The Democrats’ True Face Revealed (Again)

American  Thinker 

In the wake of the horrific assassination of conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University, one might have expected America’s legacy media and Democrat-leaning outlets to rally around basic human decency. After all, this was a brutal act of political violence against a prominent voice for freedom, family values, and American exceptionalism. President Trump himself called it a “national tragedy,” and even some on the left issued tepid condemnations. But oh, how quickly that facade crumbled!

What we witnessed instead was a demonstration of insensitivity, subtle approvals, outright laughter, and conspiracy-mongering that exposed (again) the deep rot in the Democrat party. From MSNBC’s victim-blaming rants, to BBC reporters chuckling on air, the response was nothing short of shameful—a stark reminder of why trust in mainstream media has plummeted to historic lows. As the manhunt for the killer unfolds, let’s dismantle this hoax of “balanced” coverage with the cold, hard facts of their most egregious moments.

MSNBC’s Matthew Dowd blames the victim for his own murder right out of the gate.

MSNBC analyst Matthew Dowd (now fired) couldn’t resist twisting the knife. During breaking news coverage, he smugly that Kirk’s “hateful words” had inevitably led to “hateful actions,” implying the conservative activist had it coming for daring to speak out against the radical left’s agenda. This wasn’t analysis; it was outright victim-blaming, the kind of rhetoric that paints patriots as provocateurs deserving of violence. How low can they go? Dowd’s comments weren’t just insensitive—they were a green light for more political terror, all while the network pretended to mourn. Dowd even suggested that Kirk had been shot by a supporter, “firing his gun off in celebration.” What a despicable way to divert from the obvious.

Katy Tur endorses the “had it coming” narrative on live TV.

If Dowd were the instigator, MSNBC’s Katy Tur was the enabler. She not only allowed but engaged with the notion that Kirk had it coming due to his “hateful words” and “divisive” persona, framing the assassination as some karmic consequence of his bold conservatism. In a moment that should have been about unity, Tur turned it into a partisan hit job, nodding along as if political murder was just another debate point. This isn’t reporting, it’s advocacy for violence against anyone who challenges the woke establishment. Americans deserve better than this bile from so-called public servants in the media.

MSNBC’s broader disgusting portrayal of Kirk as deserving his fate.

MSNBC didn’t stop at individual comments: their entire midafternoon block was slammed for portraying Kirk as a “divisive” figure whose death was somehow less tragic than it should be. Anchors hammered home his “provocative” history—code for “he dared to fight back against Democrat extremism”—over any genuine sympathy. This wasn’t subtle; it was a disgusting undercurrent of approval, suggesting that eliminating such a thorn in their side was almost a public service. In the face of a national tragedy, MSNBC chose schadenfreude over sorrow, proving once again why they’re the fake news poster child.

CNN calls Kirk’s political assassination a “school shooting.”

Over at CNN, the madness continued.

Why focus on the deranged assassin when you can pivot to making this an agenda talking point? A “school shooting” doesn’t actually tell the story of what happened at all. This conspiracy of the mind ignores the left’s history of inflammatory rhetoric and increasingly brazen violence. CNN’s coverage wasn’t neutral—it was a disgraceful justification for silencing conservative voices, one bullet at a time.

BBC reporter’s on-air laughter while announcing the assassination, saying Kirk “wasn’t admired and loved by all.”

Across the pond, the BBC—supposedly the gold standard of impartiality—delivered a jaw-dropping low. A reporter was caught laughing on live TV while describing the chaotic scene of Kirk’s death, her tone dripping with mockery as if the whole thing was some ironic punchline.

This wasn't a slip; it was gleeful indifference to a man’s life snuffed out for his beliefs. The clip went viral, rightfully so, exposing how even international outlets view conservative assassinations as entertainment. What kind of “news” organization finds humor in political murder? The BBC’s response? Crickets, of course.

Jezebel’s pre-assassination “curse” article as indirect endorsement.

In a chilling prelude, left-leaning outlet Jezebel (the remnants of Gawker’s toxic legacy) published a piece just two days before the shooting about paying Etsy witches to “curse” Kirk. Post-assassination, they slapped on an edited condemnation note, though declined to remove the essay from their site, but the damage was done—it was a blatant endorsement of violent fantasies against a conservative leader. This wasn’t satire; it was incitement, wrapped in feminist faux-empowerment. How many more “curses” from these outlets will it take before we recognize them as accessories to the radical left’s war on dissent?

These instances aren’t isolated slips; they’re a pattern of media malfeasance that reveals the Democrat outlets’ true allegiance—not to truth or unity, but to the suppression of anyone who dares challenge their power. While President Trump and true conservatives mourned Kirk as a hero, the legacy media laughed, blamed, and conspired their way through the coverage, costing America not just in trust, but in the soul of our discourse. It’s time for real accountability: defund these biased behemoths, support independent voices, and ensure that no more patriots pay the ultimate price for speaking out. The 2024 election showed us the way—let’s not forget the lessons amid this tragedy. Do it for Charlie.

Podcast thread for Sept 14

 

Zzzzzzzzzzzz.

New week, new possibilities.

After Kirk assassination, political left social media posts list 'next' targets

 

By Bethany Blankley | The Center Square contributor | Sep 12, 2025 |  The Center Square

(The Center Square) – In the wake of the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, thousands of social media posts appear to list politically conservative targets for assassination by the political left. 

Those on the list include podcaster Joe Rogan, Harry Potter author JK Rowling, conservative political commentators Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh, among others. 

In response to being targeted, Rowling, said, “If you believe free speech is for you but not your political opponents, you're illiberal. If no contrary evidence could change your beliefs, you're a fundamentalist. If you believe the state should punish those with contrary views, you're a totalitarian. If you believe political opponents should be punished with violence or death, you're a terrorist.”

Shapiro said, “We will never stop debating and discussing. We will never stop standing up for what America is and what she should be. And we will never let Charlie’s voice die.”

Walsh also said people were sending him screenshots of posted death threats, saying, “A lot of concerned people are sending me these screenshots (and dozens more). I appreciate their concern. But I’m not surprised and I won’t be going into hiding. We have to be louder and bolder now than ever. Or else the demons who killed Charlie win. And they cannot win.” 

A website has also been launched to “Expose Charlie’s Murderers.” It includes statements posted on social media by individuals who allegedly espouse violence as well as those celebrating Kirk’s assassination. 

“We have received nearly 20,000 submissions,” the site says. “This website will soon be converted into a searchable database of all 20,000 submissions, filterable by general location and job industry. This is a permanent and continuously-updating archive of Radical activists calling for violence.” 

The website has posted screenshots of the posts made, the alleged poster’s name, publicly available information about their employer, the company’s name, university or college and other publicly available information like the town and state where they live that the poster made public themselves.  

One post states, “We need to find people with better aim,” implying more politically conservative individuals should be murdered. Others posts state, “God bless the Second Amendment right;” “Are guns an issue now?” with graphic depictions of Kirk’s murder; “White supremacist down,” among others. Many posts refer to Kirk and his followers as “Nazis.” 

According to publicly available social media posts, those making the claims include U.S. military contractor employees; students and faculty from multiple colleges and universities, early childhood teachers and daycare workers, assisted living and senior living facilities employees, city fire department employees, attorneys, a Dallas Cowboys cheerleader; school board members, a U.S. Army career counselor, among thousands more.

Those making the posts appear to be from different economic and racial demographics and appear to identify as the political left. They openly claim to oppose Christianity and support LGBTQ, policies, according to the screenshots of the posts.

Separate from the website, screenshots of social media posts of individuals celebrating Kirk’s assassination are also being posted online. Clemson College Republicans highlighted two professor posts, including a since deleted post stating Kirk’s assassination was karma and another saying, “Nigga was worried about DEI and DIED instead.” CCR also posted the phone numbers of the president and deans calling for accountability. The university has yet to issue a statement. 

At Seattle Central College, the directive, “Kill All Charlie Kirks” was spray-painted on a college sign and an image of Kirk being killed was posted on a message board stating, “debate this.” Political commentator Sarah Stock said, “Not only are leftists gleefully celebrating Charlie’s murder, they are now using it to incite violence against conservative college students. This is political terrorism.”

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox said at a news conference that authorities found shell casings with several inscriptions, including, “Hey fascist, Catch!” and “Oh bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao, ciao, ciao,” referring to a song used by resistance fighters in Italy during World War II.

Cox has described Kirk’s murder as a political assassination and is working to ensure his killer receives the death penalty. 

On Friday morning, he announced that Kirk’s alleged assassin, Tyler Robinson, 22, of Utah, had been apprehended, The Center Square reported.

Online threats made about conservatives and public figures have been reported to law enforcement.  

By contrast to the hatred spewed online, pastors are calling Americans to prayer, hoping Kirk’s death is a “catalyst to return America to a people of Godly values,” The Center Square reported.

https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_f53c15ac-499d-4a08-8f89-bfd4485c34ed.html

See also: https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2025/09/14/okay-now-leftists-are-posting-hit-lists-of-the-people-they-want-to-murder-next-n4943704

5 Obvious Facts Too Scary to Talk About

American  Thinker 

Some things are left unsaid in political discourse because they are taken for granted.  Some propositions, such as that individuals and groups of individuals have identifiable interests, are considered so obvious that they go without saying.

Another class of propositions, equally obvious, are left unspoken because they disrupt the atmosphere of political theater.  They deflate sentimental assumptions and discredit comforting narratives.  The neglect of these propositions is not universal; they are occasionally expressed by individuals and political commentators, and are readily observable by the average person, yet they are ignored or dismissed in mainstream discourse.  The pretense that these observable phenomena are insignificant or nonexistent does not make them go away.  They will eventually, as Kipling warned about the gods of the copybook headings, have their say in our political affairs, whether they are acknowledged or not.

There are many such slighted propositions, and an exhaustive list is likely not feasible, but certain examples are ready at hand.  A brief sample includes the following.

1. The government is really bad at spending money. 

Governments at all levels are consistently bad at realizing value for the money they spend.  Examples of this principle abound, from green energy boondoggles to high-speed rail fiascoes to the bottomless pits of seemingly counterproductive education, drug treatment, and homelessness spending.

In keeping with the theme of obviousness, the reasons for this governmental wastefulness and incompetence are easy to notice, if not widely publicized.

There are structural limitations to governments’ fiscal stewardship.  Government has a lack of incentives for spending efficiency that does not affect other enterprises.  Bureaucracy, which inevitably infects public spending, is inherently inefficient, with conflicts of interest, inertia, and institutional dead weight.  Politics inserts its own inefficiencies.  Special interests, like public employee unions, exacerbate deficiencies in spending discipline and sometimes produce, as in the case of some inner-city schools, negative returns on monies spent.

Graft and corruption, as well as a lack of a rigorous system of accountability, are always threats to the responsible use of public money.  The outright theft of taxpayer money is always a possibility.

2. People with untreated thought disorders generally cannot function unsupervised in society. 

A person whose basic faculties of perception and reason are impaired cannot effectively manage day-to-day interactions.  The normal constraints on irrational and potentially violent behavior may be absent, with a psychotic break posing a significant threat to people who are simply going about their lives.  A person who is unable to determine if his perception of reality originates from his senses or from cognitive pathologies poses severe risks to himself and others.

It is irrational, immoral, and irresponsible to address serious psychological disorders by “compassionately” permitting them go untreated or unrestrained.  People with florid thought disorders push innocent people in front of subway trains, set them on fire, stab them, mutilate themselves, get shot by law enforcement while attacking them, and succumb to any number of horrors that mental illness might provoke.  The ideological pretense that “understanding” is a substitute for institutionalization benefit no one other than the ideologue.  It is, to the contrary, quite compassionate and understanding to prevent people with severe mental illnesses, through no fault of their own, from seriously harming themselves or others.

Institutionalization is not perfect and is not benign.  Directly observed involuntary drug therapy is an imposition on the person who is treated.  But both may be necessary for the welfare of not only the patient, but innocent people as well.

3. Emotions are bad counselors in matters of policy. 

Emotions are useful in personal relationships.  They shape our relationships with others and allow us to understand what is meaningful to us.  But emotions also produce lynch mobs; road rage; and any number of other regrettable, impulsive actions.  They can make people do silly things.

When used as the basis of policy decisions, emotions can produce disastrous results.  They make policymakers needlessly vulnerable to sympathetic anecdotes.  They compete with common sense and enable cynical manipulation.  Imprudent reliance on emotions interferes with the ability to make essential distinctions, such as that between the smiling eighth-grader in his graduation hat and the adult criminal that he grew into before being shot while committing a crime.

Emotions provoke impulsivity, and impulsivity provokes recklessness.  Policy decisions based on emotion often result in treating the exception as the rule, with statutes and judicial rulings that do not function well in unsentimental reality.

4. Not all cultures are compatible. 

A workable system of multiculturalism relies on one tenuous assumption: that all cultures within a society demonstrate at least a minimum common respect for other people and cultures.  A culture that condones abuse of other people who do not share the characteristics that define that culture — for example, religion, country or region of origin, socioeconomic class, ideology — cannot maintain a sustainable coexistence within a heterogeneous society.  A culture that condones and encourages the sexual abuse of young girls because they are of a different religion, or that excuses predation on strangers because of their race, is defective.  It is ultimately incompatible with a healthy society.

The variety of cosmetic enrichment often used to extol multiculturalism — cuisine, fashion, art, etc. — is irrelevant if cultures and subcultures do not have a least a minimum respect for the dignity of others outside those cultures.  Cultures that do not share this common respect are incompatible, and no amount of ideological theorizing or narrative manipulation can change this.

5. The models that “experts” use to guide policy decisions are often not very good.  A Danish proverb, sometimes attributed to Niels Bohr notes that “it is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.”  Policymakers attempt to deal with this inescapable fact of human existence by enlisting experts to divine the future by use of academic models.  These efforts are sometimes disastrously unsuccessful.

Common examples of modeling failure are the effects and spread of COVID, climate change, and economic forecasting.  When predictions prove wrong, as with the perennially impending climate catastrophes, experts and their patrons resort to dodges, such as that although the models were specifically and quantitatively inaccurate, they were qualitatively, if irrelevantly, correct.

The process of modeling is subject to numerous sources of error, including ideological corruption, arrogance, stupidity, ignorance, and perverse incentives.  Policymakers often ignore these sources of error if the models provide predictions that are congenial to other interests.

It might be helpful if boards, councils and legislatures that spend public money and make policy would acknowledge these factors.  If they can find time for land acknowledgments and such, they might to well to find an additional thirty seconds to acknowledge the stubborn realities that separate good policy from bad.  Or maybe they could say, “We acknowledge that ideology and hubris do not usually produce good government.”

Some things that affect our political life are obvious but often ignored.  What is also obvious is that these obvious things, among others, are not even discussed.  The reason for that is that cultural and political elites prefer manufactured narratives to inconvenient observations, no matter how obvious.

The ‘Progressive’ Left Has Shown You Exactly Who They Are

posted Derek Hunter at Townhall 

When Andrew Breitbart died, someone I knew responded to my Facebook post about it with a nasty celebration of it. When I responded that he was actually a good friend of mine and told that person not only where they could go straight to, but what they could do to themselves on the way, I quickly received a phone call from them apologizing. They “hadn’t realized” that I was actually friends with him, as if that made them being a sociopathic asshole cheering someone’s death simply because they wouldn’t conform to the politics the “tolerant” left, somehow better. We’ve seen this again, but even more so, with the assassination of Charlie Kirk. When someone shows you who they are, believe them.

I let it slide with Andrew, the guy was young and I’d never really experienced anything like that before, so I was forgiving and wrote it off as an anomaly. Plus, I think Andrew would’ve laughed at the idea that he was still exposing “tolerant leftists” for the intolerant pieces of garbage they are, even in death.

While Andrew being in a better place was a comfort, that never overrides the sadness of losing a friend. While I can’t say I was good friends with Charlie Kirk, there was very little daylight on policies between him, me and millions upon millions of Americans who mostly want to be lef alone by the vacuous left. But the nature of “progressivism” is to not leave anyone alone – it demands obedience, not only of actions but of thought.

We refuse to obey, we refuse to conform, and they killed Charlie for it.

Yes, the shooter pulled the trigger, but every MSNBC guest to called a conservative a fascist carved their letters into the bullet casing. Every elected and media Democrat who chose to dehumanize rather than debate, looked through that scope. Every single person on the left who knew better, who saw this coming but found the inciting rhetoric politically useful and easier than making an argument for their positions steadied that killer’s hand. They all did this because they knew this was down the road they were traveling and did nothing to stop it.

There isn’t a single Democrat, before Charlie’s assassination, who stood up to their party and said, “Hey, everyone who disagrees with you isn’t a fascist Nazi monster trying to kill people.” Not one. And there isn’t a conservative commentor, columnist or pundit who doesn’t get regular threats from these same, unhinged people. Those cheering Charlie’s murder would cheer yours too – you either have that in you or you do not.

I love the people who say things like “That’s what you get when you put hate in the world.” I shudder to think what their concept of love is if, in the aftermath of a murder of a human being who did nothing but speak words they didn’t like, they think they’re spreading anything close to love. From Eric Swalwell to Jasmine Crockett, Rachel Maddow to Joe Biden, there is enough blood for every leftist’s hands. Many of them have suffered losses – the despicable Jamie Raskin had a son who killed himself, and yet he’s out there cheerleading for violence and murder…right up until they got it.

Now they’re all, “This isn’t good” and “Political violence is wrong.” Too late. They did this.

Their army of drones are still celebrating Charlie’s killing and not one of them has forcefully called them; told the radicals to go to Hell and they aren’t welcome in their party. The closest thing to criticism of those ghouls you see is a lament that publicly celebrating is “bad for the party.”

“Don’t do that, it hurts the party” is a poor excuse for decency, but when you don’t have any in you a poor excuse is the best you can muster.

People I’ve known for years have exposed themselves as monsters it never occurred to me that they could be. There is something about the progressive ideology that perverts the mind. The father of 2 isn’t’ even in the ground yet and they’re writing pieces like, “If Kirk was a victim of a pernicious culture of violence in America, it also must be acknowledged he was an author of that culture.” (Don’t worry, you can click the link – it’s to a third-party paywall bypassing website that doesn’t give them any ad money.)

If the author of that piece were to be assassinated while pumping gas, is it cool if we cheer? I don’t know him, nor do I care that he exists, so the end of that existence on Earth doesn’t matter to me. Still, I wouldn’t because I’m not a piece of shit like he is. Nancy Pelosi will die, as will Joe Biden, should we be picking our musical selections to dance on their graves to? No. If someone pulled a Luigi Mangione on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the street one day, should people celebrate that “she had it coming” because she was different from us politically? Hell no.

Yet, these very same people and the people who follow them would do it to you, me and everyone on our side in a heartbeat. If you think your friend or family member who is glad Charlie is dead wouldn’t do the same if you were killed, you haven’t been paying attention. If they insist they wouldn’t because the “know you,” that makes it even worse – it shows them to be sociopaths who have to problem with the concept of murder over politics, they just don’t want it too close to home.

The concept is the problem. Their politics are the problem.

Have you noticed how all of these garbage people aren’t quoting Charlie Kirk’s actual words or posting videos of him engaging in debates, they simply declare him to be anti-this, that or the other thing. “He’s a this kind of -phobe,” or “that kind of -ist.” They don’t quote him because they never actually listened to him, they only heard him in quick MSNBC soundbites and half-quotes out of someone else’s mouth.

The New York Times exemplified this when they had to issue the following correction to an article trying to smear him. “A correction was made on Sept. 11, 2025: An earlier version of this article described incorrectly an antisemitic statement that Charlie Kirk had made on an episode of his podcast. He was quoting a statement from a post on social media and went on to critique it. It was not his own statement.”

They didn’t bother to look because they were told Charlie was an anti-Semite, just like all of those people were told he was some kind of monster or another and didn’t bother to check for themselves. Democrats are not known for verifying things…or thinking.

Democrats never bother to look, they simply obey. They outsource responsibility for their problems and the “solution” to them. And they create problems for everyone else because they insist others obey too. If they were only hell-bent on creating their hellscape world for themselves, no one would care. But like Harvey Weinstein, they insist on trying to force their desires on everyone.

A majority of Americans said no. Charlie Kirk said no and they murdered him for it. Will he be the last person murdered by a radicalized Democrat? Of course not.

I’ve been writing for the better part of a decade about how the Democratic Party establishment was walking a fine line between keeping their followers simmering in an emotional frenzy and hoping they didn’t boil over into a full blood thirty murder frenzy. That’s where they are now. Seemingly normal people cheering murder for the “crime” of thinking how you do; for voting how you do. Do you really think they’d act differently if it were you? How could you ever trust these people again? How could you trust them around your children knowing they’ve expressed joy over Charlie’s kids growing up without him?

The left is a cancer on the country, and cancer kills. We’ve always said that when someone

shows you who they are, believe them. They’ve shown you who they are, believe them. More importantly, beat them. At the ballot box and in life.

Someday they will wake up and realize the monsters they’ve become, and they’ll try to move past it. Never let them forget. The website CharliesMurderers.com is cataloging every sick thing they’ve put out in the world about this murder, complete with their faces, names and employers when they can find it. Make them famous, and make them unemployable.

If they wake up from their rage hangover and try to pretend they didn’t do something shameful, let that website be the herpes that follows them around. The “regrets” over consequences are already starting, may it haunt them until they truly know, accept and change from the horrors they are.

Unless and until then, and maybe even after that, to hell with them.

There’s much more to say on this, and this is probably horribly rambling and disorganized because of the rawness of it all. I just don’t care right now; there will be time for clarity of thought later. In the meantime, let’s win.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

GLAAD Smears Charlie Kirk, Puts Target On Back Of Other Conservative Activists

A GLAAD spokesman claimed Kirk used 

‘lies and vitriol about transgender people’ 

as a ‘frequent part of his rhetoric and events.’

The  Federalist 

GLAAD spokesman smeared conservative Christian Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated on Wednesday while speaking at Utah Valley University, as someone who “spread infinite amounts of disinformation about LGBTQ people.”

The spokesman did not provide any examples, but told The Advocate, the self-proclaimed “queer paper of record,” that, “Lies and vitriol about transgender people were a frequent part of his rhetoric and events.”

It should be easy to find examples because Kirk produced so many videos, but perhaps The Advocate failed to show any of Kirk’s “vitriol” because they don’t exist. When Kirk engaged with the LGBT community, it was always with respect. He saw the humanity in people who desperately want to be seen, heard, and understood.

The speakers who came to challenge Kirk’s ideas wanted to sway his opinion, but with the rock-solid foundation of the Bible, he would not move from his Christian principles. He was kind, asked thought-provoking questions, and it was apparent that he cared about the long-term outcome for the people he spoke with.

For those liberals who say that Charlie Kirk was hateful to transgender people, explain yourselves. Most of you have literally never heard him, and are just parroting what main stream media talking heads have told you about him.

THIS is how Charlie debated and interacted with… pic.twitter.com/HEaEgFYv3c

— ☘️𝕃𝕦𝕔𝕜𝕪 Ƒʉͫcͧкͭιͪηͣ 𝕄𝕔𝔾𝕖𝕖‎ (@LuckyMcGee) September 11, 2025

GLAAD hates that. After all, as a $36 million nonprofit, GLAAD needs to perpetuate a need for advocacy by keeping every gender-confused victim supporting its movement.

“GLAAD stressed the extent to which Kirk and Turning Point USA promoted anti-LGBTQ+ narratives,” The Advocate reported. “The group highlighted Turning Point’s college campus campaigns featuring speakers such as Riley Gaines, Chloe Cole, and Pastor Junsun Yoo, who regularly spoke against transgender people.”

Chloe Cole is a woman who detransitioned after a regrettable attempt to become a man when she was young.

“Naming the 3 of us in this statement is putting a target on our backs and it normalizes the violence that took place in Utah,” Cole posted on X after she was namechecked in GLAAD’s statement. “They do not care if we die because they think we are nazis. This is the reality of a large amount of the democrat party in America.”

GLAAD has a good racket going, thanks to many corporate partners, including the NFL, McDonalds, Chipotle, and Delta Airlines. The Federalist contacted these partners and asked if they intended to continue financial support of GLAAD after they smeared Kirk and his three friends. None responded.

What does GLAAD do besides “advocacy?” It does not produce a product or offer a service like a plumber or a doctor.

“As the world’s largest LGBTQ media advocacy organization, GLAAD ensures fair, accurate, and inclusive representation that leads to 100% acceptance,” its tax-free papers explain.

It manages messaging.   

GLAAD’s Deputy President and COO Darra Gordon, was paid more than $334,000 in 2023, the top earner of at least the 10 employees earning over than $163,000 annually.

Corporate sponsors must understand that lining the pockets of GLAAD’s is not “ensuring acceptance” of LGBT people — it’s funding the targeting of conservative Christians and putting them in danger of real violence, just like we saw in Utah Valley this week.

Whoopi Goldberg Appears to Imply Dems Should Have Kept Quiet About Biden's Decline

RedState 

Sometimes something comes across the screen that's so ridiculous that it requires a double-take - and then a triple-take. When Whoopi Goldberg is involved, sometimes it's a quintuple-take. Case in point: On Wednesday, on "The View" (That's still on? Who knew?), Whoopi called out her fellow Democrats during a discussion of Kamala Harris' new (ghost-written) book, claiming that the 2024 election may have turned out differently, had the Democrats just "...kept their mouths shut" about "Autopen Joe" Biden's decline.

"The View" co-host Whoopi Goldberg lashed out at Democrats on Wednesday while discussing an excerpt from former Vice President Kamala Harris' new book and insisted they should have "kept their mouths shut" about former President Joe Biden's decline.  

"If the Democrats had kept their mouths shut and looked like, hold on, hear what I’m saying, if they had kept their mouths shut and took care of this in-house, as opposed to making it a public spectacle, I think people would have had a better feel about it," Goldberg said.

So... she's saying that the Democrats should have worked harder to cover up the mental and physical decline of a man who was, at the time, President of the United States - a man who was ostensibly Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, a man with the authority to order the release of nuclear weapons? 

That actually made my brain hurt. But that's not uncommon when one is watching "The View." Oh, Whoopi wasn't the only one performing in Nitwits on Parade; her co-hosts were also true to form:

Co-host Joy Behar jumped in and blamed sexism, arguing that the country would "never elect a woman."

Co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin said she disagreed with Goldberg. 

"I don’t believe the political parties should have a say in who is a nominee and who is elected," Griffin said. "There's no primary when there is a sitting president. And 75% of voters said they thought that Biden may be fine when in office, but was too old for another term. That's voters' only way to say ‘I have an issue.’"

Co-host Sunny Hostin agreed with Harris' argument that the stakes were too high regarding Biden's decision to run again.

Sexism had nothing to do with Kamala "Queen of Word Salads" Harris losing that election, just as sexism had nothing to do with Her Imperial Majesty Hillary I, Dowager-Empress of Chappaqua, losing the 2016 election. Both of them were terrible candidates. Both of them were grating, abrasive, and unbearably smug and self-righteous, although we have to give Her Imperial Highness an edge in the smug department. Both of them were, politically, far too far to the left of the American mainstream. 

The American voters would certainly elect a woman president if she were up to the job. Tulsi Gabbard keeps drawing mention as a GOP vice presidential candidate in 2028, which would put her in the running for the top spot in due course. That would have to really sting the Democrats, since Tulsi not only once ran as a Democrat but she is also the one who, in the 2020 Democratic primary debate, defenestrated Kamala Harris over one debate question. Kamala dropped out before one vote was cast; Tulsi is now 1) a Republican, and b) President Trump's Director of National Intelligence.

No, sexism had nothing to do with it. That's just the usual fallback position for these people; they can't blame their bad candidates; it's just that they actually think that the American people are too biased, too dumb, and too sexist to know what's good for them.

Now, the election was 10 months ago, and ever since, it's been snap and slash time in the upper echelons of the Democratic Party. Ghost-written memoirs are flying back and forth like 14-inch shells at the Battle of Jutland; everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else, except old Joe Biden, who is pointing fingers at clouds and oozing, "Lookie! Lookie!" Now "The View" has to chime in along with everyone else, claiming, as always, that the fault lies anywhere but with the horrible, horrible candidates; and that will be used to push the next slate of horrible, horrible candidates in 2028.

Let's hope they never get wise.

Is Trump Pulling the Plug on His Role in Ending the Russia-Ukraine War?

RedState 

President Trump handed an ultimatum to NATO members Saturday morning: either get serious about ending the war caused by Russia's February 2022 invasion of Ukraine or count the U.S. out. Using a "truth" from his Truth Social platform to lay down the law, President Trump said, "If NATO does as I say, the WAR will end quickly, and all of those lives will be saved! If not, you are just wasting my time, and the time, energy, and money of the United States."

A LETTER SENT BY PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP TO ALL NATO NATIONS AND, THE WORLD: “I am ready to do major Sanctions on Russia when all NATO Nations have agreed, and started, to do the same thing, and when all NATO Nations STOP BUYING OIL FROM RUSSIA. As you know, NATO’S commitment to WIN has been far less than 100%, and the purchase of Russian Oil, by some, has been shocking! It greatly weakens your negotiating position, and bargaining power, over Russia. Anyway, I am ready to “go” when you are. Just say when? I believe that this, plus NATO, as a group, placing 50% to 100% TARIFFS ON CHINA, to be fully withdrawn after the WAR with Russia and Ukraine is ended, will also be of great help in ENDING this deadly, but RIDICULOUS, WAR. China has a strong control, and even grip, over Russia, and these powerful Tariffs will break that grip. This is not TRUMP’S WAR (it would never have  started if I was President!), it is Biden’s and Zelenskyy’s WAR. I am only here to help stop it, and save thousands of Russian and Ukrainian lives (7,118 lives lost last week, alone. CRAZY!). If NATO does as I say, the WAR will end quickly, and all of those lives will be saved! If not, you are just wasting my time, and the time, energy, and money of the United States. Thank you for your attention to this matter! DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.”

I will admit to being a skeptic of President Trump's approach to ending this war. Not only has Trump allowed Russian advocates, like Elbridge Colby, to be brought into the government at high levels, but he has also given Putin a virtually non-ending series of deadlines, all of which have been ignored by Putin, and none have brought consequence. The fact that he calls this war "Biden’s and Zelenskyy’s WAR," without mentioning the guy who actually started it, is telling.

The fixation on oil, as I see it, is an impossible condition. Hungary's Viktor Orban and Slovakia's Robert Fico are political allies of Putin. These two countries have insisted on buying Russian oil and gas at pre-war levels. This gives them a veto over any NATO or UN decision requiring unanimous action. When Ukraine hit a pumping station for Russia's oil pipeline that serves Hungary, Orban had a cow and Trump sent a note to Orban saying he was not happy with the Ukrainian strike.

An initial strike of the pipeline happened Aug. 13, which prompted large fires, but the pipeline was fixed by Aug. 19, according to Politico EU. On Friday, Ukraine struck again. 

“Hungary supports Ukraine with electricity and petrol, in return, they bomb pipeline that supply us. Very unfriendly move! We wish President Trump every success in his pursuit of peace,” wrote Hungarian President Viktor Orbán, a staunch Russian ally.

Trump replied to this note saying, “Viktor – I do not like hearing this. I am very angry about it. Tell Slovakia. You are my great friend.”

On Friday, Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs Péter Szijjártó and Slovakian Foreign Minister Juraj Blanár sent a letter to the European Commission. They are demanding protection of critical infrastructure.

“Given that in the past years, the EU and its Member States have provided hundreds of billions of Euros worth of support to Ukraine, we find Ukraine’s actions, which severely threaten the energy security of Hungary and Slovakia, completely unacceptable,” reads the letter. 

Other actions also indicate Trump is done with attempting to broker a Russia-Ukraine peace deal, and maybe with NATO. Earlier this week, Russia launched a drone swarm into Poland.

When asked about it, President Trump insisted it could've been a mistake. "It could've been a mistake." He said. "It could've been a mistake. Regardless, I'm not happy about anything having to do with that whole situation. But, hopefully, it's going to come to an end.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk made it very clear that there was no chance that 19 drones crossing into Poland from Belarus could be called a mistake.

We would also wish that the drone attack on Poland was a mistake. But it wasn’t. And we know it.

Poland's Foreign Minister echoed that message.

If you aren't fluent in Polish, he said, "No, that wasn't a mistake."

He was a little stronger on his Fox News interview on Friday.

What are you gonna do about Putin? Because we just saw these drones in Poland.  

Trump: I'm not gonna defend anybody but they were actually knocked down and they fell. But you should not be close to Poland anyway. 

Trump says his patience with Putin is "running out fast."

Even the modest progress Trump had accomplished, which was getting low-level talks going between Russia and Ukraine, has fallen apart. Only this week, Putin's spokesman Dmitry "Pornstache" Peskov announced that Russia was halting all negotiations with Ukraine, "Even as our negotiators have the opportunity to communicate via these channels, rather, we can state that this communication has been paused." Without a continuation of staff level talks, it is hard to see what rolling out the red carpet for Putin in Anchorage accomplished.

This was foreshadowed in JD Vance's August 24, "Meet the Press" interview.

If you look at the way the Russians have conducted themselves, they don't want a ceasefire. They don't want a ceasefire for complicated reasons. We, of course, have pushed for a ceasefire. But again, we don't control what Russia does. If we did, the war would've been over seven months ago. 

The biggest sign that Trump is done trying to mediate an end to the war came yesterday when the administration withdrew sanctions on Belarus's national air carrier Belavia.

This is not trivial. There is little functional difference between Russia and Belarus. They conduct joint military exercises.

They are part of a politico-economic agreement called the Union State, which aims, eventually, to integrate Belarus into the Russian Federation.

Removing sanctions on Belavia allows it to buy new aircraft and Boeing aircraft parts that will inevitably end up in Russia. It also provides an easy, above-board way for Russia to bust existing sanctions regimes by shipping forbidden equipment to Belarus aboard Belavia. In effect, there are no longer meaningful import sanctions on Russia.

Last but not least, one of Belavia's primary lines of business, pre-sanctions, was flying in illegal migrants to push across the border into Poland.

There seems to be a conceit in the Trump administration that Russia can be flipped from what amounts to a Chinese client state on the model of North Korea into an ally against China. Politely, that is balderdash. Russia doesn't want to be part of the West because its history and institutions ensure it will never fit in; it will certainly never be counted among the first rank of Western countries. It can't break with China because the Russian Far East is on China's menu and the only thing keeping from the Chinese treating Siberia the same way they treated Tibet is that Russia is a useful club to wield against the West.

Quite honestly, I don't see how this move is anything more than Trump firing his ejection seat after realizing that this war has deep roots and is not going to be solved by economic means. This war ends when one side or the other decides to give up. We haven't reached that point yet.