Robert Mueller Witch Hunter Cartoons

Mueller makes extensive request to White House for Trump documents

Witch Hunter

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has asked the White House to provide a wide variety of documents related to his investigation into Russia’s attempted meddling in the 2016 election, Fox News has confirmed.

Mueller’s office has provided a list of documents requested from the White House counsel’s office, a legal source says. The broad request covers multiple White House staffers and includes actions Trump has taken as president.

The request was expected, a source said.
The president’s legal team declined to comment.
"Out of respect for the special counsel and his process, the White House does not comment on any specific requests being made or our conversations with the special counsel,” White House attorney Ty Cobb said in a statement. “I can only reaffirm that the White House is committed to cooperating fully with Special Counsel Mueller."
MUELLER RATCHETS UP PRESSURE ON PAUL MANAFORT, BUT WHO IS LEAKING THESE DAMAGING DETAILS?
Mueller wants documents from 13 different areas including Trump’s firing of former national security adviser Mike Flynn and former FBI director James Comey, a source said.
He also wants documents related to Trump’s Oval Office meeting with Russian officials and Donald Trump Jr.’s infamous June 2016 meeting with a Russian attorney.
A source also told Fox News that the scope of the request shows that Mueller is operating well within the parameters of his mandate to look into Russian interference in the election – and has not strayed outside the lines.
The New York Times, which first reported the request for documents, said Trump’s attorney has told Mueller’s office he will turn over many of the documents this week.

Samantha Power sought to unmask Americans on almost daily basis, sources say

Samantha Power, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was 'unmasking' at such a rapid pace in the final months of the Obama administration that she averaged more than one request for every working day in 2016 – and even sought information in the days leading up to President Trump’s inauguration, multiple sources close to the matter told Fox News. 

Two sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said the requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced in foreign intelligence reporting, known as unmasking, exceeded 260 last year. One source indicated this occurred in the final days of the Obama White House.

The details emerged ahead of an expected appearance by Power next month on Capitol Hill. She is one of several Obama administration officials facing congressional scrutiny for their role in seeking the identities of Trump associates in intelligence reports – but the interest in her actions is particularly high.
OBAMA OFFICIAL MADE 'HUNDREDS OF UNMASKING REQUESTS,' GOP CHAIRMAN SAYS
In a July 27 letter to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said the committee had learned "that one official, whose position had no apparent intelligence-related function, made hundreds of unmasking requests during the final year of the Obama Administration."
The "official" is widely reported to be Power.
During a public congressional hearing earlier this year, Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina pressed former CIA director John Brennan on unmasking, without mentioning Power by name.
Gowdy: Do you recall any U.S. ambassadors asking that names be unmasked?
Brennan: I don't know. Maybe it's ringing a vague bell but I'm not -- I could not answer with any confidence.
Gowdy continued, asking: On either January 19 or up till noon on January 20, did you make any unmasking requests?
Brennan: I do not believe I did.
Gowdy: So you did not make any requests on the last day that you were employed?
Brennan: No, I was not in the agency on the last day I was employed.
Brennan later corrected the record, confirming he was at CIA headquarters on January 20. "I went there to collect some final personal materials as well as to pay my last respects to a memorial wall. But I was there for a brief period of time and just to take care of some final -- final things that were important to me," Brennan said.
Three of the nation's intelligence agencies received subpoenas in May explicitly naming three top Obama administration officials: Former national security adviser Susan Rice, Brennan and Power. Records were requested for Ben Rhodes, then-President Barack Obama's adviser, but the documents were not the subject of a subpoena.
A spokesperson for Power had no comment on the number or timing of her requests. But in a previous statement, her lawyer David Pressman emphasized that, "While serving as our Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Power was also a member of the National Security Council responsible for advising the President on the full-range of threats confronting the United States. Any insinuation that Ambassador Power was involved in leaking classified information is absolutely false."
During congressional testimony since the unmasking controversy began, National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers has explained that unmasking is handled by the intelligence community in an independent review.
"We [the NSA] apply two criteria in response to their request: number one, you must make the request in writing. Number two, the request must be made on the basis of your official duties, not the fact that you just find this report really interesting and you're just curious,” he said in June. “It has to tie to your job and finally, I said two but there's a third criteria, and is the basis of the request must be that you need this identity to understand the intelligence you're reading."
Previous U.N. ambassadors have made unmasking requests, but Fox News was told they number in the low double digits.
Power has agreed to meet with the Senate and House intelligence committees as part of the Russia probe. She is expected before the House committee in a private, classified session in October.
Bret Baier is the Chief Political Anchor of Fox News Channel, and the Anchor & Executive Editor of "Special Report with Bret Baier.”  His book, "Three Days in January: Dwight Eisenhower’s Final Mission," (William Morrow) is on sale now.  
Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

Lincoln Memorial vandalized by student from Kyrgyz Republic, police say

See what the frigging idiot Democrats have got started?

A student from the Kyrgyz Republic was arrested Monday for allegedly using a penny to engrave the letters “HYPT MAEK” into the fifth pillar on the north side of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, Fox 5 DC reported.

Nurtilek Bakirov, 21, was arrested and charged with malicious destruction of property, the report said. If convicted, the maximum penalty he faces is 10 years in prison and a $25,000 fine.

The report — citing U.S. Park Police — said an officer caught Bakirov the act.
Last month, the Lincoln Memorial was tagged with red spray paint with an anti-law message.
A photo released by the National Park Service shows an expletive followed by the word "law" scrawled on the inside of one of the memorial's columns.
Workers are removing the graffiti using a "gel-type architectural pain stripper safe for use on historic stone." They say treatments will be applied until all evidence of the paint is gone.
The park service told Fox 5 DC that it is determining how to fix the structure.
"We'll have some different options over the next days and weeks to see what if any course of action there is to take, but until we know what that course of action is we can't really comment on the level of effort or amount of money that would be involved to do so," a conservator told the TV station's website.
The Kyrgyz Republic, also known as Kyrgyzstan, is a former Soviet Republic in Central Asia that borders western China.

Has asset forfeiture gone too far? Truck seizure case sparks outrage, a call for change

Two years ago, Gerardo Serano – an American citizen, Kentucky farmer and a one-time GOP Kentucky statehouse candidate – was driving his brand new, $60,000 Ford F-250 pick-up truck to visit relatives in Mexico, snapping pictures along the way, when Customs and Border Patrol agents halted him at the border, demanded his cell phone, and asked him why he was taking pictures. 

"I just wanted the opening of the bridge. I was gonna take the opening of the bridge, the entrance of the bridge. That’s all I wanted to do," Serano told Fox News.

As a self-proclaimed student of the Constitution, Serano said he knew his rights, and protested to Customs and Border Patrol agents vehemently when they asked him to unlock his phone.
SHOWDOWN LOOMS BETWEEN CONGRESS, POLICE OVER CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE
"You need a warrant for that," he says he told them. They searched his truck and found five bullets in a magazine clip that Serano, a Kentucky concealed carry permit holder, forgot to remove before leaving his home.

Gerardo Serrano showing a photo of his seized truck.  (Institute for Justice)

"We got you," he says border agents told him. He was detained, but never arrested, nor charged, nor tried, nor convicted. However, agents did seize his prized new truck. Two years since its seizure, they have yet to give it back.
Serano is still making monthly payments of $673 on the truck as well as paying for its insurance and Kentucky license fees.
His attorneys at the Institute for Justice say Customs and Border Patrol has told them the truck was subject to the government's Civil Asset Forfeiture program because it was used to "transport munitions of war."
SESSIONS OPENS DOOR FOR POLICE TO SEIZE ASSETS, FACES GOP PUSHBACK
The Civil Asset Forfeiture program has its roots in English law that American colonists rebelled against. Their rebellion was ultimately codified in the Fourth Amendment, which reads, in part: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

Gerardo Serrano showing the notice of seizure he received when his truck was seized.  (Institute for Justice)

Despite that unambiguous language, civil asset forfeiture was revived in the 1930s Prohibition era against bootleggers and mobsters. It was revived again in the 1980s war on drugs and continues to this day.
"It’s absolutely astonishing that civil forfeiture is a policy that we have in this country,” said Clark Neily of the Cato Institute. “It is totally unjust, unfair, and I think it's unconstitutional."
Sen. Rand Paul, (R-KY) agrees.
"There are instances of people, young people, getting some money and saying, ‘I'm moving to California from Boston.’ They're stopping in some small town in Nevada, and they have a thousand bucks their dad gave them to get started,” Paul said. “And the police just take it and say: ‘You prove to us that this isn't drug money.’"

Gerardo Serrano's truck was seized over five bullets, which he says were lawfully his.  (Institute for Justice)

Morgan Wright, a senior fellow at the Center for Digital Government, spent 20 years as a police officer and detective in Kansas. He cites the benefits of civil asset forfeiture.
"We seized everything from cars to houses to money to jewelry to you name it," he said. "One of the cash seizures I had, had plans for a methamphetamine laboratory. They had documented intelligence that they had people working in these operations, people selling cocaine - cartel activity out of Mexico."
Wright acknowledges asset forfeiture may have gone too far.
"One of the worst things you can do in law enforcement is to take a good tool and abuse it," Wright said. "So that restrictive regulations come down on it, and it's taken away from everybody."
Many contend the program's abuses outweigh its benefits. Congressional critics were outraged, when, this summer, Attorney General Jeff Sessions ended Obama-era restrictions that blocked forfeiture without a warrant or criminal charges.
In a rare show of bipartisanship, conservative House Republicans joined liberal Democrats this month in rolling back Sessions’ undoing of the Obama-era reforms. During floor debate, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher said: "Asset forfeiture is a crime against the American people committed by their own government."

Gerardo Serrano with his new, leased truck. He is still making monthly payments of $673 on the seized truck as well as paying for its insurance and Kentucky license fees.  (Institute for Justice)

Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) echoed his sentiment.
"The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution exists to protect the citizens of this country from being deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. In practice and in principle, adoptive forfeiture is a violation of that Fourth Amendment," she said
The Senate is also poised to act.
"We have a free-standing bill that says the government shouldn't take peoples’ property without a conviction, that the burden is on the government that you actually agreed to commit a crime," Sen. Paul told Fox News.
"We also will look at, as the funding bills come through in the House, if they do bring up the Appropriation Bill for the Department of Justice, I will attach that language to it," he added.
Many say what's needed is a Supreme Court test case. It may get one.
Serano, represented by the Institute for Justice, is suing Customs to get his truck back and to end the policy of civil forfeiture once and for all. Justice Clarence Thomas has publicly said the high court needs a good case that address the problems of civil asset forfeiture.

Seattle Minimum Wage Cartoons

Seattle Gets Third Mayor in Just a Week (Stupid Liberals)

Former Seattle City Council President Tim Burgess is taking on a new role as mayor.  (Photo/Ellen M. Banner/The Seattle Times)

Seattle welcomes its third mayor in less than a week.
Councilman Tim Burgess was sworn in Monday following a busy week at the Seattle City Council.
The transition began when former Mayor Ed Murray resigned amid allegations he sexually abused teenage boys.
Following the resignation Council President Bruce Harrell was sworn in as mayor, but only served two days until he decided to decline the job.
Though Mayor Burgess will only serve until November, he says he plans to work diligently for his city.
Burgess was first elected to Seattle’s City council in 2007 and does not plan on seeking reelection this fall.

Jimmy Kimmel takes on Cassidy-Graham healthcare bill

Late-night TV host Jimmy Kimmel is seen at Paramount Pictures Studios in Los Angeles, March 20, 2014.  (Associated Press)

Late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel took aim Tuesday at Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy’s new co-authored healthcare bill that would undo central components of ObamaCare and replace it with block grants -- or federal funds -- to the states.

The host of ABC's “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” who delivered a memorable monologue in May when he revealed his newborn son’s heart condition, mentioned that Cassidy appeared on that show and “was not very honest.”

“It seemed like he was being honest,” Kimmel said. “He got a lot of credit and attention for coming off like a rare, reasonable voice in the Republican Party when it came to healthcare.”
Kimmel said Cassidy coined the term, "the Jimmy Kimmel test," which was summed up by Kimmel as: No family should be denied medical care, emergency or otherwise, because they can’t afford it.
They agreed the Jimmy Kimmel test would mean no lifetime caps, Kimmel said.
“This new bill does pass the Jimmy Kimmel test,” the host joked. “But a different Jimmy Kimmel test: this one, your child with a preexisting condition will get the care he needs, if and only if, his father is Jimmy Kimmel. Otherwise you might be screwed.”
The new legislation was penned by Cassidy, of Louisiana, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
Earlier Tueday, Cassidy retweeted a message by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who wrote that the bill’s authors “want states to implement better #healthcare ideas by taking more decision-making power out of Washington.”
Republicans must act by Sept. 30 in the Senate, or face the prospect of a Democratic filibuster. That blocking action is currently staved off by budget rules that will expire at the end of the fiscal year.
The bill would allow states to set their own coverage requirements, allow insurers to boost prices on people with serious medical conditions, end President Barack Obama's mandates that most Americans buy insurance and that companies offer coverage to workers, and cut and reshape Medicaid.
The bill's full impacts are difficult to predict because the Congressional Budget Office has not had time to assess it. But senators plan to move forward without a complete CBO "score," heightening outrage from Democrats.
“This guy, Bill Cassidy, just lied to my face,” Kimmel said.
By Tuesday evening the legislation remained at least one or two votes short of the number needed for passage.
Democrats are unanimously opposed, arguing that the legislation would result in millions of Americans losing their health insurance, decrease access to affordable care and damage the Medicaid health program for the poor.
McConnell must get yes votes from 50 of the 52 Senate Republicans. That would amount to victory in the 100-member Senate, because Vice President Mike Pence -- as president of the Senate -- would then break a tie.
"Governors and state legislators of both parties would have both the opportunity and the responsibility to help make quality and affordable health care available to their citizens in a way that works for their own particular states," McConnell said on the Senate floor. "It's an intriguing idea and one that has a great deal of support."
Pence appeared at the Capitol on Tuesday and declared the Trump administration was "all in" on the effort. President Donald Trump himself was closely in touch with Graham and others.
If the bill passes, House Speaker Paul Ryan has committed to pushing it through as is, and straight to the president's desk, according to Graham.

Clinton slams Trump, Putin during interview with Stephen Colbert

Hillary will end up going to jail because she's to stupid to keep a low profile.

Hillary Clinton holds a copy of her book, "It Takes A Village," at the Warner Theatre in Washington, Sept. 18, 2017.  (Associated Press)

Hillary Clinton had plenty to say about President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin during an appearance Tuesday night on CBS's "The Late Show."

Clinton told host Stephen Colbert that Putin interfered with the 2016 U.S. presidential election in part because she is a woman, and said Trump’s speech at the United Nations earlier in the day was “very dark, dangerous.”

The failed presidential candidate also reiterated her profound dislike for both Putin and Trump.
She said Putin interfered in the election partly because of her work as U.S. secretary of state (2009-2013), as that made her clash with Putin on numerous occasions. This, according to Clinton, evolved into a grudge on the Russian president’s part.
Clinton – who recently embarked on what critics have called a "blame game" book tour for “What Happened,” her account of her loss to Trump last November – claimed her gender bothered Putin and made him “agitated.” She also ridiculed the Russian leader for “manspreading” – a posture where a man sits with his legs spread widely.
Clinton suggested the Russian leader is “tied up with his anger and disappointment” following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
But Putin was not Clinton's only target during the interview. When Colbert asked her about Trump’s U.N. speech, which he delivered earlier Tuesday, Clinton did not hold back.
“I thought it was very dark, dangerous, not the kind of message that the leader of the greatest nation in the world should be delivering,” she said about Trump's remarks to the U.N. General Assembly, in which the president threatened to “totally destroy North Korea” and taunted “Rocket Man” Kim Jong Un.
“What I hoped the president would have said," Clinton critiqued, "was something along the lines of, you know, we view this as dangerous to our allies, to the region, and even to our country. We call on all nations to work with us to try to end the threat posed by Kim Jong Un.
“And not call him 'Rocket Man,' the old Elton John song, but to say, clearly, we will not tolerate any attacks on our friends or ourselves,” Clinton added, noting that, “You should lead with diplomacy, you should lead with the commitment of trying to avoid conflict however you can.”

Trump 'saddened' about Emmys' lackluster ratings

Tucker's Thoughts: What we're watching is no longer a debate between conservatives and liberals. It's an unbridgeable divide between those who've reaped the benefits of global capitalism, and the rest of the country, which hasn't #Tucker

President Donald Trump tweeted late Tuesday that he was “saddened” to learn that the ratings for Sunday night's Emmy Awards telecast on CBS, hosted by Stephen Colbert, were not good.

Trump tweeted, “I was saddened to see how bad the ratings were on the Emmys last night - the worst ever.”

The president’s Tuesday night tweet was a little off: The show was on Sunday, not Monday, and the ratings didn’t quite hit bottom, though they were close.
The Nielsen company estimated that 11.4 million people watched, slightly more than last year’s lowest-ever audience of 11.3 million. But six markets in Florida have not reported, as Hurricane Irma is still holding up the process in areas that were severely impacted by the storm.
“The Emmys are a Hollywood bubble show," Media Research Center vice president Dan Gainor told Fox News. "Actors and directors get to pretend they are important because they are doing such insightful takes on life in America, when they have zero idea what life in America is for the other 330 million people."
Trump added, “Smartest people of them all are the ‘DEPLORABLES.’” That’s a reference to a remark Hillary Clinton made during last year’s presidential campaign, when she said half of Trump's supporters belonged in a “basket of deplorables.”
The Emmys went head-to-head against NBC’s “Sunday Night Football,” which presumably didn’t help viewership, but the awards have now hit new ratings lows for three straight years. Perhaps some viewers want to enjoy the awards show as an escape from politics, or perhaps some viewers simply don’t agree with everything the Hollywood elite has to say.
Colbert and the event’s producers didn’t seem to care that roughly half the country wouldn’t be amused by non-stop attacks on Trump. 

Academy Awards Political Cartoons

Emmys ratings crater; Trump-bashing to blame?

Idiot

How low can the Emmys go? 

It looks like the 69th annual Emmy Awards are heading into sub-basement territory in terms of ratings after host Stephen Colbert spent much of Sunday’s event attacking President Trump.

It turns out American viewers may not have been as into Trump bashing as Hollywood would like them to be, as the 8.2 overnight rating among metered market households is down 2.4 percent from the 2016 edition, which would make it the lowest rated Emmy telecast ever.
The reason it’s hasn't been officially labeled the lowest-rated Emmys yet is because six of the 56 markets are in Florida have not reported, as Hurricane Irma is still holding up the process in areas that were severely impacted by the storm.
DOLLY'S RACY EMMY MOMENT
“The Emmys are a Hollywood bubble show," Media Research Center vice president Dan Gainor told Fox News. "Actors and directors get to pretend they are important because they are doing such insightful takes on life in America, when they have zero idea what life in America is for the other 330 million people."
Yet despite the cratering viewership, Gainor doesn’t think the Emmys will shy away from bashing Trump anytime soon.
“Hollywood won’t walk away from politics. The left wants to force politics into every single aspect of our lives -- from sports to movies to the food we eat. They won’t be satisfied until we are all appropriately woke to their struggles du jour,” Gainor told Fox News.
NICOLE KIDMAN BREAKS DOWN IN TEARS
Trump was attacked from Colbert’s opening monologue through the end of the three-hour program. Alec Baldwin won an award for portraying Trump on “Saturday Night Live,” and used his speech to mock the president for not winning an Emmy during his time hosting “The Apprentice.”
Ex-White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer even made an appearance to poke fun at his tenure, but many viewers are even upset that CBS allowed the award show to normalize a former member of the Trump administration. Apparently it’s OK to laugh at Trump and his surrogates, but not with them.
Academy Awards prognosticator Steve Pond called the event “the most political Emmys show ever” and said voters even decided winners based on politics, opting for programs with a political agenda such as “The Handmaid’s Tale” and “Atlanta” over less-polarizing shows such as “Stranger Things.”
WAS ACTRESS REALLY A SORE LOSER?
“Voters made it clear: They were sending a message,” Pond wrote.
Gainor agrees. “The Emmys celebrate shows that almost no one either watches or cares about," he said. "No ordinary Americans care about ‘The Handmaid’s Tale.’ No ordinary Americans watch ‘Veep.’ The only show the Emmys were honoring that most people even recognize was ‘Saturday Night Live.’”
The Emmys went head-to-head against NBC’s “Sunday Night Football,” which presumably didn’t help viewership, but the awards have now hit new ratings lows for three straight years. Perhaps some viewers want to enjoy the awards show as an escape from politics, or perhaps some viewers simply don’t agree with everything the Hollywood elite has to say. Colbert and the event’s producers didn’t seem to care that roughly half the country wouldn’t be amused by non-stop attacks on Trump.
“Entertainment Tonight” anchor Kevin Frazier appeared on “CBS This Morning” on Monday to proclaim that “politics took center stage,” and the “recurring punchline was Donald Trump.” The CBS morning show co-hosts seemed to approve, with Norah O’Donnell calling it “one of the best shows ever,” but that was before the dismal rating came out.
Gainor asked, “Why would anyone who isn’t a die-hard liberal watch?”

Senate Republicans consider a trillion-dollar-plus tax cut for budget

Senate Republicans are considering writing a budget that would allow for up to $1.5 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade, said two people familiar with the discussions.
Budget talks are continuing and no final decision has been reached yet.
A budget that creates fiscal room for a $1.5 trillion tax cut, if adopted, would then be followed by a tax bill that would specify rate cuts and other policy changes that don't exceed that figure. Calling for a tax cut in the budget would let Republicans lower tax rates while making fewer tough decisions on what tax breaks to eliminate to help pay for the cuts.
Such a plan would assume that tax cuts would boost economic growth and generate revenue to help pay for themselves, but it would also likely mean that Republicans would need to make some of the tax cuts expire after 10 years, leaving decisions to a future Congress they may not control.
Republicans had talked earlier this year about tax proposals that would fully pay for themselves but they have been gradually shifting toward a tax plan that doesn't explicitly pay for itself in the first decade. Budget Committee member Mike Crapo (R., Idaho) said on Monday that the tax cut should be "as big as we can get."
The budget is an essential first step to the major tax bill Republicans want to pass this year. If the House and Senate agree on a budget, they can fast-track a tax bill through the Senate on a simple-majority vote through a process known as reconciliation, rather than seek a bigger 60-vote majority that would require support from Democrats.

Continue Reading Below

ADVERTISEMENT

The budget sets the maximum size of any tax cut over the next 10 years, making it a crucial fiscal marker in this fall's tax debate. A budget with a tax plan that is revenue-neutral would effectively pay for itself, meaning any reduction in tax rates would be offset by reducing breaks or other revenue-raising measures. A budget with $1.5 trillion in tax cuts wouldn't be revenue-neutral.
Republicans face internal tension in trying to bridge the gap between those warning about large federal debt levels and the desire of many to cut taxes. The Senate Budget Committee, led by Mike Enzi (R., Wyo.) hasn't yet scheduled a committee vote or released a draft budget.
Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.), a Budget Committee member, said in an interview Monday that he has been advocating a $2 trillion tax cut. Mr. Toomey's preference is partly based on arguments that the tax bill, which is still being written, would generate significant economic growth that would yield additional tax revenue on its own and make the actual hit to the budget from tax cuts smaller.

'Eyes Wide Shut' actress: Reaction to my 'coming out as a conservative' story was absolutely shocking

Julienne Davis is an American actress, singer and model.

A few weeks ago I wrote an op-ed for Fox News about some of my difficult experiences as a conservative in liberal Hollywood. I never expected it to have much impact – but I was wrong.

As people started reading and commenting in greater and greater numbers and thousands of personal messages started pouring in to me, one thing became abundantly clear: my experience of being attacked for holding conservative beliefs resonated with many people.

Sadly, bigotry and even hatred directed at conservatives remains politically correct among progressives. It is one of the few socially acceptable forms of prejudice still around.
My op-ed sparked so much reaction not because of who I am – a mostly unknown actress with some minor credits to my name, most prominently for acting in the film “Eyes Wide Shut” in 1999.
I’m convinced that my op-ed drew attention because it mirrored the experience of so many other conservatives in our daily lives. The response I got to the essay opened my eyes to just how common attacks on conservatives are in our country today.

Being conservative or a supporter of President Trump in America today invites attacks and insults from the left. We are shunned, unfriended, shamed, vilified, ridiculed and sometimes we even lose work. It seems we are considered part of a new Axis of Evil.

Being conservative or a supporter of President Trump in America today invites attacks and insults from the left. We are shunned, unfriended, shamed, vilified, ridiculed and sometimes we even lose work. It seems we are considered part of a new Axis of Evil.  
I have received messages from fellow conservatives – not just in the U.S. but from around the world – telling me their own stories of being attacked and offering their prayers and support. I was humbled to know I was clearly not alone.
Judging from all the positive messages, I hope that in some small way I have empowered other conservatives to stand up for what they believe and not be bullied into silence by progressives and the media and entertainment elites.
But in addition to messages of support, I got plenty of messages from the haters. The overwhelming response from them was basically: “Who are you?” As if to say that because I’m a “nobody” I’m irrelevant and what I have to say is also irrelevant.
Such irony, coming from progressives who claim to be for the underdog, the victimized and the oppressed. Apparently, the oppression of conservatives and conservative thought doesn’t count in this case.
I also got a dishonorable mention on “Real Time with Bill Maher” on HBO, complete with cutaways to others laughing at my “lack of fame” and my “irrelevance.”
Those like Maher, who see themselves as some kind of cosmopolitan liberal elite, are only too ready to sneer at the culture that worships fame. And yet, when someone who isn’t famous contradicts their worldview, their first response is: “Who is this person? They aren’t famous, why should we listen to anything they say?”
Rather than discuss what I said, these elites just sneered at the fact that I’m not a top-grossing film star with a shelf full of Academy Awards who is mobbed by fans everywhere I go.
I wonder why we value this thing called “fame” anyway. I learned with my small moment in the limelight that “fame” in and of itself has no real value. Looking at some of the personal train wrecks in Hollywood over the years, it’s sadly clear they took the fame game to heart.
Let me pose some questions to every successful “famous” leftist pundit and celebrity:
How are you using your voice? For a good cause, or just to burnish your brand, draw more fame and make more money? Are you trying to end the hate and the polarization in our country or increase it?
The sad truth is that so many who mount hysterical, hateful and almost nonstop attacks on conservatives and President Trump are fanning the flames of division that pit Americans against each other. Instead of seeking to bridge differences, they seek to accentuate them.
Our great country is called the United States of America – but so many are trying to make us the Divided States of America, filled with citizens who reject cooperation and embrace confrontation.
People with some measure of fame – whether from appearing in films or on TV – have the power to change minds and hearts. Yet instead, too many look lovingly at their bank balance and huge estates, and ignore the hypocritical monsters they have made of themselves and cater to the groupthink trolls they’ve created. It’s so ugly.
It was also telling that, in my case, the haters who attacked me rarely if ever were willing to engage in actual debate on the issues I raised. Sadly, they stuck to small-minded, petty, ad hominem insults on my character, my looks, my intelligence, my talent, and even my name.
And all the attacks on me came from a place of smug, egotistical, self-righteousness. En masse bullying, basically. But, oh, how I must have struck a nerve! Otherwise, why would they bother attacking me at all?
Moving forward, we are all still faced with the same dilemma: What do we do about this war of ideologies. Progressives can demonize and insult conservatives around the clock if they wish. Conservatives can even choose to respond in kind.
But what does this war of words accomplish? It reminds me of children on the playground, yelling insults at one another as they throw temper tantrums that are a sign of their immaturity.
My advice to conservatives is not to play dirty and return ad hominem insults with the same snarky smugness. This accomplishes nothing.
Instead, we need to bypass the insults, engage in rational discussion and serious debate, and not allow our egos to get in the way. And we need to invite our progressive critics to join us on the high road – if they are willing to act like mature adults. After all, what is the alternative?

Non-STEM professors reportedly push for boycott of UC Berkeley 'Free Speech Week'

Citing the threat to the student body’s “physical and mental safety,” 177 professors at the University of California, Berkeley, have signed an open letter calling for a boycott of the campus’ so-called “Free Speech Week.

The speakers scheduled for the week—from Sept. 24 to 27— reportedly include Milo Yiannopoulos, Steve Bannon and Ann Coulter.

The San Francisco Chronicle described the event as “four days of rallies and speeches.”
The report said that—even without the boycott—it is unclear if the event will go through. Organizers did not pay for the facilities, the report said. The price tag for such an event is expected to be exorbitant. It cost $600,000 to secure a recent speech by conservative Ben Shapiro.
The letter from the professors said the event forces some students to risk their “physical and mental safety in order to attend class.”
A spokesman for the school told the paper that faculty members can decide where or when to teach their classes.
The Daily Californian, the student newspaper, reported that only five professors who teach STEM courses on campus signed the letter.
Michael Cohen, a co-author of the letter, said the amount of STEM professors on the letter does not show any differences of opinions. The letter was released last week, and they could still join. He told the paper that the humanities buildings are near where these protests often take place.
Kristie Boering, a chemistry professor, told the student paper that she plans on holding her class as planned.
“I have a job to do,” she said.

Stephen Colbert Cartoons

Pres. Trump Takes Pride in Strong U.S. Stock Market, Massive Job Growth

FILE – In this Sept. 15, 2017 file photo, President Donald Trump waves as he walks from the Oval Office of the White House in Washington to Marine One for the short trip to Andrews Air Force Base, Md. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

President Trump is taking pride in the country’s economic performance.
In a tweet Saturday, the president says a great deal of good things are happening in the U.S including jobs and the stock market, which are seeing all time highs.
Since taking office the president has helped create more than one million new jobs.
The stock market has also seen record highs, including the Dow Jones which hit over 22,000 in August for the first time ever.
Additionally, the nation’s unemployment rate fell to 4.3% last month matching a 16 year low.

NY Times reporter slammed after saying boy mowing White House lawn sends bad signal on child labor

Steven Greenhouse, left, tweeted that the lawn-mowing gig was 'not sending a great signal on child labor, minimum wage & occupational safety.'  (REUTERS/Carlos Barria)

A former New York Times labor reporter has been slammed on social media for a snarky tweet hitting the White House for letting an 11-year-old boy mow the Rose Garden lawn last week.

Steven Greenhouse, who worked for the Times for 31 years and still writes for the paper on occasion, took issue with the feel-good story of the boy, Frank Giaccio, of Falls Church, Va., who showed up at the White House Friday to cut the grass at the invitation of President Trump.

“Not sending a great signal on child labor, minimum wage & occupational safety >> Trump White House lets a 10-year-old volunteer mow its lawn,” Greenhouse, who covered unions for much of his time at the newspaper, tweeted.
The Daily Wire website slammed Greenhouse’s tweet as the “dumbest” ever posted on Twitter.
Others were just as critical.
“The sanctimonious and humorless finger-wagging of nanny state progressivism in one tweet,” conservative commentator and journalist Bill Kristol tweeted.
Trump accepted the Virginia boy’s offer after he wrote to the president saying it would be his “honor to mow the White House lawn.” Frank, who was 10 when he wrote the letter but has since turned 11, also enclosed a menu of his landscaping services, including weed-whacking.
Trump spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said at the White House press briefing Friday that it was an “honor” to host Frank.
“The president has always loved go-getters like Frank,” she said.
After his initial tweet, Greenhouse engaged in a spirited back and forth with other Twitter users who disagreed with his view and let him have it. He tweeted later, “What this kid wants to do is noble, but sorry, I'm mindful of problems--I've written lots about child labor & kids being hurt by machinery.”

Listen up, UN -- Trump means what he's telling you

To all you besuited, bespectacled, and soon-to-be bewildered diplomats slogging around the United Nations General Assembly this week, try to understand this: Donald Trump means every word of what he's going to tell you. Which is: the United States is done with being blamed for everything that goes wrong in the world, and then paying to fix it.

For decades since the UN's founding in 1945, ambassadors and their ever-sprawling staffs have lived, eaten and parked at taxpayer expense, enjoying a life far beyond the means most of them could ever hope to afford in their homelands. 

The UN has become a symbol of globalist elitism, of willful ignorance about real world conditions. It has passed resolutions condemning Israel for its policies toward Palestinians, while failing to note that Palestinian terror is still an everyday threat to Israelis. It has given lip-service to condemning North Korea's escalating nuclear ambitions, but been unable even to agree on a way to freeze the millions in assets of its unhinged boy-king, Kim Jong Un.
It has chided the United States -- a democracy whether far-left Democrats think so or not -- for voting irregularities in some of its elections, but failed to inquire how Vladimir Putin got twice as many votes as his nearest rival in a country whose economy is tanking or how Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro just neutered his country's national legislature.

The assembled multitude at the UN this week will get to hear first-hand what Trump means where he talks about making America Great Again and America First. The only things threatened by those twin dogmas are the status quo that has long ignored or scorned U.S. leadership and values.

For those same decades, American presidents have taken the podium of the General Assembly in September and temporized, telling their audiences what fine chaps and ladies they are, how the United Nations is doing important work, and how proud they are to be standing in its hallowed headquarters on the East River of Manhattan.
President Trump will deliver no such encomiums. He has already demonstrated a signature willingness to insult his hosts, lecturing fellow NATO leaders on their failure to pay their fair share for defense, in pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord despite some chilly Gallic stares directed at him, or in demanding that the NAFTA free trade agreement be renegotiated in a way more advantageous to the U.S.
Speaking of paying a fair share, Trump is also likely to remind his listeners that the United States coughs up an outsize 22 percent of the UN's overall budget and 28 percent of its peacekeeping funds. He may also allude to the fact that some of those so-called peacekeepers are guilty of rape, another topic too sensitive for the refined world body to act upon.
Trump won't even feel out of place. After all, New York is as much his town as it is the UN's home, although there are probably as many New Yorkers who wish he'd get out as would like to say farewell to the hundreds of diplomats lucky -- or corrupt -- enough to live there.
Trump will meet with leaders of so-called allies like Britain and Germany, even though both Prime Minister Teresa May and Chancellor Angela Merkel have recently, and publicly, rebuked him for his policies and statements.
Perhaps most important, the assembled multitude this week will get to hear first-hand what Trump means where he talks about making America Great Again and America First. The only things threatened by those twin dogmas are the status quo that has long ignored or scorned U.S. leadership and values, and the hope that no one would notice that a so-called global economy works in favor of some nations like China and India, but not the United States.
Donald Trump won election last year promising to change that. His opponents -- and he has many -- should pay close attention to what he says this week. He means it.
John Moody is Executive Vice President, Executive Editor for Fox News. A former Rome bureau chief for Time magazine, he is the author of four books including "Pope John Paul II : Biography."

Russia and China Notably Absent at UN Reform Powwow

Russia, China and several other large United Nations member states are among a small but powerful group of countries that look to be dodging Monday’s U.N. reform summit hosted by the President and Secretary-General António Guterres, according to a list of countries to be in attendance, as seen by Fox News.
Fox News obtained a brief outline of a United States drafted 10-point plan for U.N. reform known as a “Political Declaration for U.N. Reform High Level Event,” which gives U.S. support to Guterres’s reform efforts at the world body.
On Friday, the United States U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley told reporters at the White House that the U.N. reform event being chaired by the president was “very, very important.”
“We asked other countries to sign on to their support of reform, and 120 countries have signed on and will be in attendance. That's a miraculous number,” she said.
All those 120 countries had to first sign the declaration before being allowed to attend the event. There are 193 member states of the United Nations.
Among those not attending are Russia and China — the two most powerful members of the BRICS group of nations, which has been working actively to counterbalance U.S. influence on the world monetary system. BRICS is the acronym for a group of five major emerging national economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The group is estimated to make up some 41 percent of the world population.
India is the only BRICS member that shall attend.
While Russia and Chinese hold significant influence at the world body, their contributions to the U.N. budget is but a small fraction of what the U.S. doles out each year in contributions.
“It’s not surprising that some countries, especially those who have taken on geopolitically competitive positions to the United States, would shun this initiative,” said Jonathan Wachtel, a former spokesman for Ambassador Haley and director of communications at the U.S Mission to the U.N.
“In pushing back they would probably argue that any reform agenda taken up at the U.N. shouldn’t be driven by one country but rather by all member states of the U.N.,” Wachtel said.
Russia’s Deputy U.N. Ambassador, Sergey Kononuchenko, railed against the Secretary-General’s report on advancing the U.N.’s development system, all part of Guterres’s U.N. reforms.
In a speech earlier this summer at the U.N., obtained by Fox News, the ambassador said the Secretary-General’s reform was an attempt to weaken control by member states.
“We have carefully studied the report, which, unfortunately, raises not hopes, but rather serious concerns for the future of the United Nations development system,” Kononuchenko said in response to the Secretary-General’s earlier presentation to member states.
The United States is by far the biggest contributor to the United Nations paying 22 percent of its regular budget, 28 percent of its peacekeeping budget and hundreds of millions in voluntary contributions to U.N. bodies such as UNICEF.
Wachtel told Fox News that while the Russian and Chinese governments likely agree with some of the proposed reforms, the U.S. still plays a bigger role.
“The United States, the largest single contributor to the United Nations, has every right to demand that U.S. taxpayer money is not wasted,” he said.
Questions sent to both the Chinese and Russian U.N. missions went unanswered.

Tillerson Considers Closing Embassy in Havana Where Diplomats Mysteriously Got Sick

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Sunday that the Trump administration is considering whether to close the U.S. Embassy in Havana following a string of unexplained incidents that have damaged the health of American diplomats.

“We have it under evaluation,” Tillerson told CBS News’ “Face the Nation.” “It's a very serious issue.”

At least 21 Americans have been confirmed to have suffered some kind of medical harm in Havana. Tillerson also confirmed the State Department has brought home some of the people affected.

He has previously called the episodes "health attacks." But the State Department now refers to them as "incidents."

Their cause and culprits have yet to be determined. However, U.S. officials said the victims suffered from hearing loss and, in some cases, mild brain damage, possibly from sound waves. Cuban President Raul Castro has claimed his government had nothing to do with it.

Tillerson spoke amid calls from some U.S. senators to shutter the embassy in Cuba’s capital.

Last week, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert acknowledged the administration was at least considering pulling some staff from the embassy.

Nauert said it “obviously” was a dangerous situation, adding, “We are tremendously concerned about that. … Our folks can come back to the United States if they wish to do so. It shows the bravery, the hard work and the dedication of Americans, whether they are serving in Cuba or whether they are serving anywhere across the world. … I want to recognize them and let them know that we care, we certainly have not forgotten about them, and that this investigation is aggressive.”