Friday, June 5, 2026

‘SHE’S A B**CH:’ Liberal Women Voters See Warren’s Persona as a Liability

Ben Sellers
-
0

‘Everything she said was great, but to me it’s like, right, that’s not going to happen…’

Editor’s Note: Article contains mild profanity.

Warren Says She'd Consider Declaring a National Emergency for Climate Change, Gun Control
Elizabeth Warren / IMAGE: The Late Late Show with James Corden via Youtube

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) A familiar refrain is emerging as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., moves to assume front-runner status in the Democratic presidential primary: She’s a bitch.

Axios reported on the findings of a left-leaning focus group of nine women in Appleton, Wisconsin, that it conducted last week with Engagious, a firm closely monitoring several Trump-backing swing states.

Seven of the women had flipped from Obama to Trump, and two others had flipped from Mitt Romney to Hillary Clinton.

While most indicated that they preferred left-leaning policies like Warren’s, they disliked her personal demeanor.

“I like what she had to say, but I still think she’s—sorry—a bitch,” said Jill T., a 56-year-old who backed Obama and Trump.

It did not take long for the comparisons with Clinton to follow. A common liberal trope is that Clinton—and other assertive women like her—are held to an unfair standard because of their gender.

The problematic complaint diminishes other areas in which women benefit from perceptions of gender roles and expectations (e.g. the positive attention Clinton got for being the “historic” first female candidate), ignore the equally offensive ad hominem attacks levied at male and female conservative candidates, and—most of all—deny the objective reality of Clinton’s persona.

Warren seems destined to follow a similar path, faced with the dilemma that she must be hardened enough to meet the current president blow-for-blow in a general election but still empathic enough to sell her radical socialist agenda as a moral imperative while distancing herself from Trump’s style of confrontational politics.

Another of the focus-group women observed that Warren may have to be a “bitch” in order “to win and to survive.”

Others feared she may be too “too emotional” and viewed as a “pushover.”

Perceptions varied widely over Warren’s electability and leadership capabilities—with her gender assuming a central role in the discussion.

Several of the women doubted that she could overcome the handicap of being a woman while running against Trump, working with a predominantly male Congress, and asserting herself with other world leaders or adversaries.

“Warren won’t be looked upon as a leader because she’ll be presiding over a House and Senate full of men,” said Nicole W., a 33-year-old Trump voter. “I’m worried she won’t be taken seriously.”

Not all of the women in the group thought Warren’s policies would be embraced either.

“I think she brought across good points, but it’s whether or not she’ll be able to follow through on what she’s saying,” said Alicia K., 44.

Some were more cynical, saying they expected her charisma to be tempered by the political realities of the Capitol Hill landscape.

“Everything she said was great, but to me it’s like, right, that’s not going to happen,” said Sandy D., a 62-year-old Clinton voter.

And others still lauded her “strong-willed” determination and her message but still preferred Trump as the better leader.

Alicia K. said she liked the idea of student-debt forgiveness and Warren’s hard-line taxation policies—which the candidate has claimed will hit corporations but has refused to answer how middle-class taxpayers may be affected.

Axios noted that the opinions of the nine participants were not statistically significant enough to draw broader conclusions.

Hillary Clinton Is Reportedly Advising Elizabeth Warren's Campaign
Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton / IMAGE: CBS News

However, they did offer a cautionary tale for Warren that Clinton failed to heed, not to take for granted that Midwestern values followed lockstep with those of left-wing urban centers on either coast.

Axios said a March focus group in the same Wisconsin town suggested voters were tiring of Trump, who narrowly won the state by around 22,000 votes. However, that does not guarantee they will prefer the alternative.

As CNN reported recently, Trump is also gaining ground in some Midwestern, blue-collar regions where his rollback of stifling Obama regulations has helped usher in economic recovery.

In Eveleth, a small, Minnesota mining town, residents noted that they were put off by Democrats’ shift leftward and that Republicans, led by Trump, had stepped in to fill the void as the party representing working-class laborers. Trump lost Minnesota in 2016 by just 44,000 votes.

“I don’t think by any means this is a locked down Democratic state it used to be,” said Cindy Rugely, an associate professor of political science at the University of Minnesota.

Who Boycotts Businesses Over Politics? Activists Fit THIS Profile…

Ben Sellers
-
0

‘Undermining the credibility of the claims behind the brand is much more pernicious than people saying, “OK, let’s all punish this brand…”‘

PHOTO: Twitter

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) A new survey revealed that nearly three in 10 Americans had boycotted a brand for political reasons—but despite the vast array of virtue-signaling leftist companies, conservatives were roughly 10 percent less likely to do so.

Higher incomes, advanced degrees and liberal politics seemed to go hand-in-hand, revealing a direct correlation with likelihood to boycott, according to the poll released Monday by Morning Consult.

That included a recent boycott effort of SoulCycle, a pricey gym catered toward affluent idle-classers whose owner, Stephen Ross, was revealed in a Washington Post story to be planning a fundraiser for President Donald Trump.

“While it’s uncertain how much these three traits overlap among people who say they have boycotted services and goods for political reasons, liberal and wealthy both fit the typical customer profile at the latest company to suffer a major boycott—SoulCycle, where one class costs about $34 including tax,” Morning Consult noted.

Just under half of SoulCycle’s bookings come from three of the most liberal cities: New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Although wealthy liberals earning more than $100,000 made up only around 4 percent of the respondents, the report noted that their purchasing power still had an impact due to their ability to wage high-profile pressure campaigns that were well covered by sympathetic media, often spreading to other companies.

A prime example may be the effort by San Francisco-based software company Salesforce to refuse to do business with retailers who sold firearms.

While they may garner less exposure, conservatives, too, have been successful in boycotting companies that opposed their values—including those that capitulated to leftist pressure campaigns against gun-rights and other political wedge issues.

After Dick’s Sporting Goods pulled many of its firearms from the shelves, it faced a marked decline in revenue.

Conservatives also have seen success in thwarting attempted boycotts from the Left.

“There are people on the other side that get energized,” Maurice Schweitzer, a management professor at the University of Pennsylvania, told Morning Report. “…They actually might boost sales.”

Many threw their support to Home Depot earlier this year when one of its co-founders, Bernie Marcus, came out in support of the president.

Food chains—including Christian based Chick-fil-A and In-N-Out Burger—also have benefited from counter-boycotts when the Left attempted pressure campaigns.

Even so, the unrelenting nature of Leftist politics—and the widespread influence it exerts over media—has deterred right-leaning business leaders often from broadcasting their views, lest they be doxed and terrorized by activist protestors.

On the other hand, some far-left companies, such as Nike, have decided after analyzing the numbers to take a calculated risk on riling consumers.

The apparel giant’s controversial choice of Colin Kaepernick as a pitchman resulted in widespread backlash—but that, in turn, increased its revenue share among younger and more liberal consumers who viewed it as an iconoclastic rebel for offending public sensibilities.

Although “Gen Z” consumers scored lower than their parents and grandparents on the boycott scale, a separate report released last week by Morning Consult determined younger liberals were more likely to reward a company that espoused their views.

While Morning Consult’s full consumer study was available to subscribers, it did not make its methodology immediately apparent in the analyses, suggesting the possibility of a leftward skew in respondents that may account for the same effect did not apply to right-leaning consumers.

It did, however, offer helpful advice for how to maximize—or counter—the impacts of a politically motivated boycott: By exposing the hypocrisy of a virtue-signaling company  whose values did not align with their marketing image.

“Undermining the credibility of the claims behind the brand is much more pernicious than people saying, ‘OK, let’s all punish this brand by not shopping there for a while,’” Thomas Ordahl, chief strategy officer at brand consulting firm Landor. “Because whatever this issue is, people are pretty equipped to get over that quickly.”

Among the companies that have suffered from their inconsistent messaging is Starbucks.

While conservatives have long sought to boycott its leftist virtue-signaling, including its decision to secularize its Christmas packaging, liberals have found objectionable its pro-corporate approaches along with some isolated accusations of racial discrimination in stores.

The threat of founding CEO Howard Schultz, who sought to run as a left-wing “moderate” and potential third-party spoiler, also offended both the right and left before Schultz announced he was taking a medical leave of absence from his campaign early this year.

REVEALED: McCabe Memo Tells of Rosenstein Offer to Wear Wire to Record Trump

Ben Sellers
-
0

‘This incredible memo details the conflicted and conniving coup effort against President Trump…’

FBI Deputy Director REMOVED from His Job
Andrew McCabe/IMAGE: YouTube

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) A week after the firing of FBI Director James Comey, in May 2017, then-Acting Director Andrew McCabe sought to enlist new Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein into a sting operation against President Donald Trump.

Transparency advocate Judicial Watch announced Monday that it had received McCabe’s two-page memo outlining the exchange between the top criminal-justice officials, whose ideas for ensnaring the president included Rosenstein wearing a wire into private meetings.

“This incredible memo details the conflicted and conniving coup effort against President Trump,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said  in a statement.

“It is astonishing and shocking McCabe thought he could have the FBI conduct a ‘counterintelligence’ operation on the president and Rosenstein thought it would be appropriate to wear a wire to secretly record President Trump in the Oval Office,” he added.

Rosenstein was new to the job himself, having been appointed after Obama’s deputy attorney general, Sally Yates, was fired for insubordination when she refused to enforce Trump’s travel ban on terrorist-harboring countries.

Immediately, the new deputy AG was handed responsibility for the looming Russia investigation since then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions had recused himself two months prior.

Rosenstein ultimately signed off—alongside Attorney General William Barr—on the final determinations of the two-year-long Mueller investigation in March 2019.

The report found no evidence of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign—despite repeated overtures from the Kremlin—and declined to prosecute claims of obstruction of justice stemming from the president’s efforts to quell the fraudulent investigation.

However, the May 16, 2017 memo drafted by McCabe revealed the extent to which the deep-state bureaucrats within the law-enforcement agency sought early-on to fight back against Trump’s executive authority.

“I explained that counterintelligence investigations of this sort were meant to uncover any the existence of any threat to national security as well as whether or not criminal conduct had occurred,” noted McCabe, who was fired a year later for leaking to the media and was reprimanded by the DOJ’s inspector general for his misconduct.

Despite his disclosure to Rosenstein of the FBI investigation, McCabe gave no clear indication in the memo (some of which remains redacted by the DOJ) that he informed him about the true nature of the already leaked Steele Dossier, which provided the basis for the probe.

That the salacious report about Trump’s alleged Russia dealings was questionably sourced, had been commissioned by the Clinton campaign and obtained through back-channel arrangements would be revealed publicly later that year, amid a probe by congressional Republicans.

Using the weight of the investigation he had thusly authorized under false pretenses, McCabe sought to recruit the man who was technically his boss into the resistance movement.

“As our conversation continued the DAG [Rosenstein] proposed that he could potentially wear a recording device into the Oval Office to collect additional evidence on the President’s true intentions,” McCabe wrote.

Rosenstein Asks 100s Of Prosecutors to Review SCOTUS Pick's Records
Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein (screen shot: seattletimesdotcom/Youtube)

“He said he thought this might be possible because he was not searched when he entered the White House,” McCabe continued. “I told him that I would discuss the opportunity with my investigative team and get back to him.”

McCabe later revealed that the two also had discussed the possibility of invoking the 25th amendment to declare Trump “unfit” for the presidency.

The memo indicated that both men, like Comey, feared for their jobs—but they seemed to make no connection with their own actions being the basis for dismissal, viewing the efforts as justified.

While Rosenstein had advocated for McCabe to continue as acting director during the search for a permanent director, he related the concerns to McCabe surrounding his partisan activity—namely his support for the Democratic candidacy of his wife, Jill, in a run for the Virginia state senate.

“The DAG said it was a ‘credibility problem’ because after having told him during my May 13 interview that I played no role in her campaign and attended no campaign events, the DAG said a staffer had provided him with a photograph found on the internet of me and my wife wearing Dr. Jill McCabe campaign t-shirts,” McCabe wrote in his memo.

He maintained that this was not a violation of the Hatch Act, which regulates the political activity of government officials.

Nonetheless, the memo did not address the nearly half a million dollars in political contributions given to Jill McCabe’s campaign by then-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a close Clinton ally and longtime fundraiser, while McCabe himself was overseeing investigations of both Trump and his opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz later rebuked McCabe, following an investigation, for failing to recuse himself from the Clinton case until shortly before the November 2016 election.

The redacted memo from McCabe came only after a yearlong court battle with the Justice Department, which failed to respond to a preliminary request under the Freedom of Information Act.

“That the DOJ and FBI sat on this smoking gun for a year shows the need for urgent housecleaning at those agencies,” Fitton said.

Rosenstein resigned from his post in May following the conclusion of the Mueller investigation.

Currently, McCabe remains under investigation in the Justice Department for his role in the Russia hoax conspiracy, although it is unclear whether he will face prosecution.

Top partisan officials from the Obama administration have already declared they will go to bat for him should he face trial.

Obama Has Some Advice for Trump…

Ben Sellers
-
0

‘It creates a lot of noise and clouds your judgment…’

Top Obama Officials Spent Nearly $1 Million On Non-Commercial Flights
Barack Obama/Photo by marcn (CC)

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) During his presidency, the fawning media referred to Barack Obama as the ‘first social media president.’

Now, after having been outdone by current President Donald Trump, the Democrat diva is trying desperately to shake the label—and claim Twitter is un-presidential, along with other pop-culture touchstones he once embraced.

While speaking at a conference in San Francisco, Obama offered some pedantic, unsolicited advice to Trump (without directly naming him) on presidential decision-making,” CNBC reported.

“Make sure you have a team with a diversity of opinion sitting around you,” he said. “The other thing that’s helpful is not watching TV or reading social media. … It creates a lot of noise and clouds your judgment.”

Ironically, Obama was often considered to be one of the more indecisive presidents in recent memory, with his hesitancy on foreign policy widely panned at times as a sign of weakness to U.S. adversaries.

Even his supporters acknowledged that he was prone oftentimes to pensive inaction—though euphemistically labeling him with words like “erudite.”

One thing Obama did love: Being doted upon by his legions of admirers and, in turn, incorporating social media as a way to take his message directly to the people—even with the large majority of the mainstream media following lockstep with him like a trail of baby ducklings.

“The biggest lesson that we’ve learned is that the bully pulpit is dead,” then-White House Communications Director Jen Psaki said in January 2017, looking back wistfully in the waning days of the Obama Administration.

“So we have a responsibility as a government and as his staff to come up with a range of ways and levers to communicate information,” Psaki said.

Now, however, publications like the left-wing Independent are insisting he really didn’t use it all that much.

“While Mr Obama was the first sitting president to make use of social media, he did so sparingly,” the British-based paper wrote, while covering his recent remarks. “By contrast, Mr Trump, who has 64.5m Twitter followers, uses it as a way to communicate directly with his supporters.”

It was an Obama staffer, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes (brother of the then CBS News president) who popularized the term “echo chamber” and admitted to exploiting leftist groupthink to misleadingly sell a controversial Iran agreement to the media.

But Obama himself declared that he put a premium on surrounding himself with an array of different viewpoints to foster healthy discussion and debate over policies.

“What it does mean is that if you are susceptible to worrying about what are the polls saying or what might this person say about this topic—or you start mistaking the intensity of the passion of a very small subset of people with a broader sense about your country or people who know something about the topic—that will sway your decision-making in an unhealthy way,” he told the San Francisco audience.

Obama should know. His refusal to acknowledge dissent on the Affordable Care Act resulted in the largest red-wave midterm in modern history.

When later faced with congressional majorities that opposed his agenda, Obama turned instead to his autopen-and-phone doctrine of issuing executive orders, including open-door immigration policies that paved the way for the ongoing border crisis.

That, in turn, became a central them in his successor’s 2016 campaign.

The latest revisionism is not the first time he has tried to selectively curate his legacy. Obama has previously claimed—to much derision—that he presided over a “scandal free” administration and that he was responsible for the economic boom of the Trump years following eight years of stagnation.

“That was me, people,” he told a Rice University audience last November.

The man whose 2012 campaign slogan was “You didn’t build that” continued to chide the audience:

“Have you checked where your stocks were when I came into office and where they are now?” he said. “What are you complaining about? Just say thank you, please.”

Dems Cry Foul on Trump’s Alleged Coercion of Ukraine, but Biden Did Worse

Ben Sellers
-
0

‘I looked at them and said, “I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money…”‘

Trump Fires Back at Biden's Potshots in Likely Preview of General-Election Brawl
Joe Biden and Donald Trump / IMAGES via Youtube

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) As information continued to unfold in what the media sought to hype as a massive scandal for President Donald Trump over his alleged conversation with the Ukrainian president, many seemed to ignore that what Trump was being accused of is precisely what he sought Biden to be investigated for.

Trump stands accused of repeatedly urging Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy in July to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden‘s son, Hunter, according to the Wall Street Journal.

But attempting to coerce the Ukrainian justice system is nothing new since Biden openly acknowledged doing the exact same thing while vice president under Barack Obama.

At that time, Hunter Biden was under investigation in a corruption scandal involving the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, whose board the younger Biden was hired to serve on ad a paid consultant.

While vice president, Joe Biden pressured then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to pull the plug on the investigation by saying that the U.S. would revoke a $1 billion loan guarantee if Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin were not immediately fired.

“I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden recounted later in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. “Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”

The complaint came to light after a whistleblower, believed to have been listening in on the call, expressed his concern to Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general.

Trump backers within the Justice Department pushed back on Atkinson’s claim that the matter should be brought before the attention of the House Intelligence Committee, where partisan, anti-Trump Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. has desperately sought material that would undermine the president and possibly open the door to impeachment proceedings.

Nonetheless, Atkinson brought the matter to Schiff’s attention, issuing two letters to express his concern.

Trump continued on Friday morning to reject any accusations of impropriety on the call and to dismiss the scandal as yet another partisan witch hunt in a long series of efforts to undermine him.

WATCHDOG: Cowardly Nike CEO Should Resign, Let Kaepernick Take Charge

Ben Sellers
-
0

‘It’s clear to me that Kaepernick is running the show to align Nike with a very niche cop-hating, anti-American clientele…’

A Nike ad featuring Colin Kaepernick hangs over Union Square in San Francisco. / IMAGE: ABC7 News Bay Area via Youtube

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) A pro-capitalist, libertarian corporate watchdog tried calling Nike to task at a recent shareholder meeting, then demanded its CEO step down in favor of the apparel giant’s true leader: Colin Kaepernick.

Unfortunately, the company known for individualist slogans like “Just Do It” and “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything” was none too keen on hearing an opposing viewpoint.

Justin Danhof, who directs the Free Enterprise Project at the National Center for Public Policy Research, is known for forcing the top brass at virtue-signaling, left-leaning companies out of their comfort zones.

His planned confrontation with Nike CEO Mark Parker at its Oregon meeting on Thursday was the 30th such shareholder meeting the FEP has attended this year, according to a press release.

“Since so many of Nike’s recent decisions have harmed the company’s reputation with conservative and patriotic Americans, Danhof planned to offer the company a way to repair this fractured relationship as well as benefit Nike’s shareholders,” said the release.

“However, Nike refused to allow Danhof to speak,” it said.

Danhof intended to criticize Nike over its decision, shortly before Independence Day, to discontinue a special-edition line of shoes that featured the original “Betsy Ross” flag with stars representing the original 13 colonies.

Kaepernick—the controversial pitchman whose NFL career as the San Francisco 49ers quarterback fizzled amid backlash over his kneeling during the national anthem—stepped in to demand that the shoes be pulled over the flag’s ‘racist’ connotations due to the colonies’ support of slavery.

“Your compliance with Kaepernick’s historical revisionism has further muddled your moral authority,” Danhof wrote, addressing Parker in a question that Nike forced him to submit in advance.

Justin Danhof poses during the Nike shareholder meeting in September 2019. / PHOTO: Free Enterprise Project

Wearing an “Stand Up for Betsy Ross” T-shirt issued by conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, Danhof planned to call on Nike to return the shoes to shelves.

“The sales from Rush’s shirt prove that there is a strong market for such patriotic items,” he wrote in the question. “If Nike were to re-issue the Betsy Ross shoe, this would go a long way toward repairing your reputation—and the company would likely sell a lot of shoes as well.”

After intercepting his question, though, Nike pared it down to a single sentence that would cast the brand in its best light, devoid of its original context and purpose: Why did you pull the Betsy Ross shoe from sale over the Fourth of July?

Danhof said the Nike CEO’s response was equally watered-down.

“Y’know we… I’ll just give a simple answer… We saw many people raising concerns and we made the decision to halt the distribution, and we didn’t want to unintentionally offend or detract from the Fourth of July holiday,” Parker said. “And that’s simply the reason that we made that decision.”

Danhof responded in FEP’s press statement by calling on Parker to step aside and let its chief signal-caller, Kaepernick, officially take the reins.

“Today Parker showed as much disdain for Nike investors as the company regularly shows toward conservatives,” he said. “It’s clear to me that Kaepernick is running the show to align Nike with a very niche cop-hating, anti-American clientele.”

Danhof said he questioned the Nike staffers as to how his question got revised and was initially stonewalled. They later acknowledged that Parker himself did it.

“Parker clearly doesn’t have the courage of his convictions,” Danhof said. “A CEO who can’t handle a few tough investor questions one time a year at the annual meeting doesn’t deserve the job.”

Gender-Bending Highlights New PC Agenda Items to Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Ben Sellers
-
0

‘Words can come and go in a language, but those that show staying power and increasing use need to be recorded and described…’

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) In the lead-up to next year’s presidential election, Democrats have added a new ally to the “resistance”: Merriam–Webster’s dictionary.

It announced Tuesday that it had formally added 533 new words for the month of September, codifying the once-idiomatic expressions into the American vernacular.

“New words are a happy fact of life for a living language, and taking careful stock of the words that we use is an important part of the work of dictionary editors,” it said in the announcement on its website. “Words can come and go in a language, but those that show staying power and increasing use need to be recorded and described. In other words: they need definitions.”

More than a few of them, however, seem to tie directly to the Left’s political agenda, including: “red flag law,” “they” (as a non-binary gender pronoun), “inclusive” (as in, accommodating to minorities), “colorism” and “Bechdel test” (i.e. an arbitrary standard devised for gender equity in movies, etc.).

The additions appear to be part of a biannual process—with an April update adding other terms like “gender nonconforming,” “bottom surgery” (i.e. the surgical alteration of a transgender person’s genitals) and “vulture capitalism.”

In fairness, the dictionary also added this year a handful of conservative-friendly terms, such as “snowflake” and “deep state.”

Leftist thought-leaders like Saul Alinsky long emphasized the importance of communication to a political agenda, and liberals have often sought to use the semantics of language itself to steer discussion and debate.

Not surprisingly, they’ve received help from academics and media figures—be it the dubiously skewed rules of the Associated Press Stylebook that many journalists abide by or the annual list of “banished words” promoted by Lake Superior State University.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio–Cortez applauded some of the new Merriam–Webster additions in a tweet following their announcement.

Many of the top responses on her tweet contended that the linguistic concept of “non-binary” pronouns—suggesting that gender is a mere social construct—pitted it against the scientific understanding that gender is established on a chromosomal level.

Breitbart noted that the push for multiple genders, once considered absurd, continues to gain traction as left-wing activists wage a public-pressure campaign.

“The use of ‘nonbinary’ and ‘gender-neutral’ pronouns has been heavily advocated by the left, resulting in a number of states — like Pennsylvania—moving to offer an “X” option on driver’s licenses,” it said.

“Additionally, states like New Jersey moved to allow a nonbinary option on birth certificates, and D.C. schools have embraced a nonbinary option as well.”

The Associated Press also added “they” as a singular pronoun into its Stylebook, while a BBC children’s education program shockingly asserted that there are more than 100 gender identities.

The acceptance of “they” as a singular pronoun in connection with transgenderism poses a dilemma for grammarians and others who have long corrected its use in a different context, referring to a person whose gender was unspecified but was not necessarily on the LGBT spectrum.

DEM SPIN: Letting White Iowa and NH Go First in Primaries is Racist

Ben Sellers
-
0

‘White liberals can love Warren or Buttigieg until the cows come home, but the belittling of Biden’s support reeks of privilege…’

MURDOCK: Dems Should Be Wary of Befuddled 'Safe' Candidate Biden
Joe Biden / IMAGE: Late Show with Stephen Colbert

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) The list of time-honored practices under fire from left-wing political failures is growing.

Outraged by the inability to game the system to their advantage, they have blamed everything from political redistricting to the Electoral College to the Supreme Court.

Now, another institution has been added: the “racist” nominating contests that push the wrong candidates to the forefront, lending crucial momentum to their campaigns while deflating the efforts of minority-friendly underdogs like… former Vice President Joe Biden?

“Not a single Democratic candidate for president is racist,” wrote Jessica Tarlov, head of research at Bustle Digital Group and a Fox News contributor, in an opinion piece published Tuesday by The Hill.

“In fact, the majority of them have dedicated their careers to lifting up minority voices,” Tarlov continued. “But the system—like so much of the bureaucracy in America—is [racist].”

Tarlov complained that the sequence of primaries and caucuses diminished minority voices—and black voters in particular.

“It isn’t new to point out and bemoan the fact that the two earliest primaries are in majority-white states where voters don’t reflect the national party,” she wrote. “Narratives and results developed around Iowa and New Hampshire create deep misrepresentation of the 2020 race.”

According to 2010 census data, all but four states (Hawaii, California, Texas and New Mexico) are majority white. Overall, white voters (excluding Latino/Hispanic voters who are technically considered Caucasian) make up 60 percent of the population.

Only two other states—Nevada and South Carolina, both of which have large nonwhite constituencies—are scheduled to precede the March 3 “Super Tuesday” primaries next year.

But those hardly offered consolation for the offenses of their two electoral forebears. Both Iowa and New Hampshire customarily have had citizenries more than 90 percent white—although a recent influx of Latinos has taken Iowa to 85 percent as of July 2018.

“In our quest to quarterback the race, predominantly white electorates bestow ‘surge’ status upon candidates who are out of step with crucial voting blocs,” griped Tarlov. “The result is that the atmosphere of this primary season is divorced from the reality of a) how elections are won for Democrats and b) the values and priorities candidates espouse in campaigning.”

Not satisfied with lumping all nonwhite minorities together under one generic banner of ‘marginalized Democratic voters,’ Tarlov shifted her focus specifically to America’s black population, which comprises 13.4 percent of the total but disproportionately influences the electorate, she claimed.

“After big and important Democratic wins, black voters are lauded for their loyalty and consistency,” Tarlov generalized.

Surprisingly, while radical progressives like Bernie Sanders have complained that the front-loading of more conservative-leaning primaries was unfair to them, Tarlov took the opposite approach.

She said it was Biden, the odds-on favorite and self-declared working-class moderate, who was being victimized by a false narrative that ignored his overwhelming support among blacks.

“African Americans are still the most consistent, loyal Democratic voters,” Tarlov stereotyped, “and they also happen to be the biggest supporters of frontrunner Joe Biden’s candidacy.”

She blamed recent shifts in the momentum not on the 76-year-old’s Biden’s own shortcomings but on the the institutional racism underlying the entire electoral process.

“A perusal of the latest headlines tells you what you need to know about the narratives of the race, which have been far more interested in amplifying candidacies that garner little to no African American support while dismissing Biden’s as dull, gaffe-prone or safe.”

In essence, Tarlov asserted, it was “white privilege” that was oppressing Biden and his candidacy.

“No candidate is above close coverage and no analyst would claim Biden is a perfect candidate,” she said. “White liberals can love Warren or Buttigieg until the cows come home, but the belittling of Biden’s support reeks of privilege. This type of coverage is adding yet another systemic challenge to black Americans’ futures.”

Calif. Trump Supporters Keep a Low Profile, Fearing Vicious Attacks

Ben Sellers
-
0

‘I don’t know how you support Trump in 2019 and don’t suffer reputational damage if you’re in any mainstream part of society…’

Calif. Trump Supporters Keeping a Low Profile, Fear Vicious Doxing Attacks
Anti-Trump protestors burn a MAGA hat in San Jose. / IMAGE:

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Many conservatives can relate all too well to the plight of California Trump supporters who are choosing to give quietly and anonymously to the president’s re-election campaign as liberals up the ante on their viciousness.

Already the central message of the Democrats’ 2020 presidential platform is shaping up to be shrill cries of racism, paired with not one but two looming impeachment fights over yet-to-be determined crimes.

Meanwhile, Antifa has threatened to close down Trump fundraisers, and his major supporters have faced growing concerns of being doxed, blacklisted and boycotted by everyone from leftist political rivals to Hollywood sitcom stars.

Among those whom left-wing partisans have sought to shame and punish for their political contributions are Stephen M. Ross, the owner of gym chain SoulCycle and the Miami Dolphins football franchise; and Bernie Marcus, the retired 90-year-old co-founder of Home Depot.

Often, on a national level, boycotts from the Left tend to backfire, as one did last August against the Christian-based In-N-Out Burger, which benefited from the exposure that an attempted protest over GOP donations brought it.

But in Silicon Valley, where 99 percent of the 2016 presidential donations went to Hillary Clinton, there remains an inherent risk to violating the ideological dogma.

Not surprisingly, as reported by Vox, Trump’s recent California visit to solicit campaign support was “shrouded in secrecy.”

The far-left website gloated that many of the president’s backers were ashamed to present themselves publicly—ascribing their reluctance to Trump’s polarizing persona.

“[I]t will reflect just how toxic Trump has become in C-suites and cafeterias alike across the Bay Area, where the few supporters he does have are borderline desperate not to talk about him,” opined Vox’s Theodore Schleifer.

“Political fundraisers for Democratic politicians are often shows of force, with star donors paraded in bold-faced font on widely distributed invitations,” he continued. “But when Donald Trump shows up? In an era and an industry where each campaign donation is a publicity crisis waiting to happen, people cannot run away—or at least shut up—fast enough.”

Facing the Threat

Soros Makes Massive Investments on Fossil Fuels
George Soros/photo by Niccolò Caranti (CC)

The reality, of course, is that Trump mirrors the deranged Left’s own toxicity and turns it back on itself.

Hopeless of staving off the endless crash-and-burn tactics, Alinsky-inspired polemic and menacing threats of physical intimidation from the radical-progressive fringes—much of it ignored by mainstream media and financially backed by jackbooted plutocrats like George Soros and Tom Steyer—Trump made the calculated decision to embrace the vitriol being directed at him.

While Trump, however, is an atom bomb—controversial and morally ambiguous, but decisive and resolute to serve the greater good—his Silicon Valley donors are more like the French maquisards, operating behind the scenes in hostile territory.

Vox noted that a 2016 trip to San Jose, Trump’s last incursion into the Bay Area, saw rally-goers violently attacked.

“Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans are deeply curious about who is planning to host the fundraiser, which as of Monday was still being kept tightly under wraps in an attempt to avoid protests,” it said.

Corporate Warfare

Calif. Trump Supporters Keep a Low Profile, Fearing Vicious Attacks
Doug Leone / IMAGE: Sequoia Capital via Youtube

Vox nonetheless proceeded to “out” some of Trump’s Silicon Valley donors.

It reported that Scott McNealy, the former chair of Sun Microsystems, was hosting the event but that McNealy had declined to speak with the leftist site Recode, saying he was in Lake Tahoe with poor cell-phone reception.

The article also disclosed a previously unreported $100,000 donation from venture capitalist Doug Leone, the global managing partner of Sequoia Capital.

Immediately, it followed up with two liberal activists’ calls to divest from Leone’s firm.

“I don’t know how you support Trump in 2019 and don’t suffer reputational damage if you’re in any mainstream part of society,” said Catherine Bracy, a Bay Area community organizer. “If you’re a Trump supporter in 2019 to the tune of $100,000, that says a lot about your character.”

‘Gender equality’ activist Ellen Pao, who has ties to a rival venture capitalist firm, went even farther, attempting to smear both Leone and Sequoia by claiming they fostered a male-oriented culture that was tantamount to sexual assault.

The mean, misogynist firm only hired its first female senior investor in 2016, Pao said. So it was no surprise that they were standing behind the p***y-grabber-in-chief.

“The fact that they’re backing someone who is an alleged sexual harasser and is rolling back women’s rights and all sorts of other rollbacks on the progress that we’ve made on social issues is not a surprise,” Pao said. “People have to decide where’s the line they’re going to draw, and I hope people draw stronger lines than they have in the past. And I think people should be judged on who they’re supporting.”

Duplicitous ‘Tolerance’

Peter Thiel/Photo by Heisenberg Media

But even those who fall somewhere on the Left’s spectrum of intersectionality as members of a marginalized and oppressed identity group can become anathema to liberals when they dare to think differently.

Vox noted that one of Trump’s highest-profile Silicon Valley supporters, PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel—who was notoriously outed as gay by the site Gawker—faced nowhere near the persecution for that as he did for his Trump support.

Thiel’s $1 million donation in 2016 elicited from tech-industry leftists “a push to cut him out of Silicon Valley’s elite institutions” Vox said.

“Thiel became the most divisive person in the industry—serving as something of a cautionary tale for conservatives who think they can publicly back Trump in 2020 without consequence,” it said.

David Blumberg, a gay venture capitalist whose strong support for Israel helped prompt him to back the president, said the hypocritical double-standard of Democrats’ so-called tolerance was all too evident.

“Conservatives didn’t drop us when we became gay or came out as gay,” Blumberg said. “It’s only when we came out politically—to the conservative side—that liberal friends dropped us.”

Dem Radicals Continue to Be Outraged over Bipartisan Electoral Maps in NC

Ben Sellers
-
0

Holder ‘doesn’t want electoral “fairness.” He wants partisan judges to impose partisan gerrymanders that protect Democrats…’

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Democrats revealed the true motives underpinning their court-forced gerrymandering campaign as North Carolina‘s fairly drawn maps using a left-wing “expert” and a bipartisan process elicited outrage from partisan leftists who demanded they go farther.

The Tarheel State has been on the front lines in Democrats’ push to use courts to force red states to make their maps more favorable to themselves.

It has drawn special attention from former Attorney General Eric Holder, who is leading the charge while overseeing the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.

Holder, himself, has admitted that the aim of the well-funded activist network is to “favorably position Democrats for the redistricting process,” which would, in essence, allow them to create their own gerrymandered districts.

But Holder and others involved—including former President Barack Obama—have publicly have denied this when addressing low-information audiences, such as that of “Late Night with Seth Meyers.”

A recent Wall Street Journal editorial dismantled the effort and exposed its brazenly political objectives, pointing out that the NDRC had done nothing to address overt partisanship in heavily blue states like California and Illinois.

“Mr. Holder didn’t back the Illinois redistricting commission initiative or contest maps in Maryland, New York, New Jersey or Massachusetts that heavily favor Democrats,” it said.

“In other words, he doesn’t want electoral ‘fairness,'” said the editorial. “He wants partisan judges to impose partisan gerrymanders that protect Democrats, but not Republicans.”

Sue Till Blue

Dem. Attorney Marc Elias Used Activist Court Rulings to Redraw GOP Districts 1
North Carolina’s Congressional districts/IMAGE: USA Today via Youtube

Likewise, in North Carolina, Democrats were the longtime beneficiaries of gerrymandering practices, with Republicans only securing a legislative majority in 2010 for the first time since 1870 after voters flocked to the polls to show their disapproval of the Obama agenda.

But rather than acknowledge that their loss of political clout was the result of their own actions, leftists in 2016 devised a strategy during the Democratic National Convention, determined to circumvent the electoral process by going through the courts.

The state redrew the maps in 2017 after the U.S. Supreme Court determined that they were racially biased, but Republicans still retained control of the legislature after the 2018 elections—leading the Left to complain yet again that they were unfair.

Even after the U.S. Supreme Court determined that partisan gerrymandering issues were a state matter, not a federal one, the activists have resolved to press forward in their attack.

By flipping the state legislatures prior to the next round of redistricting, they can entrench their permanent majorities at the federal level, as well, with little legal recourse remaining.

With a recent defeat at the superior-court level, facing a radicalized liberal state Supreme Court, the Republican-led General Assembly in North Carolina this month agreed to redraw its maps for the second time in three years.

Left-Wing Freak-Out

Despite the admittedly fair, inclusive and bipartisan process that the legislators relied upon, partisan Democrats remained unsatisfied, sounding alarm on Twitter because the maps did not offer them an explicit advantage.

Some far-left figures in the national media went so far as to attack Democratic state legislators for applauding the bipartisan effort.

David Nir, political director for the overtly partisan Daily Kos, ranted in a tweetstorm that state Democrats had put self over party to protect their own districts from being redrawn.

He attempted to dox the Democratic legislators who went along with the GOP effort and called state Senate minority leader Dan Blue an idiot.

Meanwhile, Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern waged an attack on the so-called map expert whose simulated models provided the basis for the new maps.

Jowei Chen had been used by the plaintiffs, activist left-wing gerrymander group Common Cause, to testify in court to the unfairness of the old (previously redrawn and approved) maps. But even Chen’s maps proved to be too gerrymandered for the leftist malcontents.

Nir said Democrats should have ignored the legislature altogether and simply forced a left-wing “expert” consulting with the courts to draw the maps.

Phil Berger, the state Senate leader, issued a press release on behalf of NC Republicans that responded to and debunked some of the outlandish claims in the left-wing media.

“The only people who had a role in creating these maps are Democratic legislators and the expert mapmaker the Democratic Party hired,” said the press release.

“It’d be odd for the Democratic Party to create a map that’s ‘a pro-Republican gerrymander,’ but here’s a liberal activist “reporter” claiming they did,” Berger said in response to Nir’s tweets.

The bipartisan support notwithstanding, one North Carolina Republican leader voted against the maps.

U.S. Rep.-elect Dan Bishop, who last week won a special election in the 9th Congressional District, cast his last vote as a state senator before traveling to Washington, DC, to be sworn into Congress on Tuesday evening.

“If the current map was an illegal partisan gerrymander, so was every map in North Carolina history,” Bishop said.

1...3,6543,6553,656...3,698Page 3,655 of 3,698
Subscribe to Headline USA
Not Receiving Our Emails?
Unsubscribe/Update Email
Privacy Policy
Comment Policy
Terms of Service
Material Connection Disclosure
RSS
Accessibility
Advertise with Headline Health
Contact Us
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)

LATEST NEWS

EDITOR PICKS

POPULAR CATEGORY

HEADLINE USA • PO BOX 49043 • CHARLOTTE, NC 28277

THE INFORMATION PRESENTED HERE IS FOR GENERAL EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. YOU SHOULD ALWAYS CONSULT WITH YOUR PERSONAL PHYSICIAN REGARDING ANY PERSONAL HEALTH PROBLEM, AND YOU SHOULD ALWAYS CONSULT WITH YOUR FINANCIAL ADVISER REGARDING INVESTMENT DECISIONS. FDA DISCLOSURE: THE STATEMENTS, ARTICLES, AND PRODUCTS FEATURED IN HEADLINE USA EMAILS AND AT HEADLINEUSA.COM HAVE NOT BEEN EVALUATED BY THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION. NO INFORMATION OR PRODUCTS APPEARING IN EMAILS OR THE WEBSITE ARE INTENDED TO DIAGNOSE, TREAT, CURE, OR PREVENT ANY DISEASE. MATERIAL CONNECTION DISCLOSURE: HEADLINE USA MAY HAVE AN AFFILIATE RELATIONSHIP AND/OR ANOTHER MATERIAL CONNECTION TO ANY PERSONS OR BUSINESSES MENTIONED IN OR LINKED TO FROM EMAILS OR THE WEBSITE AND MAY RECEIVE COMMISSIONS FROM PURCHASES YOU MAKE ON SUBSEQUENT WEB SITES. YOU SHOULD NOT RELY SOLELY ON INFORMATION PUBLISHED BY HEADLINE USA TO EVALUATE THE PRODUCT OR SERVICE BEING OFFERED. ALWAYS EXERCISE YOUR OWN DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE PURCHASING ANY PRODUCT OR SERVICE.

Copyright 2026 HeadlineUSA.com