David Seaman, online patriots put their own lives in danger to expose dark D.C. secrets while news giants cower in fear

david-seaman-youtube

There is a huge story that every single mainstream media outlet is ignoring right now. In fact, this story is so massive that it’s the kind of thing that very powerful men in the nation’s capital would kill to keep under wraps. That is why I must say that reporter David Seaman and a number of people on Reddit are American patriots for shining a spotlight on what appears to be something dark and evil going on in the nation’s capital.

Anyone who has combed through WikiLeaks over the past few months knows that Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and his brother Tony are a.) two of the most powerful men int he world — and that is not an understatement, and b.) really freaking weird — and that is an understatement.

Likewise, the Podesta brothers are also friends with powerful (and bizarre) individuals. Take, for instance, James Alefantis, GQ Magazine’s former #49 on its list of Most Powerful People in Washington. Mr. Alefantis also has the distinction of being the owner of Comet Ping Pong, a “family-friendly” joint that features ping-pong, pizza, music and entertainment.

Sounds normal, right? It might be, until you take a look at Mr. Alefantis’ Instagram account (which is now on lockdown), or the “artwork” for some of its events.

james-alefantis

You see, the guy who hosts fundraisers for D.C. power players — some attended by President Obama — has a social media account that is filled with downright freaky (that’s putting it lightly) material.

wikileaks-podesta-alefantis

Ask yourself this question: What kind of person — the former boyfriend of Correct the Record’s David Brock — posts a picture with a man holding a child and then tags it “#chickenlovers”? (i.e., pedophile slang for a homosexual man who is attracted to underage boys.)

cp-chicken-comment

That’s really creepy, right? Especially since it’s not an isolated case. It’s almost the kind of thing that an agent at the Department of Justice’s Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit — perhaps one referenced in a 2011 issue of Vanity Fair — would want to look into.

Perhaps…Andrew Kline?

vanity-fair-kline

What if Mr. Kline owned a pizza place … right next to Comet Ping Pong? One that was literally 1 minute away?

Wait…you’re saying he does? And its called Besta Pizza? Awesome!

comet-p

Wait a second. Why does Besta Pizza have a logo that is literally an exact duplicate of the “Boy Lover” symbol that law enforcement agencies say is linked to pedophiles? (It’s now apparently in the process of changing its logo.)

What’s going on here? That seems like a mainstream media outlet — perhaps one like Heat Street — should investigate.

bp-logo

Oh, wait. It looks like they already did a piece and just dismissed the whole thing as one big conspiracy theory. Haha! Silly me. I guess the dots … and dots … and dots … and dots … and dots … were all just nothing. Nope. No kids at risk here. Why look into possibly one of the biggest stories of all time when there are so many click-bait pieces to write?

heat-street-pizzagate

In all seriousness though, Mr. Seaman is acting as a guardian angel who is doing his best despite having clipped wings. I do not know what will come of this story, but I know that God will be pleased with this man’s tireless work to protect innocent souls.

Here is a summary that someone on Reddit organized to near-perfection for anyone who is interested in going down this rabbit hole. I warn you now — it is downright terrifying.

Lena Dunham and dad ‘feel good’ about ‘extinction of white men’: Manufactured celeb says what activists really believe

lena-dunham-white-men

Lena Dunham is a woman with a multitude of psychological problems, which why I very rarely write on her antics. However, since she is a manufactured celebrity who is enlisted to make weird pro-Hillary Clinton rap videos, there are times when it is necessary. Her “extinction of white men” video published Wednesday is one such example.

Here is what she and her father said in an animated short regarding their desire for genocide:

Lena Dunham: How are you feeling about the extinction of white men?

Carroll Dunham: Well, white men are a problem. Straight white men are a big problem, that’s for sure. But I actually feel pretty good about it. I think straight white guys have been screwing things up for long enough. [It’s] high-time for straight white males to step back and let some other people do it.

Lena Dunham: That’s my dad!

Lena and Carroll: Hahaha!

As has already been stated, these are troubled souls. Instead of admitting to their own sense of self-loathing and insecurity, they project it into the world through poisonous political activism.

Don’t believe me? Consider the case of Esquire magazine’s Charles Pierce, who appeared on MSNBC in July and said he was optimistic “this is the last time that old white people will command the Republican party’s attention, its platform, its public face.” 

There is a palpable hatred of white people by pundits, politicians, and activists who wield real power and influence. They openly yearn for the “extinction” and cultural castration of straight white men (like your friendly neighborhood blogger), but a defense of white men or Western civilization is immediately shouted down as evidence of racism.

Again, we return to Mr. Pierce’s comment and the response by Iowa Rep. Steve King.

This ‘old white people’ business does get a little tired, Charlie,” the lawmaker said. “I’d ask you to go back through history and figure out: Where are these contributions that have been made by these other categories of people that you’re talking about? Where did any other subgroup of people contribute more to civilization?”

Host Chris Hayes then said, “Than white people?”

“Than Western civilization itself. It’s rooted in Western Europe, Eastern Europe and the United States of America and every place where the footprint of Christianity settled the world. That’s all of Western civilization,” Mr. King responded.

Mr. King was excoriated in by multiple media outlets for the comments as “racist,” despite the fact that he was pushing back against Mr. Pierce’s bizarre racial animus (and, like Ms. Dunham, self-loathing), towards white people.

shaun-king-steve-king

See how it works? Cultural influencers say all white people are responsible for the world’s ills, and when you stand up for yourself then your defiance is decried as proof of bigotry.

What makes the tactics used by Ms. Dunham and her friends so insidious is that it doubles as bait to draw out actual racists and uneducated people. The ignorant come across as racist because they do not know how to properly navigate intellectual minefields.

Who are these non-white people who Carroll Dunham wants running the show?

Could it be the not-so-white guys who throw gay people off tall buildings in Syria?

Islamic State gay execution

Could it be the not-so-white guys who take female sex slaves in Nigeria?

Boko Haram

Could it be the not-so-white people in China who put smiley faces on forced abortions (particularly when it involves little girls)?

China Population Control

Lena Dunham on many levels is an embarrassing joke, but her ideology is very serious. She is but a small cog in an organized machine, which is programed to destroy the pillars of Western civilization and replace them with an authoritarian perversion that “feels good” about genocide.

You can laugh at Ms. Dunham. You can cry for Ms. Dunham. You can pray for her soul, but you would be remiss to dismiss her activism as inconsequential to the the long-term health of our civil society.

RELATED: Lena Dunham and ‘Girls’ crew ‘rage’ on ‘sexist’ reporter — but zip it for Bill Maher

Hillary Clinton calls millions of Americans ‘deplorables’ because Democrats can be ‘grossly generalistic’ without media destroying them

hillary-clinton-deplorables

Imagine a situation where Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump gave a speech to donors and said, “I don’t hate all Muslims. I just oppose those who I lump into a cultural ‘basket of deplorables.'” How long do you think it would take before the collective might of the U.S. media crushed him under the weight of his own “grossly generalistic” words?

Answer: Mr. Trump would be mercilessly beaten day in and day out by pundits, political action committees, Hollywood celebrities, and campaign attack ads. There would be no respite from withering criticism until his reputation was ground into a million pieces and thrown into the dustbin of history.

Now consider Hillary Clinton’s “grossly generalistic” claim that roughly 50 percent of Mr. Trump’s supporters belong in a “basket of deplorables.”

CNN reported Saturday:

Hillary Clinton told an audience of donors Friday night that half of Donald Trump’s supporters fall into “the basket of deplorables,” meaning people who are racist, sexist, homophobic or xenophobic.

In an effort to explain the support behind Trump, Clinton went on to describe the rest of Trump supporters as people who are looking for change in any form because of economic anxiety and urged her supporters to empathize with them.
“To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables,” Clinton said. “Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it.”

Republicans are never allowed to be “grossly generalistic.” Just ask Mitt “47%” Romney.

If a Republican makes a generalization about any issue that might make some minorities look bad, then he or she is a racistbigothomophobe. If a Democrat makes a generalization that makes millions of white people look like racistbigothomophobes, then we are supposed to accept the claim as a general truth. Classic!

Surprisingly, CNN pointed to a new Quinnipiac University poll on Saturday showing that most people who are voting for Mr. Trump are doing so because they do not like Mrs. Clinton. She is such an unlikable and untrustworthy politician (Dare we say, “deplorable”?), that tens-of-millions of Americans will essentially vote against her instead of “for” Mr. Trump.

clinton-poll

America, give or take a few percentage points each election cycle, is politically split. There are about 40 percent who will always vote for Republicans, another 40 percent who will always vote for Democrats, and then another 20 percent who are up for grabs even though they may heavily lean in one direction. Therefore, saying that “half” of Mr. Trump’s supporters belong in a “basket of deplorables” is politically tone-deaf.

It will be very interesting to see how much this comment affects Mrs. Clinton’s support in the weeks ahead. Regardless, independent voters should ask themselves why it is that one political party gets to generalize about millions of law-abiding Americans, while the other is not allowed to do so with law-breakers and terrorists.

Hillary Clinton pairing up with all-female ‘Ghostbusters’ cast … because pandering

Ghostbusters 2016

Imagine a scenario in 2012 where Mitt Romney decided to appear on Jimmy Kimmel with the cast of The Expendables 2. Jimmy then tweeted, “The entire cast of The Expendables is here next week and now @MittRomney is coming, too! Get your Man Cards ready.”

You would probably lose a ton of respect for Mr. Romney for a.) blatantly pandering to a certain demographic of men, and b.) doing so when nothing about him says “cigar chomping, beer-chugging dude.”

Now consider the following tweet from Ellen DeGeneres on Tuesday:

“The entire cast of Ghostbusters is here next week and now @HillaryClinton is coming, too! Get your Woman Cards ready.”

Sad, isn’t it? It screams, “Vote for Hillary because she’s a woman. Seriously. I mean it.”

Ellen DeGeneres Hillary Clinton Ghostbusters

The weird thing about Mrs. Clinton’s May 25 appearance with Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones is that no one has apparently warned her: Ghostbusters is literally the most reviled movie trailer in YouTube’s history.

The Hollywood Reporter covered the infamous milestone April 30:

Not only does it have the most dislikes for a trailer on the social platform, but it also makes the top 25 most disliked videos overall.

Things are not boding well for director Paul Feig’s upcoming Ghostbusters based on the film’s first official trailer on YouTube.

Released March 3, the trailer, viewed 29.2 million times and counting, is the most disliked movie trailer in YouTube history, according to “MyTop100Videos” channel’s “Most Disliked Videos” list that was last updated April 16.

Mrs. Clinton, a pale political imitation of her husband, will link herself with a cast that will likely be a pale imitation of the original Ghostbusters. It’s the kind of pandering that only a desperate candidate would resort to because someone who was confident would want the stage all to herself.

If Hillary Clinton were confident that she represented the majority of women, then there would be no need for “Get your Woman Card ready” tweets by Ellen DeGeneres.

If Hillary Clinton were running a smooth campaign, then the cast of Ghostbusters would appear the next day and talk about her for most of the interview.

If Hillary Clinton had decent political instincts, then she would not appear with any cast that would allow critics a segue into discussions about “ghosts” that haunt the former secretary of state at night.

Again, I would be highly insulted if a male candidate showed up on a talk show with a bunch of “manly men” as guests because … “bros before hoes in the voting booth, bro!” I can only hope that millions of intelligent women feel the same way about the Clinton campaign’s shameless efforts with female voters.

‘Dilbert’ creator Scott Adams nailed it on Trump’s strategy

Dilbert Trump

A friend of mine asked me earlier this week whether I thought Donald Trump would be the next president of the United States. We had a lengthy discussion on the matter, and then the next day an old Washington Post piece showed up in my Facebook feed that covered much of the same ground. I was amused to find out that “Dilbert” creator Scott Adams and I have many of the same observations about the billionaire. We agree on Trump’s general strategy, but differ in terms of how successful his tactics will be in the general election.

In short, Adams believes Trump will be the next president of the United States. I … don’t know.

The Washington Post reported March 21:

The Manhattan mogul is so deft at the powers of persuasion, Adams believes, that the candidate could have run as a Democrat and, by picking different hot-button issues, still won this presidency. In other words: Trump is such a master linguistic strategist that he could have turned the political chessboard around and still embarrassed the field. …

1. Trump knows people are basically irrational.

“If you see voters as rational you’ll be a terrible politician,” Adams writes on his blog. “People are not wired to be rational. Our brains simply evolved to keep us alive. Brains did not evolve to give us truth. Brains merely give us movies in our minds that keeps us sane and motivated. But none of it is rational or true, except maybe sometimes by coincidence.”

2. Knowing that people are irrational, Trump aims to appeal on an emotional level.

“The evidence is that Trump completely ignores reality and rational thinking in favor of emotional appeal,” Adams writes. “Sure, much of what Trump says makes sense to his supporters, but I assure you that is coincidence. Trump says whatever gets him the result he wants. He understands humans as 90-percent irrational and acts accordingly.”

Adams adds: “People vote based on emotion. Period.”

3. By running on emotion, facts don’t matter.

“While his opponents are losing sleep trying to memorize the names of foreign leaders – in case someone asks – Trump knows that is a waste of time … ,” Adams writes. “There are plenty of important facts Trump does not know. But the reason he doesn’t know those facts is – in part – because he knows facts don’t matter. They never have and they never will. So he ignores them.

“Right in front of you.”

And stating numbers that might not quite be facts nevertheless can anchor those numbers, and facts, in your mind.

4. If facts don’t matter, you can’t really be “wrong.”

Trump “doesn’t apologize or correct himself. If you are not trained in persuasion, Trump looks stupid, evil, and maybe crazy,” Adams writes. “If you understand persuasion, Trump is pitch-perfect most of the time. He ignores unnecessary rational thought and objective data and incessantly hammers on what matters (emotions).”

I highly suggest reading the entire piece. Adams’ analysis will be invaluable in the months ahead.

Back in February I concurred with The Federalist’s James Poulos, who likened Trump to the Marvel character “Deadpool.” I said, “It appears, unfortunately, as though the Republican Party will not listen to Poulos’ advice, but instead will continue to ‘agonize’ over Trump.”

Now, Trump is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. That means that we are only left to wonder if Hillary Clinton or Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders will be able to successfully counter Trump’s strategy — unless there is an X Factor.

I believe the X Factor that Adams did not discuss is the percentage of people who Trump inadvertently filled with irreversible negative emotions while wooing Republican primary voters.

Translation: The billionaire might not be able to make more people irrationally support him than those who now irrationally hate him.

To this day I still believe Marco Rubio would have been the only Republican candidate who would have beat Hillary Clinton in a “normal” election (e.g., no one accuses an opponent’s family member of being linked to the JFK assassination). Mr. Trump, however, is not a normal candidate.

As of now I am not prepared to make any predictions, but I will put on an intellectual poncho. There is no doubt that things will soon get dirtier than the front row of a Blue Man Group performance.

Trump vs. Hillary: America reaches its own video game ‘kill screen’

Pac Man Kill Screen

A funny thing happens in old video games when players reach a point that exceeds the cartridge’s available memory: the “kill screen.” The character may die, although sometimes users can continue playing a jumbled mess that ostensibly makes no sense. The reality that Donald Trump will square off against Hillary Clinton to be the next U.S. commander in chief is a clear indicator America has reached its own kill screen.

Hillary Clinton

Kill screens may be fun to watch — there is no doubt that cable news networks are thrilled with the 2016 election season — but on another level (no pun intended), they are sad affairs. If you do not believe the U.S. is at its own kill screen, then ask  yourself the following two questions:

  • What led to the rise in popularity of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (a self-described socialist), and Donald Trump?
  • Will the election of Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump mitigate or exacerbate the nation’s underlying problems?

Donald Trump

Hillary Clinton has vowed to continue doing exactly what President Obama has done for eight years, which was a catalyst for Sanders’ groundswell of Democrat support.

Donald Trump’s popularity is based on the illusion that he is a political outsider who will “make America great again” via giant walls along U.S. border with Mexico and “great” deals with Congress. Ironically, the same people who have deified Mr. Trump regularly go apoplectic when “deals” are made in Congress. Unless Trump plans on becoming a dictator, his own supporters are in for a rude awakening if he wins in November.

Here is what the 45th president of the United States will encounter on Day One:

  • The U.S. is $19 trillion in debt, but there is no political will to get spending under control. This is due to economic illiteracy (thanks public education and academia), greed (it’s easy to rob from future generations when you know you’ll be old or dead when the bill comes due), lying politicians, and a whole host of other issues. There will be a day of reckoning.
  • The U.S. is culturally lost. Multiple generations have simmered in a stew of cultural relativism. Tens of millions of people have no idea why they believe what they believe — they just do. They have been taught to loathe the principles that made America the freest nation in the history. They have been conditioned to yearn for tyranny and not to care about it as long mindless viral videos, Facebook “likes,” and free pornography flows on their computers.
  • American media outlets are corrupt. The news long ago ceased to be about informing people and turned into a never-ending quest for “clicks” and “shares” and “tweets” and ratings. Journalists are usually more interested in showing they’re as witty and cool as John Stewart in his heyday than objectively reporting facts. Cable news shows are inspired by WWE wrestling matches and reality television shows, which is why the more appealing option is to just watch Food Network or turn off the TV all together.

In short, unless someone rewrites the U.S. “code” in the near future, we will soon disappear in the “integer overflow.”

Welcome to the kill screen. I look forward to seeing you after the “reset” button is pushed.

Hillary Clinton had beyond ‘top secret’ emails on server. Time to prosecute

 

HIllary AP

Imagine a world where you are given access to intelligence documents that are classified beyond ‘top secret’ and then you ran them through your own personal email server. How long would it take before you were sent to prison for years? Not long, right? Well, it turns out that Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III found “special access programs,” or SAP, on the Democrat front-runner’s “home-brew” setup.

McCullough wrote Jan. 14 in a letter to Senior members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and other senior lawmakers:

“To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community] element. These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels. According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified IC element sources.”

The letter was received by Fox News earlier in the week and its contents were not disputed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and State Department inspector general.

Hillary Clinton’s response on NPR on Thursday: “I’m just going to leave it up to the professionals at the Justice Department because nothing that this says changes the fact that I never sent or received material marked classified.”

In a different time and a different place, pitchforks, stakes and torches would be out if Mrs. Clinton were not prosecuted for what is obviously a violation of a subsection of the Espionage Act related to “gross negligence” in handling government documents.

When you willfully set up your own email server to avoid Freedom of Information Requests … When you ignore those around you who tell you that is a bad idea … and when the most sensitive intelligence documents in the nation then go through that server, then you are guilty of gross negligence.

Fact. Case closed. There is no way around that.

Fox chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge further explained things on Thursday for those who still do not understand.

“It is the content that is classified – not the format it is in,” said Herridge. “To suggest to people that there is somehow a big rubber stamp with ‘classified’ that’s smacked on every document is completely misleading and that something you only see in the movies. Mrs. Clinton knows better because she had to have special training as secretary of state because she has classification authority.”

Anyone who cares about the rule of law should be shocked and horrified if Mrs. Clinton is not prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Others, including former CIA Director David Petraeus, were prosecuted for far less.

If the former secretary of state is not prosecuted, then it will send a incontrovertible message to millions of Americans that the “right” people are very much above the rule of law. When that happens, all bets are off.

Fiorina weirdly mocked for 3-page tax code idea: Carl Quintanilla thinks 73,000 pages is normal

CNBC debate

Last night I was talking to my sister about how strange it is for Americans to put up with federal regulations that would be worthy of a revolution in another place and time. She astutely pointed to CNBC’s debate on Wednesday as an example of normalized madness. In Carl Quintanilla’s world, it is perfectly acceptable to have a 73,000-page tax code. A woman who thinks it can and should be simplified to three pages is the one who should be ridiculed.

Fiorina: We now have a 73,000-page tax code. There have been more than 4,000 changes to the tax plan since 2001 alone. There are loads of great ideas, great conservative ideas, from wonderful think tanks, about how to reform the tax code. The problem is, we never get it done.

Quintanilla: You want to bring the 70,000 pages to 3. Is that using really small type?”

The premise of Quintanilla’s smarmy joke is that it is reasonable to have a tax code closing in on 100,000 pages long. Over 4,000 changes to said tax code over the course of two U.S. presidents is also considered sane.

Carly is the sane woman in an insane world, which sadly makes her insane.

Carly Fiorina

Who benefits from a 73,000-page tax code? Answer: It’s not “the little guy,” who Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton all claim to represent.

The “little guy” is the one who does not have an army of lawyers at his disposal to cut through bureaucratic red tape. Bernie Sanders need complex rules and regulations because – for all his rhetoric about making “billionaires” pay for all the world’s ills — it is hard-working families who end up shouldering the costs.

Last year I hired a tax professional to make sure I handled my family’s payments properly. I was 95 percent sure I correctly filled out all my paperwork, but it is always written in a way where you never reach the 100 percent mark. Jargon only a professional tax-preparer can understand makes honest Americans wonder if they’re going to get a letter from the IRS ten months later demanding money.

My name is not Donald Trump. My name is not Hillary Clinton. I do not have the resources at this time to navigate an endless maze of tax laws. My guess is that most of the people reading this blog are in the same boat. Yet it is Carly Fiorina who is mocked for an idea that would a.) increase individual liberty while b.) making our lives exponentially easier each tax season.

Carl Quintanilla, we are all dumber for listening to you moderate CNBC’s Republican debate. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Corporate media crown Hillary debate winner — just like corporate media said Republicans want Jeb

Clinton CNN debateAn interesting thing happened after Tuesday night’s Democratic debate from Las Vegas, Nevada — corporate media talking heads declared Hillary Clinton the winner, even though the only thing she did was come across as a weirdly-calculating politician.

Progressive media watchdog FAIR.org reported:

The Times quoted National Journal columnist Ron Fournier (“Hillary Clinton won,” 10/13/15), Slate writer Fred Kaplan (“She crushed it,” 10/14/15), New Yorker staffer Ryan Lizza (“Hillary Clinton won because all of her opponents are terrible,” Twitter, 10/13/15), Red State blogger Leon Wolf (“Hillary was (astonishingly) much more likable and personable than everyone’s favorite crazy socialist uncle,” 10/13/15), pollster John Zogby (“Mrs. Clinton was just commanding tonight,” Forbes, 10/13/15) and conservative radio host Erick Erickson (“I’m still amazed the other four candidates made Hillary Clinton come off as the likable, reasonable, responsible Democrat,” Twitter, 10/13/15). If these so-called “opinion shapers in the political world” declare Hillary the winner, then Hillary must be the winner, according to the Times.

What the Times and these pundits failed to mention is the fact that every online poll we could find asking web visitors who won the debate cast Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders as the winner—and not just by a small margins, but by rather enormous ones.

As I told my wife after the debate, it’s too bad Bernie Sanders is a socialist, because he was essentially the only authentic person on stage.

Former Virginia Sen. Jim Web just came across as an irascible grump; former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee came across as a dazed child; and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley just came across as another run-of-the-mill politician.

The same media juggernaut that tried to convince Americans for months that a groundswell of support for Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign existed — despite zero polling evidence to back such claims — now wants viewers to believe Mrs. Clinton trounced Sen. Sanders.

Bernie Sanders

Here is an example of Clinton’s stellar debate skills:

Anderson Cooper: Secretary Clinton, how would you not be a third term of President Obama?

Clinton:Well, I think that’s pretty obvious. I think being the first woman president would be quite a change from the presidents we’ve had up until this point, including President Obama.

Cooper: Is there a policy difference?

Clinton: Well, there’s a lot that I would like to do to build on the successes of President Obama, but also, as I’m laying out, to go beyond. And that’s in my economic plans, how I would deal with the prescription drug companies, how I would deal with college, how I would deal with a full range of issues that I’ve been talking about throughout this campaign to go further.

Translation: Vote for me because I’m a woman! Seriously. I’m a woman. That’s important.

The former secretary of state offered zero differences between a future Clinton administration and the Obama administration — other than her chromosomes — and yet she was deemed the debate winner.

When it came to a very specific question from moderator Anderson Cooper — “Do black lives matter or do all lives matter?” — Clinton simply didn’t answer the question. She went off on a tangent about the criminal justice system.

Sanders, however, answered the question.

Anderson Cooper: Do black lives matter, or do all lives matter? Let’s put that question to Senator Sanders.

Sanders: Black lives matter. And the reason — the reason those words matter is the African American community knows that on any given day some innocent person like Sandra Bland can get into a car, and then three days later she’s going to end up dead in jail, or their kids.

Is it rather repugnant to rhetorically elevate the lives of black Americans above the lives of all Americans? Yes.

At least Sen. Sanders, however, had the guts to give a straight answer in front of millions of viewers.

A woman who casts herself as qualified for the position of commander in chief because of her estrogen levels, while simultaneously refusing to answer direct questions, cannot be the winner of a presidential debate.

Corporate media pundits are less interested in telling the truth than they are with pushing their own specific visions for the world. That is why so many people rightfully do not trust what they see on cable news or what is served to them from the official Facebook news feed.

As the 2016 presidential campaign gains steam, it is always important to consume news with a discerning eye. The networks and publications telling you they can be trusted are often lying.

Is it more likely that Harry Reid was beaten up, or that Mitt Romney didn’t pay his taxes?

ReidLet’s play a little game, shall we? It’s called “Is it more likely that Harry Reid was beaten up, or that Mitt Romney didn’t pay his taxes?”. The reason behind this game is simple: the retiring senator, who laughed off his 2012 presidential election lie about Mitt Romney, is now upset that radio host Rush Limbaugh said what others were already thinking: it looks like someone beat Harry Reid up.

Here is what Mr. Reid told CNN’s Dana Brash on March 31 when asked if he regretted his lie about Mitt Romney not paying taxes: “Romney didn’t win, did he?”

Telling, isn’t it? The ends justify the means to Mr. Reid, no matter how low he has to sink.

Now, here is the Nevada senator complaining to CNBC’s John Harwood about Mr. Limbaugh’s commentary on his battered and bruised body: “It shows the credibility of Rush Limbaugh. He’s the guy that got all this started. Why in the world would I come up with a story that I got hurt in my own bathroom with my wife standing there? How could anyone say anything like that? I think a lot of people, as I read, they kinda don’t like me as a person. That’s unfortunate.”

Why would anyone not like Harry Reid — besides the fact that he made up a giant irresponsible lie about Mitt Romney during a presidential election?

Harry Reid looks like artificial intelligence out of “Avengers: Age of Ultron” took over his workout equipment and then beat the living daylights out of him. That is what Rush Limbaugh correctly pointed out when he said “I don’t believe for a minute that whatever happened to Harry Reid has anything to do with an exercise machine unless somebody repeatedly threw him into it.”

I worked in a gym for three years. I can not think of one exercise that Harry Reid would do (or has the capability of performing) that would leave him looking like an angry bouncer unloaded on him. The official story is that an elastic waistband snapped and sent him sprawling inside his own bathroom.

I ask again: Is it more likely that Harry Reid was beaten up or that Mitt Romney didn’t pay his taxes?

There is one word to describe the rumors that are swirling about Mr. Reid’s battered and bruised body: karma. If a man makes up disgusting lies to smear political opponents, then he has zero moral authority to complain when the karma boomerang comes back and hits him in the face again…and again…and again.