Tag Archives: New York Times

New York Times blames Trump for journalists’ biased reporting

Note: This is a re-publish of a post that was originally published on August 16, 2016, but the post is lost after WordPress without warning took down Fellowship of the Minds on August 15, 2018. Fortunately, PaperBlog had reblogged the post, which enables me to re-publish it.

Chutzpah (definition): A Yiddish word derived from the Hebrew word (חֻוצְפָּה), meaning “insolence”, “cheek” or “audacity”.

A recent survey found that only 6% of Americans trust the media .

But the MSM have outdone even themselves in their coverage of the 2016 presidential election by abandoning all pretenses at being objective.

Now, the New York Times, the premier national U.S. newspaper, openly admits their abandonment of objective journalism in their coverage of Donald Trump and, in an act of unbridled chutzpah, they actually blame Trump for it, arguing that objective coverage only benefits his campaign by providing him with free publicity.

In an August 7, 2016 article titled ” Trump is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism ,” Jim Rutenberg, NYT ‘s mediator, writes:

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies [Note how Rutenberg equates racism with nationalism or love of one’s nation ~Eowyn], that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer,and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career.If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.

But the question that everyone is grappling with is: Do normal standards apply? And if they don’t, what should take their place? […]

But let’s face it: Balance has been on vacation since Mr. Trump stepped onto his golden Trump Tower escalator last year to announce his candidacy. For the primaries and caucuses, the imbalance played to his advantage, captured by the killer statistic of the season: His nearly $2 billion in free media was more than six times as much as that of his closest Republican rival.

To justify the media’s abandonment of journalistic objectivity, Rutenberg cites MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough:

Mr. Scarborough, a frequent critic of liberal media bias, said he was concerned that Mr. Trump was becoming increasingly erratic, and asked rhetorically, “How balanced do you have to be when one side is just irrational?”

Finally, Rutenberg justifies why journalists must abandon objectivity and fairness when it comes to Trump because they are simply saving Americans from what Rutenberg knows will be a horrible Trump presidency:

It would also be an abdication of political journalism’s most solemn duty: to ferret out what the candidates will be likein the most powerful office in the world.

It may not always seem fair to Mr. Trump or his supporters. But journalism shouldn’t measure itself against any one campaign’s definition of fairness. It is journalism’s job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment. To do anything less would be untenable.

In other words, it’s Donald Trump’s fault: He’s crazy, and so journalists shouldn’t be fair or objective in their reporting because their more important job is to prevent someone crazy like him to become President.

Rutenberg is simply saying what my erstwhile socialist friend Stephanie once said, in a fit of frustration after losing an argument: “I’ve made up my mind! Don’t confuse me with facts!”

Rutenberg’s version of Stephanie is:

“We journalists have made up our minds about Trump! There’ll be no objective reporting from us ’cause we don’t want to confuse you with facts!”

See:

See also:

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

NYT editorial: Federal government should require Section-8 housing be built in ‘affluent’ communities

In July 2018, the editorial board of the New York Times abandoned all journalistic objectivity with an editorial calling on the Democrat Party to go to war against President Trump, using mafia “Godfather” tactics.

But the plain truth is that, unless you are a “useless idiot” who swears by and only reads that piece of rag like an attorney I know, the New York Times (NYT) had abandoned objectivity long before July 2018. See:

We should, therefore, take a recent NYT editorial and its recommendation for what it is — yet another big dose of biased, leftist toxin.

On July 7, 2019, NYT published the editorial, “A New Approach on Housing Affordability,” penned by its editorial board, which “represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher.”

The editorial begins by stating the problem, that of the high and rising cost of rental housing in the United States, and bemoans how millions cannot afford to live in the neighborhoods that they want. 

The editorial then commends Democratic presidential candidates (Cory Booker, Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren) who are addressing this problem with these policy proposals:

  1. Increase federal subsidies for renters, at a cost of $93 billion (Kamala Harris) to $134 billion a year (Cory Booker) and more (Julian Castro).
  2. Increase federal subsidies for the construction of affordable housing (Booker and Castro).
  3. Increase housing construction by having the federal government put pressure on local governments to allow more “development” (Elizabeth Warren). 

The NYT editorial opines that while increasing housing construction (“more market-rate development”) is a worthy goal, that isn’t enough — “Market-rate development, however, is not a sufficient solution.

The problems are two:

  1. “Wealthy residents” are the most resistant to “development”. In fact, “the states most resistant to allowing housing construction are the strongholds of the Democratic Party, in the Northeast and along the Pacific Coast, and the most resistant voters are the wealthy residents of those states who provide so much of the funding for Democratic presidential campaigns.”
  2. Even if the federal government increases rent and housing subsidies, “poor children” would still not be “raised in economically diverse neighborhoods” with better schools, but instead would live “in neighborhoods with high levels of poverty.”

The New York Times’ proposal is to revive and expand a policy of the Obama administration, wherein “poor” renters were given large vouchers to move to areas with more expensive housing and better schools, by having the “irristible force” of the federal government require “affluent communities to accept affordable housing projects.” 

In other words, if the NYT has its way, the federal government will compel local governments to construct Section 8 apartments and high-risers (“affordable housing”) in middle-class and “affluent” communities of single-family homes. Those “affordable” apartments and high-risers will be inhabited by the “poor” — among whom are gangbangers, illegal aliens and “refugees”.

This is socialism and the UN Agenda 21 on steroids.

See also:

~Eowyn

Drudge Report has gone to the dark side. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Ruh roh! TDS-infected Robert De Niro pens “strongly worded” letter to Robert Mueller

From Yahoo: After a half dozen episodes of playing the man on “Saturday Night Live,” Robert De Niro is doing his best to offer professional advice to Robert Mueller.

In a New York Times op-ed response to Mueller’s Wednesday morning press conference, the actor pleaded for the Justice Department’s outgoing special counsel to be more active in the aftermath of his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Displaying a surprising amount of deference to a man he’s spent the past few months trying to turn into a tool for comedy on broadcast television, De Niro wrote, “As I prepared for my role on the show, I got to know you a lot better. I read about your lifetime devotion to public service and your respect for the rule of law. I watched how you presided over the special counsel’s office apparently without leaks. And you never wavered, even in the face of regular vicious attacks from the president and his surrogates.”

Still, after Mueller’s impromptu announcement this (yesterday) morning — in which he stated that he would be closing the special counsel’s office and would not be appearing before any further congressional hearings on matters related to last month’s report on his findings — De Niro wants more.

“In your news conference, you said that your investigation’s work ‘speaks for itself.’ It doesn’t. It may speak for itself to lawyers and lawmakers who have the patience and obligation to read through the more than 400 pages of carefully chosen words and nuanced conclusions (with all due respect, as good a read as it is, you’re no Stephen King),” De Niro wrote.

Whether or not De Niro had some version of this chambered and ready to go before this morning’s surprise announcement is unclear. But this is far from the first time De Niro has been vocal about matters related to the current White House occupant. “Say what you will about the president — and I have — when it comes to that lying, exaggerating, bullying thing, no one can touch him,” De Niro wrote on Wednesday, referring to an ongoing string of public statements he’s made during the Trump tenure.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Former editor says New York Times has lost its credibility because of anti-Trump bias

In July 2018, New York Times’ editorial board actually called on Democrats to go to war against President Trump using mafia Godfather tactics.

Now, former NYT editor Jill Abramson — the paper’s first female executive editor — says the NYT has a financial incentive to bash Trump, which is eroding the paper’s credibility.

Howard Kurtz reports for Fox News, Jan. 2, 2019, that in a soon-to-be published book, Merchants of Truth: The Business of News and the Fight for Facts, Abramson points to a “Trump bump” that saw digital subscriptions to the NYT during President Trump’s first six months in office jump by 600,000 to more than 2 million. Abramson writes:

Given its mostly liberal audience, there was an implicit financial reward for the Times in running lots of Trump stories, almost all of them negative: they drove big traffic numbers and, despite the blip of cancellations after the election, inflated subscription orders to levels no one anticipated.

The former NYT editor (2011-2014) has some harsh words for her successor, Dean Baquet. Abramson writes that “Though Baquet said publicly he didn’t want the Times to be the opposition party, his news pages were unmistakably anti-Trump.” Abramson believes the same is true of the Washington Post: “Some headlines contained raw opinion, as did some of the stories that were labeled as news analysis.”

Citing legendary 20th century publisher Adolph Ochs, Abramson writes that “the more anti-Trump the Times was perceived to be, the more it was mistrusted for being biased. Ochs’s vow to cover the news without fear or favor sounded like an impossible promise in such a polarized environment.”

Abramson attributes to the New York Times‘ anti-Trump bias also to a generational split at the newspaper, with younger staffers, many of them in digital jobs, favoring an unrestrained assault on the presidency. She writes: “The more ‘woke’ staff thought that urgent times called for urgent measures; the dangers of Trump’s presidency obviated the old standards.”

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

New York Times wants banks and credit card companies to monitor and ban gun purchases

Although there are rules preventing banks and credit-card companies from seeing what customers are buying, if the New York Times has its way, those financial companies would begin to do just that. Not only would they see what we purchase, but the NYT would also have them monitor and ban our gun purchases.

Writing for the New York Times on Dec. 24, 2018, financial columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin justifies himself by asserting that “credit cards have become a crucial part of the planning” of mass shooting in the past decade in that “many of the killers . . . built their stockpiles of high-powered weapons with the convenience of credit”. Not only did “the killers financed their attacks using credit cards. Some used credit to acquire firearms they could not otherwise have afforded.”

Although “some banks ended their relationships with gunmakers and some investors pushed manufacturers for more transparency” after the February 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, “financial firms have so far resisted changing the way they deal with the sale of guns. Banks and credit-card networks say it is not their responsibility to create systems to track gun purchases that would allow them to report suspicious patterns.”

Sorkin then highlights two credit card companies that are resisting his call to monitor and ban gun purchases:

  • Visa spokeswoman Amanda Pires said: “We do not believe Visa should be in the position of setting restrictions on the sale of lawful goods or services. Our role in commerce is to efficiently process, protect and settle all legal payments. Asking Visa or other payment networks to arbitrate what legal goods can be purchased sets a dangerous precedent.”
  • A spokesman for Mastercard echoed Pires and emphasized that Mastercard protects “cardholders’ independence” and the “privacy of their own purchasing decisions.”

To counter Visa’s and Mastercard’s refusal to monitor and ban gun purchases, Sorkin equates gun violence with terrorism, quoting John Streur, CEO of mutual fund firm Calvert Investments: “In a very real sense, I think these mass shootings are terrorism.” Sorkin writes:

[A]fter the Sept. 11 terror attacks, the government enacted even stricter rules under the Patriot Act: Banks must file so-called Suspicious Activity Reports for transactions involving more than $5,000 that the financial institution “has reason to suspect” are part of a plan to “violate or evade any federal law.”

Sorkin then instructs banks and credit card companies to use a feature called “boxcar” that “allows retailers to tag transactions with extra data” such as the device used to make a purchase and the location of the buyer.”

Sorkin proposes that “If banks required retailers to transmit details on sales of guns and ammunition, they would be able to make more informed decisions about transactions.” All banks need do is to choose “to use the systems they already have in place . . . to monitor such customers” and prevent them “from buying multiple guns in a short period of time.”

Already, pro-gun controllers have succeeded in getting some businesses to restrict our Second Amendment rights:

  • Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods announced they would not sell firearms to anyone under 21.
  • Citibank and Bank of America said they would no longer finance or advise gun manufacturers.
  • Investment firms like BlackRock and pension funds like Calpers, the retirement fund for public employees in California, said they would demand more information from the gunmakers they invested in.
  • Several payment systems — including PayPal, Square and Apple Pay — already had established rules that ban the sale of guns and gun-related items using their systems.

See also “List of anti-NRA businesses“; “Bank of America to stop lending to some makers of ‘military’ firearms“; and “Levi’s Jeans joins the anti-gun Left

But no bank thus far has instituted a ban or committed to tracking gun purchases because in October, Senator John Kennedy (R-Louisiana) introduced the No Red and Blue Banks Act, which wouldprohibit the federal government from giving contracts to banks that discriminate against lawful businesses based solely on social policy considerations” such as gun control.

Sorkin also decries the American Civil Liberties Union for expressing concern that efforts to prevent mass shootings could infringe on individual rights.

Sorkin’s solution to banks and credit card companies refusing to monitor and ban gun purchases is government. Just as the legislators in 29 states ban consumers from using credit cards to buy lottery tickets (so that they won’t rack up debt gambling), so too can legislators ban Americans from using credit cards to buy guns.

H/t Breitbart

See also “New York Times calls for war against President Trump using mafia Godfather tactics” and:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

NYT reporter Stephanie Saul broke into GOP staffer's apartment

Fri, 20 Jul 2018 13:19:03 +0000

eowyn2

The Left are now breaking into people’s apartment.

On July 6, 2018, the New York Times‘ editorial board published an editorial calling on Democrats and progressives to go to war against President Trump by deploying unscrupulous mafia tactics.

New York Times business reporter Stephanie Saul heeded the call by breaking into the apartment of a Republican U.S. Senate candidate’s campaign staffer.

NYT reporter Stephanie Saul

Brian Landrum is a campaign staffer of Virginia U.S. Senate Republican nominee Corey Stewart. He lives in the Bell Stonebridge Apartments in Woodbridge, VA.

Patrick Howley reports for Big League Politics, July 18, 2018, that police and a Prince William County magistrate have opened an investigation into New York Times reporter Stephanie Saul for breaking and entering into the apartment of Stewart U.S. Senate campaign staffer Brian Landrum.

Landrum and a house guest have filed a police report after the house guest witnessed Stephanie Saul inside Landrum’s apartment on July 18 at 2:15 PM. Landrum was at work at the time and not in the apartment. He does not know Stephanie Saul.

Bell Stonebridge Apartments is a secured facility, access to which requires a key fob. Non-residents are not allowed in the apartment building without consent. The apartment building’s office reported that Stephanie Saul had asked about Landrum at the front desk, saying she was trying to find him and that he did not answer his door when she knocked. The office said that they did not allow Saul into the building, and they do not know how she entered the building.

That afternoon on July 18, Landrum’s house guest was listening to music when she heard rustling, turned around, and saw a female in Landrum’s kitchen, which is 5 to 10 feet from the apartment’s threshold. The woman, whom Landrum’s house guest identified to be Stephanie Saul, left a note on Landrum’s kitchen counter and was turning to leave.

The intruder said, “hello?”

The houseguest replied, “hello?”

The intruder said, “Is Brian here? I need to ask some questions.”

The houseguest replied, “No, he’s not here. He’s at work.”

The intruder said, “I’m looking for Landrum,” and that she wanted to talk to Brian Landrum and asked when he would be home.

The houseguest replied, “Eight p.m.”

The intruder said, “Can you give him this note?”

The houseguest replied, “yes.”

The intruder turned and left the apartment.

The houseguest did not understand what was going on. She recalls being “pretty shaken up,” and did not know how to respond.

Here is the handwritten note left by Stephanie Saul, obtained by Big League Politics:

note left by Stephanie Saul

Brian Landrum said in a statement:

“Working in politics, you become accustomed to the rough-and-tumble nature of the sport. But never in a million years could I have anticipated the New York Times sending a reporter to break into my apartment looking for a story. We’re working with police investigators, and look forward to justice being served.”

Virginia U.S. Senate Republican nominee Corey Stewart said in a statement:

“Carlos Slim and the New York Times will stop at nothing to fight against my strong platform of supporting the rule of law, building the wall, and putting Americans ahead of big business intent on flooding our borders with low-skilled labor from the south, but I never thought they’d break into someone’s apartment. This is like Watergate, but this time it’s the press that’s breaking into private property. I knew the New York Times didn’t care much for the rule of law, but this violent behavior is blatant intimidation intended to silence conservatives.”

The story of Saul’s entry into Landrum’s apartment is already circulating in Virginia political circles like wildfire. “I heard she busted into Landrum’s apartment,” said Graham Moomaw, political reporter for the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

The Prince William County magistrate told Brian Landrum that Saul could be charged with misdemeanor unlawful entry, or potentially felony breaking and entering. Saul, who won the Pulitzer Prize in journalism for reporting on police pension fraud, did not immediately return questions for this report.

Stephanie Saul, 64, lives at 22 Orchard Farm Rd, Port Washington, NY, with her husband Walt Bogdanich, who also works for the New York Times.

Email: saulstephanie@yahoo.com; stephanie.saul@nytimes.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/stephanie.saul2
Twitter: @stefsaul
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephanie-saul-22001743/

See also:

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Seth MacFarlane has butt hurt over Tucker Carlson telling his audience to believe the opposite of what the MSM reports

seth mcfarlane
Well, Tucker has a valid point. See various examples here, here, here, here, here, here, here, herehere, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
From Daily Mail: Seth MacFarlane, creator of several Fox shows, said he is embarrassed to work for the network after remarks made by anchor Tucker Carlson, telling viewers to believe the opposite of what ‘big news’ reports.
‘If you’re looking to understand what’s actually happening in this country, always assume the opposite of whatever they’re telling you on the big news stations,’ Carlson told his viewers on Friday night.
MacFarlane derided Carlson’s message. ‘In other words, don’t think critically, don’t consult multiple news sources, and in general, don’t use your brain,’ MacFarlane tweeted.
‘This is fringe sh**, and its business like this that makes me embarrassed to work for this company,’ the creator of Family Guy and The Orville added.
MacFarlane made his comments on a retweet of CNN’s Brian Stetler, whose show Reliable Sources is a look at how the media covers the news.
The CNN host hit out at Carlson saying he is sending a dangerous message to viewers. ‘Isn’t this sad? Tonight Tucker Carlson told his viewers not to believe ANYTHING they learn from his rivals.’
Fox News has been at the top of cable rated shows for years.
Meanwhile other news sources such as CNN, the New York Times, and Washington Post in recent months have called on viewers to look to several news outlets to gain a fuller understanding of what is happening in the world.
See also:

DCG

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Lena Dunham warned Clinton aides that Weinstein was a rapist

lena dunham clint
So the faux-feminist knew about Weinstein yet said nothing publicly. Such a brave womyn.
From Yahoo: Harvey Weinstein was discussing a new documentary TV show with Hillary Clinton’s team the month before he was exposed as an alleged serial sexual predator—and despite her team having been warned about him—according to a new report.
The New York Times published a detailed account on Tuesday, based on nearly 200 interviews, that describes the network of complicity surrounding the disgraced movie mogul. It largely covers how assistants, journalists, and agents helped Weinstein target young actresses and cover up his alleged misconduct.
But the article also details Weinstein’s long-running association with Bill and Hillary Clinton, for whom he raised funds and donated cash. It’s not clear whether allegations of his sexual activities reached the Clintons themselves, but the actress and writer Lena Dunham said she warned Hillary Clinton’s deputy communications director, Kristina Schake, in 2016 that Weinstein was a rapist and that this would come out at some point.
Tina Brown, the veteran journalist and publisher, also said she warned Clinton’s team during the 2008 presidential race, saying it was unwise for the candidate to associate with Weinstein.
“We were shocked when we learned what he’d done,” Clinton communications director Nick Merrill told the Times “It’s despicable behavior, and the women that have come forward have shown enormous courage. As to claims about a warning, that’s something staff wouldn’t forget… Only [Dunham] can answer why she would tell them instead of those who could stop him.”
According to the Times, Weinstein was emailing with Clinton lawyer Robert Barnett in September this year, discussing distribution rights for “a documentary television show he was working on with Hillary Clinton.”
Other fresh details include Gwyneth Paltrow’s allegation that Weinstein falsely told people she had slept with him, suggesting that for other actresses who followed suit, it would be “the best thing you can do for your career now.”
Apart from that, the article largely expands on what has emerged over the past few months: that Weinstein got people to dig up dirt on women who might report his misconduct, and that his business associates regularly suppressed information on his behalf and tolerated his behavior.
It also shows Weinstein called in favors among friends in the tabloid press, such as The National Enquirer, to run hit pieces on his potential accusers.
DCG

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

New York Times promoting sexualization of young boys

young boy wearing makeup

The new beauty “norm”


On Saturday, writer Bee Shapiro published an article in The New York Times entitled, “His Eye Makeup is Way Better Than Yours.
The Timestweeted it as such: “How teenage boys (and younger) wearing makeup are affecting beauty norms.”
The article shows many pictures of young boys making themselves pretty with makeup. Imagine the outcry if they had done this with young girls, trying to make them look “pretty.”
I don’t care how this author and The New York Times wants to spin this gender bender baloney. The fact that they found some young boys who desire to wear makeup does NOT make it the “norm.”
Excerpts from Bee’s article:
Would you be inclined to buy makeup because a 10-year-old boy is showing you how to create a look on Instagram? If we’re talking about Jack Bennett of @makeuupbyjack, then the answer could well be a resounding yes.
Since convincing his mother to start his account in May, young Mr. Bennett, who lives in Berkshire, England, has amassed 331,000 followers and attracted the attention of brands like MAC and NYX, which have offered products to create looks. Refinery29 has celebrated him as the next big thing in makeup.
He is the latest evidence of a seismic power shift in the beauty industry, which has thrust social media influencers to the top of the pecking order. Refreshingly, they come in all shapes, sizes, ages and, more recently, genders. Hailed by Marie Claire as the “beauty boys of Instagram,” the early male pioneers, like Patrick Simondac (@PatrickStarrr), Jeffree Star (@jeffreestar) and Manny Gutierrez, (@MannyMua733), have transcended niche to become juggernauts with millions of followers. And their aesthetic is decidedly new: neither old-school-rocker makeup nor drag queen.
“When you post an Instagram or YouTube video, it’s similar to ‘RuPaul’s Drag Race,’ where you can see the humanity of the contestants and see their struggles,” he said. “It helps show viewers that we’re just people.” He paused and giggled: “And it’s beauty, it’s just fun. Patrick is a walking rainbow.”
Men like Mr. Starrr have since influenced a new generation of young men who are wearing makeup and posting about it. According to the Instagram data team, there has been a 20 percent increase since the start of the year in mentions of “makeup” by male accounts on the platform.
In only a couple of years, these young men have gained sway in the industry. Cosmetics brands like Milk Makeup have built their offerings on genderless beauty; the skin-care company Glow Recipe hosts sold-out boy beauty mask classes; and in the fragrance aisle, unisex scent houses continue to grow.
“If you’re amazing at applying makeup, it doesn’t matter how old you are or what gender you identify with,” she said. “If you’re young, already embracing who you are and are insanely talented, those factors will make you stand out even more.”
Though the younger generation of influencers are of diverse molds, they are similar in that they take men wearing makeup as a given. “I didn’t think about gender identity, what you do with your life, things you associate yourself with,” Mr. Warden said, referring to the time he started his Instagram posts. “I think no matter what gender, you are free to do what you want.”
“What you have now are millennial moms who have grown up in an era where gender is more fluid,” Ms. Friedman said. “Millennials are very in tune with empowering their children.” For example, she sees a wide range of hair lengths on boys. “It’s not unusual for boys to sit in the chair, take out an iPhone and show a picture of what they want their hair to look like,” she said, adding that they start around age 6. “There are many role models for them to look to now.”
Read the whole article here.
h/t Twitchy
DCG

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Gabby Giffords' gun control group sues the Trump Admin

Giffords1

“Assault rifles” for me but not for thee.


If a gun grabber showed at least some interest in enforcing current gun laws, I might reevaluate their agenda. But they aren’t so I won’t.
From HuffPo: The gun control group led by former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) is suing the Trump administration for failing to turn over documents that could show the National Rifle Association’s influence over President Donald Trump’s gun policies.
The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed a lawsuit against the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on Tuesday in the the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The gun safety group is accusing ATF of refusing to respond to multiple Freedom of Information Act requests for documents relating to communications between administration officials and the NRA.
Specifically, Giffords’ group filed FOIA requests seeking any records relating to Trump administration policies on concealed carry reciprocity, gun silencers, bump stocks and assault weapon exports; evidence that Donald Trump Jr. improperly lobbied on behalf of gun manufacturing companies; communications between gun lobbying groups and senior administration officials following last month’s mass shooting in Las Vegas; and attempts by the NRA to review bump stock regulations in coordination with ATF.
HuffPost reached out to ATF for comment late Thursday afternoon. The person who answered the phone said nobody was available via email or phone to give a comment until Friday morning.
Trump’s firearms agenda is certainly proceeding along lines favored by the gun lobby.
In February, a leaked ATF document revealed a top official at the bureau urging a series of proposals that the NRA has long advocated. Last spring, the NRA sunk $1 million into helping Trump get Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch confirmed.
Last week, NBC obtained White House talking points being distributed to Trump allies on how to talk about the Las Vegas massacre. They sound a lot like the NRA’s talking points after mass shootings.
“The Trump administration appears willing to let the National Rifle Association dictate its federal gun safety policy, which includes remaining silent on how to stem our nation’s gun violence epidemic,” said Robyn Thomas, executive director of the Giffords Law Center. “Protecting the safety of Americans should be the top priority of any president. Unfortunately, gun lobby profits seem to be more important to President Trump.”
There have been 307 mass shootings in 2017, according to a New York Times tracker. Neither Congress nor Trump has taken any real action in response.
DCG

Please follow and like us:
error0