‘Clown’ slashes man to death with bladed gloves

(DENVER POST) — Denver police have arrested a man who was wearing clown makeup when he allegedly stabbed and slashed a 29-year-old man to death with a glove that had blades attached to the end of each finger.

Christian Lee Gulzow, 36, allegedly attacked the victim at 12:49 a.m. Tuesday following an argument near Torchy’s Tacos at West 11th Avenue and Broadway, according to an arrest warrant affidavit.

The Denver coroner’s office identified the victim as Brian Lucero, 29. The cause of death was a stab wound, according to a coroner’s office news release.

Powered by WPeMatico

From http://www.therightnewsnetwork.com/clown-slashes-man-to-death-with-bladed-gloves/


Putin or the liberal Democrats?

Why is the liberal left so afraid of Russian President Vladimir Putin and the potentiality of closer United States and Russian communication? Without question, Russia is the second greatest power upon the face of the earth. Historically, Russian military might, prowess and national determination and fortitude defeated Napoleon and his Grand Old Guard in 1812 and Hitler’s formidable war machine beginning in 1941) Perhaps, the obsession and chatter regarding the enormity of Russian interference has more to do with American partisan politics than the genuine threat of a substantial and meaningful Russian interference.

For example, President Putin publicly expressed admiration for President Trump’s talents and disdain for Hillary Clinton. Consider the following documented quotes by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“He is a very flamboyant man, very talented, no doubt about that… He is an absolute leader of the presidential race, as we see it today. He says that he wants to move to another level of relations, to a deeper level of relations with Russia. How can we not welcome that? Of course, we welcome it.”
(Seven Quotes that reveal the Mind of Vladimir Putin-Telegraph.co.uk)

“At the very least, a head of state should have a head.” (Как минимум государственный деятель должен иметь голову.) – Putin’s response to Hillary Clinton’s claim that Putin has no soul. He also recommended that international relations be built without emotion and instead on the basis of the fundamental interests of the states involved.”( Public image of Vladimir Putin, Putinism, Wikipedia, citing, высказываний Путина, ставших афоризмам footnote 83)

Hence, the bitter political rivalry between the embittered Democratic Party Clintonites and conservative support for President Trump begins. The Clintonites looking for any reason to blame her lost the presidential bid on anyone but herself clings to the Russian tampering narrative. After all, it is well-known that referring to Hillary Clinton, President Putin said,
“At the very least, a head of state should have a head” (Public image of Vladimir Putin, Putinism, Wikipedia, citing, высказываний Путина, ставших афоризмам footnote 83).

Of course, Putin’s remark was in response to Hillary Clinton’s claim Putin had no soul. Many Americans would say Hillary Clinton has no soul.  In fact, many of those American’s adverse to Clinton, also, happen to be Trump’s populist storm troopers. Hence, the likes of liberals such as the dumbfounded Pelosi, Waters, Warren, Schiff and the continuously exaggerating Schumer attempt to discredit President Trump by discrediting Russian President Putin. This is attempted by these liberal democrats to be accomplished through a war of innuendo, exaggerations, deceptions, false narratives and presumptuous but unproven implications.

Another point of fundamental disagreement between the Liberal Democrats and Russian President Vladimir Putin is the Russian President’s hard line against Islamification and Islamic jihadism and terrorism. Russian President Putin remains a tough opponent against Islamification and jihadism, Islamic terrorism. Obama, Clinton, Waters, Pelosi and other liberal Democrats accepted the Benghazi massacre and tried to turn attention away from Islamic terrorism. On the other hand, Putin has a zero-tolerance policy regarding jihadism and terrorism. The Obama-Clinton worldview is diametrically opposite of conservative Putin’s worldview and philosophy. No wonder the propaganda war against Russia and specifically Putin by the Clintonites. Ponder the following quote against the return to Ottoman Islamification by Turkey. (Ataturk began the moderation and Westernization of Turkey. Erdogan wants to restore the glory of the Ottomans)

“I’m not saying it’s good or bad, but I think the current leadership of Turkey need to show the Americans and Europeans that they’re Islamizing the country but that we’re nice Islamists. To paraphrase Reagan, we’re Islamists but we’re your Islamists. “There’s a process of Islamization [going on in Turkey] that would make Ataturk turn in his grave.”
(Seven Quotes that reveal the Mind of Vladimir Putin-Telegraph.co.uk)

Hence, the Liberal Democrats are inversely opposed to Putin’s tough stance against Turkey’s restoration of Ottoman Islamification. The Ottoman Islamic empire had a client-state Caliphate in the Crimea, established after the collapse of Constantinople in 1453 and the Christian Byzantine empire. Consider the following citation:
“Khanate of Crimea, one of the successor states to the Mongol empire. Founded in 1443 and centered at Bakhchisaray, the Crimean khanate staged occasional raids on emergent Muscovy but was no longer the threat to Russian independence that its parent state, the Golden Horde, had been even after becoming a Turkish vassal in 1475.” (see britannica.com/place/khanate-of-Crimea)

The Islamic Khanate of Crimea conducted numerous raids against Christian Russia as permitted by Sharia law. These Muslim raids threatened both Christian Muscovy and Kiev. Eventually, Catherine the Great sent Russian armies against the Muslim Khanate as the following citation alludes, “The Crimean Khanate became a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire in the 15th century, but also a power claiming territory in what is today Russia’s Caspian-Volga region. Crimea was conquered by the Russian Empire in 1783.”
 A Brief History of Crimea, VOA News)

As the foregoing citations reveal, Russian President Putin’s policy towards Islamic extremism is based upon hundreds of years of historical reference and experience of the Russian people with Islamification. The defiant and undermining anti-Russian and Anti-Putin liberals have no such common historical experience or knowledge. These hypocritical liberals are devoid of Christian Russian experience with the horrors of Muslim jihadism and expansion.

This was amplified in Vladimir Putin, because, despite liberal allegation, Putin is simply not only the product of Soviet-era Russia but rather, his mother, introduced him to the older Russian Orthodox Christian culture, which predated Bolshevism. Consider the following:

“Putin’s mother was a devoted Christian believer who attended the Russian Orthodox Church, and his father was an atheist. Though his mother kept no icons at home, she attended church regularly, despite government persecution of her religion at that time. His mother secretly baptized him as a baby, and she regularly took him to services.According to Putin, his religious awakening began after a serious car crash involving his wife in 1993, and a life-threatening fire that burned down their dacha in August 1996. Shortly before an official visit to Israel, Putin’s mother gave him his baptismal cross, telling him to get it blessed. Putin states, “I did as she said and then put the cross around my neck. I have never taken it off since.” When asked in 2007 whether he believes in God, he responded, “… There are things I believe, which should not in my position, at least, be shared with the public at large for everybody’s consumption because that would look like self-advertising or a political striptease.” Putin’s rumored confessor is Russian Orthodox Bishop Tikhon Shevkunov.” (Vladimir Putin: Wikipedia)

Could it be, that the liberal American Democratic thugs are screaming loud, long and obnoxiously, in order, to orchestrate a false narrative, concerning Vladimir Putin? These two-faced, scam-infested liberal Democrats, attempt to develop a false narrative of Putin the KGB operative, during the cloak and dagger Soviet-era. A Natasha and Boris character from the Rocky and Bullwinkle show. Nice stereotypes for the 1950’s and 60’s, during the “Cold War” years, but, although entertaining, a shallow, one-dimensional Kindergartner portrayal.

This is the post-Cold War, Post Soviet-era world. It is not the 1950’s, but the 21 st Century. The Natasha and Boris stereotype should retire in the public’s minds-eye, just like the Rocky and Bullwinkle show has long since retired. One difference, the Rocky and Bullwinkle show is nice and nostalgic, the Natasha and Boris stereotypes are damaging. A notice, to liberal Democrats, should be sent forthwith, grow-up, mature from your Kindergarten portrayal of Russia and Putin and move on. This author acknowledges for those in the “dumb, dumber and even dumber” crowd, such a more sophisticated thought process may be a mental challenge and thus extremely difficult!

A side of President Putin’s personality and character that does not fit with the one-dimensional narrative the cry-baby liberal Democrats attempt to hoist as a scam on America is Vladimir Putin as thoughtful, traditional and respectful Christian. Taught by his mother at an early age. Consider the following, regarding Putin’s views and acts as a devout Christian.

“Putin regularly attends the most important services of the Russian Orthodox Church on the main Orthodox Christian holidays. He established a good relationship with Patriarchs of the Russian Church, the late Alexy II of Moscow and the current Kirill of Moscow. As President, he took an active personal part in promoting the Act of Canonical Communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, signed 17 May 2007 that restored relations between the Moscow-based Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia after the 80-year schism.”
(Vladimir Putin: Wikipedia)

The liberal American democrats, unlike conservatives, are not endorsing of Russian President Putin’s embrace of Russian Christianity because such a Christianity is not consistent with liberalism’s anti-western, anti-Christian message. Thus, Putin’s return to old Russian values offends liberal America. No doubt, America’s liberal democrats have more in common with Stalinism and Maoism than modern Russia and President Putin. Putin has been engaged in the work of a Restoration of Imperial and Christian Russia. This includes the leadership Muscovy initiated in Eastern Europe upon the decline and fall of Constantinople in 1453.
As the sun set upon the once great Byzantine power, it was Christian Muscovy (and Kiev) that stepped-up to fill the power vacuum and protect Europe from many expansionist dangers. Historically, Russia was the buffer State, which protected Christian Europe from advancing hordes, such as the Golden Horde and various Islamic incursions. Now, from a Russian perspective, what did Russia receive, in exchange, from Western Europe, for her troubles as a European border and buffer state? The answer, two unprovoked invasions, by Western European powers, Napoleon and German. In the present day, America has nasty little two-faced liberals in an feign uproar and panic regarding Muscovy influence. This feigns indignation to gain political power, which has also been a tremendous obstacle to talks regarding Russian and American cooperation in the fight against Islamic terrorism.
Terrorism relatively new to the United States and centuries old to Russia. A historical truth that these dense and apparent brain-damaged liberal Democrats are clueless.

The liberals have set up the “Russians” as a boogeyman, responsible for Democratic failure in this last presidential election, which centered in Hillary Clinton’s failed attempt to connect with the European-descendent American working class. Liberal Democrats have reached “hysteria” proportion, in regards, to Russia. This hysterical attitude has reached more feverish levels than most of the Cold War era. No doubt, the Russian boogeyman drama is a scapegoat ideal, in order, to take the American public’s attention away from Benghazi, immigration issues, Jihad terrorism, Clinton classified email leaks, Bill Clinton meeting with the U.S. Attorney, while an active investigation into his wife was being conducted and the story goes on. In the interim, opportunities to have constructive talks with the Russians are being missed. Hopefully, the appointment of independent investigator Robert Mueller will quell the liberal chicken-little cry, “The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!”

Therefore, any thinking person must posit the question, is Russian President Vladimir Putin the bad character or in reality liberal American politics the substantive undermining and evil influence?

Certainly, Russian President Putin is not an American politician, but he is uniquely a Russian statesman springing from a Russian heritage, sense of Russian nationalism and an acute understanding of the pre-soviet era, Russian history. The fact that American liberals do not have any dialogue or communication with Russia is so far beyond the realm of reason, that one must conclude partisan politics are at play among liberal democrats. Unfortunately, these liberals immature and outrageous resistance to the Trump’s administration’s willingness to engage in constructive discourse with the Russians makes the world less safe and thus works against American and Russian common interests.
Thus, who is America’s real substantive enemy Putin or the liberal democrats, such as Pelosi, Waters, Warren, Schumer, and Schiff?
Who is the real threat to America?

By Jeffrey E Elliott

The post WHO IS THE REAL THREAT TO AMERICA? appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Powered by WPeMatico

From http://www.therightnewsnetwork.com/who-is-the-real-threat-to-america/

Realism Doesn’t Need to Be ‘Reclaimed’

Ted Bromund, Michael Auslin, and Colin Dueck want to “reclaim American realism,” and spell out what they mean by that in a new article for American Affairs. The idea that realism needs to be “reclaimed” is the first sign that the foreign policy they have in mind has little in common with the one most realists want:

A new foreign policy can be built by recovering a traditional realist approach that held for much of the Cold War era and which was shared by both parties. Doing so will reclaim American realism from those on the right who have made it the handmaiden of neo-isolationism [bold mine-DL], while ensuring that it avoids the overreach that since 2003 has undermined support for America’s role abroad.

The authors’ framing of the problem suggests that they think there has been too much of a reaction against the foreign policy errors of the last sixteen years, but they are not quite willing to identify their preferred policies with the ones that led to those errors. Their reference to “Barack Obama’s retreats” is a giveaway that they are going to argue for a generally very aggressive set of policies–at least more aggressive than those of the Obama era–and then call it realism. I suspect most realists won’t buy it, but the bigger problem is that it abuses the name of realism and tries to use that name to smuggle something else into the debate. The result will be something that Republican hawks and hard-liners will have little to complain about precisely because it has so little to do with realism as understood by Posen, Walt, et al.

The would-be reclaimers aren’t very worried about needing to learn the lessons of the Iraq war. As far as they’re concerned, there has already been too much worrying about this:

Just as importantly, we recognize that we cannot live by postmortem. An obsessive focus on the past—above all, on the Iraq war—risks paralyzing us today.

The implication here is that taking the Iraq war as a cautionary tale about the dangers of overreach and unnecessary intervention runs the risk of preventing tomorrow’s unnecessary intervention, and so that must be avoided. Because they don’t want an “obsessive focus” on the past, the authors don’t address the problems of the overreach they say they want to avoid. Doing that would require revisiting and criticizing Bush-era policy errors.

The authors dismiss the charge of “free-riding” against allies:

But the problem is not that our allies are free riding on us, for when we cut our defenses, they do not increase theirs. It is that the history, culture, and politics of our allies now make them unwilling to accept that military strength is vital to diplomacy and deterrence alike.

Since the U.S. rarely reduces military spending and spends as much as the next seven countries combined, we don’t know that our allies wouldn’t increase theirs to pick up the slack if we made substantial reductions. As soon as there are even slight reductions in military spending, we hear overwrought warnings that the military is being gutted. The U.S. almost never decreases military spending by a large enough amount for long enough to see how our allies would react, and there are always hawks insisting that the military budget be even larger than it already is. The authors say that the U.S. “cannot sustain our alliances unless the American people believe that every member nation is making a fair contribution,” but then proceed to make excuses for why that contribution will never be forthcoming. Many realists have usually argued just the opposite: wealthy allies have the means to provide for more of their own defense, and the U.S. shouldn’t continually bail them out and help them avoid the political debates at home that they need to have.

They take the enviable geographical position of the U.S. as a reason to be entangled in alliances overseas:

Given our good fortune, and our strength, it is inevitable that we are the ones who are forward deployed, because we are the ones who have the geopolitical freedom to help.

But this is not inevitable. It is because we are remarkably secure on account of our location that we do not need to be “forward deployed” and that is why so many of our alliance commitments are unnecessary. Seventy-two years after the end of WWII, the U.S. continues to treat wealthy European and Asian allies as dependents that cannot fend for themselves, and many of them have been content to remain so as long as we keep assuming the costs and risks of protecting them. If these allies aren’t ready to assume more of that burden for themselves now, they never will be, and that arrangement is becoming increasingly untenable.

The authors also seem to have little interest in diplomatic engagement with rivals, which is a very odd trait for supposed realists:

Starry-eyed “resets” or “open hands” towards aggressive, repressive regimes only confuse those who wish to rally beneath a flag of freedom and liberalism. Trying to win over the whole world risks losing those already on our side.

Put another way, they think making efforts to improve relations with these states is a waste of time and shouldn’t be attempted at all. The goal of engagement isn’t to “win over the whole world,” but to secure cooperation on specific issues in the American interest. Even if such engagement delivers tangible results in terms of cooperation or the resolution of a longstanding dispute, the authors would rather that the U.S. keeps its distance for fear of “losing” states currently aligned with us. The odd thing about this is that engagement with Iran didn’t “confuse” our allies in Europe, and it didn’t cause any of them to move away from us. It pleased them, and some of them were directly involved in the negotiations that produced the nuclear deal. The only states put off by the nuclear deal were regional clients, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with a “flag of freedom and liberalism.”

The authors are arguing that we have to defend front-line states because they are threatened by rivals, but on no account should we try to reduce tensions with rivals through engagement. That seems like a recipe for needless confrontation that increases the danger to “those already on our side” and risks pulling us into a larger conflict. Once again, this is not the realism you are looking for.

The authors then take refuge behind the hoariest of hawkish cliches:

It is our weakness, not our strength, that is provocative, because American weakness makes our allies fearful and encourages our competitors to take chances.

There are never any examples provided to prove the “weakness is provocative” thesis. It may occasionally be true, but it is more likely that adversaries find our aggressive actions to be far more provocative, and these are the actions that prompt more aggressive behavior from them in turn. The belief that “weakness is provocative” takes for granted that adversaries perceive weakness from us if our government doesn’t respond forcefully in every dispute. That ignores our adversaries’ own understanding of their interests, and explains their behavior primarily in terms of taking advantage of our supposed weakness. Meanwhile, our allies and clients tend to become more reckless and irresponsible when they think they have U.S. backing. Believing that “weakness is provocative” is frequently misleading, and it means that policymakers that accept it as true will err on the side of being too aggressive.

The authors seem to reject pursuing regime change, but leave a caveat large enough to launch an invasion through:

Our method should not be imposed regime change, except in cases of vital national need…

The trouble is that advocates for regime change always insist that overthrowing this or that regime is vitally important for U.S. security. They are always wrong, but they always make this claim. The authors don’t offer specific examples of when they think regime change was/is necessary and when it wasn’t/isn’t, so we are left wondering what they think “vital national need” means. It shouldn’t be difficult for ostensible realists to say that they are opposed in principle to starting wars to overthrow foreign governments, but they don’t say that here.

Later on, they make clear that they think the U.S. should be willing to risk war to defend states, even non-allied ones, that are in conflict with the world’s two major authoritarian powers:

Second, the United States must support sovereign nations that are resisting attempted subjugation by outside pressure, if that pressure is exerted by a nation that has the strength to alter the global balance of power. This means that we must oppose actions such as Russia’s assaults in Ukraine and the Caucasus, and China’s expansionism in the South China Sea.

We cannot rule out the use of military force in cases such as this: if we do, other powers will simply escalate in any crisis until we quit.

Risking a major war over Ukraine or Georgia makes no sense for U.S. security, and no responsible president would do that. Risking war over territorial disputes in the South China Sea is similarly unwise. These are exactly the kinds of crises that could be avoided or contained through greater engagement, but the authors have already dismissed that as “starry-eyed” nonsense. Courting great power conflict in this way seems like the exact opposite of what a realist foreign policy would do.

They think imposing punitive sanctions is worth doing even when they don’t change the targeted government’s behavior:

It is therefore not right to criticize responses—such as the sanctions that the United States imposed on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine—by arguing that they did not resolve the crisis, for the point of such responses is not to resolve the crisis: it is to open another front in the wider competition, and to do so in ways that impose long-term costs on our opponent.

In other words, punitive sanctions are often useless, but we should use them anyway. Even though imposing them almost certainly makes resolving the crisis harder and worsens relations with the targeted government, they should be imposed simply for the sake of imposing costs. I can’t think of many realists that would agree with this approach.

The authors make another curious claim:

The danger rests not so much in any particular crisis, but in the rise of the belief among the powerful that the world is there for taking.

The idea here is that the U.S. doesn’t have to have anything at stake in a particular crisis, but it has to oppose other great powers in each instance anyway. The problem with this is that it sets the U.S. up to fail in the competition with these powers in crises where our interests are few or non-existent and theirs are much greater. If we insist on trying to check them at every turn (and then inevitably backing down because we have nothing at stake in most cases), it makes it more dangerous and difficult to check them when it might really matter.

One frustrating aspect of the article is that it addresses so few contemporary issues. There are a few references to conflicts involving Russia and China, and a passing swipe at the nuclear with Iran, but for the most part it isn’t clear how the authors’ “reclaimed realism” would differ in practice from the preferred policies of hard-liners in Washington. But then I suppose that’s the point. “Reclaiming” realism means dubbing hard-line policies as realist and throwing most actual realist arguments out the window.

Powered by WPeMatico

From http://www.therightnewsnetwork.com/realism-doesnt-need-to-be-reclaimed/


Alt-left advocates for net neutrality, who say they want a “free and open internet,” want to ban the Drudge Report.

Members of the alt-left who have been tied to violent protests in the past picketed outside the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday in protest of Chairman Ajit Pai’s proposal to reverse net neutrality rules. The FCC will vote to undo the Obama era Title II rule that classified Internet service providers as utilities, subjecting them to more federal regulation.

Protesters covering their faces held signs that read “Ban Drudge,” with a no symbol over the Drudge Report, the highly trafficked news website run by Matt Drudge. Other protesters held signs to ban other news websites, including Breitbart and InfoWars.

Organizers of the campaign “Protect Our Internet” are connected to PopularResistance.org, which features several members of the antifascist (antifa) campaign.

Then there’s these “antifa” guys. Pro-net neutrality folks not happy — @mattfwood tells me they’re fighting for opposite principles. pic.twitter.com/z8z2Sg7Z60

— Brendan Bordelon (@BrendanBordelon) May 18, 2017

Then there’s these “antifa” guys. Pro-net neutrality folks not happy — @mattfwood tells me they’re fighting for opposite principles. pic.twitter.com/z8z2Sg7Z60

— Brendan Bordelon (@BrendanBordelon) May 18, 2017

Protect Our Internet claims its mission is to “keep the internet vibrant, free and equal.”

The campaign also claims net neutrality rules are “protecting our freedom to use the internet!”

A report released this week found that net neutrality regulations lead to higher internet prices for consumers and less innovation.

Source: Overpasses For America


Powered by WPeMatico

From http://www.therightnewsnetwork.com/antifa-protesters-demand-fcc-ban-drudge-breitbart-more-under-net-neutrality-rules/

NY governor takes temporary break from leading The Resistance™ to ask Trump for money

**Written by Doug Powers

How’s NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s “Resistance™” effort going? Here’s an update…

The wind-up, from earlier this month:


And the pitch, from yesterday:


The Resistance™ is adding to their bylaws a disclaimer saying exceptions will be made to any Resistance™ is the Resister in question is in need of federal dollars.

(h/t JWF)

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Powered by WPeMatico

From http://www.therightnewsnetwork.com/ny-governor-takes-temporary-break-from-leading-the-resistance-to-ask-trump-for-money/

Christian School Punishes Student Who Got Pregnant and Rejected Abortion

High school senior Maddi Runkles has attended Christian school for her whole life.

But when she became pregnant in January, the Christian school that she once was very much a part of left her feeling alone and unsupported.

Students for Life of America, which is supporting Runkles and her baby, said Heritage Academy in Hagerstown, Maryland will not allow the young woman to participate in her graduation ceremony even though she publicly apologized for her actions.

The student pro-life organization, along with many other pro-lifers, are urging the school to support Runkles and her unborn child.

“When we heard about Maddi’s situation, we wanted to not only help her, but also show all of her peers at the school, and in schools across the nation, that choosing not to have an abortion is a good thing and should be supported as such, not made into a cruel embarrassment,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life.

Breitbart reports Runkles maintained a 4.0 grade point average and served as president of the student council at Heritage Academy. And like most Christian school students, she signed a pledge to avoid premarital sex, drugs and alcohol.

Then January came, and she discovered she was pregnant out of wedlock.

Keep up with the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter. Follow @LifeNewsHQ

The young woman said she did consider abortion, but the support she received from her parents and church made all the difference.

“… I was so afraid of what I was going to face, because I was just afraid of what everyone was going to think of me and the family that I come from,” Runkles said. “It was just going to hurt my reputation and everything. It was hard to choose life, it wasn’t an easy decision, but I know it was the right decision.”

Many of the leaders at Heritage Academy were not supportive. According to the report, when the school discovered Runkles was pregnant, they stripped her of her role as student council president and insisted that she finish the rest of her classes at home.

In addition, she said her principal, David Hobbs, planned to tell the school that she had broken her pledge and was pregnant. Instead, Hobbs agreed to allow her to publicly confess to the student body instead, according to the report.

“I decided I wanted to confess what I did and ask for forgiveness from my school, but the other kids who had broken other rules – even when they were caught – they still lied about what they had done,” Runkles said. “It just seems unfair. I tried to make it right, but was still shot down.

“I stood there in tears while my dad read half of my prepared statement until I could compose myself and read the rest on my own, admitting my mistake but also saying that I chose life for my child. It was embarrassing but I wanted my peers and my friends to hear it from me,” she continued.

School officials are allowing her to finish her classes at school, but Students for Life leaders said the principal still will not let her participate in graduation.

Runkles’ father, Scott, resigned his position as school board president because of the way the school treated his daughter, according to Students for Life.

Runkles’ story gained national attention over the weekend when the New York Times profiled her. She said she hopes her story will challenge Christians to be more supportive of girls like her.

The young woman told Breitbart: “My main mission through all this is that Christians claim to be pro-life, but when a girl chooses to keep her baby they still don’t want anything to do with it. It kind of defeats the whole purpose of being pro-life, and says to girls, ‘Maybe you should have gotten the abortion because we could forgive you for that.’”

Students for Life said Christians need to re-evaluate the messages they send when they punish and shame young women like Maddi.

The pro-life group wrote on its blog:

What did Maddi’s peers think when she got up there in front of them to confess her sin? What if a pregnant, scared girl was sitting in that audience and saw the embarrassment that she had to endure along with the punishment she is receiving – would that girl make an appointment with the nearest Planned Parenthood to have an abortion? More than likely.

When these teens graduate and are confronted with situations that test their faith in college, they will remember what happened at Heritage Academy and how their Christian school treated Maddi. They will remember that it wasn’t with grace and compassion, that it wasn’t with love. That’s not a great legacy to leave with graduating students.

The school could have used Maddi’s story as an example of how to do the right thing and support a pregnant student. But they didn’t. The proper legacy to leave is a picture of a Christian school that chose to do the right thing by supporting a young girl who acknowledged her mistake but also chose to do the right thing in the end.

The young woman said she plans to attend community college in the fall and study business. She is having a boy.

Students for Life is collecting donations for a scholarship for Runkles and baby gifts for her unborn child. Donate here. People also can send Runkles messages of support here.

ACTION: Email Principal David Hobbs (dhobbs@heritage-academy.net) at Heritage Academy, and ask him to please reconsider the school’s decision not to allow Maddi to walk with her peers at graduation.

Powered by WPeMatico

From http://www.therightnewsnetwork.com/christian-school-punishes-student-who-got-pregnant-and-rejected-abortion/

Who’s Telling the Truth in Washington? Anyone?

If you are among the small cohort of Americans who want to know what is really going on—rather than simply wanting more ammunition to support your preferred political team—then you have a problem: It’s hard to know who is telling the truth.

Hardly a stunning new insight. But it bears down with more weight now, because the public is confronted with competing narratives from what an English professor would call two unreliable narrators: the press and the Trump administration.

Take the press first. It’s well known that, with a few salient exceptions, the media tilt heavily to the left. That tilt shows up in decisions about what subjects merit scrutiny, how much scrutiny they deserve, and the tone of that scrutiny. Some of the decisions are conscious, some less so. (Nobody ever issued a newsroom memo stipulating that stories should sometimes call the NRA “the gun lobby” but must never call NARAL “the abortion lobby.” It just happens.)

But even if you set political slant aside, the media sometimes get stories badly wrong. Think of Dan Rather’s “fake but accurate” memos about George W. Bush’s service in the National Guard. Or Rolling Stone‘s retracted cover story about a rape at U.Va. Or CNN’s retracted story about how the U.S. military used sarin gas against defectors. Or The New York Times‘ reporting on Saddam Hussein’s purported weapons of mass destruction—reporting The Times eventually recanted. Partly. Sort of. With qualifications and so on.

That combination of ideological slant and human fallibility gives Republicans reason to be skeptical of the press. So doubt is a natural reaction when a long train of allegations against Donald Trump, based largely on unnamed sources and unseen memos, dominates the headlines.

Say this much for the establishment press, though: For all its shortcomings, it doesn’t lie to your face. Newspapers and news shows are not going to run with a claim they know is a steaming pile of bogus.

Politicians and their henchmen do. All the time.

At this writing, the most recent case in point involves House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California. At a meeting of Republican congressional leaders last June, McCarthy said, “There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump.” (Dana Rohrabacher is a Republican congressman from California.) House Speaker Paul Ryan swore those present to secrecy, but the remark was caught on tape.

Asked about the comment on Wednesday, Brendan Buck—a spokesman for Ryan—said it “never happened.” McCarthy spokesman Matt Sparks said the very idea that his boss would make such a comment “is absurd and false.”

Reporters then told the spokesmen the comment was on tape. “This entire year-old exchange was clearly an attempt at humor,” Buck said. Sparks agreed, calling it “a failed attempt at humor.”

As lies go those are venial sins, not mortal ones. Officials are guilty of far worse falsehoods—some of which are now infamous:

  • “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,” Bill Clinton said in a televised public statement. Clinton also was fined $90,000 for lying under oath in a sexual harassment suit brought by Paula Jones.
  • Hillary Clinton lied early and often about her emails. Then she lied about lying: After FBI director James Comey’s testimony before Congress exposed her lies, Clinton claimed on TV that “Director Comey said that my answers were truthful.”
  • In 2013, as director of national intelligence, James Clapper was asked whether the National Security Agency was collecting “any type of data at all” on American citizens. Under oath, Clapper answered, “No sir,” and “not wittingly.” The revelations by Edward Snowden later revealed those statements to be egregiously false.
  • Ronald Reagan swore to the American people that his administration did not trade arms for hostages in the Iran/Contra scandal. He was later forced to concede, “My heart and my best intentions still tell me that’s true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages.”

The list could run on and on without ever getting into murkier questions, such as: Was George H.W. Bush lying when he said “read my lips: no new taxes”—or did he really mean it at the time? Was Barack Obama lying when he said, “if you like (the health care plan) you have, you can keep it”—or did he simply not realize he could never keep that promise?

For the sheer frequency and magnitude of falsehoods, though, nobody can come close to Donald Trump. He, his spokespeople, and members of his administration lie so badly about so many things—and so many that are checkable—it is almost funny. From claims about the size of his inaugural crowd to his recent assertion that he coined the decades-old economic term “prime the pump,” the president is a geyser of untruths. (One count puts the tally for his first 100 days alone at 492 “false or misleading” claims.)

So if you’re trying sincerely to separate fact from fiction in the current climate, don’t supinely accept the truth of any story that gets published. But don’t automatically assume it’s wrong, either—especially if somebody in power wants you to.

This column originally appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Powered by WPeMatico

From http://www.therightnewsnetwork.com/whos-telling-the-truth-in-washington-anyone/

Church greeter shot while welcoming parishioners

(WDAF-TV) KANSAS CITY, Mo. — What is typically a place of love, joy, and worship became scene of terror as gunfire rang out during a Kansas City church service, hitting one person in the head on Sunday.

Police confirmed that a man entered the House of Refuge Family Worship Center near Hillcrest and E. 109th Street Sunday morning and fired shots, striking a church greeter in the head, who then fell through a window in the sanctuary. Police said person was rushed to a hospital and is expected to survive.

Police said the gunman, described as a black male, entered the church through a back door and then opened fire during a service.

Powered by WPeMatico

From http://www.therightnewsnetwork.com/church-greeter-shot-while-welcoming-parishioners/

Liberals, mainstream media attack Trump for being ‘exhausted’ in Saudi Arabia

During a speech in Saudi Arabia on Sunday, President Donald Trump deviated from his prepared remarks and said “Islamic extremism” instead of “Islamist extremism” — a phrase that can be construed as painting the entire Islamic religion with an “extremism” brush rather than just the extremist minority.

When the traveling press pool inquired about the deviation, a White House staffer blamed Trump’s error on a lack of rest and said that Trump is “exhausted.”

At a briefing with reporters a WH official said POTUS is “exhausted.” https://t.co/0ll7Y4U1nt

— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) May 21, 2017

The staffer’s admission proved to provide ample fuel for the mainstream media and progressives Sunday to bash Trump for his fatigue.

That’s because Trump, while running for the White House last year, routinely bashed Republican candidates and Democrat Hillary Clinton for being “low energy” and possessing “low stamina.”

In January 2016 while still in the midst of the Republican primary, Trump tweeted: “Hillary Clinton doesn’t have the strength or stamina to be president. Jeb Bush is a low energy individual, but Hillary is not much better!”

Hillary Clinton doesn’t have the strength or stamina to be president. Jeb Bush is a low energy individual, but Hillary is not much better!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 2, 2016

Indeed, once he secured the GOP nomination, Trump continued those attacks on Clinton.

“You ever see Hillary where she comes out and she’ll read a teleprompter and then she’ll go home and you don’t see her for three, four days, then she comes back?” he  asked at a campaign event last July. “She’s low energy, she actually is low energy. She’ll go home, she’ll take a nap for four or five hours then come back. No naps for Trump!”

And once news broke that Trump was “exhausted” while on his first foreign trip as president, many observers piled on, including those in the mainstream media.

They not only mocked Trump for being exhausted given his record of attacking Clinton and others as “low energy,” but many drew attention to Clinton’s record-breaking travel record as secretary of state implying that it’s actually Trump who has low stamina:

One of Trump’s favorite knocks on HRC in 2016? She lacked the “strength and stamina” to be president… https://t.co/LDPF7CeugF

— Ali Vitali (@alivitali) May 21, 2017

Low energy. No stamina. https://t.co/rm3OW90Bw2

— Bakari Sellers (@Bakari_Sellers) May 21, 2017

“Low-energy Donald”. https://t.co/tF3ZES0Qxg

— Ana Navarro (@ananavarro) May 21, 2017

cancel appearance cause too tired on day 3? Must lose weight, exercise,etc. Low energy for 70yr oldhttps://t.co/AgIaoJXwCO via @dcexaminer

— Jennifer Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) May 21, 2017

Trump doesn’t have the stamina to be POTUS. Low energy. Sad!

— Matt Murphy (@MattMurph24) May 21, 2017

What’s he so exhausted from? His first weekend of working while in office? https://t.co/vKm99ouzR0

— Kaili Joy Gray (@KailiJoy) May 21, 2017

After one day, Donald Trump is exhausted already, smh, what happened to having all the stamina in the world, remember him mocking Hillary?

— Mr. Weeks (@MrDane1982) May 21, 2017

WH announced Trump is “exhausted.”

Remember before he left, rumors were he wanted the trip to be shorter.

Dude can’t handle the workload.

— Eric Schmeltzer (@JustSchmeltzer) May 21, 2017

Hillary visited 112 countries as SOS. Never complained.

Trump is “exhausted” in his FIRST country.

Low stamina Donnie? #TrumpinSaudi

— ᖇ૯ძ ᑭคɿՈ੮૯Ր (@Redpainter1) May 21, 2017

I prefer Presidents who aren’t so exhausted after reading off a teleprompter for 30 minutes that they’re forced to take a nap

— Juan Tim Peechmynt (@Juan_Abbe) May 21, 2017

Three days into his trip, Trump is “exhausted.”

Secretary of State Hillary traveled 956,733 miles – 38.42 times around the globe. pic.twitter.com/dh5fov3WxW

— Hillary Warned Us (@HillaryWarnedUs) May 21, 2017

Monday marked the third day of Trump’s nine-day international trip. He began the trip by making a stop in Saudi Arabia, then jetted to Israel and plans to make stops in Italy and Belgium before heading back to Washington, D.C.

Powered by WPeMatico

From http://www.therightnewsnetwork.com/liberals-mainstream-media-attack-trump-for-being-exhausted-in-saudi-arabia/

What has happened to Fox News’ ratings since O’Reilly’s departure? The answer is shocking

When the Fox News Channel fired cable news giant Bill O’Reilly in April, reports surfaced revealing Fox News’ owner, the Murdoch family, wanting to move the network in a different direction. Out with the old guard, in with the new. More hosts similar to Megyn Kelly, who is now at NBC News, fewer like the ones who built the network from the ground up, including O’Reilly.

About one month later, Fox News has a completely different news lineup, and the results thus far have been nothing short of disastrous.

On Thursday, TV Newser reported Fox News, which once dominated its competitors in virtually every timeslot, is now losing across the board in the key 25-54 demographic.

The results are most notable in primetime, which used to carry Fox News’ most reliable audience. Now, Fox News is running a distant third to hosts who previously drew audiences half the size of O’Reilly’s.

On Thursday, at the 7 p.m. hour, Fox News’ “The Story,” hosted by Martha MacCallum, lost by more than 100,000 viewers in the 25-54 demographic to CNN’s “OutFront” with Erin Burnett. Chris Matthews’ “Hardball” beat MacCallum by nearly 60,000 viewers.

At 8 p.m., Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight” lost to both CNN’s Anderson Cooper and MSNBC’s “All In” with Chris Hayes.

At 9 p.m., Fox News Channel’s “The Five” was absolutely demolished by Cooper and MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show,” which won the key demographic by more than 200,000 viewers.

Of all the Fox News hosts in primetime, Sean Hannity performed the best, although he still finished third to “CNN Tonight” with Don Lemon and MSNBC’s “The Last Word” with Lawrence O’Donnell.

Across the board, cable news is benefiting significantly from having President Donald Trump in the White House, but it appears the liberal networks have been able to capitalize on Trump-related news better than Fox News has, and it seems clear at least some of Fox News’ previously very loyal audience has parted ways with the network after O’Reilly was fired.

O’Reilly, who joins Glenn Beck on “The Glenn Beck Program” every Friday, told Beck on Friday there’s “no doubt” that “Fox News has a problem.”

“They have a problem,” O’Reilly said. “Fox News has a problem. There’s no doubt about it. Whenever you lose a key person in any industry, competitive industry, sports, media, you better have a plan. And it doesn’t look like FNC has a plan.”

“The Trump haters are going over to MSNBC, and there’s a lot of them, a lot of Trump haters,” O’Reilly said. “So, they’re being bolstered by the problems the president is having. But on the Fox News side, they made their decisions. They didn’t have to make those decisions, and they really didn’t have a plan. You know when you take a guy like me out of the lineup, and I’m doing 5, 6 million views a night, you better have a plan to replace that.”

Powered by WPeMatico

From http://www.therightnewsnetwork.com/what-has-happened-to-fox-news-ratings-since-oreillys-departure-the-answer-is-shocking/