On Gay Adoption, S.E. Cupp is Out to Lunch

by Robert Oscar Lopez


{An excellent 2014 article that exposes the insipidness of gay adoption:  Lopez considers himself a “children’s advocate” in rejecting gay marriage and gay adoption.  In the process he is also addressing one of the greatest threats to the survival of the family in recent history, especially with the global explosion of gay surrogacy and gay adoption.  Some of the dark “underworld” agendas he hints at need more attention -- publicly.  Read his own story at:  http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065. -- DNI]


S.E. Cupp is one of the latest media figures to make a pitch on gay marriage and adoption.  As is often the case, she throws out so many canards in this cocktail of insipidness, one scarcely knows where to begin

I will say conservatives have got to move on gay marriage....[and] on gay adoption. If abortion is the abhorrent option – and I believe it is – then adoption by any two loving people has got to be the better option. 

First of all, the latest estimates indicate that somewhere between 12-15% of heterosexual couples struggle with infertility.  Currently many of these viable homes, rather than adopting, are being steered to the artificial reproduction market and contributing to the 1.5% (and rising) of live American births tied to in vitro technology.  The alternative to abortion is obviously to get more of these viable straight couples to avoid sperm-banking or surrogacy, and to consider adopting instead.

Anyone who’s lost a birth parent to death, divorce, or a tragedy knows that a kid feels the absence of a father or mother.  This is square one for adoptees, orphans, children of divorce, or children of same-sex couples – someone was there when you were born, and now he or she is not there.  That person is a very real human being, tied to you by flesh and blood.  A kid mourns the missing person, thinks about him, longs to reconnect with him.  It hurts to be cut off from a mother or father.  I was cut off from my dad because he divorced my lesbian mother; I was reared by two women.

It’s not a small thing to make a kid grow up without a father because a bunch of self-centered adults can’t get their acts together.  I’ve had enough of pundits like S.E. Cupp being so glib about things that are incredibly painful for people who are actually in these situations, and powerless about it to boot.  If you haven’t been raised by a gay couple and you haven’t been adopted, it might be hard to understand how offensive it is to hear people on TV talk about fraught transactions like adoption and same-sex parenting with such confident nonchalance.

One of the unnoticed ironies in the debate on gay adoption has to do with David Brock, the chieftain at Media Matters, whose subdivision Equality Matters has gone after me more than once for my views on a child’s right to his mother and father.  Brock spent much of his 2002 memoirs, Blinded by the Right, on the pain he felt about being adopted.  In fact, his adoption weighed on him and complicated his relationship with his father much more than did his gayness. You would think that Brock would understand why it’s not such a simple thing to yank kids from a birth family and toss him into a home with one or two adults unrelated to him.  Ironic self-awareness is apparently lacking on the left.  {And with Child Protective Services who often remove children from their true parents with out sufficient justification. - ED}

The truth is that adoption in the United States is too expensive, and many heterosexual couples find the costs prohibitive, so they are priced out of the market by gay couples, who have much higher incomes and are, 100% of the time, forced to take babies from other people since they cannot conceive them on their own.  In fact, gay adopters have such an insatiable desire to parlay their high incomes into cash-for-kids that they waged a war against Catholic Charities adoption centers, going as far as forcing many such agencies to shut down as punishment for not giving gay couples other people’s abandoned children.

The dirty secret about gay adoption is that most often when homosexual couples adopt, one of their pair is the biological parent.  Usually the child comes from a former heterosexual relationship that broke down.  So when they “adopt,” they typically have to put a bunch of people through the mud fight that my dear friend Janna endured: they have to drag the opposite-sex parent to family court, strip him or her of custody, and then force the poor little kid to submit to the parental authority of a new, sometimes creepy, person who’s sleeping with a biological parent and very likely caused the breakup of that child's original family.

That’s the real-life adoption story that doesn’t make for great gay headlines.  Gay adoption has unfortunate but ineluctable ties to divorce.  In fact, by encouraging gay adoption so much, we are encouraging a whole new generation of homewreckers – gays who want to be parents and figure out that the cheapest way to do it is to seduce someone of the same sex who is currently in a rocky marriage with children.


You will hear, from time to time, about hundreds of thousands of children in foster care who can’t find families to adopt them.  This is a favorite statistic for gay marriage gurus to throw out as a kind of emotional Shock and Awe, a debate-stopper of the first order, especially if you can cough up an example of special-needs children being raised by adorable lesbians in Michigan.  There has never been a backlog of infants, so these holdouts are typically older children who landed in the child protective services system because of a crisis.  Many of them are kids who don’t want to placed with gay couples, or kids whom gay couples don’t want, either.  What people don’t tell you – because they don’t want to and don’t have to, until you push them on it – is that most of those children have living parents, or living kin networks, and the foster care system has to work on reuniting them with their struggling birth families.  Otherwise, the government would merely be an oppressive police state taking people’s kids away and signing them over to rich folks in exchange for cash, as happened in dictatorships like the kind that governed Argentina in the 1970s.

Most people don’t have the time to work through the nuances of foster care versus adoption.  Fewer still are aware of how many people in “Adoption Land” – the community of adoptees and adoptive families – are calling for massive reform in both foster care and adoption.  What gay activists are asking for, on both fronts, would actually be moving in the precisely wrong direction; gay lobbyists want agencies to speed up the process by which foster kids are cut off from their birth mothers and fathers and subordinated permanently to same-sex couples eager to acquire them.  On the international adoption front, even gay adoptive father Frank Ligtvoet has faced the painful reality that adoption systems are overemphasizing the desire of wealthy childless families rather than the needs of impoverished communities that are struggling to provide for their children (in the Huffington Post, no less).

It took a while for brave activists like Claudia Corrigan D’Arcy to apply the same critiques on the domestic fronts, but now, too, people are scrutinizing domestic adoptions and finding much to improve.  (The film Philomena, ironically, humanizes the pain of a birth mother who is pressured to give up her infant who turns out to be gay; despite the film’s sympathy for homosexuals, the gay movement is pushing to create more Philomenas nowadays so they can build their rainbow families.)

Foster care costs the public money, whereas adoption is a huge moneymaker for certain attorneys and even, in the United Kingdom and here, for social service agencies (see this article on the blowback that resulted from rewarding people too handsomely for placing foster kids in adoptive homes).  So the mentality that it’s always best to get kids out of foster care and into adoption is a mixed bag.  On the one hand, we have ample evidence that life in foster care is hard, and we know that many adoptive homes are great places to save suffering children from such instability.

(I should confess: when I was fifteen, there were problems in my home, and my father did not want to take me in, so he drove me to a “boarding school” in Maine, where I stayed while my home situation might improve.  It was very hard to feel abandoned, essentially, at the moment that my dad dropped me off at the main office with a check, but would it have made sense for some couple to adopt me at that point?  In the end I returned to my mothers’ home and finished high school early, going to college as a de facto emancipated minor.)

On the other hand, we have much to worry about when we envision rushing kids out of foster care into gay adoption.  Gay adoptive parents have proved just as capable as straight foster parents of kidnappingmurderabuserapechild pornography, and neglect involving the children they acquire.  So everything that’s painful about foster care with straight people is also painful about gay adoption; the difference is that in a gay adoption, the child loses forever his chance at having a mom and dad.  Whether adopters are gay or straight, it’s not a good idea to incentivize social services agencies’ power to remove children from troubled homes and transfer all parental equivalence to a new home without making a good-faith effort to repair problems with the birth family.

It sounds ominous to be in the position of “aging out” of foster care without having been adopted.  But it’s not necessarily as bad as it sounds.  You can still maintain contact with foster parents, but once you are emancipated, it is your choice to do that (not something forced on you by law), and you also have the choice to rebuild your relationship with your birth kin network, the way I rebuilt a relationship with my father as an adult.  My mother’s lesbian partner never adopted me, and that was probably the right decision.





Robert Oscar Lopez edits English Manif.  [See also his own “bio”: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065/ The article first appeared here.


Report: Federal Prosecutors Weighing Criminal Charges Against Former Obama White House Counsel

By Jack Davis

An attorney who served as White House counsel in the Obama administration is under investigation for his role in dealings linked to the case against Paul Manafort, according to a report from CNN, citing sources “familiar with the matter.”

Manafort, who briefly served as Donald Trump’s campaign manager, was the target of an investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Manafort pleaded guilty on Friday to conspiring to defraud the United States and conspiring to obstruct justice, both having to do with dealings in Ukraine that took place years before his involvement with the Trump campaign.

CNN reported Friday that attorney Greg Craig, who was White House counsel from 2009 to 2010, is under scrutiny over whether he lobbied for Ukrainian leaders without registering as a foreign agent.

The investigation also touches on the firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, where Craig was a partner at the time.

Craig’s actions were taken after he left the White House, according to the report.

Connections between Manafort, the firm and Craig were revealed in filings in the Manafort case.

Craig’s attorney William Taylor III said his client did nothing wrong.

“Greg Craig was not required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act,” Taylor said in a statement, Law.com reported.

Craig himself would not comment on the investigation.

This is not the first controversial case for Taylor, who represented Fusion GPS, the firm involved in the production of a dossier of discredited claims against Trump.

NBC News reported that Craig was the supervisor of Alex van der Zwaan, a Skadden lawyer who has pleaded guilty to lying to prosecutors and about communications concerning the Ukrainian politician for whom Manafort was also working.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office and Justice Department have not yet decided if they will file charges against either Craig or the law firm, CNN reported.

The law firm was paid more than $4.6 million, which Manafort sought to hide, the court filing said.

Bloomberg reported that the law firm is also facing questions of conflict of interest in the issues surrounding former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.

Skadden lawyers, which would have included Craig,  may have violated their ethical responsibilities through their actions, said Rebecca Roiphe, who provides instruction on legal ethics at New York Law School.

“Skadden could face some problems with disciplinary authorities in D.C., assuming this is as bad and as baseless as described,” she said.




Inmate Admits Sex Assaults at Women’s Prison… ‘She’ Used to Be Named Steve

by Malachi Bailey


An inmate in a British female prison sexually assaulted multiple fellow inmates, and it turns out the predator is actually a man, formerly known as Steve, who “identifies” as a lesbian woman.

These days, according to The Telegraph, the 52-year-old is officially known as Karen White, but was born with the name Stephen Wood. At the time of the assaults, White was undergoing sex reassignment, but had not had surgery, The Telegraph reported.

White didn’t hesitate to prey on the female inmates. Within weeks of arriving in prison, he began making lewd comments toward another inmate before he forced himself on her, according to the Telegraph.

That was not White’s only victim. He was accused of four sexual assaults in total between September and November last year, according to The Guardian. He confessed to at least two of the attacks.

He was finally moved to an all-male prison, according to PJ Media.

It’s good that he won’t be able to assault any more women in his new prison, but he should have been in the all-male prison to begin with.

The female prison where White committed his assaults did not only have female prisoners. It also had children. The prison contains a mother-and-baby unit that can accommodate up to 10 infants aged under 2, according to The Times.

This fact becomes even more shocking considering White’s past convictions.

White is a convicted pedophile who was previously jailed in 2001 for an attack on a child, according to PJ Media.

Putting a convicted male pedophile into an all-female prison with infants and toddlers is not just a simple mistake. This is an example of negligence in the name of being “progressive.”

Social media users were disgusted at the news.


New Research Reveals Exactly Why Social Media Giants Are Censoring Conservatives

By Lisa Payne-Naeger


Sharing of information is probably the most powerful influence there is among human beings. Perhaps social media giants know this better than anyone. They’ve made fortunes from their internet empires, collecting data and luring the public into their information hubs.

Of late we have seen just how these internet moguls have used their power to control information, and discriminate against those with whom they disagree.

There is new information out now that may have these social media power moguls shaking in their shoes. As it turns out, all of their efforts to control the narrative may be falling short of presumed desired ends, and it’s fair to ask: Could this lead to an eventual destruction of their social media dynasties?

Barack Obama’s 2008 election was probably the first time we saw the power social media had at influencing a nation, politically. You’ve got to give credit where credit is due. Obama and his team correctly identified social media as an effective platform with which to reach a badly needed demographic to put him over the top in his presidential race.

And President Trump has managed to keep the liberal media in a tailspin with his use of Twitter to directly reach his audience and circumvent their ability to spin news coverage.

Over time conservatives awoke to developments and benefits of social media technology and began to grow in numbers and influences there, only to be met with roadblocks thrown up by liberal social media giants who wanted to diminish conservative thought, speech and influence.

Could they have already known what Pew Research just released in their latest round of polling? Americans are highly influenced by social media. At least 14 percent will flip on an idea or previously held beliefs based on what they see on social media platforms.

This is certainly something that should have Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai worried about their current business strategies because while 14 percent may not seem like a lot of people, it’s certainly enough to flip an election — especially if the flip is to the right. And the research shows the demographics influenced most are generally those traditionally secure in the liberal camp.

According to the poll, men 18 to 29 are an easier flip than women on political or social views due to social media influence. Race and ethnicity reportedly also have a role to play.

“Certain groups, particularly young men, are more likely than others to say they’ve modified their views because of social media. Around three-in-ten men ages 18 to 29 (29%) say their views on a political or social issue changed in the past year due to social media. This is roughly twice the share saying this among all Americans and more than double the shares among men and women ages 30 and older (12% and 11%, respectively).”

“There are also differences by race and ethnicity, according to the new survey. Around one-in-five black (19%) and Hispanic (22%) Americans say their views changed due to social media, compared with 11% of whites.”

And it’s got to be the data on how those folks flip within their own parties that is the most troubling to companies, for example, like Google and Facebook.

“Social media prompted views to change more among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (17%) than among Republicans and Republican leaners (9%). Within these party groups, there are also some differences by gender, at least among Democrats. Men who are Democrats or lean Democratic (21%) are more likely than their female counterparts (14%) to say they’ve changed their minds. However, equal shares of Republican and Republican-leaning men and women say the same (9% each).”

Breitbart reported last year that 67 percent of Americans get their news through social media. That’s a huge percentage of the population focused on a targeted information source. Is it any wonder why social media giants are fighting conservative speech to the degree with which we see today?

Can you imagine what kind of damage a message like #WalkAway could do to the progressive narrative from someone like Brandon Straka, a former liberal?

Straka started the social media #WalkAway movement this year after he left the Democratic Party. The young, formerly liberal male speaks quite effectively to the left about why liberal agendas have fallen short of their promises because he walked lockstep within its platform his entire life. Now he’s using social media to get that message out to the 29 percent of men and 18 percent of women who are black, hispanic and white before the midterms in November.

His Facebook page has grown to more than 75,000 followers in just a few months and a grassroots movement  has expanded to Canada. All this, through the power of social media.

I’m going to go out on a limb here to guess this isn’t quite what Zuckerberg planned when he started Facebook. But here’s hoping the latest polling results and campaigns like #WalkAway are a bigger testament to the power of American exceptionalism than it is to social media influence and power.



Report: Liberal News Outlets Dominate Google Search Results with 96 Percent of ‘Trump’ Stories

by Jack Davis


New evidence that technology’s giants are muzzling conservatives has emerged after the web site PJ Media wanted to find out if Google did in fact lurch to the left when users wanted the latest information on President Donald Trump.

Writer Paula Bolyard on Saturday reported on the results of her experiment, which the site was fully upfront about admitting was not scientific.

The headline of her article said it all: “96 Percent of Google Search Results for ‘Trump’ News Are from Liberal Media Outlets.”

The concept was simple. Bolyard typed “Trump” using Google’s “News” tab and let Google do the rest. “I was not prepared for the blatant prioritization of left-leaning and anti-Trump media outlets,” she wrote, noting that no single right-leaning site appeared on the first page of search results, and that CNN, dubbed by Trump as “Fake News” for its coverage of him, is far and away the leading site listed

She then looked at the first 100 items, and the trend continued. There were 21 articles from CNN, 11 each from The Washington Post and NBC, and 8 from CNBC. Other sites at the top of the list included The New York Times, Atlantic, Politico, Vox, CBS and the Wall Street Journal.

Fox News was listed twice.

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk said that tech giants are trying to influence the midterm elections.

“This is their great offensive to try to silence differing opinion,” he said Monday on “Fox & Friends,” Fox News reported. “And make no mistake, it’s not because the conservative voices are offensive. It’s because they are effective.”

Kirk said conservatives must fight the tech giants.

“We need to push back because it could be a huge, huge problem moving forward,” he said.

“The very bottom line is the left hates the idea that there are other ideas. And they control these public forums or these vehicles of conversation. They’re going to use every piece of power and influence they can to try to suppress our voice. And we cannot stand for it,” he added.

Bolward was hardly the first to suggest that Google buries the right while promoting the left.

A 2017 study by the website “Can I Rank” said that the bias in Google was clear.

“Among our key findings were that top search results were almost 40% more likely to contain pages with a “Left” or “Far Left” slant than they were pages from the right. Moreover, 16% of political keywords contained no right-leaning pages at all within the first page of results,” the study said.

“Our analysis of the algorithmic metrics underpinning those rankings suggests that factors within the Google algorithm itself may make it easier for sites with a left-leaning or centrist viewpoint to rank higher in Google search results compared to sites with a politically conservative viewpoint,” it added.

Google denies doing anything to skew the results.

“Google does not manipulate results,” said Google spokeswoman Maggie Shiels. “There are more than 200 signals taken into account when someone does a search which include freshness of results.”

Bolyard’s conclusion was that Americans need to be aware that their searches are being manipulated.

“With all the talk and hand-wringing about fake news and bad foreign actors using social media outlets to attempt to manipulate election results, far too little attention has been paid to power brokers like Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube and their ability —  and perhaps even desire — to manipulate public opinion and shape the world into their own Silicon Valley image,” she wrote.




Colorado Ignores Supreme Court Ruling to Continue Persecution of Jack Phillips

by Gerald Weston


The assault against the Bible and anyone who believes and lives by its directives continues. The owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop is under attack once again for refusing to celebrate an anti-biblical behavior, this time by refusing to bake a specially designed cake (pink in the middle and blue on the outside) for an attorney intending to celebrate and do the impossible—“transition” from male to female.

According to a National Religious Broadcasters newsletter, “Apparently undeterred by the strong rebuke they received from seven U.S. Supreme Court justices in June, Colorado authorities are renewing their assault against the religious convictions of one of their state’s citizens. In fact, they are targeting the same citizen, Jack Phillips.”

The newsletter quotes Phillips, “The state is doubling down on its hostility against my beliefs, even though that’s what the Supreme Court said they couldn’t do. . . . It seems I’m the only person in the state of Colorado who can’t live out my beliefs.”

This is clearly a deliberate attack to tear down biblical values. There are, no doubt, many cake-makers who would happily bake such a cake, but liberal activists, aided by leftist politicians, cannot stand for freedom of expression if it is different from their own. This should not surprise us at a time when God is so openly rejected. The Apostle Paul explains why: “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be” (Romans 8:7) [emphasis editorial staff]

Yes, these physically minded activists have a hostility toward God and His law. Many people passively reject Divine Law by ignoring it, even while they profess to believe in God. But, these activists are openly and militantly against it and cannot stand anyone who chooses to live by its dictates.

One mistake to avoid is to think that “secular” means “neutral.” Nothing can be further from the truth. Secularism is opposed to godliness. An example is abortion. The secular view is that religion must stay out of the discussion, because religion is a private matter that should not influence public debate. But to remove religion is to reject Divine Authority, and the result is the belief that it is okay to kill one’s baby. Political correctness frames the debate as “a woman’s right to choose,” when the real question is whether it is right to kill the most vulnerable and innocent among us.

I do not write these things to condemn anyone for past mistakes. We have all made decisions in the past that we would like to change, but that is not possible, and that is why Christ had to die that we might live. I write these things, because we must not allow satanic influence through secular humanists and anarchists to sway our thinking.

The LGBT movement from time to time adds other letters to its acronym. For example, I have seen all of these letters strung together to describe various perversions: LGBTTIPQQ2SA+. The + at the end leaves the door open so that newly minted perversions can be added. In a government directive to all schools (public, private, and charter), in Alberta, Canada, there is a list of eight expressions of sexual deviation. “Trans” is one of the eight, but the list includes this footnote regarding this word: “Some individuals identify with terms such as transgender, transsexual, gender fluid, gender diverse, and agender. We have chosen to use the word trans in these guidelines as an inclusive, continually evolving, umbrella term commonly used to describe individuals whose gender identity and gender expression differ in some way from the sex they were assigned at birth” (Guidelines for Best Practices, 2016).

A number of points may be drawn from this, but here are two. Note the expression, “continually evolving.” Even these activists do not have a clue where this may end. This assault against biblical values will continue to evolve. Next, note the words, “the sex they were assigned at birth.” This is political correctness framing the discussion, and you should not fall for it. An XY-chromosome male is not changed into an XX female by mutilating his body.

The acronyms describing these behaviors sometimes contain the letter “A,” and it is important that we understand what it stands for—allies. There are relatively few people, certainly a minority of individuals, who fall into these categories, even when we add all of them together. In order to be the majority opinion, and therefore wield the power of the courts and laws, they rely on gullible allies. These are people who buy their lies.

By way of example, to convince Americans that they should accept permissive abortion, false numbers were passed along to the press to generate sympathy. Famous abortionist turned anti-abortionist Bernard Nathanson confessed that he and Lawrence Lader simply added zeros to the numbers of estimated “back alley” abortions and deaths that supposedly resulted (The Marketing of Evil, Kupelian, p. 191).

Now comes a movement to indoctrinate very young children to accept something that God calls an abomination (Deuteronomy 22:5). From their own website: “Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) is just what it sounds like—drag queens reading stories to children in libraries, schools, and bookstores. DQSH captures the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood and gives kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models. In spaces like this, kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where people can present as they wish, where dress up is real” (www.dragqueenstoryhour.org). The DQSH website lists 27 chapters across the United States and invites other cities to form chapters.

Jesus warned us: “And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man. . . . Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot” (Luke 17:26, 28). How much worse can it get? And how much longer do we have to accomplish this Work?

Do you see the big picture of what is happening? Or are you, without realizing it, being persuaded by the very clever god of this age, who directs its course and is bringing about a new dark age similar to that of Noah’s day, turning whole nations into Sodoms and Gomorrahs (2 Corinthians 4:3–4; Ephesians 2:1–2)? I pray that God will give each of us courage to stand up for our beliefs, as Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop has, at appropriate times and in appropriate ways (not carnal ways) against the forces of darkness (2 Corinthians 10:3–5).

We know that in the end we shall win, if we remain faithful. The last book of what is called the Old Testament contains this encouraging passage: “Then those who feared the Lord spoke to one another, and the Lord listened and heard them; so a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who fear the Lord and who meditate on His name. ‘They shall be Mine,’ says the Lord of hosts, ‘On the day that I make them My jewels. And I will spare them as a man spares his own son who serves him.’ Then you shall again discern between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one who does not serve Him” (Malachi 3:16–18).

Thank you for your sacrifices and your courage to stand firm against the forces of darkness.


Blacked-Out Parkland Shooting Doc Released, Reporters Erase Black & Finally Find Truth

by Joe Saunders


Florida’s Broward County had already become a byword for deadly incompetence even before a newspaper report last week detailed the school board’s failures to deal with the teenager who eventually killed 17 students and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February in Parkland.

Now, it’s making another reputation, as the home of a school district willing to go to court to punish a newspaper that revealed the truth.

According to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, the Broward County School Board is asking a judge to hold the newspaper in contempt after it published a damning story last week that showed just how badly the school district had failed to handle the case of Nikolas Cruz, the troubled teenager who turned into a mass killer.

The Sun-Sentinel’s article published Saturday was based on a Tallahassee-based consultant’s report the Broward School Board tried mightily to suppress.

However, it finally released a heavily redacted version of the report on Friday under a court order. About two-thirds of the document was supposed to be kept from the public by being blacked out. The problem for the school board was the redactions disappeared when the report was copied and pasted into another software.

That let the Sun-Sentinel reporters read the entire report – and let their readers know what the black-out version of the report kept hidden: That Cruz, who had been a student at Stoneman Douglas before transferring to an alternative school, had not been offered all available options for special education opportunities in the district; and that he was not able to attend the alternative school he wanted thanks in part to Stoneman Douglas administrators.

It also showed that School Superintendent Robert Runcie was misleading the public when he claimed that Cruz had refused special education options the district offered.

As the Sun-Sentinel reported:

“In the past, Runcie said that when Cruz turned 18 and rejected special education placement, the district could no longer provide him with the services given to students with emotional and behavioral disabilities. But the consultant’s report reveals for the first time that Cruz himself requested to return to special education, and his request went nowhere.”

Now, there’s no way of knowing whether anything the school district did could have prevented the February shooting. And no one is responsible for the crimes Cruz committed but Cruz himself. Now 19, he is charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder.

But the facts are that the school district essentially blew it when it came to the case of a deeply troubled teenager, then tried to keep the facts from the public – officially to protect the student’s privacy, of course. The concealment just happened to have another effect.

As the Sun-Sentinel put it: “The redactions removed specifics of the killer’s history in the school system — and in the process removed details of mistakes the district made in handling him.”

The Parkland shooting unleashed a wave of gun-control hysteria, led by the media and touted by the voluble David Hogg and other student “survivors,” who’ve been using the crime as a means of political activism and personal celebrity for eight months now.

But the Sun-Sentinel report – like earlier reports about the Broward County Sheriff’s Office – shows the failure of Democrat-dominated local government to deal with a potential problem before it became a tragedy.

And now the school board is going to court against a newspaper that revealed the truth?

In a time when liberals throughout the land are accusing President Donald Trump and his administration of being at war with the idea of a “free press,” nothing can show how hollow the liberals’ claims are than a school board in a Democrat-dominated county suing a newspaper for revealing the truth about government incompetence.

Broward County has really made a name for itself.



Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.


The White House under Trump

submitted by LeRoy C


On Friday, the Trump administration released their annual report to Congress on White House Office Personnel.  It includes the name, status, salary and position title of all 377 White House employees.

The report also said that Trump decided not to take a dime of his salary; instead he donated it to an amazing cause! See below.
 
The report also showed that President Trump is far better at saving money than Obama was. The total annual White House salaries under Trump are 35.8 million vs. $40.9 million under Obama, a savings of $5.1 million.  Here are some other key findings:
 
There are 110 fewer employees on White House staff under Trump than under Obama at this point in their respective presidencies.
 
Nineteen fewer staffers are also dedicated to The First Lady of the United States (FLOTUS).  Currently, there are only two staffers dedicated to Melania Trump vs. 22 staffers who served Michelle Obama (FY2009).
 
However, it's what the report said Trump did with this salary that has everyone talking.
 
Instead of taking his salary, Trump donated all $400,000 to the Department of the Interior where it will be used for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries!  AMAZING! It's so great to have a President who loves our brave military men and women so much!
 
Oh, and where's the media coverage of this? That's right, they don't cover anything decent that the President does...

The Real “Fake News” from Government Media

By Scott Lazarowitz



Image credit: Pixabay

Facebook has announced its campaign against “fake news.” But, according to some workers’ own admission, conservatives are being censored.

And Google also wants to censor “fake news.” But Google also was shown to treat conservative websites, but not liberal ones, as “fake news.”

The same thing seems to be going on with Twitter. And again, conservatives are complaining.

But who is to decide what is “fake news”? Who will be Facebook and Google’s sources for real news?

In 2013 the U.S. Senate considered a new shield law to protect journalists. In the lawmakers’ attempts to narrow the definition of a journalist, some Senators including Sen. Dianne Feinstein only wanted to include reporters with “professional qualifications.”

“Professional” publications such as the New York Times, the “Paper of Record,” would apparently be protected.

So one can conclude that the New York Times can be a source of “real” news for Facebook or Google, despite all the Timeserrors, screw-ups, and corrections, right?  According to one NYT former reporter, the Times has been a “propaganda megaphone” for war. Also a partner with the CIA to promote Obama’s reelection bid.

Or CNN, “The Most Trusted Name in News” which wins its own “fake news” awards with its errors, screw-ups and corrections.  During the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign, there were collusion s between then-CNN contributor and DNC operative Donna Brazile, who was outed by WikiLeaks in her giving candidate Hillary Clinton questions in advance for a CNN Town Hall.

Other emails that were leaked to WikiLeaks informed us that reporters obediently followed instructions from the Hillary Clinton campaign on how to cover the campaign. These include reporters from the New York Times such as Maggie Haberman who said the campaign would “tee up stories for us,” and Mark Leibovich, who would email Clinton flunky Jennifer Palmieri for editing recommendations.

And Politico reporter Glenn Thrush asked Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta for approval of stories on Clinton. Thrush was then hired by the New York Times. After Thrush was then suspended from NYT over allegations of sexual misconduct, the Times ended the suspension, stating that while Thrush had “acted offensively,” he would be trained to behave himself. Hmm.

But all this from the 2016 campaign reminded me of the “JournoLists,” the group of news journalists who participated in a private forum online from 2007-2010. The forum was to enable news reporters to discuss news reporting and political issues in private and with candor, but also, it was revealed, to discuss ways to suppress negative news on then-2008 presidential candidate Barack Obama.

For instance, according to the Daily Caller, some members of the group discussed their criticism of a 2008 debate in which Obama was questioned on his association with the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The Nation‘s Richard Kim wrote that George Stephanopoulos was “being a disgusting little rat snake.” The Guardian‘s Michael Tomasky wrote that “we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy.”

Spencer Ackerman, then with the Washington Independent and now of the Daily Beast, wrote, “If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.

The Nation‘s Chris Hayes wrote, “Our country disappears people. It tortures people. It has the blood of as many as one million Iraqi civilians — men, women, children, the infirmed — on its hands. You’ll forgive me if I just can’t quite dredge up the requisite amount of outrage over Barack Obama’s pastor.”(But has Hayes criticized Obama’s assassination program, or Obama’s bombings or the blood on Obama’s hands? Just askin’)

In an open letter, according to the Daily Caller, several of the JournoList members called the ABC debate a “revolting descent into tabloid journalism,” because of the moderators’ legitimate questions on Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

So, in today’s Bizarro World, objectively questioning a candidate on a controversial issue is now “tabloid journalism,” but making things up like “Trump-Russia collusion” and repeating the propaganda over and over – that’s not “tabloid journalism.”

The JournoLists also included reporters from Time, the Baltimore Sun, the New Republic, Politico, and Huffington Post.

Now, are those the sources of “real news” that Facebook, Google and Twitter want to rely upon to combat “fake news”?

And who exactly were the “JournoLists” promoting? Obama?

Regarding Obama’s own crackdown on actual journalism, Fox News reporter James Rosen was accused by the feds of being a “co-conspirator” with State Department leaker Stephen Jin-Woo Kim in violating the Espionage Act.  Rosen’s correspondences with Kim were seized by Obama’s FBI, along with Rosen’s personal email and phone records. The FBI also used records to track Rosen’s visits to the State Department.

Apparently, then-attorney general Eric Holder went “judge-shopping” to find a judge who would approve subpoenaing Rosen’s private records, after two judges rejected the request.

Commenting on James Rosen and the FBI’s abuse of powers, Judge Andrew Napolitano observed that “this is the first time that the federal government has moved to this level of taking ordinary, reasonable, traditional, lawful reporter skills and claiming they constitute criminal behavior.”

And there was the Obama administration’s going after then-CBS News investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson, possibly for her reporting on Benghazi and Fast and Furious. Attkisson finally resigned from CBS news out of frustration with the company’s alleged pro-Obama bias and with CBS’s apparently not airing her subsequent reports.

In 2013 CBS News confirmed that Attkisson’s computers had been “accessed by an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions.” In 2015 Attkisson sued the Obama administration, claiming to have evidence which proves the computer intrusions were connected to the Obama DOJ.

In Attkisson’s latest lawsuit update, after her computer was returned to her following the DOJ Inspector General’s investigation, her forensics team now believes her computer’s hard drive was replaced by a different one.

Now back to “fake news.”

After Donald Trump locked up the Republican Presidential nomination in May, 2016, there were significant events in the next two months. Fusion GPS and former British spy Christopher Steele colluded to get opposition research on behalf of Hillary Clinton, the FBI applied for FISA warrant to spy on Trump campaign associates, and Donald Trump, Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner had a possibly set-up meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower.

Also within that same period, the DNC claimed that its computers were hacked but the DNC wouldn’t let FBI investigate. The Washington Post published an article claiming, with no evidence presented, that “Russian government hackers” took DNC opposition research on Trump.

It was very shortly after the November, 2016 Presidential election that the Washington Post published an article on a “Russian propaganda effort to spread ‘fake news’ during the election.” To escalate the media’s censorship campaign perhaps?

The campaign against “fake news” coincided with Obama minions at FBI, DOJ and CIA apparently panicking over a possible Trump presidency and allegedly abusing their powers to attempt to take down Trump.

So the news media seem to be on a crusade to fabricate “Trump-Russia collusion” and repeat it over and over, and to vilify, ignore and squash actual investigative research and reporting on what exactly the FBI and DOJ bureaucrats have been doing. Call such real investigative reporting “fake news,” “conspiracy theory,” and so forth.

In the end, Facebook, Twitter and Google might want to reconsider relying on the mainstream news media led by the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN, and instead include citizen journalists and non-government-sycophant media to provide news and information.

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has noted that the Founders generally viewed the freedom of the Press to apply to every citizen to print, publish or express accounts of events. We really need to highlight that kind of old-fashioned, honest journalism.

Scott Lazarowitz is a libertarian writer and commentator. Please visit his blog.





Scott Lazarowitz is a libertarian writer and commentator. Please visit his blog. The article is republished under a 2018 Creative Commons License. 









WaPo Forced To Issue Correction after Citing Satirical Website as Credible Source

by Jack Davis


When The Washington Post went to chronicle a British protest linked to the upcoming arrival of President Donald Trump, it included information that even The Post later had to agree was fake news.

As reported by Entertainment Weekly, British music fans are working to drive the 2004 Green Day song “American Idiot” up in the charts as their way of protesting Trump’s visit.

As of Tuesday, the song was, in fact, atop Amazon U.K.’s top-seller list and well toward the top on other charts as well.

In its reporting on that, The Post was on target. But the story went astray when it included information from Clickhole.com, a website that offers satire and not facts, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

The site had a satirical Op-Ed attributed to Green Day frontman Billy Joe Armstrong about the song, some of which found its way into The Post’s article.

“But despite the song’s ubiquity, Armstrong waited 13 years to reveal — in an article he wrote for Clickhole.com — that the ‘American Idiot’ was President George W. Bush,” The Post wrote.


The satirical piece, which remains up on Clickhole, further slams Bush.

“The main reason we made George W. Bush the ‘American Idiot’ is because he started a war,” the Clickhole article quotes Armstrong as saying.

It took a little time, but eventually The Post learned it had conflated satire with news and tweeted a correction.

Does this erode your trust in the mainstream media?

“A previous version of this report included information about the meaning of ‘American Idiot’ that was attributed to a Clickhole.com article. Clickhole.com is a satire site. The information has been removed from the story,” the note read.

The campaign to boost the song has been a long time in the works.

Paul Shane and Jeffrey Holland, who are behind the effort, said they started working on the project in January 2017. “(When British Prime Minister) Theresa May offered Trump a full state visit, 1.8 million people signed a government petition to protest this,” they said, according to Newsweek. “We thought we’d protest in a different way. We thought this would be amusing.

Trump will arrive in Britain on Thursday and remain through Sunday. During his visit, he is scheduled to meet with May and Queen Elizabeth II.



Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.