Journalists are total buzzkills (yes, this is about #TargetTori)

#TargetTori has been trending on Twitter since yesterday, and in case you haven’t been following, Tori is a manager at a Massachusetts Target who had the unfortunate luck of dealing with David Leavitt:

Wow. And believe it or not there are more tweets in that thread, so click on one of the embedded ones above to see them all.

You might also notice that David is an “award-winning multimedia journalist” who has been published in CBS, Yahoo, Examiner, and others. A journalist? Being a buzzkill? Trying to humiliate a normal person doing her job? Color me shocked! Also notice that he has kept all these tweets up; he lacks so much self-awareness that he probably still thinks there’s nothing wrong or unusual with making a fuss and calling the police over a mistaken price tag. He thinks he’s being clever by trying to demonstrate his thorough knowledge of Massachusetts pricing laws, but in reality he looks like a complete fool. #TargetTori’s face says it all:


If you want to help send #TargetTori on a much-needed vacation, go here.

NBC News article: Racist Trump voters may be violating the Constitution

Our wise media overlords are at it again, this time with an NBC News article by Noah Berlatsky titled “Trump voters motivated by racism may be violating the Constitution. Can they be stopped?” Excerpt:

Some politicians deny the evidence, no doubt because they don’t want to alienate white voters, including prejudiced ones. Other commentators try to parse whether Trump’s racism will be a winning strategy in 2020. Terry Smith, a visiting professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, offers a different response in his new book, “Whitelash: Unmasking White Grievance at the Ballot Box.” Rather than excuse racist voters or try to figure out how to live with their choices, he argues that racist voting is not just immoral, but illegal. The government, Smith says, has the ability, and the responsibility, to address it.

This sounds radical. But Smith argues that it’s in line with the Constitution and with years of court rulings. For example, Smith points out that racist appeals in union elections are illegal and that an election in which one side uses racist appeals can be invalidated by the National Labor Relations Board. Similarly, in the 2016 case Peña v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court ruled that when a juror expresses overt bigotry, the jury’s verdict should be invalidated.

More here, if you can make it to the end. The scary part is some people actually take this nonsense seriously. And by Berlatsky’s logic, almost every president that Americans have ever put into office would have to be of dubious constitutionality.

On a related note, more than 8 in 10 blacks have described Trump as racist. So much for #Blexit and a repeated touting of “record low African American unemployment!”

Van Jones: Nothing I saw at the debate could beat Trump

One of CNN’s most prominent pundits is not confident that any of the Democratic candidates could win the White House from Trump:

CNN’s Van Jones tonight said he was dispirited by the Democratic debate and that nothing he saw from any of the candidates looked like any of them could beat President Donald Trump.

Jones offered words of praise of Elizabeth Warren, saying “she made the case that women have been winning in the Trump era.”

However, his overall assessment of debate was not as positive:

“As a progressive, to see those two [Warren and Sanders] have that level of vitriol was very dispiriting. And I want to say that tonight for me was dispiriting. Democrats got to do better than what we saw tonight. There was nothing I saw tonight that would be able to take Donald Trump out, and I want to see a Democrat in the White House as soon as possible.

A moment of raw honesty. We’ve got a long way to go, but I would bet on a Trump reelection. First, the Democrats have failed to trot out any candidates that are both a) solid and b) have a chance of winning. Second, Trump doesn’t suffer from any more “negatives” in terms of style, temperament, and character, that he already possessed as a candidate, and he arguably has more positives now that he has experience in office (disregarding a few of the ways in which his actions, policies, and promises could’ve been better or better upheld). Incumbents are difficult to beat as it is, and Trump has a lot on his side right now, significantly more than some rabid leftists think he does.

It was only a matter of time, unfortunately

Nick Fuentes is the latest to be deplatformed for his politics:

Popular video hosting platform YouTube has officially censored the America First political talk show host Nicholas J Fuentes from streaming on their service. After years of conservative censorship from every major social media website, YouTube has joined the ranks of progressive tech giants hellbent on crushing the First Amendment and wiping dissenting voices from the internet.

Nicholas J Fuentes hosts the wildly popular America First political talk show Monday through Friday on YouTube where he discusses foreign and domestic affairs, current political events and provides a unique cultural critique not found anywhere else in the American political sphere. Focused on America’s generation Z, Fuentes (21) provides an outlet to the American youth disaffected with mainstream politics.

He suspected it would come after YouTube recently amended their terms of service, and sure enough here we are. His show will now be streamed on DLive for the time being.

Why you should read stories and not just headlines

Take a look at this headline from The Hill:

Man who told an immigrant to ‘go back’ to his country ordered by judge to write a 500-word essay

Most people would see that and automatically conclude, “AnOtHeR rAcIsT aTtAcK. tHiS iS tRuMp’S aMeRiCa.” Just take a look at the replies to The Hill’s tweet of the story.

But if you actually click on and read the story, you will find that the attacker was black and the immigrant from Ukraine. This is likely the complete opposite of what you had in mind if you simply scanned the headline, even if you’re not an anti-Trump liberal.

Moral of the story: don’t be one of those morons who has knee-jerk reactions to headlines. Read the story and then make a judgment.


Tucker Carlson on Trump and conservatives


“The problem with the Trump era is that everything is about Trump. And so it makes it hard to see things clearly. The left thinks everything is about Trump, and Trump thinks everything is about Trump—not to take away from Trump, I think he’s a transformative president, and I know him and happen to like him, but not everything is about Trump. That’s absurd and only a child would think that. Trump is of course the culmination of a lot of different trends. And because he is this mesmerizing, magnetic, polarizing, divisive figure—he’s all of those things—you kind of can’t see what’s happening. But what’s actually happening is voters on the left and right are increasingly rejecting politics that has no positive effect on their lives. […]”

This was also good:

“Conservatives need to—I’ll tell you this, I’ve lived in D.C. since 1985, okay? And I’ve been a right-winger the whole time, so I know a lot about this world, okay? I’m not guessing, I have personal knowledge about it. But increasingly they [conservatives] are very good at whining about how biased everyone is against them, which is a very unattractive quality I think. When my children whine and complain about how biased people are against them, I tell them to be quiet. I don’t like that. It’s not good for you to whine and engage in self-pity. But what they [conservatives] are not good at is setting their own terms. They let the left set the terms. So some left-wing activist group will show up and say ‘you’re no longer allowed to say X.’ I don’t know what it is, just pick something. Out with ‘the Orient,’ in with ‘Asia.’ Maybe that’s okay, maybe it’s not okay. Maybe it’s a good change, or maybe it’s a bad change. But the fact is they [the left] decide unilaterally what the changes are and then everyone else kind of has to go along with it. There’s no vote. It’s like the left decides what you’re allowed to say. Conservatives, the institutions, have found themselves in this position where they’re like trustees in a prison, where they’re carrying out the orders of the warden. The warden in this case is like the institutional left. Why are we doing this? Why are we playing along? […]”

There’s much more here, so do read it all. They also have the interview audio at the end of the article. I find that Tucker, per usual, is on point here.

Tiger finally gets his due

Unlike the SJWs over at TIME and Sports Illustrated, the Associated Press has recognized Tiger Woods’ improbable Masters victory as their Sports Story of the Year:

A green jacket. A heart-melting embrace. A stirring return to the top of golf by one of the sport’s all-time greats.

In choosing Tiger Woods’ victory at the Masters as The Associated Press sports story of the year, voters went with the uplifting escape of a great comeback over options that were as much about sports as the issues that enveloped them in 2019: politics, money and the growing push for equal pay and equal rights for women.

The balloters, a mix of AP member sports editors and AP beat writers, elevated Woods’ rousing victory at Augusta National over the runner-up entry: the U.S. women’s soccer team’s victory at the World Cup. That monthlong competition was punctuated by star Megan Rapinoe’s push for pay equality for the women’s team and an ongoing war of words with President Donald Trump.

The US women’s soccer team were heavy favorites to win the World Cup, and everyone knows that their dominance is not why TIME and SI named them their sports stories of the year. I admit I’m biased as a lifelong Tiger fan, but in pure sports terms he’s no question the best story of the year.

Blatant #FakeNews, German edition

Talk about a Lügenpresse! Both articles are from The first, from November 2015:

“Two-Thirds Can Barely Read and Write”

Many refugees have a miserable education, and only ten percent are academics, as discovered by education economist Ludger Wößmann. An interview.

Fast forward two years later to September 2017:

How the AfD Fuels Prejudice with False Data

Two-thirds of all refugees have no education, claims AfD lead candidate Alice Weidel. This cannot be scientifically proven.

You can’t get much worse than that. It’s like the demographics debate in the US: you can only use the data to say that demographic change is a positive thing!

Different countries, different presses, same tricks.


Raise your hand if you saw this coming

The Hill:

The president and CEO of Hallmark Cards, Inc., announced on Sunday that the company will be reversing a controversial decision it made earlier this month to pull advertisements that featured a lesbian couple getting married and kissing.

The executive, Mike Perry, said on Sunday that the team at the parent company behind The Hallmark Channel, Crown Media Family Networks, has “been agonizing over this decision as we’ve seen the hurt it has unintentionally caused.”

“Said simply, they believe this was the wrong decision. Our mission is rooted in helping all people connect, celebrate traditions, and be inspired to capture meaningful moments in their lives. Anything that detracts from this purpose is not who we are. We are truly sorry for the hurt and disappointment this has caused,” he continued.

It’s just par for the course at this point. Pathetic.

So what?


This is not an uncommon attitude, unfortunately. Radical Catholic is right: if you don’t believe in and practice the Catholic faith, don’t try to appeal to your “Catholic identity” when speaking on matters of faith.

Inb4 “how dare you judge this woman’s faith, you don’t know her!” True, I don’t know her, but there’s an objective, glaring deficiency in her understanding of the faith if she doesn’t know why Christians would be upset with Netflix’s sacrilegious portrayal of our Lord.