 516.479,41.056 516.623,37.899 C516.755,34.978 517.244,33.391 517.654,32.338 C518.197,30.938 518.846,29.942 519.894,28.894 C520.942,27.846 521.94,27.196 523.338,26.654 C524.393,26.244 525.979,25.756 528.898,25.623 C532.057,25.479 533.004,25.448 541,25.448 C548.997,25.448 549.943,25.479 553.102,25.623 C556.021,25.756 557.607,26.244 558.662,26.654 C560.06,27.196 561.058,27.846 562.106,28.894 C563.154,29.942 563.803,30.938 564.346,32.338 C564.756,33.391 565.244,34.978 565.378,37.899 C565.522,41.056 565.552,42.003 565.552,50 C565.552,57.996 565.522,58.943 565.378,62.101 M570.82,37.631 C570.674,34.438 570.167,32.258 569.425,30.349 C568.659,28.377 567.633,26.702 565.965,25.035 C564.297,23.368 562.623,22.342 560.652,21.575 C558.743,20.834 556.562,20.326 553.369,20.18 C550.169,20.033 549.148,20 541,20 C532.853,20 531.831,20.033 528.631,20.18 C525.438,20.326 523.257,20.834 521.349,21.575 C519.376,22.342 517.703,23.368 516.035,25.035 C514.368,26.702 513.342,28.377 512.574,30.349 C511.834,32.258 511.326,34.438 511.181,37.631 C511.035,40.831 511,41.851 511,50 C511,58.147 511.035,59.17 511.181,62.369 C511.326,65.562 511.834,67.743 512.574,69.651 C513.342,71.625 514.368,73.296 516.035,74.965 C517.703,76.634 519.376,77.658 521.349,78.425 C523.257,79.167 525.438,79.673 528.631,79.82 C531.831,79.965 532.853,80.001 541,80.001 C549.148,80.001 550.169,79.965 553.369,79.82 C556.562,79.673 558.743,79.167 560.652,78.425 C562.623,77.658 564.297,76.634 565.965,74.965 C567.633,73.296 568.659,71.625 569.425,69.651 C570.167,67.743 570.674,65.562 570.82,62.369 C570.966,59.17 571,58.147 571,50 C571,41.851 570.966,40.831 570.82,37.631"></path></g></g></g></svg></div>
<div style="padding-top: 8px;">
<div style=" color:#3897f0; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:550; line-height:18px;"> View this post on Instagram</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;">
<div>
<div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 8px;">
<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div>
<div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg)"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: auto;">
<div style=" width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div>
<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div>
<div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div>
</div>
</div>
</a> 
 <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CAbgVF3nxRm/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" color:#000; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none; word-wrap:break-word;" target="_blank">Birds eye view 🦅⁣ ⁣ Photo by @justinhelmkamp⁣ ⁣ ⁣ ⁣ ⁣ #bendoregon #highdesert #oregonexplored #summertime #bendart #exploretocreate #centraloregon #explorepnw #pnwonderland</a>
<p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;">A post shared by <a href="https://www.instagram.com/thebestofbend/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px;" target="_blank"> Bend, Oregon</a> (@thebestofbend) on <time style=" font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px;" datetime="2020-05-21T00:27:28+00:00">May 20, 2020 at 5:27pm PDT</time>
</div>
</blockquote>
<script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>
Vivamus lectus felis, ultrices vitae sem a, pellentesque efficitur nibh. In varius elit vel nibh tristique fringilla. Mauris euismod eget purus sed efficitur. Fusce congue diam ut iaculis hendrerit. Duis non lobortis erat. Cras consequat ut ante sed molestie. Duis vitae aliquet arcu, quis sollicitudin libero. Donec gravida et elit at fringilla.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" class="alignnone wp-image-50561 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/AOC-4-1024x576.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/AOC-4-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/AOC-4-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/AOC-4-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/AOC-4-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/AOC-4-2048x1152.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></div>
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum vestibulum libero quam, ac porta ex hendrerit non. Suspendisse tempus lorem ut quam congue, id dictum nibh rutrum. Suspendisse potenti. Aliquam ac commodo eros, ut consequat turpis. Vivamus ultricies vehicula risus, sit amet rutrum justo blandit nec. Duis a eleifend orci. Quisque lorem urna, porta non ligula at, egestas cursus diam. Aenean vel purus auctor, ultrices felis dictum, dictum enim. Duis mi nulla, laoreet in leo nec, volutpat dictum metus.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Video: LA Mayor Eric Garcetti calls into CNN with Jake Tapper to do some damage control, telling Jake that the three month extension will not mean everything stays closed.
&quot;Well, I want to reassure people because I think there was a lot panic suddenly&quot; when the story came out <a href="https://t.co/L7ow4ZA7Ga">pic.twitter.com/L7ow4ZA7Ga</a>
&mdash; Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) <a href="https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1260312888503422982?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 12, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum vestibulum libero quam, ac porta ex hendrerit non. Suspendisse tempus lorem ut quam congue, id dictum nibh rutrum. Suspendisse potenti. Aliquam ac commodo eros, ut consequat turpis. Vivamus ultricies vehicula risus, sit amet rutrum justo blandit nec. Duis a eleifend orci. Quisque lorem urna, porta non ligula at, egestas cursus diam. Aenean vel purus auctor, ultrices felis dictum, dictum enim. Duis mi nulla, laoreet in leo nec, volutpat dictum metus.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez  And Bernie Sanders Attend Green New Deal Rally At Howard University

WATCH: Elizabeth Warren Is Reportedly Hanging Out With Hillary Clinton. Here’s What She Used To Say About Her.

Elizabeth Warren

Hillary Clinton

I first met Elizabeth Warren when she was a professor at Harvard Law School in 2004. She was fresh off the publication of her bestselling book, &#8220;The Two-Income Trap.&#8221; There was no doubt she was politically liberal — our only face-to-face meeting involved a recruitment visit at the W Hotel in Los Angeles, where she immediately made some sort of disparaging remark about Rush Limbaugh — but at the time, Warren was making waves for her iconoclastic views. She wasn&#8217;t a doctrinaire leftist, spewing Big Government nostrums. She was a creative thinker.
That creative thinking is obvious in &#8220;The Two-Income Trap,&#8221; which discusses the rising number of bankruptcies among middle-class parents, particularly women with children. The book posits that women entered the workforce figuring that by doing so, they could have double household income. But so many women entered the workforce that they actually inflated prices for basic goods like housing, thus driving debt skyward and leading to bankruptcies for two-income families. The book argued that families with one income might actually be better off, since families with two incomes spent nearly the full combined income and then fell behind if one spouse lost a job. Families with one income, by contrast, spent to the limit for one income, and if a spouse was fired, the unemployed spouse would then look for work to replace that single income.
Warren&#8217;s core insight was fascinating: She argued that massive expansion of the labor force had actually created more stressful living and driven down median wages. But her policy recommendations were even more fascinating. She explicitly argued against &#8220;more government regulation of the housing market,&#8221; slamming &#8220;complex regulations,&#8221; since they &#8220;might actually worsen the situation by diminishing the incentive to build new houses or improve older ones.&#8221; Instead, she argued in favor of school choice, since pressure on housing prices came largely from families seeking to escape badly run government school districts: &#8220;A well-designed voucher program would fit the bill neatly.&#8221;
Her heterodox policy proposals didn&#8217;t stop there. She refused to &#8220;join the chorus calling for taxpayer-funded day care&#8221; on its own, calling it a &#8220;sacred cow.&#8221; At the very least, she suggested that &#8220;government-subsidized day care would add one more indirect pressure on mothers to join the workforce.&#8221; She instead sought a more comprehensive educational solution that would include &#8220;tax credits for stay-at-home parents.&#8221;
She ardently opposed additional taxpayer subsidization of college loans, too, or more taxpayer spending on higher education directly. Instead, she called for a tuition freeze from state schools. She recommended tax incentives for families to save rather than spend. She opposed radical solutions wholesale: &#8220;We haven&#8217;t suggested a complete overhaul of the tax structure, and we haven&#8217;t demanded that businesses cease and desist from ever closing another plant or firing another worker. Nor have we suggested that the United States should build a quasi-socialist safety net to rival the European model.&#8221;
So, what happened to Warren?
Power.
The other half of iconoclastic Warren was typical progressive, anti-financial industry Warren. In &#8220;The Two-Income Trap,&#8221; she proposes reinstating state usury laws, cutting off access to payday lenders and heavily regulating the banking industry — all in the name of protecting Americans from themselves. While her position castigating the credit industry for deliberate obfuscation of clients was praiseworthy, her quest to &#8220;protect consumers&#8221; quickly morphed into a quest to create the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau — an independent agency without any serious checks or balances. But despite her best efforts, she never became head of the CFPB, failing to woo Republican senators. The result: an emboldened Warren who saw her popularity as tied to her Big Government agenda. No more reaching across the aisle; no more iconoclastic policies. Instead, she would be Ralph Nader II, with a feminist narrative to boot.
And so, she&#8217;s gaining ground in the 2020 presidential race as a Bernie Sanders knockoff. Ironically, her great failing could be her lack of moderation — the moderation she abandoned in her quest for progressive power. If Elizabeth Warren circa 2003 were running, she&#8217;d be the odds-on favorite for president. But Warren circa 2019 would hate Warren circa 2003.

Presidential Candidate Elizabeth Warren Holds Town Hall In Los Angeles

SHAPIRO: How The Quest For Power Corrupted Elizabeth Warren

This should be easy.
We&#8217;re all on the same side. When a white supremacist terrorist shoots up a Walmart filled with innocents in El Paso, we should all be on the same side. We should be mourning together; we should be fighting together.
Instead, we&#8217;re fighting one another.
We&#8217;re fighting one another for one simple reason: Too many on the political left have become accustomed to castigating the character of those who disagree with the left on policy. Favor tougher border controls? This puts you on the side of the white supremacist terrorist. Believe in Second Amendment rights? You&#8217;re a vicious, violent cretin covering for those who commit acts of evil. Cite Western civilization as a source of our common values, believe that police forces across the United States are not systemically racist, favor smaller government intervention in the social sphere &#8212; in short, disagree with the program of the American left? Most of all, consider voting for Trump? You&#8217;re an accessory to murder.
Now, there are many on the political left who are too smart for this sort of specious reasoning and character assassination. But not everyone. Charles Blow of The New York Times, for example, writes in a column this week that &#8220;terrorists&#8221; and &#8220;policymakers&#8221; are the two &#8220;sides of white nationalism.&#8221; Blow clarifies: &#8220;White nationalist terrorists &#8212; young and rash &#8212; and white nationalist policymakers &#8212; older and more methodical &#8212; live on parallel planes, both aiming in the same direction, both with the same goal: To maintain and ensure white dominance and white supremacy.&#8221; Who, pray tell, are these evil white nationalist policymakers? Those who favor &#8220;border walls, anti-immigrant laws, voter suppression and packing the courts.&#8221; Never mind that many advocates of border security also advocate for broader legal immigration. Never mind that nobody actually favors voter suppression. To Blow, an R next to your name signifies merely a less militant Nazism than your neighborhood Hitler Youth.
David Leonhardt of The New York Times similarly argued this week that &#8220;American conservatism has a violence problem.&#8221; While admitting that conservative America &#8220;is mostly filled with honorable people who deplore violence and bear no responsibility for right-wing hate killings&#8221; and that &#8220;liberal America also has violent and deranged people,&#8221; Leonhardt lays the blame for an increase in political violence at the feet of &#8220;mainstream conservative politicians,&#8221; who are somehow connected to &#8220;right-wing extremists.&#8221;
There&#8217;s something in the water at The New York Times, obviously. Jamelle Bouie, another voice on The Times opinion page, suggested a &#8220;connection between white nationalism&#8221; and my personal &#8220;ideological project.&#8221; Never mind that I&#8217;ve been perhaps the loudest voice on the right decrying white nationalism for years; that I firmly fight for particular Western civilized values and small-government conservatism that foreclose and despise racism; that I&#8217;ve incurred hundreds of thousands of dollars in security costs for my trouble; that I require 24/7 security to protect me from white nationalist blowback; and that just weeks ago, the FBI arrested a white nationalist threatening to murder me. Obviously, all conservatives are the same &#8212; and all are complicit in the mission of white supremacy.
There can be no unity when one side of the political aisle firmly believes that the other side is motivated by unmitigated evil. No decent conversation about fixes can be had when you assume the person sitting across from you sympathizes with monsters who go to shoot up Hispanic Americans at a Walmart. If we can&#8217;t at least assume that we&#8217;re all on the same page in condemning white supremacist terror attacks and white supremacist ideology, we may as well pack this republic in. We&#8217;re done.

Low Angle View Of American Flag Waving Against Clear Blue Sky

SHAPIRO: Why Can’t We Unify In The Face of Evil?

On Monday, The New Yorker printed a lengthy piece by reporter Jane Mayer about the sad fate of former Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn. Franken resigned from the Senate in 2017 after a bevy of women accused him of sexual harassment; their accounts ranged from unwanted kisses to unsolicited a&#8211; grabbing. In the midst of the #MeToo movement, Franken stepped down, all the while decrying President Trump&#8217;s own record of allegations concerning mistreatment of women.
At the time, there were two possible interpretations of events. The first was more inspiring: After decades of defending sexual misconduct by powerful Democratic figures, Democrats and their media allies were finally willing to reset a social standard. In the wake of #MeToo, they had reconsidered their worship of Teddy Kennedy, their pathetic willingness to cover for Bill Clinton. A new day had dawned.
Then there was the second, more cynical theory: Democrats and their media allies were looking to set a new standard out of pure partisanship. They weren&#8217;t really concerned about Franken&#8217;s victims any more than they had been about Clinton&#8217;s victims. Instead, they were looking to establish a level of morally superior ground upon which to attack Trump and demand that Republicans disown him.
This week, we found out which theory was true.
Mayer, the New Yorker reporter, rose to public acclaim just last year when she reported on then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh&#8217;s supposed sexual evils. With no supporting facts other than the hazy accounts of decades-old events, she attacked Kavanaugh with alacrity. Now, however, she has flipped: She&#8217;s concerned with Franken&#8217;s lack of due process; she questions the political motivations of one of his accusers; she points out that the evidence is supposedly scanty. Democrats, too, have risen to Franken&#8217;s defense. Many now claim that Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., was the real villain in this scenario, having rushed for Franken&#8217;s scalp precipitously.
In other words, Franken was kicked out of the party when Democrats were trying to build a case against Trump. Now that they&#8217;ve concluded that case won&#8217;t work, they want Franken back again. Presumably, they&#8217;ll soon be back to praising Clinton, too.
This sort of behavior is deeply destructive to American public discourse. That&#8217;s because a standard upheld only as a weapon to target political opposition is no standard at all. What&#8217;s more, the partisan interpretation of the standard creates an incentive for opponents to violate their own commitment to the standard. It&#8217;s a classic prisoner&#8217;s dilemma: The person who actually abides by a common moral standard and speaks out against bad behavior on all sides ends up the sucker. Only a fool would call out his own side to the cheers of opponents while his opponents defend their own degenerates.
The problem of politically motivated standards isn&#8217;t restricted to sexual abuse. It extends to race: Why should Republicans condemn President Trump&#8217;s tweets about the so-called Squad while Democrats maintain support for Rep. Ilhan Omar&#8217;s anti-Semitism and Rep. Ayanna Pressley&#8217;s racism? Why should Republicans provide ammunition to their ill-motivated opponents?
The only way to restore a common standard in politics is for both sides to rebuild trust, step by step. And that can only happen when both sides share common goals and values. Otherwise, everyone will decide that losing by abiding by the rules must take a back seat to victory by any means. And that means the destruction of our standards, one by one, until there are no standards left.
We&#8217;re getting pretty close already.

franken

SHAPIRO: Why The Left Is Reconsidering Al Franken

Al Franken

Democratic Party

Let&#8217;s pretend President Trump didn&#8217;t tweet.
Let&#8217;s live in a universe where the president of the United States didn&#8217;t see fit to insert himself into every controversy, to comment on every passing event, to blast out his inner monologue before tens of millions of Americans each morning &#8212; often in the most foolish, controversial or outright xenophobic way &#8212; while watching cable news.
Here&#8217;s what the news cycle would look like.
Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., went to war with the most famous member of her House contingent, freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. After months of vacillating between praise for AOC&#8217;s supposed energy and put-downs of AOC&#8217;s radicalism and attacks on moderate Democrats, Pelosi&#8217;s sneering finally triggered AOC, who promptly brought out her heavy guns: She suggested that Pelosi is a racist targeting congresswomen of color. She even suggested that Pelosi is responsible for the death threats she had received. This, in turn, triggered members of the Congressional Black Caucus to come to Pelosi&#8217;s defense, and that triggered other members of AOC&#8217;s so-called squad to come to her defense. By the end of the week, the seething, bubbling war between radicals and mere progressives was threatening to crack the Democratic coalition.
Also last week, Democratic presidential candidates continued their quest to push their party toward the far left. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., maintained her hypocritical attacks on former Vice President Joe Biden for his lack of support for federal busing, a policy she herself doesn&#8217;t support. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., trotted out a new spending plan with no way to pay for it. Harris and Warren prepared to attack each other for attention. Meanwhile, virtually all the major Democratic candidates outside of Biden kept up their drumbeat of criticism of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, demanding an open-borders agenda entirely at odds with the mainstream of American public thought.
This drumbeat came complete with an actual act of violence, as well as a public relations nightmare for the open-borders left. In Washington state, 69-year-old Willem Van Spronsen, armed with a rifle and incendiary devices, attempted to light a car on fire and ignite a propane tank outside a Tacoma migrant detention center to shut it down. He was shot for his trouble. Van Spronsen reportedly called himself a member of Antifa, the far-left militant group.
And in Aurora, Colorado, some 2,000 people banded together outside another ICE detention facility, where a group of protesters pulled down the American flag and replaced it with the Mexican flag. Some of the protesters then attempted to burn and deface the American flag with anti-police slurs.
This would seem to have been a pretty decent news cycle for President Trump. The Democratic Party formed itself into a circular firing squad; the far left was busily reminding Americans that it&#8217;s not especially fond of America altogether.
Then Trump tweeted.
For years, we&#8217;ve heard that Trump&#8217;s tweeting is a key to his success. There&#8217;s certainly truth to the notion that Trump is able to redirect the news cycle toward his personal whims based on the click of a few buttons. But with great power comes great risk. When the president decides to tweet, &#8220;&#8216;Progressive&#8217; Democrat Congresswomen &#8230; originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe &#8230; Why don&#8217;t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came,&#8221; the narrative shifts. The news cycle becomes about Trump&#8217;s xenophobia (three of the congresswomen he&#8217;s apparently talking about were born in the United States); Democrats reunite against him; and the dangers of anti-ICE rhetoric are deliberately obscured by the media.
All too often, Trump&#8217;s tweets are bad, both morally and politically. And the media would always prefer to jabber about those tweets than about news that harms Democrats. So why would Trump continue to provide them the oxygen they so desperately seek?

President Trump Hosts “Made In America” Product Showcase At The White House

SHAPIRO: The News Cycle Without Trump’s Tweets

Antifa

Donald Trump

Illegal Immigration

Trump Administration

In the last two weeks, America has learned that a bevy of heretofore relatively uncontroversial objects and ideas are, in fact, extraordinarily controversial. We have learned that the Betsy Ross American flag is irredeemably racist. We have learned that Disney casting a black woman as Ariel in the live-action remake of &#8220;The Little Mermaid&#8221; is supposedly supremely disquieting for a racist America. We have learned that opposing federally mandated forced busing means that you are a secret bigot, so long as you are named Joe Biden.
Or perhaps we haven&#8217;t learned any of those things. Perhaps all of this is nonsense, and we&#8217;ve merely learned that Americans are angry, that they&#8217;re channeling that anger in increasingly bizarre directions, and that opportunists of every stripe are willing to take advantage of that anger for their own benefit.
Take, for example, the Betsy Ross flag. Not only was Ross an abolitionist Quaker; the flag has flown for centuries as a symbol of a country that fought the single bloodiest war in its history to abolish slavery. The flag flew at Barack Obama&#8217;s inauguration. Not until the last five minutes was someone cloddish enough to suggest that the flag represents slavery and racism &#8212; until Nike announced that it had canceled the manufacture of a Ross-inspired shoe at the behest of failed NFL quarterback and national anthem kneeler Colin Kaepernick.
Kaepernick, whose knowledge of politics is approximately as accurate as his downfield passing game, apparently taught Nike some tough lessons about American history (not about sweatshop labor, however). Thus, the sneakers were withdrawn, and a weeklong controversy ensued about the supposed evils of the Ross flag.
The good news for Nike: Its stock rose. That&#8217;s because Nike knows that controversy generates earned media, and it knows that black Americans are far more likely to be attracted to its social justice warrior posturing and more likely to buy more Nike shoes (one study from 1986 to 2002 found that blacks and Hispanics spend up to 30 percent more on apparel and jewelry than whites with comparable incomes).
Corporations understand that nontroversies can sell, just so long as you can sell them as controversies. When Disney announced this month that the actress playing Ariel in its live-action remake of &#8220;The Little Mermaid&#8221; is Halle Bailey, who is black, a few internet trolls tweeted #NotMyAriel. Soon, the world was aflame with news that the Disney-loving KKK was out of the woodwork; Freeform, a Disney-owned cable channel, immediately unleashed a long open letter &#8220;clapping back&#8221; at the critics, not a single one of whom was prominent enough to be named.
And in the end, that&#8217;s how this works: Everyone gets credit for &#8220;clapping back,&#8221; even if there was no actual clapping in the first place.
It works politically, too. The big winner from the first Democratic primary debate was Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., who lumped herself in with Rosa Parks this week after bashing former Vice President Joe Biden for having failed to support federally mandated forced busing in the 1970s. When asked whether she would support such a program, Harris demurred &#8212; as, indeed, she had to, since forced busing is wildly unpopular and was wildly unsuccessful, carrying unintended consequences that actually exacerbated de facto segregation rather than alleviating it. She still got points for knocking Biden, though she holds his exact position on the issue.
There&#8217;s a lot of profit to be made, both politically and financially, in generating and maintaining stupid controversy. Perhaps that speaks to our national need for catharsis. But here&#8217;s the thing about unjustifiable anger: It&#8217;s never satiated. So watch for our controversies to get stupider and stupider &#8212; and more and more profitable for those who egg them on.

gettyimages-539884497

SHAPIRO: Anger For Anger’s Sake

This week, Parkland survivor Kyle Kashuv announced that Harvard University has withdrawn his acceptance to the college. In the aftermath of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the then-high school junior became a prominent voice for school safety, meeting with politicians across the political spectrum. He was also a prominent defender of Second Amendment rights. After scoring 1550 on his SATs and graduating second in his class, Kashuv was admitted to Harvard, turning down scholarship money at other schools to do so.
Then came the tsunami.
Former classmates who oppose Kashuv&#8217;s politics revealed on social media that when he was 16, months before the Parkland shooting, he typed egregious racist slurs, including the N-word, in a private Google doc. This revelation led Kashuv to immediately apologize publicly for his use of the language, which he insisted was not a reflection of racist belief but a juvenile attempt to shock his peers. He pointed to his record of public-facing accomplishment and pledged to learn from his mistakes. He issued an apology to Harvard, taking full responsibility for his comments; he reached out to the Office of Diversity and Inclusion to see what steps he could take to assure them that he had changed.
No matter. Harvard&#8217;s admissions committee decided to withdraw his acceptance.
There are several lessons here &#8212; all of them bad for the country.
First, grace is no longer an aspect of American life &#8212; at least for one side of the aisle. Kashuv has been in the public eye for a year and a half. In that time, he has acted with remarkable poise, as have many others in his class. The fact that he participated in an idiotic and disgusting private group chat months before the Parkland shooting has had apparently no effect on his public behavior. If the new standard is that past private statements, once surfaced, override all public behavior since &#8212; including apologies, evidence of decency and willingness to evidence repentance &#8212; we are entering a dangerous new era. Is Harvard prepared for dredging up every incoming first year&#8217;s Twitter direct messages for scrutiny?
But that won&#8217;t be the standard, obviously. The commentariat calling for Kashuv&#8217;s expulsion was loudly decrying Harvard for having barred Michelle Jones, who killed her own 4-year-old , just two years ago. The problem for Kashuv is that he is conservative; the old racist slurs were merely a means of damaging him. There is little question that were pro-gun control David Hogg the Parkland survivor at issue rather than Kashuv, a little more grace might have been applied here.
Second, public life comes with inherent risks and thus should be avoided by rational actors. Kashuv would have been admitted to Harvard if he had never engaged in activism: He scored a 1550 on his SAT and graduated second in his class. No one on the radical left or alt-right would have tried to destroy his academic career; no one would have bothered. Kashuv dared to speak up politically and thus became a target. Rational actors will take note and stay away from the public square, leaving that square to the most shameless and the most enigmatic.
Third, Harvard has become an institution not for education but for capitulation to the mob. Forget Kashuv for a second. Focus instead on Harvard Law School professor Ronald Sullivan, a political liberal who was tossed as dean of a residential house for the grave sin of acting as a defense attorney on Harvey Weinstein&#8217;s team. Cross Harvard&#8217;s most radical students or the wokescolds on social media and the administration will capitulate in short order.
Kashuv will be fine. He&#8217;ll move on, go to another school, mature and grow. But Harvard won&#8217;t be a part of that process. The social media mob was motivated not by a desire to purify by our politics &#8212; after all, Ralph Northam is still governor of Virginia &#8212; but by a desire to damage the Parkland student they just didn&#8217;t like.

SHAPIRO: The Dis-Grace Of Harvard

Harvard

Kyle Kashuv

Our universities may be irrevocably broken.
On Monday, Parkland survivor and outspoken conservative Kyle Kashuv announced that Harvard University had withdrawn his admission from the school over the revelation of racist, offensive, idiotic posts written on a private Google document with friends when he was sixteen years old. Never mind that Kashuv apologized publicly for the comments; never mind that his public behavior has evinced no racism whatsoever.
Forgiveness must be withheld.
Kashuv explained:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
1/ THREAD: Harvard rescinded my acceptance.
Three months after being admitted to Harvard Class of 2023, Harvard has decided to rescind my admission over texts and comments made nearly two years ago, months prior to the shooting.
I have some thoughts. Here&#8217;s what happened.
&#8212; Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) <a href="https://twitter.com/KyleKashuv/status/1140605133346283521?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
2/ A few weeks ago, I was made aware of egregious and callous comments classmates and I made privately years ago &#8211; when I was 16 years old, months before the shooting &#8211; in an attempt to be as extreme and shocking as possible.
I immediately apologized.
Here is my apology: <a href="https://t.co/eI38ziiQE8">pic.twitter.com/eI38ziiQE8</a>
&#8212; Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) <a href="https://twitter.com/KyleKashuv/status/1140605144368898049?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
3/ After I issued this apology, speculative articles were written, my peers used the opportunity to attack me, and my life was once again reduced to a headline.
It sent me into one of the darkest spirals of my life.
&#8212; Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) <a href="https://twitter.com/KyleKashuv/status/1140605147313266688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
4/ After the story broke, former peers &amp; political opponents began contacting Harvard urging them to rescind me. Harvard then sent this letter stating that Harvard &#8220;reserves the right to withdraw an offer of admission&#8221; and requested a written explanation within 72 hours. <a href="https://t.co/RfEQCvjgDX">pic.twitter.com/RfEQCvjgDX</a>
&#8212; Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) <a href="https://twitter.com/KyleKashuv/status/1140605153789272064?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
5/ I responded to the letter with a full explanation, apology, and requested documents. <a href="https://t.co/yWd6FeKWOJ">pic.twitter.com/yWd6FeKWOJ</a>
&#8212; Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) <a href="https://twitter.com/KyleKashuv/status/1140605163721437189?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
6/ I also sent an email to the Office of Diversity and Inclusion to seek guidance on how to right this wrong and work with them once I was on campus. <a href="https://t.co/3M1UEXXeQm">pic.twitter.com/3M1UEXXeQm</a>
&#8212; Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) <a href="https://twitter.com/KyleKashuv/status/1140605171644403712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
7/ Harvard decided to rescind my admission with the following letter. <a href="https://t.co/P3bLkF3hHn">pic.twitter.com/P3bLkF3hHn</a>
&#8212; Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) <a href="https://twitter.com/KyleKashuv/status/1140605179311656962?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
8/ Somewhat ironically, the Office of Diversity and Inclusion sent me this response regarding my apology:
&#8220;Thank you for your email. We appreciate your thoughtful reflections and look forward to connecting with you upon your matriculation in the fall of 2020&#8230;&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/YUX67QW3KE">pic.twitter.com/YUX67QW3KE</a>
&#8212; Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) <a href="https://twitter.com/KyleKashuv/status/1140605185921863680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
9/ After receiving Harvard&#8217;s letter revoking my acceptance, I responded by asking for the opportunity to have an in-person meeting to make my case face to face and work towards any possible path of reconciliation.
Harvard responded by declining my meeting request. <a href="https://t.co/rdsGU7BhjD">pic.twitter.com/rdsGU7BhjD</a>
&#8212; Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) <a href="https://twitter.com/KyleKashuv/status/1140605195052863488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
10/ Harvard deciding that someone can&#8217;t grow, especially after a life-altering event like the shooting, is deeply concerning. If any institution should understand growth, it&#8217;s Harvard, which is looked to as the pinnacle of higher education despite its checkered past.
&#8212; Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) <a href="https://twitter.com/KyleKashuv/status/1140605198035017728?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
11/ Throughout its history, Harvard&#8217;s faculty has included slave owners, segregationists, bigots and antisemites. If Harvard is suggesting that growth isn&#8217;t possible and that our past defines our future, then Harvard is an inherently racist institution.
But I don&#8217;t believe that.
&#8212; Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) <a href="https://twitter.com/KyleKashuv/status/1140605199414943744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
12/ I believe that institutions and people can grow. I&#8217;ve said that repeatedly.
In the end, this isn&#8217;t about me, it&#8217;s about whether we live in a society in which forgiveness is possible or mistakes brand you as irredeemable, as Harvard has decided for me.
&#8212; Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) <a href="https://twitter.com/KyleKashuv/status/1140605200920719360?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
13/ So what now? I&#8217;m figuring it out.
I had given up huge scholarships in order to go to Harvard, and the deadline for accepting other college offers has ended.
I&#8217;m exploring all options at the moment.
&#8212; Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) <a href="https://twitter.com/KyleKashuv/status/1140611008798629888?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
As far as his Harvard qualifications, they weren&#8217;t based on his activism. Kashuv was ranked second in his class, with a weighted GPA of 5.345 and an unweighted GPA of 3.9; he scored a 1550 on his SATs. But Kashuv&#8217;s activism has been impressive nonetheless: he has worked consistently across the aisle to bring about school safety measures to protect other high schoolers, and that his terrible comments were written before the life-changing event the mass shooting at Parkland represented.
Kashuv&#8217;s comments were originally surfaced by fellow students who oppose him politically, in an overt attempt to damage him. Kashuv did the right thing and issued an immediate apology:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
A quick note on callous comments I made a few years ago in high school that are circulating. <a href="https://t.co/E6Ki6XIhtc">pic.twitter.com/E6Ki6XIhtc</a>
&#8212; Kyle Kashuv (@KyleKashuv) <a href="https://twitter.com/KyleKashuv/status/1131395413938966528?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 23, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
In a normal world, this would have been enough. Kashuv is 18 years old, and he wrote the comments when he was 16. He didn&#8217;t commit a crime; he didn&#8217;t espouse his gross views publicly; his behavior since has not mimicked any of the content or attitude of the comments. He also underwent a life-changing trauma &#8212; the kind of trauma that has provided an unbreakable shield of protection from the media for all other Parkland survivors. Hell, criticizing outspoken anti-gun activist David Hogg was considered an act of extreme evil by the mainstream media, an act worthy of advertiser boycott.
Not for Kashuv.
His apology wasn&#8217;t sufficient, Harvard determined. Instead, Harvard University issued a letter asking Kashuv to explain his comments or face the rescinding of his attendance.
Before responding to the main email, Kashuv wrote this one to the Office of Diversity Education and Support:
<blockquote>
Around two years ago, when I was 16 years old, before the mass shooting that occurred at my high school, Marjory Stoneman Douglas, I was part of a group in which we used abhorrent racial slurs. We did so out of a misplaced sense of humor: we treated the words themselves as though they bore little weight, and used them only for their shock value. Looking back two years later, I cannot recognize that person. I make absolutely no excuse for those comments. I said them, and I regret them deeply. I bore no racial animus whatsoever: the context was a group of adolescents trying to use the worst words and say the most insane things imaginable. The horrible things I said were not directed to any specific person or individual, and my intent was never to hurt anyone.
I do not have access to the electronic record of that conversation and do not recall other things that may have been said; I have only seen what has appeared in the media. When reminded of those comments, I immediately apologized publicly, knowing that there would be an immediate media uproar, given that I have become a public figure over the past year. That uproar did ensue, and I have continued to accept responsibility for my comments, and I accept fully the resulting legitimate criticism. I am entirely embarrassed and do not recognize the person who wrote those things.
As you may not know, I had already intended to take a gap year to continue my school safety activism, before beginning my studies in the fall of 2020. I will hope to enter Harvard as a more mature member of the community, with three years and many life experiences between the foolish child who said those things two years ago and the man I am today and wish to become in the future.
I am deeply sorry for my past comments, I know I am not the same person. But I realize there is always more I can do to understand and learn about the struggle and pain of minority communities in America and worldwide. During my gap year, I will supplement my activism to include reaching out to minority communities. I am open to any advice or suggestions on activities I might pursue during my gap year in pursuit of that goal. I am committed to engaging on this issue, and I plan to visit your office when I arrive at Harvard in the fall of 2020 after I complete my gap year.
</blockquote>
Then Kashuv wrote this response to William Fitzsimmons, dean of admissions and financial aid:
<blockquote>
Dear Mr. Fitzsimmons:
Thank you for the opportunity to elaborate on what has been a very difficult and painful public controversy, which has left me with feelings of deep regret over an episode I had long forgotten. Let me first state that I apologize unequivocally for my comments, which were made two years ago in private among equally immature high school students. In the attached document, I have attached all the comments I have been able to record. I do not have access to the electronic record of that conversation and do not recall other things that may have been said; I have only seen what has appeared in the media. I take full responsibility for the idiotic and hurtful things I wrote two years ago. I make absolutely no excuse for those comments. I said them, I regret them, and by explaining the context and my subsequent experiences I am not trying to excuse them. Instead, I am seeking to demonstrate the hurtful things I said do not represent the man I am today.
I understand Harvard&#8217;s concern over these offensive statements from my past, and I further understand that Harvard has been contacted about them by people expressing concern about them. I am very sorry to have put the College in this position. I am determined to take whatever steps are necessary to rectify this past wrong and to reassure Harvard of my commitment to values of tolerance, diversity, and inclusion, which I hope to advance as a member of the class of 2024.
This is the context in which I made these comments. While this does not excuse my comments, I made poor choices with regards to the people I surrounded myself with, I became part of a group in which those words bore little weight and were used only in a means for their shock value. I bore no racial animus; the context was a group of adolescents trying to use the worst words and say the most insane things imaginable. Until these writings were disclosed, I had long forgotten about them. While I will forever bear incredible shame for typing them, I especially feel remorse now that they have been made public knowing they have caused terrible pain to people I care about. I gave no consideration to the meaning and weight of the words I wrote in an effort to impress then friends and classmates, and looking back I know clearly know I wrote terrible things I can never unwrite.
My intent was never to hurt anyone, and to do so would have magnified the harm immensely. I also feel I am no longer the same person, especially in the aftermath of the Parkland shooting and all that has transpired since. I had to mature not only to address that horrible situation but to fulfill my new role as a school safety activist. I have tried hard to be a better man in honor of the friends I lost, and I believe I have grown and matured significantly through this experience. I am proud of some of the things I have accomplished in the wake of that tragedy, and I do not recognize the person who wrote those things.
When I was reminded of the writings I was mortified and embarrassed. My parents raised me to be better than what is represented in those screenshots from about two years ago. In an effort to be as honest and transparent as possible, I immediately apologized publicly when reminded of those messages, while knowing the media uproar that would ensue. It did ensue, and I have continued to accept responsibility and the resulting legitimate criticism.
As you know, I intend to take a gap year before beginning my studies to continue my work promoting school safety. I will continue to mature and will enter Harvard with three years and many life experiences between the foolish child who said those things and the man I am today. As an aspiring member of the Harvard community, I aspire to the values that the community strives to uphold. Therefore I have already written to the Harvard College Office of Diversity Education and Support both to express my deepest apologies and remorse, and to reach out to begin a dialogue that I hope will be the foundation of future growth. While I am no longer the same person who wrote those comments, there is always more to learn: especially about the legacy of racism in our society.
Thank you again for this opportunity to address these issues. I hope this fully addresses your concerns, but if not I would be happy to provide any further information or discussion you require.
</blockquote>
No good. Harvard sent Kashuv a blunt letter kicking him out of Harvard:
<blockquote>
Dear Mr. Kashuv,
Thank you for your response to our letter of May 24. The Admissions Committee has discussed at length your account of the communications about which we asked, and we appreciated your candor and your expressions of regret for sending them.
As you know, the Committee takes seriously the qualifies of maturity and moral character. After careful consideration the Committee voted to rescind your admission to Harvard College.
We are sorry about the circumstances that have led us to withdraw your admission, and we wish you success in your future academic endeavors and beyond.
</blockquote>
This is, to put it mildly, gutless. There are ex-convicts who, quite properly, have been admitted to Harvard &#8212; they earned forgiveness. There are current students who undoubtedly have said things privately that would shock the conscience. There are likely administrators who have said things when they were 16 years old that embarrass them now. Is the new standard that if you said something on a private message board when you were 16 years old that we should deny you the possibility of a degree at a top college, so long as those who join you on that message board decide to out you?
This isn&#8217;t about Kashuv&#8217;s politics. I&#8217;ve worked with other Parkland survivors including Cameron Kasky, with whom I disagree politically, but who happens to be a wonderful young man &#8212; I would certainly defend him if something similar happened to him. I&#8217;ve defended Sarah Jeong of The New York Times from calls to be fired over her old tweets; I&#8217;ve done the same with James Gunn; I&#8217;ve even suggested that Virginia Governor Ralph Northam ought to be judged based on his lifelong career record on race, not based on a racist yearbook photo. I&#8217;ve stumped against the social media bannings of people with whom I virulently disagree &#8212; people who have in fact targeted me personally.
This move by Harvard is the worst move I&#8217;ve ever seen in academia &#8212; and it represents the establishment of a standard so insane that no one can possibly withstand it. All those who have never written an embarrassing thing privately, please step forward. Not so fast, SJWs.
The move comes just three weeks after Harvard University fired Professor Ronald Sullivan and his wife Stephanie from their deanships at Winthrop House over the apparently unforgiveable sin of Sullivan&#8217;s representation of alleged rapist Harvey Weinstein. Sullivan was ousted because students said they were offended by Sullivan doing what he&#8217;s always done: defending alleged criminals. Over at Yale, Professor Nicholas Christakis and his wife Erica were effectively ousted from their roles as co-masters of Silliman House because they suggested that perhaps students shouldn&#8217;t take offense at Halloween costumes. Over at Evergreen College, Professor Bret Weinstein and his wife Professor Heather Heying were forced out over Weinstein&#8217;s refusal to stop teaching for a &#8220;Day of Absence&#8221; for white teachers.
Our colleges are irreparably broken; the inmates are in charge of the asylum.
Kyle Kashuv acted like a dumb kid. He&#8217;s remorseful. Denying him the chance to prove it is horrifying. And if the new standard is that anyone whose old comments are resurfaced for fun and games can have their life ruined, no one will survive. I look forward to tasking my reporters with digging up everything everyone on the admissions committee has ever said. If these are the new rules, so be it.
But these are, apparently, the new rules. Kashuv is the first to feel the brunt. He certainly won&#8217;t be the last.

Harvard Rescinds Admission To Conservative Kyle Kashuv Over Private Racist Remarks He Wrote At 16, Despite Apology And Evidence Of Growth. This Is Disgusting.

Racism

This week, The New York Times ran a massive piece detailing the supposed radicalization of one Caleb Cain. Cain moved from political liberalism toward self-ascribed &#8220;tradcon&#8221; status from watching YouTube videos. The New York Times charted this nefarious move by following those videos. The suggestion by The Times was simple: If you watch typical conservative content hosted by people like me, you will eventually end up watching material hosted by alt-right figures. The only solution, presumably, would be for YouTube to downgrade material The Times dislikes.
This attitude isn&#8217;t only springing from The Times. Axios chief technology correspondent Ina Fried grilled Google CEO Sundar Pichai over the weekend, essentially demanding that YouTube do something to marginalize videos Fried dislikes. Vox ran a full-scale propaganda campaign last week to get conservative comedian Steven Crowder kicked off YouTube for the great sin of making offensive jokes about one of Vox&#8217;s columnists. Taking their cues from Democratic leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, various media outlets have spent years suggesting that Facebook&#8217;s unwillingness to censor political materials led to Hillary Clinton&#8217;s unjustifiable 2016 presidential defeat.
And it&#8217;s not just targeting big tech companies. The far-left organization Media Matters for America routinely leads boycott attempts against advertisers who deign to sponsor conservative programs &#8212; even if those advertisers sponsor a wide variety of political programming. Pseudojournalists from organizations like Vox and Huffington Post spend their days calling advertisers for comment on various controversial statements by right-wing hosts from Tucker Carlson to Laura Ingraham to Sean Hannity. Their goal isn&#8217;t to follow the news but to generate a wave of advertiser-pullout announcements likely to do damage to those conservative hosts.
Such censoriousness is rarely, if ever, practiced on the political right. YouTube and Facebook and Twitter are never targeted by conservatives over their unwillingness to shut down opposing points of view; they&#8217;re criticized for their willingness to kowtow to the political left and its demands for speech suppression. Advertisers on left-wing programming can speak freely, secure in the knowledge that conservatives won&#8217;t be calling them up to rip them for sponsoring shows like Rachel Maddow&#8217;s.
That&#8217;s good. That&#8217;s how it should be. But for members of the political left, it isn&#8217;t.
There are two reasons for that. The first is obvious: Those on the political left long ago abandoned the traditional liberal notion that those who disagree have a right to speak. Instead, they must be deplatformed and their advertisers punished, lest their nefarious ideas spread and metastasize. &#8220;Repressive tolerance,&#8221; in the parlance of Herbert Marcuse, has become a mainstay of left-wing thinking.
The other reason is far more cynical: Many in the media want a regeneration of the monopolistic media control of the past. They long for the days when everyone consumed mainstream product to the exclusion of alternative sources. It&#8217;s no coincidence that YouTube and Facebook have been touting their elevation of &#8220;authoritative&#8221; news in recent years &#8212; they&#8217;re looking to appease a ravenous media eager to tear them down.
The media and Democrats have picked the right target: The lords of Big Tech are eager to please and frightened of blowback. They&#8217;re political liberals who can be intimidated into censorship while being simultaneously assured that they&#8217;re making the world a better place.
They aren&#8217;t. All it would take for this censorious moment to end would be a little backbone: Facebook, YouTube and Twitter announcing that they won&#8217;t censor people unless those people violate actual First Amendment principles like incitement and libel; advertisers announcing that they won&#8217;t pull their dollars based on astroturfed pressure tactics. But backbone is in short supply. And the glut of intimidation won&#8217;t relax anytime soon.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS 2019

The Media/Democrat Complex Strikes Big Tech

Facebook

YouTube

On Wednesday, Special Counsel Robert Mueller finally emerged from the shadows to make a declaration: he&#8217;s leaving, and he&#8217;s taking the dog. According to Mueller, his job here is finished, since his 448-page report on Russian election interference and Trump administration obstruction has concluded. What&#8217;s more, according to Mueller, the country is better off for the Mueller investigation having taken place, despite two years, billions of dollars in media coverage, and no actual conclusion.
Well, then.
There were a few key messages in Mueller&#8217;s valedictory.
1. Mueller&#8217;s Original Brief Was Limited. Mueller began his statement by recognizing that his original brief was to investigate &#8220;Russia&#8217;s interference in the 2016 presidential election.&#8221; He proceeded to outline the fact that this interference was highly damaging to the political process: &#8220;As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who are part of the Russian military, launched a concerted attack on our political system.&#8221; All of this is fine and dandy; there&#8217;s little controversy over any of it.
2. Mueller&#8217;s Investigation Never Should Have Included Obstruction by Trump. Mueller then moved on to his explanation of his investigation of obstruction. Unlike the election interference investigation, which began as a counterintelligence investigation inside the FBI, the obstruction investigation began as a criminal investigation &#8212; and a criminal investigation that Mueller admits he never had the authority to conclude. Mueller stated regarding Russian interference, &#8220;It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of their government&#8217;s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.&#8221; That would be true of Trump&#8217;s associates. That would not be true of Trump himself &#8212; Mueller recognizes that he never had the authority to indict a sitting president. He explained:
<blockquote>
[U]nder longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited. A special counsel&#8217;s office is part of the Department of Justice, and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.
</blockquote>
Yet Mueller proceeded to write two hundred pages about Trump himself, and his conduct. This means that Mueller spent tens of millions of dollars and years of time investigating unindictable conduct. So what the hell was he doing? Mueller provided two separate explanations for the investigation of Trump&#8217;s conduct: first, he said, the investigation was permitted because it is &#8220;important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available.&#8221; Evidence of what, though? A crime? But Mueller refused to allege a crime. So evidence of something &#8212; something that wasn&#8217;t prosecutable right now, and that Mueller refused to suggest amounted to a crime for the future. Mueller himself said the investigation was justified because perhaps it would have resulted in evidence that &#8220;could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now.&#8221; But Mueller didn&#8217;t charge co-conspirators in obstruction. This is bizarre, at least.
Mueller&#8217;s second justification is more obvious: he essentially said he was doing Congress&#8217; impeachment groundwork for them. &#8220;The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,&#8221; Mueller stated. This is an invitation to impeachment.
But that&#8217;s not Mueller&#8217;s job. He is a member of the executive branch. He is not an independent counsel. He is not a legislative investigator. A criminal investigation that cannot possibly result in charges is a conflict in terms. Mueller never should have agreed to such an investigation under the law, and Mueller&#8217;s own standard makes that clear.
3. Mueller Wants Trump To Go Down, But Wouldn&#8217;t Call For Prosecution. Mueller infamously stated that there was &#8220;insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.&#8221; So far, so good. That&#8217;s a prosecutorial statement in prosecutorial language. But then Mueller wildly exceeded his brief. In fact, he pulled a James Comey: he effectively indicted Trump for supposed non-crimes publicly, the same way Comey did Hillary Clinton. Of course, he said he would never do that: &#8220;It would be unfair to potentially &#8212; it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.&#8221;
That&#8217;s pretty rich, coming just paragraphs after Mueller accused Trump of a non-crime without the possibility of resolution of the actual charge:
<blockquote>
If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime&#8230;.we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.
</blockquote>
Trump&#8217;s opponents have hung their hats on this statement to show that Trump only escaped prosecution because he was the president, and because of the Department of Justice regulations. But that&#8217;s not quite right. In actuality, Mueller said that the DOJ regulations created a threshold barrier to a decision: he had no right to make a decision, he said, because no prosecution was available. Thus, he made no decision. Instead, he decided to publicly say he could not exonerate Trump. Now, presumably that remark was directed toward Trump&#8217;s false statements that he had been totally exonerated. But it was partisan and inappropriate for a man of Mueller&#8217;s stature: the comments effectively shifted the burden of proof from Mueller to Trump himself.
It&#8217;s not Mueller&#8217;s job to exonerate anyone. It&#8217;s his job to prosecute or not prosecute. Instead, he told everyone that Trump might be prosecutable, but he couldn&#8217;t really say, but still, there might be impeachment available. The proper language here would have been the same as the language surrounding collusion: &#8220;insufficient evidence.&#8221; But instead, Mueller refused to say even that.
Was any of this supposed to be in the purview of Mueller&#8217;s activity?
4. Mueller Didn&#8217;t Expose Barr As A Perjurer Or Obstructor Of Justice. Barr stated in public testimony that Mueller told him &#8220;several times in a group meeting that he was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction.&#8221; Here, Mueller stated that he could not prosecute, and that he would not say whether Trump had committed a crime. These two statements are not actually in conflict. Mueller may well have told Barr that he had not reached a determination on obstruction, and that he saw no reason to do so. That&#8217;s what he told the public, after all. Furthermore, Mueller explained that he didn&#8217;t question Barr&#8217;s &#8220;good faith&#8221; in his decision to &#8220;make the entire report public all at once.&#8221; So much for Barr&#8217;s supposed obstruction.
Then, Mueller said that he was out. Done. Finito. He explained that, having created a political Rorschach test, he would now act like Watchmen&#8217;s Rorshach: &#8220;all the whores and politicians will look up and shout: &#8216;Save us!&#8217; And I&#8217;ll look down and whisper, &#8216;No.&#8217;&#8221; Mueller stated, &#8220;the report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress. In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.&#8221;
Did Mueller clarify anything today? Only that he exceeded his original mandate &#8212; that after conducting a thorough investigation, he was willing to inject himself into the political process rather than sticking to his role. That&#8217;s damning not just for Trump &#8212; who will now have to face down Democrats calling for his political head &#8212; but for a career prosecutor who decided that the business of criminal prosecution was too difficult, and that he&#8217;d prefer to serve as a roadbuilder for impeachment.

4 Key Takeaways From Robert Mueller’s Farewell Address

Robert Mueller

In the past several weeks, a bevy of states have passed extensive new restrictions on abortion. Alabama has effectively banned abortion from point of conception. Georgia has banned abortion from the time a heartbeat is detected, as have Ohio, Kentucky and Mississippi. Missouri has banned abortion after eight weeks. Other states are on the move as well.
This has prompted paroxysms of rage from the media and the political left &#8212; the same folks who celebrated when New York passed a law effectively allowing abortion up until point of birth and who defended Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam&#8217;s perverse statements about late-term abortion. According to these thinkers, conservatives have encroached on a supposed &#8220;right to abortion&#8221; inherent in the Constitution.
This, of course, is a lie. There is no &#8220;right to abortion&#8221; in the Constitution. The founders would have been appalled by such a statement. The Supreme Court&#8217;s decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) is a legal monstrosity by every available metric: As legal scholar John Hart Ely wrote, Roe &#8220;is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.&#8221; The court&#8217;s rationale is specious; the court relied on the ridiculous precedent in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) that a broad &#8220;right to privacy&#8221; can be crafted from &#8220;penumbras, formed by emanations.&#8221; Then the court extended that right to privacy to include the killing of a third party, an unborn human life &#8212; and overrode state definitions of human life in the process.
How? The court relied on the self-contradictory notion of &#8220;substantive due process&#8221; &#8212; the belief that a law can be ruled unconstitutional under the Fifth and 14th amendments so long as the court doesn&#8217;t like the substance of the law. That&#8217;s asinine, obviously. The due process provision of both amendments was designed to ensure that state and federal government could not remove life, liberty or property without a sufficient legal process, not to broadly allow courts to strike down state definitions of conduct that justify removal of life, liberty and property. As Justice Clarence Thomas has written, &#8220;The Fourteenth Amendment&#8217;s Due Process Clause is not a &#8216;secret repository of substantive guarantees against &#8220;unfairness.&#8221;&#8216;&#8221;
Nonetheless, the notion that such a right to abortion is enshrined in America&#8217;s moral fabric has taken hold among the intelligentsia. Thus, we now experience the odd spectacle of those on the political left declaring that the Constitution enshrines a right to abortion &#8212; yet does not include a right to bear arms, a right to freedom of political speech, a right to retain property free of government seizure or a right to practice religion.
For much of the left, then, the term &#8220;constitutional right&#8221; has simply come to mean &#8220;thing I want.&#8221; And that is incredibly dangerous, given that the power of the judiciary springs not from legislative capacity but from supposed interpretive power. Judges are not supposed to read things into the Constitution but to properly read the Constitution itself. The use of the judiciary as a club has led to a feeling of radical frustration among Americans; it has radically exacerbated our culture gap.
The legislative moves in Alabama and other states will open a much-needed debate about the role of the states, the role of legislatures and the role of government. All of that is good for the country. Those who insist, however, that the Supreme Court act as a mechanism for their political priorities are of far more danger to the country than that debate.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS 2019

No, Abortion Isn’t A Constitutional Right

Abortion

Constitution

Over the past several weeks, Democrats have spent their time defending the absurd notion that America is in the midst of a constitutional crisis. What, pray tell, has initiated this crisis? The supposed unwillingness of Attorney General William Barr to turn over to Congress unredacted sections of the Mueller report, plus underlying grand jury materials. Barr, for his part, correctly points out that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure bar him from revealing grand jury testimony. That rule was put in place by Congress itself. Nonetheless, Democrats, seeking to manufacture a feeling of Nixonian chaos, have claimed that the Trump administration is now seeking to block the release of a report that Barr himself released. The Mueller report is, indeed, public.
Playing politics with our institutional health is a dangerous game. Here&#8217;s the truth: Our system of checks and balances is working just fine. Our politicians proclaim that the messy friction between the legislative, executive and judicial branches demonstrates that our politics is unworkable. But that friction is a feature of the system, not a bug. As James Madison explained in Federalist No. 51: &#8220;the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. &#8230; Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.&#8221;
The founders worried greatly that the supremacy of the legislature would make the executive a mere footstool, propping up legislative authority. To that end, they created a unitary executive with control over law enforcement. And they gave a check against the power of the executive to Congress, which has the ability to defund departments or impeach officials.
Democrats know this. They have the power to impeach William Barr. They&#8217;re choosing not to do so, because they recognize that their complaint is itself corrupt. Democrats have the power to impeach Donald Trump. They&#8217;re choosing not to do so, because they recognize that their grounds for such activity are weak in the extreme.
Instead, they participate in a cynical game in which they attack the system of checks and balances itself. That&#8217;s far more dangerous than any action taken by the Trump administration to date. The same Democrats who claim today that they are deeply concerned about the system of checks and balances are proclaiming from the rooftops that they would be happy to shatter the system to facilitate their agenda. We&#8217;ve heard from Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., that as president, she&#8217;d simply use executive authority to set gun law. We&#8217;ve heard from a bevy of Democrats that they&#8217;d consider packing the Supreme Court, or abolishing the Electoral College. A few leftist commentators have even suggested abolishing the Senate, given its non-popular representation. We&#8217;ve heard from failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, and her Democratic allies, that her failures were the fault of election fraud; we&#8217;ve heard the same about Andrew Gillum in Florida.
And now Democrats say that Barr&#8217;s adherence to law is somehow violative of the constitutional order. Undermining the constitutional order publicly, supposedly in order to save it, is nothing but cynical partisanship. But here&#8217;s the good news: The founders designed a durable system to withstand such nonsense. It continues to work, even if Democrats would prefer it collapse.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS 2019

The Manufactured Constitutional Crisis

Jerrold Nadler

Republican Party

On Wednesday morning, President Trump, via the Department of Justice, announced that he would be declaring executive privilege with regard to the redacted Mueller report. The announcement came after Democrats began to move forward with their planned contempt vote against the Attorney General, William Barr, for supposed failure to comply with their subpoena for the entire Mueller report, including redacted materials. Barr has claimed that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which prevents the disclosure of grand jury information. As Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation states, &#8220;unless Congress&#8217;s request for Rule 6(e) grand jury material falls squarely into one of the statutory or court-created exceptions, the attorney general &#8211; any attorney general &#8211; is prohibited from disclosing that material to Congress. And the congressional request doesn&#8217;t fit any of the exceptions.&#8221;
The DOJ made the actual announcement, with Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd taking the lead, <a href="https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-justice-department-letter-nadler-invoking-executive-privilege-over-unredacted-mueller">explaining</a>:
<blockquote>
As we have repeatedly explained, the Attorney General could not comply with your subpoena in its current form without violating the law, court rules, and court orders, and without threatening the independence of the Department of Justice&#8217;s prosecutorial functions&#8230;Unfortunately, rather than allowing negotiations to continue, you scheduled an unnecessary contempt vote, which you refused to postpone to allow additional time for compromise.
</blockquote>
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders stated, &#8220;Faced with Chairman Nadler&#8217;s blatant abuse of power, and at the Attorney General&#8217;s request, the President has no other option than to make a protective assertion of executive privilege.&#8221;
In response to the declaration of executive privilege, the House Judiciary Committee voted to hold Barr in contempt. The contempt charges next move to a full committee vote, before moving to the full House of Representatives.
Democrats are effectively making one case about President Trump and his attorney general; Trump and his attorney general are making the converse case. First, we should examine both cases. Then, we&#8217;ll examine whether executive privilege can be invoked to protect the material at issue here.
Democrats&#8217; Case. Democrats essentially argue that the redacted portions of the Mueller report might justify an impeachment move. They didn&#8217;t get what they were looking for in the full Mueller report available to the public; Mueller&#8217;s team, despite their obvious antipathy toward President Trump&#8217;s behavior, didn&#8217;t recommend indictment, and Barr didn&#8217;t move forward with an obstruction charge. Despite the hew and cry emanating from prosecutors who claim they&#8217;d move forward with such charges if they could, they can&#8217;t &#8211; and the truth is that they likely wouldn&#8217;t. The evidence for intent simply isn&#8217;t strong enough. But Democrats have now moved the goalposts &#8211; now they say that the hidden sections are where the goodies lie. Thus, Barr covered them up.
This argument isn&#8217;t particularly plausible on its face, given Mueller&#8217;s findings, the availability of the 448-page report, and the fact that Democrats haven&#8217;t moved toward impeachment in any serious way since the report. But Democrats can always count on President Trump to look as guilty as possible, and Trump has obliged: he has suggested that he might block Congressional testimony by Robert Mueller and by former White House counsel Don McGahn. There&#8217;s no reason to do this, Democrats argue, unless Trump has something to hide. Thus, Barr&#8217;s activity is part of a pattern, not a well-motivated attempt to obey the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Trump&#8217;s Case. Trump argues, correctly, that the Mueller report spent years and tens of millions of dollars to come to a thorough conclusion. That conclusion is public. The vast bulk of the material is public. Now Democrats want to rehash that material, dredge up grand jury information that by law should remain secret, and use it as a club against him. Trump is simply irritated by the continued focus on Mueller, feels this is a charade &#8211; which, of course, it is &#8211; and wants McGahn not to answer questions for the same reason. This isn&#8217;t a cover-up. It&#8217;s just another example of Trump being annoyed by an investigation that has wasted time and money and sapped his presidency of popularity.
As for Barr, Trump&#8217;s assertion of executive privilege isn&#8217;t a cover-up attempt. It&#8217;s Barr asking Trump to shield him from a contempt charge based on Barr following the law.
Which case you find most plausible largely depends on how you think of Trump: nefarious schemer, or annoyed and volatile president? The latter seems eminently more plausible than the former, given Trump&#8217;s long record of taking action out of pique rather than planning (see Comey, James or alternatively, the entire Mueller report).
So, what about the assertion of executive privilege? Here&#8217;s the problem: Barr can be completely right about the Federal Rules, but executive privilege likely doesn&#8217;t apply here. There are two types of executive privilege: deliberative process privilege and communications privilege. Both types of privilege create a presumption of privilege for the president, but that presumption can be overruled by a court.
Communications privilege applies to those who communicate with the president, or to communications &#8220;authored or solicited and received by those members of an immediate White House adviser&#8217;s staff who have broad and significant responsibility&#8221; &#8211; so, not the White House janitor. The <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/trumps-claim-mueller-report-protected-executive-privilege-c0fb9c533851/">communications must occur</a> &#8220;in performance of responsibilities&#8221; and &#8220;in the process of shaping policies and making decisions.&#8221;
The argument for Trump here is that people who testified before Mueller didn&#8217;t waive that privilege when they testified to him &#8211; Mueller is a member of the executive branch, not a member of the legislative branch. <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-05-08/trump-s-executive-privilege-claim-on-mueller-report-is-bogus">Noah Feldman of Harvard Law School</a> says that this shouldn&#8217;t matter &#8211; that Barr should have redacted the appropriate sections of the Mueller report explicitly on executive privilege grounds so as not to waive the privilege. In fact, when Barr originally released his summary of the Mueller findings, he explicitly said that Trump had not asserted executive privilege over information contained in the Mueller report:
<blockquote>
Because the White House voluntarily cooperated with the Special Counsel&#8217;s investigation, significant portions of the report contain material over which the President could have asserted privilege. And he would have been well within his rights to do so. Following my March 29th letter, the Office of the White House Counsel requested the opportunity to review the redacted version of the report in order to advise the President on the potential invocation of privilege, which is consistent with long-standing practice. Following that review, the President confirmed that, in the interests of transparency and full disclosure to the American people, he would not assert privilege over the Special Counsel&#8217;s report. Accordingly, the public report I am releasing today contains redactions only for the four categories that I previously outlined, and no material has been redacted based on executive privilege.
</blockquote>
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe frameborder="0" height="234" width="416"></iframe></div>
That makes it difficult to assert privilege now, although Barr could presumably argue that his comments only apply to the unredacted portion of the report.
How about deliberative process privilege? That privilege covers, according to appellate courts, &#8220;documents and other materials that would reveal &#8216;advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.&#8221; That would presumably cover the Mueller report. But the deliberative process privilege typically does not apply when there is &#8220;reason to believe that the documents sought may shed light on government misconduct.&#8221; Democrats can plausibly claim that this is the case.
So, even though Trump and Barr are right on the merits &#8211; the Democrats should not see the underlying grand jury material under the Federal Rules &#8211; privilege isn&#8217;t the appropriate method of preventing the dissemination of the materials. That&#8217;s what the courts are likely to find.
With that said, to pretend that this is some sort of massive coverup or Constitutional crisis rather than a clash between the legislative and executive branches in a grey area of the law would be to tar and feather Trump on the basis of very little evidence. And if it&#8217;s a crisis at all, it&#8217;s a crisis manufactured by Democrats who are wildly disappointed with the results of the Mueller report, and can&#8217;t let it go.

Congressional Democrats Hold Barr In Contempt. Trump Declares Executive Privilege. Here’s Everything You Need To Know.

Nancy Pelosi

William Barr

A black Indianapolis police officer is suing the National Football League over videos and tweets he says imply he shot and killed a suspect because of &#8220;systemic racism.&#8221;
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" class="size-medium aligncenter" src="https://media0.giphy.com/media/q5Zby9g9anawfoI8Wt/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e4736c61262050237c33ee08f9ef75042c4e3ffbaa3&amp;rid=giphy.gif&amp;ct=g" width="480" height="270" /></div>
&#8220;Indianapolis Metro Police Department Officer De’Joure Mercer filed the lawsuit in the federal Southern District of Indiana Court&#8221; Monday, <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/sports/nfl-lawsuit-police-officer-alleged-implication-criminally-killed-campaign-honoree">Fox News reported</a>, &#8220;over video and tweets the league published last year&#8221; as part of the &#8220;Say Their Stories&#8221; campaign &#8220;claiming that a Black man he shot and killed died because of &#8216;systemic racism.'&#8221;
The lawsuit centers around the NFL&#8217;s decision to honor Dreasjon Reed &#8212; &#8220;one of the many individuals being honored by players and coaches this season through the NFL’s helmet decal program.&#8221;
According to Indianapolis police officers who spoke with the Indianapolis Star, officers observed Reed driving erratically and initiated a vehicular pursuit. A sergeant for the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department eventually called off the chase because of &#8220;how fast Reed was driving,&#8221; but Mercer later &#8220;saw Reed driving eastbound on 62nd Street before parking at a business. Both the officer and Reed left their cars, and a foot pursuit began.&#8221;
&#8220;Police said there was a confrontation between the two &#8230; that involved an exchange of gunfire, and the officer called in the shooting at 6:16 p.m,&#8221; according to the Indianapolis Star. &#8220;Police said the officer used his service weapon after a Taser deployment was &#8216;ineffective.&#8217; Fifteen casings were recovered at the scene. Police said they believe a weapon found at the scene belonged to Reed.&#8221;
Reed&#8217;s death sparked a series of protests in Indianapolis, and the NFL featured Reed as one of 87 &#8220;victims of systemic racism, victims of police misconduct, and social justice heroes.&#8221;
Mercer, however, says that &#8220;materials the league published imply that Mercer &#8216;committed occupational misconduct and even criminal acts during the May 6 (e)ncounter with Reed, similar to that which were inflicted upon George Floyd,'&#8221; per Fox.
&#8220;De’Joure Mercer is a hero. He tracked down a very dangerous criminal wanted by the police, who was a threat to the citizens of Indianapolis,&#8221; Mercer&#8217;s attorney, Guy A. Relford said in a statement to media about the suit. &#8220;He put his life on the line and was nearly killed in that effort. He was completely exonerated after an exhaustive investigation into the death of Mr. Reed. For NFL Enterprises then to suggest he was involved in police or racist misconduct is totally false, defamatory, and unacceptable. What happened here has nothing to do with racism.
&#8220;While we support NFL Enterprises’ efforts to address social justice issues, Officer Mercer is taking a stand for the many, many good cops on duty across America. He is standing up for his friends and colleagues and sending a message that before you accuse a decorated police officer of misconduct in a national campaign, you had better get your facts straight,&#8221; Relford noted.
The NFL launched the &#8220;Say Their Stories&#8221; campaign ahead of the 2020-2021 season as part of its ramped-up social justice endeavors. The goal was, according to the league&#8217;s announcement, &#8220;to continue the theme of social justice, protest, and outreach that has resonated throughout the nation, and enact fundamental change by amplifying the names and stories of victims of police brutality to drive the narrative forward.&#8221;
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

GettyImages-1181038780-768×511

Police Officer Suing NFL Over Video, Tweets Allegedly Claiming He Shot Black Suspect Because Of ‘Systemic Racism’

Death

Restaurant

United Kingdom

Meghan Markle

Celebrities

Entertainment

wh-2-768×425

First Article

This is a super boring title for news aggregators

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam ullamcorper libero purus, quis porttitor nisi fringilla a. Cras urna velit, dignissim tincidunt libero quis, rhoncus dictum diam. Cras euismod, ligula a iaculis aliquam, ex erat fringilla est, ac lobortis tellus libero gravida ex. Quisque suscipit vitae risus a accumsan. Nam vulputate, orci tristique euismod cursus, libero velit commodo justo, at consectetur nisi diam vitae quam. Proin facilisis imperdiet tortor eu tincidunt. Pellentesque auctor ipsum vel justo vehicula feugiat. Fusce bibendum vitae nisl eu porta. Duis vulputate eu risus et facilisis.
Quisque vehicula tellus et tellus pellentesque faucibus. Fusce nunc arcu, suscipit vitae elit quis, finibus pretium urna. Nulla cursus sapien id vestibulum aliquam. Fusce euismod quis nunc ac porttitor. Donec urna magna, varius non malesuada vel, finibus in elit. Donec et mi at ipsum fringilla faucibus ut sed mauris. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia curae; Nulla leo nulla, tincidunt et hendrerit sit amet, pulvinar quis velit. Nam finibus semper libero, sed varius augue aliquet at.
Etiam ut tempus ligula, a interdum urna. Donec sed fringilla dui, vitae porttitor lorem. Integer velit risus, porttitor eu augue at, sagittis lacinia turpis. Sed sed enim at mauris tincidunt faucibus a quis orci. Etiam volutpat, odio sit amet aliquet posuere, libero ex ullamcorper lacus, eu blandit nunc nisl ac felis. Fusce ullamcorper varius eros, ultrices porttitor lorem iaculis vel. Phasellus venenatis eros dapibus dolor convallis sollicitudin. Curabitur imperdiet eros id aliquet sodales. Ut sed semper enim, et mattis enim. Duis sed tristique turpis, quis cursus mi. Praesent scelerisque, sapien vitae iaculis venenatis, urna nulla sagittis nibh, at rhoncus elit nulla a diam.
Duis cursus magna sed dui condimentum, ac tincidunt massa fringilla. Sed eu justo arcu. Mauris nunc risus, pulvinar blandit ligula at, tincidunt tempor sapien. Nulla molestie facilisis iaculis. Maecenas laoreet mauris id arcu rutrum, sit amet blandit purus lacinia. Vivamus venenatis ac tellus quis faucibus. Sed vestibulum lorem nunc, ac aliquet ligula vulputate vitae. Maecenas commodo a tellus non facilisis. Aenean id turpis id dolor semper commodo ut eu metus. Nam at mauris in lorem tristique semper. Pellentesque nec egestas tortor. Sed mollis sem sapien, at ultricies est consequat sit amet. Curabitur sed varius turpis, vel efficitur eros. Pellentesque viverra hendrerit libero, in pharetra tortor rutrum at. Phasellus in sapien feugiat, vestibulum nibh eget, facilisis orci. Nulla facilisi.
In sit amet nunc magna. Nulla quis sapien eget ante mollis ultricies. Nulla vitae facilisis diam, sed dignissim neque. Sed leo neque, ullamcorper at pellentesque eu, euismod id lorem. Aliquam ac odio ut nulla placerat tempor ut id libero. Cras dignissim ac ipsum ut lobortis. Praesent vitae velit vitae sem eleifend dignissim. Sed eu felis quis libero volutpat rhoncus sit amet vitae justo. Nulla vel nibh euismod, pulvinar lorem sed, congue neque. Cras pretium tempor elit vel molestie. Proin vehicula pulvinar sem, a tempus arcu iaculis et. Nulla quis nisl metus. Pellentesque elit mi, accumsan nec vestibulum nec, sodales quis enim.
Aenean scelerisque felis non tellus vulputate pharetra. Vestibulum finibus sem interdum, molestie leo vel, tristique tellus. Maecenas at volutpat diam, pellentesque finibus felis. Aenean dictum aliquet enim, a rhoncus felis dignissim id. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Suspendisse consectetur neque eget massa rhoncus, vitae euismod quam imperdiet. Sed ultrices blandit eros sed sodales. Pellentesque interdum, nibh id consectetur facilisis, arcu metus sodales nunc, eget fermentum ipsum lacus sit amet neque. Ut nec metus sed velit elementum sodales. Suspendisse magna ligula, hendrerit eget laoreet sed, consequat ut urna. Curabitur convallis orci sed turpis porta, et bibendum augue malesuada.
Mauris eget sapien sit amet orci finibus elementum et quis ante. Aliquam interdum tincidunt elit eu hendrerit. Nullam nunc libero, efficitur ut urna vel, hendrerit iaculis purus. Suspendisse potenti. Maecenas a justo tortor. Duis finibus, lacus a interdum bibendum, massa neque vulputate dui, quis finibus lacus leo ac nisl. Proin id mattis est, at rhoncus augue. Nunc nisi leo, tempus in velit ac, fringilla mattis nulla.
Etiam pulvinar pellentesque libero, ut commodo urna pellentesque ac. In feugiat erat sed turpis imperdiet facilisis. Morbi est leo, consectetur eu porta id, fermentum non sem. Vivamus risus dolor, sodales sed lorem quis, mattis consectetur elit. Nullam elit mauris, imperdiet vitae lobortis eu, bibendum sit amet enim. In leo mi, hendrerit non urna quis, hendrerit maximus ipsum. Sed at lacus eget arcu elementum ullamcorper ullamcorper eu eros.
Sed vestibulum massa in nisl tristique, at rhoncus enim tempus. In sollicitudin posuere malesuada. Fusce vitae pharetra risus. Nunc ac varius neque. Vivamus varius ac turpis a tincidunt. Vestibulum magna enim, gravida ac finibus vel, varius id leo. Ut porta, mi eget porttitor imperdiet, justo nunc pharetra lectus, in interdum augue tortor a nisl.
Cras volutpat velit id orci ultrices auctor. Aliquam gravida diam quis erat ultrices, a dapibus risus sagittis. Nullam id auctor nunc. Interdum et malesuada fames ac ante ipsum primis in faucibus. Fusce vehicula sed purus vitae tristique. Morbi mi magna, sodales vel felis vel, malesuada vehicula velit. Pellentesque leo tellus, viverra a dapibus non, elementum vel velit. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aliquam augue ex, luctus eu arcu eget, luctus tristique risus. Donec tincidunt arcu vitae quam tristique, sit amet convallis ex bibendum. Cras sit amet tincidunt augue. Nullam commodo nibh erat, eget porta libero ultricies vel.

og-default

Test: Members Only Post

Test Topic

Why are Americans spending so much on the healthcare industry but not getting any healthier? In the latest 5-minute video for PragerU, Johns Hopkins Medical School Professor Dr. Marty Makary breaks down the reasons Americans aren&#8217;t getting any healthier, and how to reverse the trend. 
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" class="size-medium wp-image-51035 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2021/06/Screen-Shot-2021-06-15-at-2.26.58-PM-768x435-1-300x170.png" alt="" width="300" height="170" srcset="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2021/06/Screen-Shot-2021-06-15-at-2.26.58-PM-768x435-1-300x170.png 300w, https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2021/06/Screen-Shot-2021-06-15-at-2.26.58-PM-768x435-1.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" /></div>
Makary, author of “The Price We Pay: What Broke American Healthcare And How To Fix It,” says there are two major reasons why the U.S. simply isn’t getting any healthier — even though we pay exorbitant prices for healthcare. 
First, argues Makary, we fail to pay enough attention to our own health, even though it&#8217;s our greatest asset. Second, doctors don&#8217;t give enough focus to patients&#8217; basic needs. &#8220;The healthcare system rewards us for doing things to people, not for people,&#8221; says Makary. 
Americans have &#8220;a very expensive system to treat the most obese, medicated, comorbid population in the world,&#8221; he says. 
For example, the number of drugs prescribed by doctors has doubled over the last ten years, and the rate of newly diagnosed Type-2 diabetes cases has increased by 4.8% per year. And during the pandemic, more than 78% of people hospitalized in the U.S. were either overweight or obese.
“So, what does the future look like,” asks Makary. “More sickness? More procedures? And more pills at an ever-increasing cost? Well, if we keep doing the same things we&#8217;ve been doing that haven&#8217;t worked for the last twenty-five years, the answer is yes.”
He says &#8220;most people with Type-2 diabetes can come off their insulin simply by changing what they eat,&#8221; adding that, &#8220;when disease can be cured by a lifestyle change, medication should be the last resort.&#8221;
“This requires a partnership between doctor and patient. Both have to make a commitment to get to the underlying cause of disease rather than simply treat symptoms,” says Makary. 
Makary says that he and a &#8220;new wave of healthcare professionals&#8221; have been working on this approach.
Imagine healthcare professionals who treat diabetes with cooking classes, not just with insulin, or who treat back pain with ice, stretching, and physical therapy, rather than just with surgery by itself, says Makary. “We&#8217;re treating high blood pressure with healthy foods, yoga classes, stress management, and better sleep, instead of just putting people on pills,” he says. 
&#8220;America has the finest healthcare system in the world, the most skilled doctors, the most advanced diagnostic and surgical techniques. It&#8217;s there if you need it,&#8221; he says. &#8220;The trick is to reduce the odds that you will need it. That&#8217;s not your doctor&#8217;s responsibility. That&#8217;s not the government&#8217;s responsibility. That&#8217;s yours.&#8221;
WATCH: 
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KXUN2u0QPkQ" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" data-mce-fragment="1"></iframe>
<a href="https://www.prageru.com/">Prager University</a> is the world’s leading conservative nonprofit that is focused on changing minds through the creative use of digital media. Taking full advantage of today’s technology and social media, we educate millions of Americans and young people about the values that make America great.
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

Screen-Shot-2021-06-15-at-2.26.58-PM-768×435

WATCH: Why Aren’t Americans Getting Any Healthier?

On Monday, Democrat Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, a leading contender to challenge GOP governor Ron DeSantis in 2022, claimed in a radio interview that DeSantis was seeking a “race war and a cultural war&#8221; because he has staunchly opposed the teaching of Critical Race Theory in public schools.
Fried was <a href="https://news.wjct.org/programs/first-coast-connect-melissa-ross">speaking</a> on WJCT-FM’s “First Coast Connect” about the Florida Board of Education deciding to ban the teaching of Critical Race Theory in public schools when she stated, “This is another opportunity for the governor to create a race war and cultural war, inside of our state.”
“I want everybody to rest assured,” she boasted. “First of all, critical race theory is the new bogeyman of the Republican Party. It’s not something that’s taught in the state of Florida. But we need to let our teachers do their jobs and that’s teach. This governor and this Board of Education who (sic) is, again, appointed solely by Republican governors like Ron DeSantis and the previous governor as well, it is not their job to tell our teachers how to — sure, there’s parameters (and) policies, but this is a time when they have overstepped once again, government is stepping in to the job of educating, and not the teachers.”
“This is, again, a bogeyman the Governor is pushing out there,” she repeated. “This thought that doesn’t exist, but just again, to put fear into the people’s minds. He did it intentionally, not because there’s a worry about something like this, but to create a culture war in our state. And I know people in our state are smarter than this and aren’t going to fall for this political rhetoric that is being spewed by Ron DeSantis and the Republican Party.”
Republican Governors’ Association spokesperson Joanna Rodriguez blasted Fried, asserting, “Nikki Fried’s accusations against the Governor aren’t just desperate, they’re dangerous. Fried has shown repeatedly that she’s incapable of being truthful about pretty much anything. Her resorting to lies and malicious manipulations on her own liberal biography and views on critical race theory are just more of the same,” <a href="https://floridapolitics.com/archives/435657-crt-fried-desantis-war/?utm_source=dlvr.it&amp;utm_medium=twitter">Florida Politics</a> reported.
Prior to the Board of Education’s vote, DeSantis <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/gov-ron-desantis-promises-to-oppose-any-fl-school-board-candidates-who-support-critical-race-theory">had said bluntly</a>, “Next week, I have my Commissioner of Education going to the Board of Education banning it, banning any departure from accurate history and following our standards. This is something we’ve got to stay on the forefront of. “We’re also … not going to support any Republican candidate for school board who supports critical race theory in all 67 counties or supports mandatory masking of schoolchildren. … We are going to get the Florida political apparatus involved so we can make sure there’s not a single school board member, Republican, whoever indulges critical race theory.”
DeSantis had also said previously, “Some of the nonsense that you see in some of these places around the country, I mean, they will attack cops with this type of ideology in schools, and meanwhile, they have like 87% of the kids that aren’t even literate in some of these schools. So it shows you they’re not trying to educate; they’re trying to indoctrinate. We’re not going to let that come to Florida. And so I’m glad that they acted. I think it’s the right thing to do. We’re going to make sure that we’re providing access to education, but solid education, free of some of this ideology that people are trying to shove down everybody’s throats.”
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/subscribe">member</a>.

479ED750-8F1B-426B-918C-B026C2A70336-768×432

DeSantis Staunchly Opposes Critical Race Theory In Schools. Opponent Rants He’s Seeking A ‘Race War’

Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown criticized Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and her presidential campaign on Sunday for ignoring her home state of California in favor of campaigning in early primary states.
&#8220;It is a difficult task for her because she has not concentrated at all on California,&#8221; Brown said while appearing on CBS SF Bay Area. &#8220;Whoever is managing her campaign, in my opinion, will not do it the way that it should have been done.&#8221;
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bEOWx39tPo8" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
&#8220;Clearly, you have ought to develop the ability to be the favorite son or daughter in the state from which you come,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;Which is the way that it was in the olden times when we were selecting people.&#8221;
Brown&#8217;s remarks come roughly a week after new polls reveal that the California senator has drastically lost support in her own home state. A poll of likely primary voters <a href="https://www.kqed.org/news/11774909/kamala-harris-slips-in-a-new-california-poll-warren-sanders-biden-on-top">commissioned by KQED</a> found that Harris slipped into fourth place in the presidential race behind former vice president Joe Biden and Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in the Golden State, receiving only 11% support.
Days later, Emerson released <a href="https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/california-2020-biden-sanders-warren-in-statistical-tie-in-democratic-primary-harris-struggles-in-home-state">a separate poll</a> that placed Harris in fifth place, slipping even farther behind entrepreneur Andrew Yang and receiving only 6% of the vote.
&#8220;Senator Kamala Harris is in trouble in her home state,&#8221; Emerson Polling Director Spencer Kimball said of the poll. &#8220;If she is unable to gain momentum in Iowa or New Hampshire, come Super Tuesday she might have a similar fate to Senator Marco Rubio in 2016 when he was unable to win his home state of Florida and dropped out of the race.&#8221;
&#8220;She needed to concentrate on [sic] that incredible send off that she got in the announcement time back in February in Oakland,&#8221; Brown continued. &#8220;It was dramatic, clearly, and three or four continuous visits here would have placed her at the top of the food chain.&#8221;
Harris kicked off her presidential campaign to a reported crowd of more than 20,000 supporters. The launch was one of the most widely attended events for any 2020 Democratic presidential contender to date.
&#8220;Ignoring California, not deliberately, but doing all you can to be known in other places, causes you not to be doing things at home,&#8221; Brown added.
Harris and the former San Francisco mayor notably had an extra-marital affair more than two decades ago, which helped to launch the Democratic lawmaker&#8217;s own political career.
When Harris was 30 years old, she dated Brown, who is three decades her senior. At the time, Brown was serving as the Democratic speaker of the California Assembly and appointed her to the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and later to the the California Medical Assistance Commission.
While both positions were considered to be powerful and high-paying positions in the state, the latter has been criticized as &#8220;a landing spot for patronage jobs and kickbacks,&#8221; according to <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/kamala-harris-launched-political-career-with-120k-patronage-job-from-boyfriend-willie-brown">The Washington Examiner</a>.

Israeli Palestinian panel

WATCH: Former SF Mayor Willie Brown Slams Kamala Harris’ Campaign Strategy As She Loses Steam In The Golden State

2020 Election

California

Kamala Harris

gettyimages-1158530010

This should break the site due to a linked image from a post in the trash

Sixteen-year-old Swedish climate &#8220;activist&#8221; alarmist Greta Thunberg is all the rage right now. Thunberg, who has indubitably benefited from no shortage of formal public communication training, <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1176149492698992641">speaks</a> with the moral certitude and dripping condescension so characteristic of the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/51556/hammer-bernies-pagan-support-child-sacrifice-josh-hammer">broader pagan cult</a> that is &#8220;climate change&#8221; alarmism. Oppose the proposed totalitarian, socialist &#8220;remedies&#8221; for such a purported pandemic and one is called a &#8220;climate denier&#8221; at best — or a depraved madman at worst. While evidence is thus far lacking, the <a href="https://www.tellerreport.com/tech/greta-thunberg--how-big-is-the-influence-of-your-mentor-.S1bXoGcuV.html">circumstantial totality</a> suggests the real possibility that, much like the well-organized Left during the Kavanaugh confirmation imbroglio, there may be a <a href="https://theresurgent.com/2019/09/24/not-to-put-too-fine-a-point-on-it-but/">&#8220;well-orchestrated and well-funded P.R. campaign&#8221;</a> here whose over-arching goal is the shaming of free market-oriented dissenters into submission at the pagan altar of enviro-statism.
The notion that policymakers ought to consider proposing policy due to the fraught and hysterical pleas of a 16-year-old is, naturally, <a href="https://theresurgent.com/2019/09/24/we-should-not-set-global-policy-based-on-a-16-year-old-with-a-developmental-disorder/">insane</a>. And the use of Thunberg herself — who <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/this-greta-thunberg-thing-is-child-abuse">apparently began suffering</a> from depression as a child — as the leading global enviro-statist prop is, as Amanda Prestigiacomo put it, downright unethical.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">What Greta Thunberg&#8217;s stage parents are doing to her is unethical. <a href="https://t.co/3gluUhS8LN">https://t.co/3gluUhS8LN</a> <a href="https://t.co/GRvqvsZ9Ad">pic.twitter.com/GRvqvsZ9Ad</a>
— Amanda Prestigiacomo (@AmandaPresto) <a href="https://twitter.com/AmandaPresto/status/1176536341187878913?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 24, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
My Daily Wire colleague Matt Walsh is correct that the deification of Thunberg amounts to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/52151/walsh-greta-thunberg-child-abuse-victim-matt-walsh">child abuse</a>. Indeed, the use of Thunberg as an emotionally compelling prop for zealous socialists foaming at the mouth for any excuse to enact anti-capitalistic policy ought to harken us all back to the last time leftists glommed onto malleable teenagers for use as political props: The aftermath of the school shooting in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/27443/watch-dana-loesch-called-murderer-cnn-gun-control-james-barrett">Parkland, Florida</a>. Then, as now, the Left cynically decided that the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/17662/stop-alinskyization-american-right-josh-hammer">easiest means</a> by which to accomplish its ends was via the public trotting out of minors as spokespersons to emotionally manipulate a gullible public.
But such a tendentious use of minors for the promotion and advancement of a political agenda is not just wrong. It is affirmatively evil.
One can tell a lot about a society by how it treats children. In the United States, the eradication of mass legalized child labor via the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act represents that rare FDR/New Deal-era policy achievement about which even conservatives can be proud. Contrast that with the <a href="https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/worst-countries-for-child-labor.html">ubiquitous child labor</a> that still exists in much of the Third World, and one sees a paradigmatic example of what sets apart the more advanced from the more barbaric civilizations. The darker <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/48-hours-live-to-tell-inside-the-world-of-child-sex-trafficking-and-ashton-kutchers-high-tech-approach-to-saving-victims/">world of child sex trafficking</a> is, of course, far more harrowing still.
The <a href="https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199791231/obo-9780199791231-0161.xml">innocence of children</a> is something that every proper society ought to cherish and nourish. Tim Lott <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/may/10/what-is-childhood-innocence">described</a> well this sort of innocence for The Guardian in 2013: &#8220;Innocence goes deeper than ignorance. It is some mysterious operation of the imagination, the part that can enter into mental universes from which one is soon to be forever excluded.&#8221; Societies that aim to maintain the pristine nature of childhood — with its lack of adult responsibility, simplicity, carefree nature, and purity all remaining intact — are societies that ought to be lauded. Societies that disabuse children of their innocence and foist upon children the responsibilities and sundry pitfalls of adulthood are societies that ought to be chastised. Even Hollywood, with its longstanding lionization of the child actor, is worthy of no small amount of scorn.
By all means, teenagers ought to be encouraged to think deeply about issues of global importance. They ought to be encouraged to educate themselves on current events and begin the slow, lifelong process of discovering the nature of truth. But to cynically prop up a teenager as an avatar for a political movement so as to better emotionally manipulate the masses as to the correctness of your political position is no act of valiance. It is an act of cowardice, an act of innocence deprival, an act of evil.

In this photo illustration an abc News logo seen displayed

HAMMER: Using Children To Advance Your Political Agenda Isn’t Just Wrong. It’s Evil.

U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Dr. Ben Carson has defended his promoted policy of barring transgender men from lodging at battered women&#8217;s shelters.
Last week, Democrats unilaterally blasted Ben Carson when HUD staffers revealed he said during a private meeting that &#8220;transgender people should get the same rights as everyone else, but they don’t get to change things for everybody else.&#8221; Carson also said that shelter leaders and women&#8217;s groups said they do not want &#8220;big, hairy men&#8221; staying at the shelters. Democrats were so incensed by Carson&#8217;s comments that they immediately began calling for him to be removed as HUD secretary.
&#8220;Shameful. These derogatory comments by Secretary Carson are part of a long pattern that shows his disregard for the transgender community. It’s simply unacceptable,&#8221; said Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA).
Speaking to Tucker Carlson on his Fox News program Friday night, Carson said that he never meant to imply that transgender men have no rights — only that they do not get special rights.
&#8220;I simply pointed out the fact that, you know, we have to have policies that take into consideration everybody’s rights,&#8221; Carson said, as reported by <a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/nobody-gets-extra-rights-carson-defends-protecting-women-in-shelters-from-gender-confused-men">LifeSiteNews</a>. &#8220;I say everybody has equal rights; nobody gets extra rights.&#8221;
Carson added that his assertions were in line with some women&#8217;s groups that have expressed concern with having transgender men lodge in those shelters.
&#8220;I talked about some of the women&#8217;s groups who have come to me, and I’ve had many in my office, and they say they are uncomfortable with the policy in existence, which says you must accept a person&#8217;s designation of their gender regardless of their physical characteristics,&#8221; Carson continued. &#8220;What we&#8217;ve decided to do, first of all we’ve upheld the 2012 equal access law; we have no intention of changing that, but in terms of that broad definition of gender being whatever you say it is, we said we&#8217;re going to leave that to the local jurisdictions.&#8221;
The Obama administration originally put in place the policy that says battered women&#8217;s shelters must accept transgender men without regard to appearance, anatomy, or the &#8220;complaints of other shelter residents.&#8221; Carson told Carlson on Friday that the federal government has no business telling people who run shelters for battered women how to conduct themselves.
&#8220;If you have a women&#8217;s shelter and you’ve been operating well, you get to decide how you&#8217;re going to run it, the federal government doesn&#8217;t need to be telling people who is a man and who is a woman,&#8221; said Carson. &#8220;That&#8217;s a decision they can make by themselves.&#8221;
&#8220;And I quoted a group that came to me, and they were very upset, and they said, you know, a big hairy man came in here and he says he’s a woman, and that upsets us because many of us are trying to escape that,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;But the political correctness says you have to say what we want you to say, and that will destroy freedom of speech. And I’ve offered transgender groups the opportunity to let me know what their solution would be so that everybody’s rights are observed. I haven’t heard one peep.&#8221;

Seconds mattered: How the response at Parkland went wrong in 11 minutes

Ben Carson Defends Position On Barring Transgender Men From Battered Women’s Shelters

Ben Carson

LGBT

Political Correctness

Transgender

Tucker Carlson

On Thursday, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders slammed American Urban Radio Networks&#8217; White House Correspondent April Ryan after she claimed to know Sanders&#8217; feelings about President Donald Trump&#8217;s legal strategy.
Sanders shot down an absurd notion from Ryan, who is also a political analyst for CNN, explaining to her that the White House press office does not talk to the president’s legal team about their legal strategy.
Ryan then claimed that Sanders was “blindsided” by Rudy Guiliani’s interview last night on Fox News in which he said that Trump reimbursed $130,000 to Trump&#8217;s personal lawyer Michael Cohen for his payment to Stormy Daniels.
“You said yourself you were blindsided,” Ryan claimed.
“I didn’t use that term,” Sanders replied.
“Well, I said it, but you were blindsided by what you said,” Ryan obnoxiously continued.
“Well, with all due respect, you actually don’t know much about me in terms of what I feel and what I don’t,” Sanders shot back.
WATCH:
<div class="embed video fluid-video">
<blockquote data-lang="en">.<a href="https://twitter.com/PressSec?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@PressSec</a> to reporter April Ryan: &#8220;With all due respect, you actually don&#8217;t know much about me.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/xXz1w91pyo">pic.twitter.com/xXz1w91pyo</a>
— Fox News (@FoxNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/992118689527934977?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 3, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>

WATCH: Sarah Sanders Torches Obnoxious April Ryan

This is another boring title

Michael Cohen

Rudy Giuliani

Sarah Huckabee Sanders

Donald J. Trump is a real estate mogul and television personality who in 2016 pulled off a historic political upset over the &#8220;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/upshot/hillary-clinton-and-inevitability-this-time-is-different.html">inevitable</a>&#8221; Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Trump was born in Queens, New York on June 14, 1946 and received his bachelor&#8217;s from Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He has been married three times, first to Ivana Trump (1977-1992), then to Mara Maples (1993-1999), and finally to Slovenia-born fashion model Melania Trump in 2005. From those marriages have sprung Trump’s children: Donald Jr., Ivanka, Eric, Tiffany, and Barron.
Trump&#8217;s Business Empire: Over the decades Trump built a global business empire, largely based on his real estate ventures, which include luxury hotels, resorts, and golf clubs. He owns or is stakeholder in properties in several states, <a href="http://www.investopedia.com/updates/donald-trump-companies/">including</a> in California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia. He has started several businesses, some of which have flourished and others which have folded, like the for-profit Trump University, which during the 2016 campaign was beset by multiple lawsuits claiming fraud that were settled for <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/31/522199535/judge-approves-25-million-settlement-of-trump-university-lawsuit">$25 million</a> soon after he became president in 2017. In addition to his properties, Trump sells or has sold, ties, wine, steaks, and a wide range of other products. In February 2017, Forbes estimated Trump&#8217;s net worth at around <a href="https://www.forbes.com/donald-trump/#1828ebe32899">$3.5 billion</a>. However, Trump estimates his own net worth at around three times that number — &#8220;in excess of $10 billion dollars&#8221; — among other things, citing his personal brand as being far more valuable than Forbes maintains.
The 2016 Election: From the start, Trump’s unorthodox campaign was marked by controversy, in large part because of his refusal to obey the strictures of political correctness. Among the controversies, was his comment that many of those crossing the border illegally are &#8220;rapists&#8221; (a reference to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html">reports</a> that a large percentage of unaccompanied minors from Central and South America are raped on the journey to the U.S.). He also called for a temporary “Muslim ban,” arguing for a halt on admission of immigrants and refugees from the terrorism-plagued countries in the Middle East until better vetting procedures are installed. Trump’s personal attacks on his opponents, both on the left and right, likewise earned him criticism. The result of the unprecedented campaign was widespread dismissal of Trump’s chances by political insiders, pundits, and pollsters alike.
Donald Trump became the 45th President of the United States on January 20, 2017. His defeat of Clinton on November 8, 2016, in which he garnered 306 electoral votes compared to Clinton&#8217;s 232, is arguably the biggest upset in the history of the U.S. presidential election. Though polling groups and the national media had almost uniformly <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/10660/just-how-wrong-were-pollsters-final-polls-vs-final-james-barrett">projected</a> Clinton to defeat Trump rather easily, by a little after 9 p.m. EST on election night, The New York Times&#8216; projection of the winner flipped on its head. By the end of the night, Trump&#8217;s &#8220;Make America Great Again&#8221; campaign won over most of the Rust Belt and the key swing states, including Florida, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
How old is Donald Trump? Donald Trump was born on June 14, 1946.
How much is Donald Trump’s net worth? According to Forbes, Donald Trump’s net-worth was <a href="https://www.forbes.com/donald-trump/#1828ebe32899">$3.5 billion</a> in 2017. Around the same time, Donald Trump estimated his own net worth at over $10 billion.
How did Donald Trump make his money? Donald Trump made his money primarily through various real estate ventures, including luxury hotels, resorts, casinos, and golf clubs.
How many times has Donald Trump been married? Donald Trump has been married three times: to Ivana Trump (1977-1992), then to Mara Maples (1993-1999), and finally to Slovenia-born fashion model Melania Trump in 2005.
Who are Donald Trump’s children? Donald Trump has five children: Donald Trump Jr. (b. 1977), Ivanka Trump (b. 1981), Eric Trump (b. 1984), Tiffany Trump (b. 1993), and Barron Trump (b. 2006).

Menu