‘If the Democrats are going to give a felon a platform, they should be honest about their motivations…’
Michael Cohen / IMAGE: CNN via Youtube
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Michael Cohen, the former attorney of President Donald Trump, took to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to claim that Trump committed crimes while in office and often misled about his financial worth.
But prior to Cohen’s testimony, Freedom Caucus Republicans on the House Oversight Committee penned an op-ed piece in USA Today calling it a “rigged deal.”
Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Mark Meadows, R-N.C., co-authored the piece arguing that the testimony of Cohen—who already has been convicted for lying before Congress—was nothing more than political theater, engineered by Democrats in their ongoing bid to bring impeachment charges against the president for political reasons.
“The Oversight Committee shouldn’t feed Cohen’s insatiable desire for celebrity while playing patsy for political aims of the far left,” wrote the congressmen. “If the Democrats are going to give a felon a platform, they should be honest about their motivations.”
They said even Cohen’s own legal counsel, former Bill Clinton advocate Lanny Davis, acknowledged in a recent podcast that there was potential for Democrats to overplay their hand.
“That would turn Cohen’s testimony into a partisan hit job designed to help their party,” Jordan and Meadows said .
The two said they and other committee Republicans planned to use their time at the hearing to focus on grilling Cohen about his own “shady activities”—including the crimes he has plead guilty to and others that he has previously refused to disclose.
“We will call out the Democrats’ charade for what it is—a partisan circus meant to destroy President Trump,” said the op-ed.
Cohen faces a three-year prison sentence for the crimes he admitted to. In addition to lying to Congress, those include tax evasion, bank fraud and campaign finance violations.
While most of the charges are unrelated to his association with Trump, the campaign violations stem from the $280,000 total in hush-money payments Cohen indirectly provided to two alleged Trump paramours: porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy bunny Karen McDougal.
Both women were said to have conducted affairs with Trump around 2006, a decade before his run, but sought to shake down the real-estate mogul after he announced his candidacy for president.
Cohen has said Trump directed the payments.
However, legal debate remains over whether they would constitute a campaign expense or a personal expense, with precedent favoring Trump.
Some, including Trump, have also noted a double-standard of selective prosecution.
President Barack Obama was found guilty in a Federal Election Commission audit of illegally accepting nearly $2 million in unreported campaign contributions.
Although required to pay a $375,000 fine, he faced no threat of criminal indictment and very little public scrutiny.
….which it was not (but even if it was, it is only a CIVIL CASE, like Obama’s – but it was done correctly by a lawyer and there would not even be a fine. Lawyer’s liability if he made a mistake, not me). Cohen just trying to get his sentence reduced. WITCH HUNT!
Cohen—who also is slated to testify before two other congressional committees and claims to be recovering from a shoulder surgery—was recently permitted to push back his sentence by two months.
It is unclear whether he is angling for additional sentencing leniency through his testimony or if he is simply trying to settle scores against his famous former client. However, Jordan and Meadows said they intended to find out.
Jim Jordan & Mark Meadows/IMAGE: Fox News via YouTube
“We’ll ask our Democratic colleagues if they really believe that providing a congressional forum for Cohen to avenge his grudge with the president will help promote America’s democratic values,” they said.
The two Republicans, who some consider to be Trump’s right-hand in the legislature, already have clashed on occasion with new House Oversight Chair Elijah Cummings, D-Md.
After recent overtures suggested that Cummings would invite Republican input and pursue transparency when calling witnesses to testify before the committee, his invitation to Cohen seemed a direct affront to that spirit of bipartisanship.
“Our committee is designed to ensure the efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of the federal government. It provides a check and balance on the role and power of Washington—and a voice to the people it serves,” Jordan and Meadows said.
“We should not give up the committee’s voice to an admitted liar like Michael Cohen,” they added. “It is disheartening that Chairman Elijah Cummings’ first major hearing will do just that.”
‘Dear @Snapchat, thanks for the overly-racist new filter…when can we expect Blackface?’
IMAGE: Snapchat
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Some may consider it stellar, but to others, a new Snapchat filter might seem a bit off-color.
A recent filter by the picture-sharing social media platform appeared to darken everything but the eyes and lips of the user, evoking a common trope from the racist minstrelsy of yore.
It seems the filter was likely intended to be a face in the nighttime sky, but especially when paired with other questionable add-ons celebrating Black History Month, it evoked a decidedly different image.
The episode comes at a time of increased sensitivity over the use of blackface due to a series of scandals earlier this month involving three top Virginia public officials.
Following Northam’s scandal and unrelated rape accusations against Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax, who is black, the third in line for succession, state Attorney General Mark Herring also acknowledged wearing blackface while a student at the University of Virginia.
Ralph Northam’s 1984 Eastern Medical yearbook / IMAGE: CNN screenshot via Youtube
However, the media’s effort to create a “dialogue” about blackface and raise awareness also drew backlash for what appeared to be sugarcoating Northam’s “clearly racist” use of it (in the governor’s own words) with more innocuous instances such as dressing up like admired musical performers.
The emphasis on its ubiquity also seemed to be an attempt to spare the governor from facing serious consequences.
While Northam has not been held accountable to date, some leftist advocacy groups and causes already have used the scandal as leverage to make extreme demands for him to support their political agenda.
The recent episode would not mark the first time Snapchat has generated controversy with its racially-charged filters. At least twice in 2016 the company drew flak on social media and elsewhere.
On April 20—a day associated with marijuana culture among pot advocates—it offered a filter that allowed users to transpose Jamaican reggae singer Bob Marley‘s face onto their own.
The Bob Marley snapchat thing is blackface in 2016 effectively. Digital disrespect
‘Klobuchar is the person perhaps best equipped to send the current president packing…’
Amy Klobuchar / IMAGE: CNN via Youtube
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Media efforts to paint Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., as a moderate may be one of the boldest attempts yet to gaslight the American public.
The term “gaslighting” refers to a form of psychological manipulation that aims to warp people’s perception of reality. First featured in the eponymous 1944 Ingrid Bergman movie, it enjoyed a resurgence in the 2001 French film Amelie, and the Twitter era has since resurrected it as a popular hashtag topic.
One such narrative has recently developed around Klobuchar, who announced her 2020 presidential bid on Feb. 10, with many outlets claiming she is among the few bridge-builders in the upper chamber able to cross the aisle and cooperate with her Republican counterparts.
But regardless of whether she is more pleasant than her fellow Democratic primary contenders, in terms of Klobuchar’s actual voting record, nothing could be farther from the truth.
Radical Record
On a report card by the think-tank FreedomWorks that evaluated support for right-wing issues, Klobuchar—who just began her third term in the Senate—had one of the worst lifetime records of any active senators, voting with conservatives only 6 percent of the time.
For comparison, socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., had 11 percent; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had a 12 percent rating, and Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Cory Booker, D-N.J.—both joining Klobuchar in the 2020 presidential primary ring—had 17 percent ratings.
Another pro-freedom advocacy group, Freedom for All, factored in co-sponsored bills and gave Klobuchar an even lower rating, 2 out of 100.
One record-tracking site that purported to be nonpartisan was slightly more generous. Govtrack.us, in holistically analyzing Klobuchar’s legislative efforts during the 115th Congress (2017-2018), ranked her the 15th most conservative Democratic senator last session.
Joe Manchin/Photo by Governor Earl Ray Tomblin
“The three-term senator is no Joe Manchin,” said Politicoin a recent profile, referencing West Virginia’s aisle-crossing Democrat with a more conservative voting record than several centrist Republicans.
“Klobuchar votes with her party when it comes to big issues like abortion and immigration,” said the article. “… But she’s also established herself as someone who can cut deals with Republicans and occasionally tacks to the center. It’s a combination that that could give her a boost among primary voters seeking a candidate with bipartisan bona fides if it doesn’t doom her with a party running to the left.”
Minnesota ‘Nice’
Those singing Klobuchar’s praises tend to acknowledge her undeniably radical voting record but say other factors, such as her “Minnesota nice” attitude, make her an effective leader.
The Politico profile was among several articles surrounding her 2020 announcement that found Republican senators all but endorsing Klobuchar.
“I hope I’m not condemning her nascent run for the presidency,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said. “She’s too reasonable, too likable, too nice.”
She also garnered the support of NeverTrump conservative George Will, who wrote in a Jan. 30 Washington Post column, “When Democrats are done flirting with such insipidity, their wandering attentions can flit to a contrastingly serious candidacy, coming soon from Minnesota. … Klobuchar is the person perhaps best equipped to send the current president packing.”
But conflicting reports have painted a different picture about her supposedly even-keeled demeanor.
Klobuchar came onto the radar of those outside the upper-midwestern dairy belt or inner D.C. circles during her confrontation last September with then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, when she asked him if he had a drinking problem.
Kavanaugh’s defiant “Have you?” response underscored the fact that it was an irrelevant and inappropriately sensationalist, personal attack for the public forum.
The judge later apologized and reiterated an earlier statement about his respect for Klobuchar, but the Left used it nonetheless to target his “temperament.”
The reports of her mistreatment, curiously, seemed to come from predominately left-leaning outlets such as reputability-lacking websites BuzzFeed and The Huffington Post.
Some commentaries came to her defense, pointing to a double-standard that would never fault a male candidate for having a brusque personality.
“Do men get accused of this type of bitchy behavior?,” asked “View” co-host Joy Behar, herself the subject of similar criticisms. “I don’t think so.”
Klobuchar addressed the issue of her temperament with reporters following the Minneapolis rally where she announced her presidential candidacy.
She said the snowflake staffers’ gripes stemmed from the demandingly high standards she had set both for herself and the country.
“Yes, I can be tough, and yes I can push people,” she said, according to HuffPost. “I have high expectations for myself, I have high expectations for the people that work for me, but I have high expectations for this country.”
Who Smells Gas?
If the media’s Klobuchar coverage is yet another example of fake news, the question remains, then, who is behind it.
Perhaps some moderate conservatives who truly would like to see her oust Trump are going a little too far in praising her personal demeanor.
Or it may be that she is actually the weakest candidate due to her radical voting record, making her the most favorable opponent to Trump supporters.
On the other hand, some radical liberals may going out of their way to place Klobuchar at the center of the ideological spectrum in order to crowd out more conservative “centrist” candidates—a tactic that Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has also been pursuing with his threats to run as an independent.
Or it could be that Klobuchar, herself, is the one behind the trickery. Bloomberg reports that she has recently sought to veer to the right of some of her competitors by denouncing socialist agenda items such as the Green New Deal and free college tuition.
“Klobuchar literally reeks, in a good way, common sense and I think that is going to be a very helpful attribute for anyone who can muster that in competing against this White House,” said Jerry Crawford, a prominent Democratic strategist in Iowa, which will hold its caucus—the first of the primary season—in about ll months.
However, if America’s idea of “common sense” is a radical liberal who just happens to reject socialism, at least the fossil-fuels industry can breathe easy—it will take some heavy-duty gas to keep all those lights lit.
‘The people of North Carolina deserve nothing less than the full confidence and trust in the electoral system….’
Mark Harris / IMAGE: WRAL screenshot
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) After three and a half harrowing days of testimony during what was supposed to be a one-day evidentiary hearing before the North Carolina State Board of Elections, battered Republican candidate Mark Harris on Thursday called for a new election.
The NCSBE later voted unanimously in support of the election re-do following months of legal and political wrangling over accusations of ballot fraud.
Harris was being cross-examined on the stand by Marc Elias, the attorney for his Democratic opponent, Dan McCready, when Harris’s counsel suddenly asked for a recess to confer.
After the board adjourned for lunch, it went into closed session. Outlets including Raleigh’s WRAL said that Harris then called for a new election in the state’s 9th Congressional District—the outcome McCready’s team had been seeking.
In another surprise revelation on the stand, Harris said that he had suffered two strokes while in the hospital overcoming an infection in January, and that he was struggling to get through the hearing, reported the Charlotte Observer.
It cast serious doubt as to whether Harris would, in fact, be the candidate in the election re-do. Robert Pittenger, the Republican incumbent whom Harris defeated in last year’s primary, had previously said he was not interested in another run, but the new developments may change that.
State Republicans now reportedly plan to hold a primary before the yet-to-be-announced date of the general election and allow candidates to file to replace Harris.
NCGOP Chair Robin Hayes released a statement of support for Harris’s reversal on Thursday.
“We respect Dr. Harris’ decision on behalf of the voters. This has been a tremendously difficult situation for all involved and we wish him the best as he recovers from his illness and subsequent complications.”
They had previously hoped that evidence would show any alleged ballot fraud engineered by Bladen County political operative McCrae Dowless was insufficient to overcome Harris’s 905 vote advantage, leading the board to certify the November election.
But the high-powered legal team for McCready may simply have outflanked Harris.
Marc Elias / IMAGE: WRAL screenshot
Elias, who was Hillary Clinton’s campaign counsel during the 2016 election, has a long history of representing the Democrats’ top figures, sometimes under nefarious circumstances.
On Wednesday, the board hearing caught many off guard—including the Republican candidate himself—by calling Harris’s son, John, to the stand.
The younger Harris, an assistant U.S. attorney in the state, testified that he had e-mailed his dad warning about the rumors of fraud surrounding Dowless, but the elder Harris chose to disregard them.
The testimony appeared to have an emotional toll on both men.
“I love my dad and I love my mom,” John Harris said. “I certainly have no vendetta against them, no family scores to settle, OK? I think they made mistakes in this process, and they certainly did things differently than I would have done them.”
During the morning testimony on Thursday, Mark Harris told the board that he hadn’t furnished the records of the exchange with his son, nor acknowledged it in public statements about the election fraud, because he had considered it a “family conversation” and not official campaign advice.
Harris said he dismissed the warning at the time because he knew his son had not been to Bladen nor spoken to the many people in the county who touted Dowless’s get-out-the-vote efforts. He said his son was known to have a streak of “arrogance,” but that in this case he was right.
Hayes said the board’s work to clean up the pervasive atmosphere of fraud in the state remains paramount. Republicans there have previously pointed to systemic ballot-fraud abuse that goes well beyond Dowless and had previously favored Democratic candidates.
“We will continue to work with legislators and investigators on how we can improve the electoral system so that these kinds of situations can be avoided in the future,” Hayes said. “The people of North Carolina deserve nothing less than the full confidence and trust in the electoral system.”
‘That’ll be totally up to the new attorney general…’
Robert Mueller screen shot (NBC/Youtube)
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) For once, President Donald Trump may be hoping that CNN is not reporting #FakeNews.
The Drudge Report cited the leftist cable network—home to frequent nemeses Jim Acosta, Don Lemon and Brian Stelter—in its banner headline Wednesday declaring that the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller may be coming to an end as early as next week.
CNN said newly-confirmed Attorney General William Barr was making plans to submit a summary report to Congress, “the clearest indication yet that Mueller is nearly done with his almost two-year investigation.”
Four of Mueller’s 17 investigators have now ceased work for the office, with most returning to their former roles in the Department of Justice. Observers also noted that the office staff was spotted carrying files and boxes out last week.
However, the exact timetable remained unclear, especially as officials may seek to avoid having its release conflict with Trump’s diplomatic efforts at an upcoming Vietnam summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
Trump told reporters that he would leave it to Barr’s discretion how to time the release.
“That’ll be totally up to the new attorney general,” Trump said. “He’s a tremendous man, a tremendous person, who really respects this country and respects the Justice Department.”
Although the official report from Mueller is required to be submitted confidentially to the DOJ, according to CNN Barr has expressed his desire to be as transparent as possible with Congress.
Even so, some were already tempering their expectations as to what the report might—or might not—reveal. House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff, D-Calif., expressed his belief earlier this week that the findings would be unduly influenced by pressure from the White House and said that he would continue to investigate regardless of the findings.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (second from left), flanked by House committee chairs Elijah Cummings, Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff / IMAGE: Senate Democrats via Youtube
Mueller’s probe into allegations of Russian collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia began in May 2017, only four month’s after Trump’s inauguration, and has been a source of constant criticism from the president, as well as proving a valuable weapon for his partisan opponents to deploy, despite there being no publicly released information yet that would directly implicate Trump.
Several top campaign associates have fallen in its wake, with some, like former adviser Paul Manafort, likely to spend the rest of their lives in jail, barring a sentence commutation from the White House.
Others, like former lawyer and confidant Michael Cohen have turned against Trump, casting their lot for leniency with Mueller and Congressional liberals who could offer a favorable deal for cooperation.
Although the grand jury used to indict many of the former staffers has not convened since Jan. 24—when it approved charges of obstruction, false statements and witness tampering against Roger Stone—some investigations unrelated to Russia have been referred by Mueller to other offices.
That includes the U.S. Attorney’s office in New York, which among other things is pursuing a charge by Cohen that Trump illicitly coordinated payoffs of porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy centerfold Karen McDougal, whose shakedowns over decade-old affairs may have constituted campaign spending violations. Thus far it is the only criminal activity to directly implicate the president.
‘We don’t open investigations because we like someone or don’t like them…’
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) On “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” Tuesday, the obscenely partisan host began with a blatant falsehood about his guest, disgraced FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe—and from their it only got worse.
Colbert introduced McCabe by saying he “was fired after launching investigations into President Trump’s ties to Russia.”
Despite previously claiming to be a lifelong Republican, McCabe had every incentive to lie about his own conflicts of interest. His wife had accepted nearly half a million dollars in kickbacks from then-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton stooge, to fund her run as a Democrat in the Virginia legislature.
It has since been well established, including by the Department of Justice’s own inspector general, that McCabe and other top officials in the agency he briefly oversaw were eyeball-deep in unseemly, biased behavior to favor Hillary Clinton over Trump.
Nonetheless, with the release of his new tell-all book, “The Threat,” the career swamp-dweller was given a kid-glove treatment laced with omissions and innuendo in a recent “60 Minutes” segment, and he continued his string of softball interviews on “Colbert.”
McCabe falsely claimed to Colbert that the FBI opened its investigation based on credible intelligence that Russia had compromised Trump.
“We don’t open investigations because we like someone or don’t like them, or because they’re a Republican or Democrat,” McCabe said. “We open investigations when we have the information that would predicate an investigation. We had that, in this instance, undeniable.”
However, he forgot to mention that the so-called ‘undeniable’ information was, in fact, the infamous Steele dossier, a since discredited report of salacious gossip from a British intelligence source that began as opposition research funded by the Clinton campaign.
It was only after Clinton lost the election that the FBI began paying the political-research group Fusion GPS for the information, although a top Justice Department official, Bruce Ohr, whose wife worked for Fusion, had likely been acting as a go-between during the bureau’s pre-election efforts to get dirt on Trump.
After Trump appropriately exercised his authority to fire FBI Director James Comey—whose botched partisan interference in the election, by many accounts, had done far more damage than anything Russia attempted—McCabe conspired with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to retaliate.
McCabe described to Colbert the harrowing period after Trump advised him that he would be next in line for house-cleaning, as he scrambled to kick his offensive counter-attack against Trump into high gear.
“It was a very serious time,” he said. “I felt that my time as acting director would likely be very short—I knew that because the president told me. … And I knew there was work we needed to do to make sure the investigation was on rock-solid ground.”
The two powerful investigative officials discussed having Rosenstein wear a wire, and even humored the possibility that the duly elected chief executive could be declared unfit for office based on the 25th Amendment, which was enacted to address the possibility of a president being physically incapacitated.
“Rod was really just kind of spinning through a number of different topics,” McCabe told Colbert. “That’s one thing he mentioned in the course of that chaotic conversation.”
Wow, so many lies by now disgraced acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe. He was fired for lying, and now his story gets even more deranged. He and Rod Rosenstein, who was hired by Jeff Sessions (another beauty), look like they were planning a very illegal act, and got caught…..
Those revelations led Trump on Monday to decry the pair’s “treasonous” efforts, and they prompted Senate Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to promise an investigation into the attempted “coup.”
….There is a lot of explaining to do to the millions of people who had just elected a president who they really like and who has done a great job for them with the Military, Vets, Economy and so much more. This was the illegal and treasonous “insurance policy” in full action!
Colbert continuously allowed McCabe to offer glib non-responses as to what credible information the FBI’s Trump inquiries had yielded, first cutting to commercial break and later interrupting him before the answer came and changing the subject.
Colbert likewise allowed McCabe to gloss over his own history of media leaks and lying, while attacking former Trump associates who had been ensnared in the Mueller investigation‘s perjury trap of using unrelated “process crimes” as leverage to secure witness cooperation.
McCabe praised the efforts of the media outlets with whom he frequently had colluded to propel his attack on Trump through selective leaking—then using their unsubstantiated, hearsay reports to justify warrants for eavesdropping on Trump through the secretive FISA court.
“I’ve never seen the level of resources dedicated to this sort of work that you currently have under this administration—the number and scope of really talented reporters that are working on this topic day-in, day out,” he said.
But while making rounds on the leftist talk-show circuit, McCabe seemed to tip his hand with a selective confession about his true motives for going public: “[Journalists] are going to continue to peel back the onion on the facts that they have access to—sometimes not to the benefit of the investigation,” he said, “so as an investigator it’s something that concerns you very much, to be able to ensure that information does not make it.”
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) A woman who came forward with allegations that Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax raped her in college is ready to be heard.
Meredith Watson, who was second to emerge with charges of sexual assault against Fairfax, wrote in an opinion piece Monday for The Washington Post that Fairfax should receive a public hearing similar to what then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh underwent last fall.
“I am frustrated by calls for an investigation rather than a public hearing into these matters,” Watson wrote. “Such ‘investigations’ are secret proceedings, out of the public eye, leaving victims vulnerable to selective leaks and smears.”
The Fairfax accusations, along with evidence of racism from Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and a subsequent blackface scandal involving state Attorney General Mark Herring, shocked and captivated many. But despite near-universal calls early in the saga for Northam—and later, Fairfax—to resign, the state’s Republican-led legislature, which holds a razor-thin majority, showed little desire to play hardball.
Northam’s 1984 medical school yearbook included a picture of individuals—of which he dubiously denied being one—dressed as a KKK member and a person in blackface with a noose around his neck.
But after his refusal to leave, even as it became clear that far-left elements intended to use the scandal as leverage against him, a poll showed an even split between voters over his ouster, with the majority of blacks supporting the governor.
The Fairfax case, meanwhile, bore remarkable similarities to the earlier Kavanaugh one, but with more credible—and acknowledged—evidence.
California college professor Vanessa Tyson‘s initial claims that he had raped her during the 2004 Democratic National Convention drew calls for investigation, while Watson’s coming forward found many saying he should step down.
While maintaining that he respected women and that the encounter was consensual, Fairfax attacked his first accuser in a misogynist, profanity-laced slur shortly after the story broke.
Watson, who said Fairfax assaulted her when the two were students at Duke University, excoriated lawmakers for allowing the outrageous episodes to slip through the cracks of the news cycle.
“Fairfax denied that he raped me, and he denied Tyson’s account as well. And for many in the public, the media and the Virginia General Assembly, that was that,” she said. “In one week, they moved on.”
According to Breitbart, Fairfax has faced some accountability.
He was removed as chairman of the Democratic Lieutenant Governor’s Association and was placed on leave from his law firm pending investigation.
‘The left is composed of clueless naïfs whose rosy-eyed optimism about human nature—and obliviousness to various dangers—will only lead to trouble…’
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) As primary challenges against President Donald Trump begin to emerge, it may be difficult sometimes telling a true conservative from a RINO.
However, science has a solution: pump noxious odors into the air and see who flees for the nearest exit.
For more than a decade, social psychologists have sought to link the concept of “disgust sensitivity” with political values.
New York University psychologist Jonathan Haidt, one of the leading experts in the field, termed by some as “disgustology,” explained the phenomenon in a 2012 TED Talk.
After countless studies, some large scale and some more longitudinal involving smaller focus groups, researchers now say that they can predict a person’s politics with 95 percent certainty based off reactions to things like bitter tastes, foul smells or revolting visual stimuli.
In the past several presidential election cycles, since the research first emerged, left-leaning publications have used the theories of disgustology to attack the Right and to justify specious accusations of intolerance and xenophobia against conservatives.
“At a deep, symbolic level, some speculate, disgust may be bound up with ideas about ‘them’ versus ‘us,’ about whom we instinctively trust and don’t trust,” said an article in the upcoming March edition of the The Atlantic.
The Atlantic article relayed the findings of a recent neuroimaging study, which showed that the brain’s responses to “emotionally evocative pictures” had a correlation with political alignment.
Researchers claimed conservatives tended to have more pronounced reactions “to a broad array of threats,” like being more startled by loud noises and staring longer at people with angry expressions.
But they found that disgust elicited stronger reactions than things like violent imagery. “[C]onservatives tend to have more pronounced bodily responses than liberals when shown stomach-churning imagery,” the article said.
Noting some of President Donald Trump’s visceral responses to things like Hillary Clinton‘s alleged mid-debate bathroom break, comments about Sen. Marco Rubio‘s sweat, and others remarks on bodily functions like lactation and menstruation, The New Republic wrote in 2015 that Trump seemed to gain ground with each inflammatory comment.
“The Trump campaign has stunned bemused pundits by growing in strength with every controversy and outrageous policy proposal, like banning foreign Muslims from entering the United States,” wrote the magazine. “It has finally forced them to admit that his success comes not despite these things, but because of them. … What if disgust is a distinct part of that?”
Exposure to unpleasant environments may not only predict, but also help to shape political judgments. In a separate study conducted by Haidt and others, researchers had test subjects fill out political-belief inventories while pumping the foul aroma of things like vomit into the room or asking subjects to sit at a sticky desk. They found that exposure to the unpleasant situations made people move farther to the right.
“Variations on these studies using fart spray, foul tastes, and other creative disgust elicitors reveal a consistent pattern: When we experience disgust, we tend to make harsher moral judgments,” said the Atlantic article.
Other research in the field found that conservatives were more sensitive to bitter tastes and that—in a study spanning 121 countries, including during the 2008 U.S. race between Barack Obama and John McCain—those who were more germophobic preferred the more “conservative” candidate (or, in this case, McCain).
Naturally, those on the Right may be inclined to eye the findings with suspicion and perhaps speculate on the scientists’ hidden agenda. As the Atlantic article pointed out, however, conservatives can draw their own conclusions from it.
“If you’re liberal, you may be thinking, So this explains some of the other side’s nativism and hostility to immigration,” said the article. “But it’s just as easy to flip the science on its head and conclude, as conservatives might, that the left is composed of clueless naïfs whose rosy-eyed optimism about human nature—and obliviousness to various dangers—will only lead to trouble.”
That may be putting it generously.
In light of the studies by Haidt and others showing a looser moral compass when feelings of disgust are not present, the research could also go a ways in explaining the seemingly abject refusal of those on the Left to hold their own public figures accountable.
“I think there is some truth to the claim that people who are more threat sensitive gravitate to the right, if all else is equal,” Haidt told Liberty Headlines in an email. “Being insufficiently threat sensitive is careless, taking needless risks, reckless.”
The concern has been one of national prominence in recent years. Many, in fact, speculate that the winning issue for Trump was the impunity with which Hillary Clinton, conducted herself while secretary of State, using deception and cover-ups to dodge culpability over her transmission of sensitive national-security data via an unsecured, private server.
More recently, high profile cases of injustice—such as casual attitudes about voter fraud, the tepid responses to racism and rape allegations in Virginia, and a growing wave of anti-conservative hoaxes propelled by a complicit media—have led to criticism of leftist attempts to “gaslight” the American public.
So @CNN, @VOX and the usual suspects say ‘rush to judgment’ in Smollett case was done by others. Gaslight much? As long as Dems and media (but I repeat myself) in #mn02 and elsewhere obsesses over identity politics, this nonsense will continue. https://t.co/hGVvlk2mxe
Liberals have taken a gambit on the old maxim that “if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.”
They bank on the fact that Americans’ short attention spans in the Twitter age mean denying and ignoring morally repugnant behavior will help it go away.
However, it may well be that ongoing exposure to this toxic environment affords Donald Trump just the push he needs in the 2020 race.
Democrats at the top are killing the Great State of Virginia. If the three failing pols were Republicans, far stronger action would be taken. Virginia will come back HOME Republican) in 2020!
Those interested in seeing the inventories used to determine disgust sensitivity and moral/political values may register and take the surveys at www.yourmorals.org.
‘While its veracity isn’t confirmed, its sentiment needs no fact-check…’
Jussie Smollett / IMAGE: ABC News via Youtube
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) The case of Jussie Smollett—whose accusations of a racially-motivated assault by MAGA-hat-wearing, white assailants came crumbling apart this weekend—has left many scratching their heads.
Ignoring some of the more questionable details of the case, left-leaning political figures and media outlets promptly sought, in the immediate aftermath, to spin it into a broader narrative about the state of race and politics in 2019.
In the Chicago Tribune, Dahleen Glanton wrote, “The incident raises an interesting question: Why are we so obsessed with who committed the crime rather than dealing with the fact that such crimes routinely happen across America?”
In GQ, Joshua Rivera wrote, “While its veracity isn’t confirmed, its sentiment needs no fact-check. America’s choice to embrace the blind rage of late-stage whiteness in decline is an explicit longing for this kind of crime…”
But as the facts emerge, it turns out that, indeed, the Jussie Smollett hoax does signal something about the state of America in 2019—it is indicative of a growing trend of fake accusations targeting white, male or conservative Americans.
Rather than accept the blame for spreading such falsehoods, leftists now argue that their political foes and cultural foils are the beneficiaries of systemic power and privilege, and are therefore guilty—worthy of shame and punishment on some abstract level, even if not for the crime of which they stand accused.
As the Boston Herald reports, “Advocates say most hate-crime reports—which have been on the rise in recent years, according to the federal government—are not found to be fake, but there have been a string of high-profile hoaxes over the past several years.”
Hoaxes are nothing new, of course. On its blog, the San Diego-based Museum of Hoaxes has catalogued some of the more noteworthy ones dating back to the Middle Ages.
In addition, several articles, books and websites dedicated specifically to examining racially-motivated hoaxes of the past few decades point to some in which whites falsely accused minorities of high-profile crimes, including murderers Susan Smith and Charles Stuart, both of whom incorporated made-up black assailants into their alibis.
But a key distinction remains: While those accusers are branded—and rightfully so—as loathsome, pathological liars, whose universally condemned offenses against humanity are compounded by their egregious bigotry, the softer sort of anti-Right hoaxers, after falsely being cast as victims, face little accountability and are often rewarded for their efforts.
Listed below are some of the more notorious hoaxes of the modern era that the Left has used to advance phony narratives—with few consequences for the liars themselves but very real implications for others.
Tawana Brawley
Al Sharpton / IMAGE: The New York Times via Youtube
The mother of modern race hoaxes is Tawana Brawley, who claimed to have been a victim of a racially motivated gang rape in 1987.
The 15-year-old African–American girl was found outside a New York condominium wrapped in trash bags and covered in feces, with racial slurs written on her body. Parts of her hair were cut off, and her pants were slightly burned. She told police that she had been held for four days by a group of white men, one of whom had a police badge.
The case first elevated Al Sharpton into the national spotlight, amid accusations of a cover-up. But as witness accounts and forensic evidence began to contradict them, the increasingly outlandish fabulations faced tougher scrutiny.
A grand-jury ultimately concluded that they were fraudulent, and Steven Pagones, a prosecutor who had been falsely implicated, successfully sued for libel. The Brawley family maintains that the claims were true.
While the case would seem to be one for the history books, liberal revisionism may not yet be done with it. A 2015 fiction novel by far-left author Joyce Carol Oates, The Sacrifice, was premised on the question, “What if Tawana Brawley hadn’t been a hoax?”
Matthew Shepard
Unlike others on the list, Matthew Shepard was, tragically, the victim of a real crime. It was his subsequent exploitation in service of a political agenda, rather than his own actions, that left the gay, 21-year-old Wyoming student as an unfortunate footnote in the history of hoaxes.
In October 1998, Shepard was found comatose and tied to a fence, his face covered in blood, with evidence that he had been tortured and set afire. He died six days later, having never regained consciousness.
His two assailants, Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, were each given two consecutive life sentences. Much of the contemporary reporting painted them as bigoted rednecks who had killed Shepard due to his sexuality after offering to give him a ride home from a bar.
The story drew calls for a new initiative: hate crime legislation that would result in harsher federal penalties for those who targeted marginalized groups. Although the movement raised serious questions about due process and the arbitrary nature of determining who qualified as a “hate crime” victim, it eventually was signed into law in 2009 by President Barack Obama.
As early as 2004, the two murderers, interviewed by “20/20,” said money and drugs were the main factor, not hate. In 2013, investigative journalist Stephen Jimenez, who is gay, published a book that revealed an even shadier picture. It said Shepard was addicted to and was dealing crystal meth, and that his risky lifestyle also had included heroin and prostitution (he was revealed to be HIV positive at the time of his death). Moreover, he had allegedly been pimped alongside McKinney and had engaged in prior sexual encounters with his meth-head murderer.
The revelations drew a minor wave of public outrage, but largely, with the hate-crime law having been passed and cultural attitudes having shifted in the Obama era, it was seen as a fait accompli, with Shepard having served his symbolic purpose.
Duke Lacrosse
Demonstrators protest the Duke lacrosse players / IMAGE: Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
In 2006, Duke University lacrosse players Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evan were accused of raping Crystal Gail Mangum, an African-American stripper who also was a student at North Carolina Central University.
As the case proceeded, with Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong pursuing hate-crime charges and also acting as lead investigator, the lacrosse coach was forced to resign and the team’s entire 2006 season canceled.
Ultimately, the investigation—though not painting the players in the best of light—disproved Mangum’s accusation. Nifong was forced to resign and was disbarred for ethical violations after withholding exculpatory evidence in his aggressive crusade against the students.
Mangum was never charged for the false accusations and later published a book telling her version of events, but in 2013, she was convicted of second-degree murder in the stabbing death of her boyfriend.
U.Va Frat Rape
A 2014 story in Rolling Stone magazine supposedly exposed a horrific gang-rape by the University of Virginia’s Phi Kappa Psi fraternity just as the Obama administration’s Office of Civil Rights, overseen by Attorney General Eric Holder, was using Title IX equal-opportunity requirements as a pretext to assert unprecedented oversight of campus disciplinary policies.
Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s article, detailing the account of a girl named “Jackie,” was proven to be a complete forgery, designed to garner the sympathies and attention of a male student that the girl was stalking. Erdely, who was revealed to be working in tandem with the Holder OCR, had cut corners on the reporting and neglected to seek out interviews with any of those accused.
One U.Va. administrator implicated in the case was able to pursue a $3 million libel judgment against the magazine, with Erdely personally responsible for $2 million of it. Rolling Stone later settled the case.
Although it was relegated to the annals of bad journalism, it also marked one of the first times in which the Left attempted to advance the argument that the spirit of story mattered more than the actual facts.
Post-Trump Era
Nick Sandmann and Nathan Phillips / IMAGE: Inside Edition via Youtube
From the uncorroborated or disproven allegations of several women against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to the false account of American Indian activist Nathan Phillips against a group of Kentucky students attending January’s March for Life rally, fraudulent allegations reported on as fact in the media are now too commonplace to address individually.
College campuses have become one of the worst offenders, likely because the student accusers are shielded from accountability. Among them was Yasmin Seweid, a Muslim student at Baruch College who claimed in December 2016 that three white men attacked in a New York subway station while yelling “Donald Trump” and anti-Islamic slurs.
The College Fix, a student-based, conservative media outlet, has tracked such hoaxes since 2012 and seen the number rise exponentially. In an article published Monday, following the Smollett feeding-frenzy, it noted that the circumstances seemed all too familiar, documenting 50 other similar episodes.
Some of the hoaxes may amount to innocent misunderstandings exacerbated by a hypersensitive culture, such as a “noose” in a tree that proved to be shoelaces or a supposed KKK hood that was actually lab equipment.
Others, however, seem designed for more nefarious purposes. Often, no other motive is evident than perpetrating a hoax simply for the sake of advancing a political agenda or getting sympathetic media attention.
There is no doubt, however, that the cumulative effect of these politically motivated “cry wolf” episodes is to create a greater public skepticism, widening the cultural/political divide and, dangerously, eliciting suspicion in cases where the victims most need and deserve to be trusted.
‘We should sue him, of course, because, left unchecked, he will declare a national emergency because tanning beds are disappearing from the shelves…’
Stacey Abrams / IMAGE: Late Night with Seth Meyers via Youtube
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) For a losing candidate who continues to be artificially bolstered by leftist power-brokers, former Georgia gubernatorial contender Stacey Abrams had a lot to say about the validity of President Donald Trump.
Abrams visited leftist “Late Night with Seth Meyers” on Thursday to pitch a website that she claims to have launched in her effort to fight alleged voter suppression.
Smarmy former “SNL” comedian Meyers began by inviting her to respond to the recent development that Trump had agreed to avert a second shutdown by signing a massive omnibus spending bill with only minor concessions for a border barrier, saying he would instead declare a national emergency to fund the contentious wall between the U.S. and Mexico.
As she did in her unremarkable rebuttal response to Trump’s State of the Union address last week, Abrams once again rattled off a scripted list of Democrat talking points while showing astoundingly little self-awareness—including an attack on the president’s skin tone.
“We should sue him, of course, because, left unchecked, he will declare a national emergency because tanning beds are disappearing from the shelves,” she said.
“But in all seriousness … there is necessary response, but it doesn’t have to be public and it doesn’t have to be constant,” she added. “We validate his behavior by treating it as serious.”
Of course, the attention currently being given Abrams has far less to do with the validity of her ideas or leadership qualities as with the niche she fills within the Democratic Party.
As they struggle to gain political inroads within the Deep South—using identity politics to convince black voters to upend the conservative strongholds—Democrats have deployed the canard of “voter suppression” and other coded language to undermine voter ID laws, while also aggressively trying to expand their base by restoring the voting rights of convicted felons.
Leftist billionaires like George Soros and Tom Steyer invested unprecedented amounts of super-PAC “dark money” into the failed campaigns of Abrams and Florida gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum, and liberal media trumpeted the two African–American candidates endlessly as Democrats’ rising stars.
Even Oprah Winfrey got involved, as Meyers observed, setting up a clip of the Chicago media mogul canvassing for Abrams.
“I mean, I hope you got her vote,” Meyers said, referring to the Georgia resident who answered the door.
“Oh god yeah—-I mean, no, no, no, because then they’ll accuse me of voter fraud,” Abrams replied, referring to Oprah. “She lives in Illinois, but she really helped.”
“Uh right, Oprah would never—-because she is not registered in Georgia,” Meyers clarified.
Whether Oprah cast a ballot or simply helped in other ways, it wasn’t enough to win the race.
But Abrams and her fellow Democrats struggled coming to grips with the political rejection.
Because Georgia law would have required a run-off if neither candidate had received a majority (Libertarian Ted Metz garnered just under 1 percent of the vote) Abrams continued efforts to chip away at Kemp’s slight margin for 10 days afterward, pressing for voter recounts and lawsuits while launching accusations, without much evidence, of polling place irregularities.
On Nov. 16, she formally abandoned her efforts but still, semantically, refused to concede the race, complaining that Kemp used his official role in overseeing the elections to rob her of her rightful victory.
Stacey Abrams and Brian Kemp/IMAGE: Associated Press via Youtube
“We know that if you talk to communities that are normally ignored, and if you fight for their right to vote, you can win elections,” Abrams told Meyers. “You just can’t have someone acting as the referee, the umpire and also the scorekeeper acting as your opponent.”
Ironically, given her own fraud claims, and despite the weight of evidence from organizations dedicated to documenting and investigating instances of illegal voter fraud, Abrams parroted other Democrats by telling Meyers that the concerns used by conservatives to justify voter ID laws were baseless.
“Republicans have talked about voter fraud, which is largely a myth, but they’ve talked about it for so long and with so much energy that we take it as the truth,” she said.
Despite touting the record number of blacks—1.9 million, she said—who voted for her in Georgia, Abrams then said the real problem was with suppression, not fraud.
“We know voter suppression is real, but we never talk about it—we take it for granted,” she said. “My belief is that by calling it out and by using my non-concession speech and my since-actions to demonstrate that we can fight back, that we can actually reclaim our democracy.”
Clearly, Abrams plans to continue her crusade—at least until another opportunity to run emerges.
With the dust barely settled on her last campaign, some Democrats were buzzing already about pitting her against first-term Republican Sen. David Perdue, a staunch Trump supporter who likely will seek re-election in 2020.
It’s unclear, however, whether Abrams will first have to concede the governor’s race before running again.