Kimmel Claims White House Fabricated Story to Strip Acosta of Press Credentials

Jim Acosta is an example of someone that’s entitled, commandeering, and abuses the first amendment to push an agenda. He’s incredibly rude, and one of those people that has to get the last word, even if it requires outright lying. He has opinions about everything, and inappropriately injects them during press conferences; he doesn’t ask questions, he answers them. And CNN is fine with him as their Chief White House Correspondent

Acosta wants to become the news, rather than cover it. His love for the limelight is surpassed only by his need to please his media bosses at CNN and stroke his own ego. In fact, Jimmy Kimmel had him on, and it was a big love affair—a bromance. After all, Acosta might as well be a celebrity journalist, so it makes sense for him and Kimmel to get along. Apparently, Kimmel (a comedian turned “political consultant”) considers him to be a “reputable journalist,” and is even floating conspiracy theories that the White House is doctoring footage at press conferences to make Acosta look barbaric and unruly.

Remember that press conference when Acosta, showing is hubris, was lecturing Trump that the caravan of migrants moving up from Central America was not an invasion? Trump responded by saying he thought it was an invasion. Then, in a sudden pivot from the issue, he starts asking Trump if he thought he demonized immigrants during the election.

That was Acosta trying to “become the news,” rather than cover it.

Then Acosta starts alleging that the migrants, in the now-famous ad that depicts them storming through border barriers, were really just actors! (If so, all of those migrants deserve an Oscar for that performance.) And then after Trump tells them this was footage taken just a few days ago, Acosta strategically walks that back; first, he says that they aren’t going to do that, which then evolves into “they’re hundreds of miles away [from the U.S. border].”

I think he gets the award for the best backward moonwalk. Here’s a network’s Chief White House Correspondent debating the President, rather than asking tough questions. Even worse, he loses the debate with a backward moonwalk and looks foolish.

Now back to the Kimmel conspiracy theory. Kimmel (who’s no fan of Trump) claims that the White House doctored footage during that same press conference to make Acosta look like he did nothing wrong when he refused to give up his mic and touched the White House aide.

This is what happened: Trump eventually was done with Acosta and his rambling, and so he wanted him to give up his mic so he could call on other reporters instead of debate Acosta. The White House aide eventually approached Acosta (because he wouldn’t shut up), and tried to get the mic from him. She walked over and made three attempts for the mic; on the third attempt, the female aide was able to grab the mic, but Acosta wouldn’t let go and used his left arm to brush her aside.

Check it out here:

Jim Acosta at White House Press Conference

Kimmel jokingly said that “Acosta didn’t accost”; he then claimed the White House doctored the footage by “speeding up the clip, specifically Acosta’s hands when brushing her aside, and muting the audio so you couldn’t here Acosta say, ‘Pardon me, ma’am.’ (How polite of him to say that while brushing her aside and refusing to give up the mic!)

Here’s Inside Edition’s analysis of this so-called “doctored” footage tweeted by Sarah Huckabee Sanders:

Apparently, the “doctored” footage is designed to make it look like he “karate chopped” her hand by pausing the aide’s motion for a second, and then speeding up the clip. The sad thing about this is that they’re debating nuances that don’t change the fact that Acosta (1) debated the president; (2) Would not willingly give up his mic so other reporters can actually ask questions; and (3) held the mic firm when the aide finally grabbed it, and even brushed her hand aside.

Who cares whether it was a karate chop? He touched her and refused to give up his mic. They say the 3rd time’s a charm; unfortunately, in this case, it turned out to be an “arm”—Acosta’s left arm brushing the female aide aside, and his right holding on firmly to the mic so she couldn’t take it away.

To add insult to injury, in that same clip, Acosta denied touching the aide. Talk about a blatant lie. Then again, Acosta and CNN are very good at lying and playing the victim card. Hopefully, Kimmel will be more careful when spreading conspiracy theories of “doctored” footage, especially when that so-called “doctored” footage doesn’t really change what happened. Oh.. and Kimmel doesn’t even think Acosta should apologize.

I’m glad he had his press credentials stripped away. You don’t debate the president and argue during a press conference. Report the news; don’t become it.

Milano’s “Sex Strike” Demeans Women

Pictured Above: Alyssa Mylano

Workers go on strike.  Teachers go on strike.  And they all do it for better pay or work conditions.

But a sex strike?  That’s Alyssa Milano’s answer to the”heartbeat bill,” which would ban abortion if a fetal heartbeat can be detected;  this can be as early as six weeks.

“Until women have legal control over our own bodies we just cannot risk pregnancy. JOIN ME by not having sex until we get bodily autonomy back. I’m calling for a #SexStrike. Pass it on.” Now, she’s doubled down and is claiming there is a “war on women” being waged by the GOP:

“The #SexStrike tweet has reminded people of the Republican war against women… These oppressive, regressive, forced-pregnancy bills are now being discussed in a serious manner on our national news cycle.”

To put things in perspective, here’s what the Alabama bill does: Holds doctors criminally liable (Class A Felony) for performing abortion at any point in pregnancy, or attempting to perform an abortion (Class B Felony); and makes all abortion illegal except if the mother’s life is in danger—there is no exception in the case of rape or incest.

Alabama isn’t alone.  Mississippi, Georgia, and Ohio have proposed similar bills, but nothing this extreme.  For instance, Mississippi punishes doctors who perform abortions by revoking their medical license, not criminally charging them with a felony;  the other difference is that the Mississippi law allows for abortions up until you can hear a fetal heartbeat, which can be as early as six weeks into pregnancy.

Yes, these states were probably emboldened to pass these bills restricting abortions because of the conservative majority on the Supreme Court.  But it’s highly unlikely that  Justices Roberts or Gorsuch will side with these states in overturning Roe v. Wade. For 40 years, the Supreme Court has said that the government does not have any compelling interest in violating a woman’s due process rights by banning abortions before a fetus can survive outside the womb—at around 23 or 24 weeks.

Could these new laws move the goal posts?  Possibly.  Let’s say the Supreme Court revisits Roe, and decides that the litmus test for when abortion’s allowed shouldn’t be when the fetus can survive outside the womb, but when you can hear the fetus’ heartbeat.  In this case, abortion is still legal, but only for a shorter period of time.

Back to Alyssa Milano.  Calling for a strike implies you want better working conditions or pay.  Right off the bat, I think prostitution.  I’m thinking of an exchange of something for sex, probably money (or maybe services).  And if it doesn’t involve paying (in some shape or form) for sex, it comes across as insinuating that sex is a chore for women, and they just go through the motions.  Either way, referring to it as a “sex strike” was bad form, and has the effect of denigrating women.  It plays into this idea that women are only “sex objects,” without a brain or any other redeeming qualities.

Apart from the sex strike being ill-conceived, it actually makes it appear that men are imposing these laws on women.  The Alabama governor is female, and she just signed in the most restrictive abortion laws on the books. And there are many pro-life women who support these more restrictive abortion laws.  You think they’re going to go on a sex strike?  Probably not.

It makes sense for workers to strike, but not women by refusing to have sex so that male lawmakers (or “oppressors”) will give them more bodily autonomy.  Women aren’t prostitutes or sex objects, and they enjoy sex too.   And let’s not forget, many women (some of whom are lawmakers) are pro-life and agree with restrictions on abortion.

Let’s stop the identity politics”— the so-called “war on women,” and talk about the real issue of abortion.

Snopes’ Toxic Culture and Liberal Bias

The Story Behind the Fact Checker

Snopes can best be described this way: A fact-checking site whose founder and executive is knee deep in lies and scandal, and a former managing editor whose liberal bias is palpably evident.


Do you know how this arbiter of truth got started? In 1994, by founder David Mikkelson and his ex-wife Barbara Mikkelson out of the basement of their home in California. That’s not to say it can’t be legitimate because it was founded out of their basement, but there’s more to this tawdry tale. Hold on tight. It got a jumpstart as the first fact-checking site, focusing on urban legends or “old-wives tales,” before turning its focus to fake news and other misinformation.

Snopes has been riddled with scandal after the recent relocation of its “corporate headquarters” a few years ago to Mikkelson’s bedroom office in Tacoma, WA. To clarify, Snopes isn’t the name of the company; it’s only the name of the site. Bardav, Inc. (which Mikkelson also owns) is the parent company that owns and runs the so-called debunking site.

Mikkelson Sued for Using Corporate Funds to Wine and Dine Ex-Porn Star Wife

Mikkelson had hired Proper Media to manage a significant portion of the site, including web content and advertising accounts for Snopes. Mikkelson’s ex-wife, Barbara Mikkelson, had 50 percent ownership and sold her stake to the directors of Proper Media before divorcing Mikkelson in 2016. Shortly thereafter, Proper Media accused Mikkelson of having blocked their access to Snopes, thus making it impossible for them to manage the site as agreed on. Proper Media, in turn, withheld all advertising revenue and wouldn’t surrender the domain name, suing Bardav (Mikkelson) for breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and corporate waste.

David Mikkelson with wife and former escort, Elyssa Young.

Was Mikkelson fit to run the company? This is the basis for the suit alleging corporate waste, since after the divorce Mikkelson was allegedly embezzling company funds to pay for his divorce, and lavish trips with his new bride—Snopes employee Elyssa Young. According to multiple sources, Mikkelson’s new wife, Elyssa Young (aka “Erin O’Bryn”), is a former escort and porn actress; she also ran for Congress in Hawaii, in 2004, as a libertarian on a “dump Bush” platform. (But I’m sure this has no bearing––not even a smidgeon––on her ability to provide Mikkelson assistance when it comes to “fact-checking.”)

Elyssa Young tweets a selfie of herself wearing a Snopes tanktop while Mikkelson is being interviewed.

Here’s her Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/erin.obryn. The page has photos posted of her and Mikkelson on there. Also, she looks exactly like “Elyssa Young”; thus, Erin O’Bryn must be an alias and stage name.

Because this is still being litigated, we’ll soon learn if Mickelson did embezzle company funds to pay for legal fees and lavish trips with his former escort and adult film star wife, Elyssa Young. It’s noteworthy that Proper Media learned about the supposed embezzlement of nearly $100,000 from Mikkelson’s ex-wife, Barbara Mikkelson, in court documents related to their divorce; in other words, this isn’t a baseless allegation.

In fact, his ex-wife wrote in court filings that he “raided the … corporate bank account for his personal use and attorney fees,” and that he [David Mikkelson] “expended money on himself and the prostitutes he hired.” (Talk about a damning statement.) In sum, Mikkelson is facing contentious legal battles stemming from alleged financial misappropriation of company funds.

If the guy at the top is misappropriating funds, how can he be trusted to fact-check the news?

Former Managing Editor a Liberal Hack

The former managing editor of Snopes, Brooke Binkowski, is a liberal hack disguised as an apolitical journalist seeking the truth. In fact, she was the editor of Snopes for nearly three years––up until 2018—when she finally got fired. (I guess Mikkelson thought she was blowing their cover as the “definitive fact-checking site.”)

While editor, her tweets reveal that she’s pro-life, pro-LGBTQ rights, anti-Second Amendment, and may have a sex/porn obsession herself. Here are a few of those tweets:

This was tweeted in March 2016, while she was still editor of Snopes. Is the penis mightier than the sword? According to her, yes. It’s an unprofessional tweet from a so-called “journalist” and “managing editor” of one of the biggest fact-checking sites. Maybe that’s the Snopes culture? She’s also tweeted other messages, where she doesn’t hesitate to use other crude terms, either literally or figuratively. There’s also a picture of her with 64-year old porn star, Ron Jeremy, who’s been accused of groping multiple women. (So much for respecting women.)


Her favorite reporter, Igor Volsky, is the author of “Guns Down”—a book about how to defeat the NRA. In fact, he’s so fervently anti-gun, that he regularly tweets about the fatalities caused by mass shootings and gun violence; he also believes in banning assault weapons, bump stocks, and large magazines, at the least. Igor is also anti-Trump and has endorsed the notion that Trump colluded with Russia, and has suggested that Trump is the perfect asset for Putin to attack America. He’s not just a reporter; he’s an ideologue who happens to be Binkowski’s favorite reporter.

The owner is likely an embezzler, and the executive assistant is a former adult film star and escort who ran as a libertarian and goes by an alias. Then there’s the former managing editor, whose favorite reporter is a guy on a relentless crusade to curtail gun rights and who believes that Trump is “Russia’s best asset.” Further, the former managing editor of Snopes (for three years) is pro-choice, taking jabs at preachers on Tweeter and even blaming the election of Trump for emboldening “white nationalists.” Binkowski believes that his election has emboldened anti-abortion whites to rear their “white nationalists” heads.

In the words of David Mikkelson: 

“The Wall Street Journal. The Washington Post. Your crazy cousin’s blog. It all looks the same. A picture with a headline and subject. Before, they were relegated to a soapbox on street corners or drafting a newsletter. Now anybody can throw up a website.”

And sir, your website is no exception.

Will Trump Be Impeached?

Let me tell you a secret. It’s a secret because the only way you find out about it is if you follow Trump on Twitter. (That’s how slanted and unfair the media portrays his Presidency and accomplishments.)

As much as the MSM bashes DJT, legislators in both chambers know he has strong grassroots appeal, and a strong approval rating (almost 90 percent) among Republicans. This isn’t meant to be partisan; these are just facts. Further, the unemployment rate is the lowest it’s been in decades, and we aren’t at war. That’s a good combo.

Here’s what impeachment means: to charge [a public official] with a crime or misdemeanor.

Logically, the next question is this: How do you impeach a president?

Members of Congress in the House vote to impeach, or otherwise bring charges of criminal misconduct against the President. All that’s needed is a majority of members of Congress to bring charges.

Next, you need two-thirds of the Senate, a “supermajority,” to convict the president and thus have him removed.

The odds of the Democrats in Congress bringing articles of Impeachment against Trump is about as likely as you winning a scratch off for any amount over $20,000 tomorrow. It’s not going to happen.

Let me explain.

As I mentioned, he has incredible approval ratings among Republicans, the economy is doing great, and we aren’t at war. Besides, there is no way that the Republican-controlled Senate would convict.

The Democrats know right now that he’s done nothing criminal, so they’re trying to compel him to release his tax returns to find something. Of course, there’s no way you can compel the president to release his returns. Thus, Democrats can bring charges, but it’ll be futile, and political suicide. The Senate won’t convict, and there is no evidence that Trump has done anything criminal. The Russia thing turned out to be a “nothing burger,” as predicted by even CNN. (Yes … it was Van Jones.)

Trying to compel someone to be removed just shows desperation, and fits the narrative that this is a witchhunt.

Huff Post Spins Trump Favorability

Check out this article that was published today a few days ago by the Huff Post: 85% Of Americans Haven’t Changed Their Minds About Trump Since 2016

Check out the pic above they used for this article. They show Trump angry and pointing at a member of the crowd.  It basically portrays him on an authoritarian rampage behind that mic.  I wonder why they don’t show a pic of him smiling, or sitting with members of his cabinet in the oval office? How about him walking outside the White House premises? Or maybe speaking at a rally?

And then there’s the headline that insinuates people hate him: “[H]aven’t changed their minds about Trump” When I hear someone say they “haven’t changed their mind about someone,” it’s almost always because they despise the person. Example: I haven’t changed my mind about Michael Vick even after all his charitable work; in my opinion, he’s still an animal killer.

How about this instead for a headline: “Trump Favorability Ratings Remain Largely Unchanged Since 2016.” That sounds a bit more on target. After all, they’re discussing whether there’s been a change in how he’s been viewed since he was elected president.

Then there’s the phrase “lion’s share” to emphasize that 48% have an unfavorable opinion of Trump, while 36% have a favorable opinion of him. Hmm… “lion’s share”? Really? I don’t know if you know this, but the phrase “Lion’s Share” comes from a fable written by Aesop, in which the lion goes hunting with three other beasts, and the lion ends up taking ALL the spoils. Although it doesn’t mean the entire amount (or spoils) anymore as in the fable, subconsciously you think that it’s some huge proportion. And that’s not the case.

Finally, this is how they titled their chart explaining how Trump’s favorability declined from 85% to 66% among those who voted for both Obama and Trump.

“President Trump Now Less Popular Among Obama-Trump Voters”

My theory is that the editor deliberately wanted this worded this way to mislead people who just skim through the article. If I just skimmed that, I would interpret that to mean that Trump’s less popular among those who voted for Obama, as well as those who voted only for him. But he isn’t less popular among his own base; further, the article goes on to explain that his favorability is still a solid 66% among those who voted for both him and Obama. Using the phrase “less popular” is another means of portraying him in a negative light.

How about this instead for a title: “Trump Favorability Declines to 66% Among Obama-Trump Voters”

Taking out the “less popular” phrase, and substituting “favorability declines to 66%” seems less biased and more accurate.

What’s even more suspect is the timing of this article by Ariel Edwards-Levy. It just happens to be published days after Trump’s approval rating hit an all-time high of 46% in a Gallup poll. Not surprisingly, there’s no mention of Mueller’s findings that there was no evidence of collusion with Russia, which has improved his approval rating.

Looks like the Huff Post is back to their dirty tricks and word games.  Shame on them.