Liz Cheney Was A Primary Culprit Of Spreading Fake News On Russian Bounties To Undermine Trump

U.S. intelligence agencies debunked on Thursday what was treated as blockbuster election-year reporting last summer of an anonymously sourced story in The New York Times claiming the Kremlin placed bounties on American troops in Afghanistan.

President Donald Trump, went the tale, deliberately downplayed the aggression to appease Russia and accelerate the timeline to withdraw U.S. forces. Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, currently number three in House leadership, was a primary purveyor of the fake news.

“The United States intelligence community assesses with low to moderate confidence that Russian intelligence officers sought to encourage Taliban attacks on U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan in 2019 and perhaps earlier,” a senior administration official said, according to the readout of a call with reporters in the Daily Beast.

Officials said their conclusion of “low to moderate confidence” in the story, which effectively means it’s at best unproven and potentially false, came “in part because it relies on detainee reporting,” an often unreliable source of intelligence on which to base such explosive claims.

As the story picked up traction in the corporate press, however, Cheney appeared to sense a prime opportunity to capitalize on what was treated as a scandal, to not only undermine Trump, but also justify a prolonged military presence in the region while the administration took steps to pull out. Neither to Cheney, nor legacy media, appeared to hesitate due to the claims’ poor sourcing.

The viral public post below generated a series of news stories in major publications including Axios and The Hill, and was cited in dozens of others while catching airtime on national networks as an admonishment to the president of her own party.

Two days later, Politico, in an article titled, “Cheney takes on Trump,” wrote, “in her latest rebuke of Trump, Cheney openly questioned whether the president was aware of reports that the Russians offered Afghan militants bounties to kill U.S. troops and demanded the administration take a more aggressive posture toward the Kremlin.”

Cheney was persistent in pushing the story, much to the frustration of colleagues and even allies on Capitol Hill as she continued an inner-party crusade against the president in an election year from her position as House conference chair.

On June 29, Cheney released a joint statement with Texas Republican Rep. Mac Thornberry perpetuating the claims U.S. intelligence eventually conceded were a fake news story after Trump left office.

“After today’s briefing with senior White House officials, we remain concerned about Russian activity in Afghanistan, including reports that they have targeted U.S. forces. It has been clear for some time that Russia does not wish us well in Afghanistan,” they wrote. “We anticipate further briefings on this issue in the coming days.”

Cheney also pursued an ulterior motive to advance an interventionist foreign policy by amplifying the story alongside Democrats, as chronicled here by Glenn Greenwald in the Intercept. The at-large Wyoming congresswoman capitalized on the report of Russian bounties to sponsor an amendment with Colorado Democratic Rep. Jason Crow to prevent the White House from reducing the number of troops in Afghanistan to below 8,000, action the Trump administration was actively preparing to finalize.

The legislation didn’t pass, and the president ultimately followed through on the troop draw-down post-election. This earned him endless scorn in the same press that celebrated President Joe Biden when the Democrat commander-in-chief announced this week all troops would leave the war-torn country after two decades.

Cheney’s office did not respond to The Federalist’s request for comment on whether she now regrets fueling a narrative now debunked.

Cheney, who also angered colleagues when she undermined the conference she chairs with her support for Trump’s second impeachment in January, now faces a primary in her home state after she survived a House Republican referendum on her position in leadership. Since the vote, an emboldened Cheney has escalated her attempts to spark a GOP civil war by purging the party of Trumpism toreturn to the Bush-era Republicanism of a decade ago.

“It’s very important, especially for us as Republicans, to make clear that we aren’t the party of white supremacy,” she said at the Reagan Institute in February, detailing the pre-planned events at the Capitol in January as broadly representative of the GOP. “You certainly saw antisemitism. You saw the symbols of Holocaust denial. … You saw a Confederate flag being carried through the rotunda. We, as Republicans in particular, have a duty and an obligation to stand against that, to stand against insurrection.”

The remarks were carried by the corporate press as forceful comments from an invigorated congresswoman pledging to reclaim the party by joining leftists in their rhetoric to paint the GOP as riddled with white supremacy.

While Cheney feuds with her own party, the congresswoman with a coveted role in leadership has shown little interest in standing up for party colleagues who face egregious conduct from a hostile press as the new normal. On Sunday, Cheney appeared on CBS, the same network that carried out a hit piece on Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis that drew bipartisan disdain, and said nothing of its defamatory smear against the governor.


University Of Oregon Paid ‘1619 Project’ Writer Nikole Hannah-Jones $25K To Lecture On ‘Systemic Racism’

The University of Oregon’s School of Journalism and Communication paid New York Times journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, the writer behind the anti-historical “1619 Project,” for a Zoom lecture in February on “1619 and the Legacy that Built a Nation,” as first reported by Campus Reform.

Hannah-Jones raked in $25,000, evident by a Freedom of Information Request filed by Campus Reform. The Feb. 19 event was co-sponsored by the university’s Office of the President, Office of the Provost, and Division of Equity and Inclusion, among other groups.

The organization that was paid by The University of Oregon was the Lavin Agency, as shown by the FOIA. The agency defines itself as “the world’s largest intellectual talent agency, representing leading thinkers for speaking engagements, personal appearances, consulting, and endorsements.” The group also offers the likes of Margaret Atwood, leftist activist Angela Davis, Khan Academy Chief Executive Officer Salman Khan, climate writer Naomi Klein, and other big names.

The “1619 Project” writer discussed why Americans need to “remain vigilant” while fighting for “racial inequality.” A promotional flyer for the event claimed there is a “lasting legacy of Black enslavement on the nation.”

“As the lead writer for New York Times Magazine’s the “1619 Project,’ a major viral multimedia initiative observing the 400th anniversary of the first African slaves arriving in America, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones explores the lasting legacy of Black enslavement on the nation—specifically, how Black Americans pushed for the democracy we have today,” the flyer read.

Last week, Hulu announced it will stream the “1619 Project,” which Lionsgate studios and Oprah Winfrey partnered to fund this summer. Hulu praised the project by Hannah-Jones in a press release as “a landmark undertaking … of the brutal racism that endures in so many aspects of American life today.” Hannah-Jones won a Pulitzer Prize for her project — which has been debunked by several historians for its pushing of the false premise that America was both founded in 1619 and that the Revolutionary War was fought to sustain slavery.

“[I]t would not surprise me in the slightest if the university is actively attempting to hide its embrace of radicalism,” Oregon Federation of College Republicans Chairman Ben Ehrlich said to Campus Reform.

John Large, a spokesman for the Lane County Republicans where the university is located, told The Federalist that “The University of Oregon is so damned two-faced that if a conservative went to the campus, they would go ahead and throw them guys out.”

According to a document put out by the university, the event was not permitted to be recorded or redistributed.


Jorge Ramos: U.S. Must Double Immigration

Mexican-born TV personality Jorge Ramos says the American people cannot stop migration and must instead open their homeland’s borders to a huge and endless inflow of migrants.

“They will keep coming; there is no other solution,” he wrote in an April 2 column for the New York Times.

“All the other options — walls, detention facilities, family separation policies, forcing asylum seekers to wait in Mexico, expedited repatriations and mass deportations — have failed,” he claimed, without admitting that his favored president, Joe Biden, has been demolishing President Trump’s successful curbs of border immigration since January 20.

Trump’s curbs were so successful, so complete, that U.S. employers were forced to compete for workers by offering higher wages to recruit blue-collar Americans from other companies, retirement, or high-unemployment areas. “Men at the middle and bottom of the wage distribution saw their wages rise in 2019: a 2.6% increase at the 50th percentile and a striking 5.7% increase at the 10th percentile, along with a 4.2% increase at the 20th percentile,” according to the 2019 yearly report of the left-wing Economic Policy Institute.

Without economic data to support his elitist criticism of Trump, Ramos — and the editors at the New York Times — resorted to insults and declarations of historical inevitability.

Trump’s wage-raising policies are “inhuman and repressive,” said the Mexican-born immigrant, who would gain wealth and status from an inflow of Spanish-speaking TV-watchers.

“The struggle is real, but we know how it has to end, with more legal immigration. As they say in Mexico, “No hay de otra” — There is no other way,” he said.

The “United States should start accepting between one and a half and two million authorized immigrants every year,” he said, without noting that his plan would add one immigrant for every two Americans born each year.

However, Ramos seems to be unfamiliar with Americans’ labor-saving technology — such as robot-fruit pickers. For example, he insists that migrants are needed because Americans cannot make babies or run their own country, which he also argues is actually a country for migrants, not Americans:

The United States is a nation of immigrants, and … it’s going to need a lot more migrants to support the nation’s beleaguered economy, replace its growing population of retired workers and make up for the country’s low birthrate. Our immigration system desperately needs to be updated to face these challenges.

Ramos also seems unaware of international trade, which — if done right — allows the United States to help people in developing countries to gain wealth by selling to people in richer countries, while the people in wealthier countries — such as America — concentrate on rebuilding their middle-classes by focusing on higher-tech, higher-wage work.

Ramos also appears to be unaware of life beyond Mexico and Central America — such as India and Africa — where billions of people live in poverty. He offers no reason why people from Mexico or Central America should be able to claim more of a right to take up residence in Ramos’ American zip-code than would-be migrants from Yemen, Egypt, Vietnam, or Bhutan.

Ramos is also oblivious to the damage migration has done to Central Americans countries. In reality, corrupt governments can stay in power because Biden and U.S. business groups are quietly importing the young men and women who would take to the streets in Central America to demand low-corruption democracy.

America’s exploitative policy of “extraction migration” ended in 2019 when Trump forced Mexico’s government to adopt popular low-migration changes. But Trump’s wealth-sharing policy of wage preservation and trade is now being ditched by Biden — amid cheerleading from Wall Street, Ramos, and other advocates of immigration.

This cruel and destructive policy of human extraction was sketched in an April 1 report from Guatemala in the Washington Post:

In the northwestern town of Cuilco last year, an unprecedented snowstorm wiped out acres of cornfields, devastating both the area’s labor market and its source of food in a single blow. Celso, 16, had a conversation with his father as the family of five struggled to piece together three meals a day. As the oldest son, he was seen as bearing responsibility for the family.

“We both decided that I should go to help,” he said.

Celso arrived in South Florida in January. He owed his smuggler $8,000, so he began cutting plywood at a construction site for $10.50 per hour, rather than attending high school. He’s studying English at night.

But Ramos used his op-ed to align himself the ruling elite of the country he was born in:

President Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico has said that, according to his calculations, “The U.S. economy is going to need between 600,000 and 800,000 workers per year,” and that it would be good to reach an immigration agreement with the United States so that those essential people can enter the country legally instead of risking their lives trying to cross the border. He’s right.

Ramos’ push for increased migration is also an appeal to economic and political U.S. elites to override the legitimate preferences of Americans — including many of the Latino migrants.

Those elites gain from an inflow of cheap and compliant labor that suppresses the wages of political power of their fellow Americans — although the elite do compete to pay inflated real-estate prices and education costs to protect their own children far from the diversity they proudly impose on Americans.

For many years, a wide variety of pollsters have shown deep and broad American opposition to legal migrationlabor migration, and the inflow of temporary contract workers into jobs sought by young U.S. graduates.

The multiracialcross-sexnon-racistclass-basedintra-Democrat, and solidarity-themed opposition to labor migration coexists with generally favorable personal feelings toward legal immigrants and toward immigration in theory — despite the media magnification of many skewed polls and articles still pushing the 1950s corporate “Nation of Immigrants” claim.

The deep public opposition is built on the widespread recognition that migration moves money from employees to employers, from families to investors, from young to old, from children to their parents, from homebuyers to real estate investors, and from the central states to the coastal states.


Hulu Hops On ‘Systemic Racism’ Train By Streaming 1619 Project Disinfo Docuseries

Hulu will stream a docuseries adaptation of the New York Times’ 1619 Project, which Lionsgate and Oprah Winfrey partnered this summer to fund.

The 1619 Project, a series of articles created by so-called journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, ahistorically claimed the year 1619 was the legitimate founding of the United States due to the importation of slaves.

The speculative project neglects the fact that America was founded as a constitutional republic in 1776 after sparring against the British monarchy. Hannah-Jones’s work went so far as to claim the Revolutionary War was fought to sustain slavery, even though it was factually fought between the 13 colonies and Great Britain over unnecessary taxation and a war for control of America.

A press release put out on Thursday by Hulu praises the 1619 Project as “a landmark undertaking … of the brutal racism that endures in so many aspects of American life today.” Hulu describes Jones in its press release as “one of the nation’s foremost investigative journalists.”

Hulu, majorly owned by the Walt Disney Company, has not yet announced when the project will be available. The first episode will be directed and produced by Roger Ross Williams, who was the first black director to take home an Academy Award for his 2010 documentary “Music by Prudence.” Williams said in a statement that the “systemic racism” the 1619 Project teaches “is an essential reframing of American history.”

“Our most cherished ideals and achievements cannot be understood without acknowledging both systemic racism and the contributions of Black Americans. And this isn’t just about the past — Black people are still fighting against both the legacy of this racism and its current incarnation,” said Williams.

While the New York Times has stood by its verifiably false reporting on the history of slavery, it altered its mission statement for the 1619 Project. The description for the series of articles in August 2019 sought to represent “1619 as our true founding,” while a description published on Sept. 18, 2020, deleted this phrasing.

Jones, who not shockingly won a Pulitzer Prize in 2020 by the left-leaning institution, claimed we need to “deprogram … millions of Americans, almost all white, almost all Republicans.”

Then-President Donald Trump signed an executive order in November 2020 to establish a “1776 Commission” to “instill patriotic education” and teach foundational American history. Moments after taking office, President Joe Biden removed the report from the official White House website and revoked the commission to guide civics education. School districts across the country have said in recent years they will use the flawed 1619 Project in schools.

The docuseries aims to communicate that America is systemically racist and comes at a time when the Marxist critical race theory is on the rise.


Matt Gaetz Denies Allegations of Sexual Relationship with 17-Year-Old Girl

Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz has denied allegations against him as a new report from the New York Times states he is under federal investigation for his sexual activity with women and a potential relationship with a 17-year-old girl.

Gaetz took to Twitter on Tuesday evening to dispel the allegations, shedding light on “an organized criminal extortion involving a former DOJ official seeking $25 million while threatening to smear my name.”

Gaetz also said he has “been cooperating with federal authorities in this matter,” telling his Twitter followers that his “father has even been wearing a wire at the FBI’s direction to catch these criminals.”

He also reiterated that “no part of the allegations against me are true, and the people pushing these lies are targets of the ongoing extortion investigation.”

“I demand the DOJ immediately release the tapes, made at their direction, which implicate their former colleague in crimes against me based on false allegations,” Gaetz concluded in another tweet.

According to the Times‘ report, the Justice Department is investigating whether Gaetz held a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girl and paid for her to travel with him, which he potentially crossed state lines to do.

The Times also noted its report stems from “three people briefed on the matter” and that the investigation was opened towards the end of Donald Trump’s presidency:

The three people said that the examination of Mr. Gaetz, 38, is part of a broader investigation into a political ally of his, a local official in Florida named Joel Greenberg, who was indicted last summer on an array of charges, including sex trafficking of a child and financially supporting people in exchange for sex, at least one of whom was an underage girl.

While no charges have been brought against Gaetz, he told the Washington Times that he and his attorneys have been in contact with the Justice Department, concluding that he is “not a target but a subject of an investigation regarding sexual conduct with women.”

“I only know that it has to do with women,” Gaetz said. “I have a suspicion that someone is trying to recategorize my generosity to ex-girlfriends as something more untoward.”

Gaetz also denied the allegations during a phone call with Axios, in which he said the claims “are as searing as they are false.”

“The allegations against me are as searing as they are false,” Gaetz told Axios. “I believe that there are people at the Department of Justice who are trying to criminalize my sexual conduct, you know when I was a single guy.”

Gaetz also said the specifics regarding the allegations are “unclear,” saying he has been told “very little.”

The Florida Congressman also stated that the allegations are “rooted in an extortion effort” against him and his family for $25 million.

“The allegations of sexual misconduct against me are false,” Gaetz added in his conversation with Axios. “They are rooted in an extortion effort against my family for $25 million … in exchange for making this case go away.”

In addition, Gaetz suggested he is “absolutely” confident that none of the women with whom he had relationships were underage.

Follow Kyle on Twitter @RealKyleMorris and Facebook.


Corporate Media Issue Dishonest ‘Fact Checks’ Of Trump-Era CDC Director Who Says COVID May Have Escaped From Wuhan Lab

Corporate media outlets are misconstruing former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield’s theories about the origins of COVID-19 after he said he doesn’t believe the virus outbreak began with transmission from a bat.

“I am of the point of view that I still think the most likely etiology of this pathogen in Wuhan was from a laboratory, you know, escaped,” Redfield told CNN in an interview. “Now, other people don’t believe that, that’s fine. Science will eventually figure it out. It’s not unusual for respiratory pathogens that are being worked on in the laboratory to infect the laboratory worker.”

The Chinese Communist Party has worked strenuously to suppress discussion of and investigation into this possibility. Corporate media outlets assisted that effort by taking issue with Redfield’s comments and issuing misdirected “fact checks” of a Wuhan lab theory separate from the virologist’s initial suggestion.

CBS News took the first swing at the Trump-era official in an article headlined “Former CDC chief says ‘most likely’ cause of coronavirus is that it ‘escaped’ from a lab.” While the article stated that “it’s too early to know for sure and investigations are ongoing” and clarified that Redfield does not think the virus was manmade, CBS devoted multiple paragraphs to airing the opinions and concerns of scientists and other “experts” who claimed that “none of (Redfield’s) comments” are “backed by available evidence” and that “there is ‘no evidence’ to suggest that [COVID-19] was created in a lab.”

One of the sources quoted in the article even claimed that Refield’s hypothesis is “‘counterproductive,’ especially given the rise in discrimination and violence against Asian Americans during the pandemic.”

The New York Times made a similar mistake in its coverage of Redfield’s comments, claiming that the former CDC director “favors debunked COVID-19 origin theory.”

“The C.D.C.’s ex-director offers no evidence in favoring speculation that the coronavirus originated in a lab,” the headline stated.

In the article, the Times quoted the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s statement claiming that the “Covid-19 virus was not man-made or genetically modified,” a theory Redfield did not discuss in his interview, to conclude that “intelligence agencies…had no evidence that the coronavirus had escaped from the lab” and that he was wrong.

The same statement from April 2020 that the Times relied on for this conclusion, however, clearly states that intelligence agencies “will continue to rigorously examine emerging information and intelligence to determine whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan.”

Corporate media outlets such as The Times and the Washington Post previously smeared Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas early in the pandemic, often claiming he was peddling conspiracy dangerous theories after he suggested the U.S. look into communist China’s attempts to cover up the origins of COVID-19.

“Since the start of this outbreak, I’ve maintained that animal-to-human transmission or a ‘good science, bad safety’ accidental breach in a lab studying coronavirus — like the one in Wuhan — are the most likely origin scenarios,” Cotton tweeted.

“Because of China’s duplicity and dishonesty from the beginning, we need to at least ask the question to see what the evidence says. And China right now is not giving any evidence on that question at all,” Cotton later added.


Federal Judge Accuses New York Times, Washington Post of ‘Shocking’ Bias Against Republicans

Judge Laurence Silberman accused the New York Times and Washington Post of being “Democratic Party broadsheets” in a dissenting opinion on Friday.

Washington, DC, federal appellate judge Laurence Silberman accused the New York Times and Washington Post, and to some extent the Wall Street Journal, of being mouthpieces for “rather shocking” bias against the Republican Party in a written opinion on Friday.

“The orientation of these three papers is followed by The Associated Press and most large papers across the country (such as the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe),” he said in the opinion. “Nearly all television—network and cable—is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along.”

Further, Judge Silberman wrote that Silicon Valley “also has an enormous influence over the distribution of news,” which “similarly filters news delivery in ways favorable to the Democratic Party.” He called Fox News, The New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal‘s editorial page “notable exceptions to Democratic Party ideological control,” though he admitted “a number of Fox’s commentators lean as far to the right as the commentators and reporters of the mainstream outlets lean to the left.”

“It is well-accepted that viewpoint discrimination ‘raises the specter that the Government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace,’” Silberman said. “But ideological homogeneity in the media—or in the channels of information distribution—risks repressing certain ideas from the public consciousness just as surely as if access were restricted by the government.”

“It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news,” Silberman added, saying “it is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy. It may even give rise to countervailing extremism.”

The judge said the Supreme Court should overturn New York Times v. Sullivan, the 1964 case holding that when the media discusses public figures, the outlet should be liable under state defamation laws only if the plaintiffs can prove “actual malice,” which the Court defined as the speaker either knowing the statement was false or making it in “reckless disregard for the truth.”

“The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace,” Silberman concluded. “And when the media has proven its willingness—if not eagerness—to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press’ power.”

The case is Tah v. Global Witness Publishing, Inc., No. 19-7132 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.


Merciless Teen Vogue Staffers Are Not An Outlier, They’re The Future Of Newsrooms

Make no mistake, the journalists at Teen Vogue will soon be in charge of every legacy newsroom. The shortsighted media establishment haplessly fueled its own destruction and there’s little recourse.

This week, Alexi McCammond lost her job as editor-in-chief of Teen Vogue because the outlet’s staff couldn’t get over tweets she sent as a teenager which, as the New York Times put it, “included comments on the appearance of Asian features, derogatory stereotypes about Asians and slurs for gay people.” McCammond apologized for the tweets in 2019 and went on to cover the 2020 election for Axios, earning acclaim from her peers.

After Teen Vogue announced her hiring, staff made hay over the old tweets, forcing McCammond to issue more apologies before the situation ultimately became untenable on Wednesday. This is obviously crazy to everyone who hasn’t drank the Kool-Aid, which is a rapidly decreasing proportion of the adult population, thanks in no small part to the journalists who normalized these absurd standards. As such, McCammond’s peers in the press leaped to her defense, condemning the successful efforts to oust her.

It’s too little, too late. The legacy media fueled the rise of cancel culture, indulging the far left’s bizarre and radical scorched-earth arguments for years through their coverage and their own personnel decisions. They mocked conservatives who sounded the alarm about college campuses. They continue to insist the right is disproportionately “obsessed” with the culture war, even as it consumes their institutions.

This is a problem that will get significantly worse until the left is forced to pay an intense price for using their corporate heft to impose the rules of cancel culture on the public. That means the people ignoring or cheering unjust retribution against the right will need to grow up and defend the principle of free expression, whether or not it’s politically convenient.

Just earlier today I wrote about why these small battles are worth fighting. When institutions like Conde Nast hold the line, it prevents the far left from setting standards that unjustly govern our culture. Those unjust standards leave our institutions distracted and weakened and leave our people needlessly divided and paranoid. This is a good example but the point is that it’s one of many.

Look no further than the leaks from Politico’s staff meeting after the outlet let Ben Shapiro guest author Playbook for literally one day. Read Donald McNeil’s account of how he was pushed out of the New York Times for repeating a slur in the context of a conversation about it. Revisit the Grey Lady’s leaks about Bari Weiss, or the downfall of Sue Schafer at The Washington Post, The Atlantic’s internal freakout over Kevin Williamson. This isn’t happening at Slate. It’s happening at the world’s premiere “objective” news institutions, the public’s biggest access points into world affairs. And they’re utterly broken.

Let’s not forget that McCammond was hired at Teen Vogue after news broke that she’d been dating a top staffer for Joe Biden while still covering him. That, of course, was fine with them. The 10-year-old tweets on the other hand? Unacceptable.

Teen Vogue just cut a promising young center-left journalist loose for tweets she sent as a kid, that clearly don’t represent her adult worldview, and that she apologized for. It’s ridiculous and telling that even a big slice of the corporate media agrees and is publicly saying so despite saying silent in other cases.

Not only did they heavily contribute to the creation of this problem, they mocked and ignored the people trying to prevent it. They will also be the casualties, which is exactly what conservatives warned would happen.

There’s no good reason for the right to take a victory lap. What’s happened to our culture is far too sad to warrant any celebration.


Reps. Jordan, Gaetz Endorse ‘FreeBritney’ Movement, Demand Hearings On Conservatorships

A pair of House Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are demanding Democratic Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York hold hearings on unlawful conservatorships after celebrity pop star Britney Spears has remained trapped in an arrangement for more than a decade.

A conservatorship is a legal arrangement preserved for those who suffer debilitating conditions, which include severe mental issues or old age. A judge may grant full control of one’s daily life, living arrangements, health decisions, and finances to an appointed conservator if the court deems it necessary.

“In recent years, there has been growing public concern about the use of conservatorships to effectively deprive individuals of personal freedoms at the behest of others through the manipulation of the courts,” Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Matt Gaetz of Florida wrote. “Moreover, the American Civil Liberties Union recently voiced that ‘conservatorships should be viewed with skepticism and used as a last resort’ but that in ‘most cases, it’s done routinely and without substantive engagement.’”

A project sponsored by the Department of Justice, Gaetz and Jordan wrote, found that “financial exploitation by conservators often go unchecked by courts” and concluded there is “dire need for guardianship/conservatorship reform.”

“The most striking example is perhaps the case of multi-platinum performing artist Britney Spears,” the House Republicans added, where Spears has been under the conservatorship of her father, Jamie Spears, since 2008 in a temporary arrangement made permanent by a California judge.

In the 13 years since being placed under a conservatorship reserved for those incapacitated, the pop star singer with a Forbes’ estimated networth of $60 million has maintained a prolific career. Britney Spears released four albums, went on three world tours, completed a four-year residency in Las Vegas, starred as a host on the “X Factor,” and made cameo appearances on “Glee” and “How I Met Your Mother.”

Britney however, had made clear her objections to the legal prison restraining her under her father’s lucrative command and has stopped performing while in his custody. Spears has fought the conservatorship in court which became the subject of a recent New York Times documentary released in February chronicling the fan-based movement “FreeBritney” to liberate the princess of pop.

“Despite Mr. Spears’s claiming to want nothing more than to see Ms. Spears ‘not need a conservatorship,’ his attorney admitted in a recent documentary, ‘Of the cases I’ve been involved in, I have not seen a conservatee who has successfully terminated a conservatorship,’” House lawmakers wrote to Nadler demanding a hearing. “Ms. Spears is not alone. There are countless other Americans unjustly stripped of their freedoms by others with little recourse.”


The New York Times Is Having An Embarrassing Meltdown Over Josh Hawley’s Existence

Just before the third chapter of “How I Became A Famous Novelist,” Steve Hely’s 2009 satirical novel lampooning the publishing industry, he includes a fake New York Times Best Seller list. The No. 4 Nonfiction slot goes to “Needs Improvement In All Areas,” an attack on President George W. Bush, written by his former kindergarten teacher.

That happened for real today when The New York Times broke the news that an administrator from Sen. Josh Hawley’s middle school disapproved of his politics.

Barbara Weibling is quoted condemning her former middle school charge. Left unsaid by The New York Times is that Barbara Weibling is a left-wing activist. She is a small but committed donor to Democrats, and a perusal of her Facebook page shows she’s not exactly an unbiased educator. Her avatar is a flattering portraiture of Vice President Kamala Harris in the foreground, with President Joe Biden in the background.

She posts about her strong dislike of Fox News (where this reporter is a contributor) and love of Russia collusion conspiracy theorist Rachel Maddow of MSNBC. She posts outlandish left-wing claims from a group called “Occupy Democrats.” In between the supportive posts of socialism, Bernie Sanders, and Biden are attacks on Republicans going back to Reagan, at least. Is it really news that her dislike of Republicans extends to a former student at her school?

As silly as the whole thing is, the Times’ Elaina Plott and Danny Hakim debased themselves further by — and I’m in no way joking here — asking Hawley’s high school prom date for her thoughts. His prom date. HIS PROM DATE.

“I’ve been very disappointed to see who he has become,” said Kristen Ruehter-Thompson, who is pictured here in an online fundraiser from a few years ago with her family:

The entire construct of the article is a joke. People may want to ask Plott and Hakim’s prom dates or playdate partners about how they feel about their old acquaintances working for a publication that goes after people in this manner.

I’m sure their non-leftist buddies, if they lived in diverse-enough circumstances to have any, would find it objectionable and embarrassing that they work for a publication that published this article, much less the error-riddled agitprop of the 1619 Project, and that allowed the founder of the 1619 Project to spread conspiracy theories without repercussions, fired Don McNeil for offending privileged teenagers, drove Bari Weiss out of the publication for failing to adhere to even more leftist thinking, allows Taylor Lorenz to make up stories on the regular against her political targets, published op-eds from Russia collusion conspiracy theorist Louise Mensch, nearly imploded over a Republican senator offering an op-ed that had majority support in the country regarding the use of the military to quell riots, ran wild with shameful Brett Kavanaugh conspiracy theories, and a million other embarrassing editorial choices.

Everyone knows that the Times is upset with Hawley for being effective and that it is willing to phone up any Democrat, leftist, or political rival who could claim to know him in order to attempt to tarnish him. The New York Times’ real problem is that, despite their best efforts to deplatform him, Josh Hawley is not going away. Axios reported yesterday that Hawley “has been a fundraising boon — not just for him but his party.”

The media may wish that the coordinated effort to control the outcome of the 2020 election through censorship, deplatforming, and removing scrutiny for mail-in ballots be downplayed or ignored, but some people aren’t allowing that to happen. Hawley is one of the Republican elected officials who takes highly funded and highly coordinated Democrat efforts against vote integrity seriously, and that’s the main reason left-wing activists in and outside the media are opposed to him.

The 5,000-word hit piece also talks to a college rival named Irina Manta. Manta is a law professor who regularly retweets the most discredited NeverTrump enthusiasts. While her criticisms for the article are about her view that he didn’t work hard enough as a volunteer event planner during college – yes, really – she has also repeatedly criticized his wife in a manner reminiscent of “Mean Girls.” She was “surprised” Erin Hawley married her husband.

After left-wing activists harassed Erin and her children at their home, Manta was upset that she spoke against such harassment, repeating the left-wing talking point that legitimate concern about lack of election security and attendant election fraud is a “big lie.” Manta would not let her obsession with Erin go.

For whatever it’s worth, Manta found herself accused of racist attacks on her neighbors. She led a campaign to stop fireworks from being launched in her New York neighborhood, earning her the sobriquet “Ditmas Park Karen.” Local activists said she was part of “white gentrifying forces” who merely give lip service to “Black Lives Matter” while calling the police on actual black neighbors.

Again, it is perhaps not surprising that left-wing activists Hawley has met over the years do not like how effective he has been as attorney general of Missouri and United States senator.

Plott and Hakim, who seem to have regurgitated the same article when it was written previously by other media outlets, mention Hawley’s time as attorney general of Missouri, but they don’t mention that he sued multiple opioid manufacturers for fraud, obtained more than $32 million in restitution for Missouri consumers, or that he investigated tech giants Google and Facebook on anti-trust and consumer privacy issues.

Instead, the reporters quoted Andrew Hirth, the deputy under Hawley’s Democrat predecessor, saying “I don’t think he had much interest in that office, really.”

They mention the predecessor for whom Hirth worked was a Democrat, but they might have also mentioned that Hirth’s law firm – Trachtenberg Germinder Hirth Litigation LLC – worked for the campaign of Sen. Claire McCaskill, whom Hawley defeated. Hirth is a donor to Democrats. The long-time Hawley critic has also been investigated for potential ethics violations by the attorney general’s office for representing clients in employment-related litigation after defending the employer.

Nice try, New York Times, but let’s cease with the junior-high-school hit pieces.