This may not be nice – language wise – but it is funny:
I particularly like Nancy’s reference to her cats.
This may not be nice – language wise – but it is funny:
I particularly like Nancy’s reference to her cats.
Yesterday when I got wind of the story that had all of liberal media lit – that Trump told Michael Cohen to lie – it didn’t disturb me one whit. It had a whiff of hype and hysteria that we have come to expect from them.
It was only worth a yawn. Why? If Trump stubs his toe it’s an impeachable offense to these people. Their hatred has overriden common sense. They are so used to manipulating the news that they don’t realize facts anymore.
The story just didn’t make sense. Cohen has been swinging from one side to the other. He is obviously an opportunist who only cares about his own skin. This was someone to listen to? No.
Breitbart has outlined their reasons for raising an eyebrow when the story broke. Nick Nolte writes:
Here are nine reasons to be skeptical of this report:
1. BuzzFeed’s Lead Reporter Is a Proven Liar
The lead reporter on the story is Jason Leopold, someone no less than Columbia Journalism Review declared a “serial fabulist.”
Hey, way to hire, Ben Smith!
2. BuzzFeed’s Lead Reporter Has Published Fake Bombshell Scoops Before
In 2006, Leopold shook the world with the news that Karl Rove — get this — “told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials” he would be indicted for leaking Valerie Plame’s name to the media.
Leopold assured his readers that multiple sources “confirmed Rove’s indictment is imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove’s situation.”
Of course, Rove was never indicted, nor was he responsible for the leak.
3. BuzzFeed’s Lead Reporter Had His Own Memoir Cancelled
Columbia Journalism Review:
Fast forward to March 2005, when Leopold’s memoir, Off the Record, was set to be released. In the book, according to Howard Kurtz, Leopold says that he details his own “lying, cheating and backstabbing,” and comes clean about how he got fired from the Los Angeles Times and quit Dow Jones just before they fired him because, as he said, it “Seems I got all of the facts wrong” on a story about Enron.
Rowman & Littlefield, the book’s publisher, cancelled production just before it went to press after one of the book’s sources threatened to sue. That source, Steven Maviglio, who was a spokesman for California Governor Gray Davis, said that Leopold “just got it completely wrong” when recounting how he allegedly told Leopold that he “might have broken the law by investing in energy companies using inside information.”
4. We Are Supposed to Believe Michael Cohen
Lost in all the hype over this story is the fact that the source of the allegation against Trump can only be Michael Cohen, who has already pled guilty and will be going to prison for, among other things, lying.
5. Why Would Trump Ask Cohen to Lie When Don Jr. Told the Truth?
Thanks to the media’s previous bombshell report on this very same subject, a report that proved — like all the others — to be fake news, when the president’s own son, Donald Trump Jr., testified before congress on this Russia deal, he told the truth, he told congress that this particular Russia deal stayed alive (in some nebulous form) until June of 2016.
But now we’re supposed to believe that, even though his own son told the truth, Trump still instructed Cohen to lie — to testify the Russian deal died six months earlier, in January of 2016.
Why would Trump accept all the legal and political risks of instructing his attorney to lie when his son told the truth?
This just doesn’t make sense.
In fact, the best way to get caught in a lie is to offer up competing stories.
6. Buzzfeed Reporter Admits He’s Seen No ‘Evidence Supporting Our Report’
The second reporter on the Buzzfeed story (the one who is not Stephen Glass 2.0) told the far-left CNN Friday that neither he nor Leopold have “personally” seen any evidence to back up their “bombshell” that is really fer real closing the walls in on Trump this time.
“Have you seen any of that corroborating evidence.”
“No, not personally.”
UPDATE: Stop the presses! That Leopold guy is calling his reporting partner a liar. He told MSNBC he has seen documents.
Nothing juices my confidence in reporting like reporters who cannot keep their story straight.
7. Why Would Buzzfeed’s Sources Not Show Them ‘Corroborating Evidence?’
So BuzzFeed’s two deep state law enforcement sources allege there is evidence proving Trump suborned perjury — texts, emails, documents, transcripts with other witnesses within the Trump organization — but Buzzfeed’s sources didn’t bother to back up this wild claim by showing these reporters any of this?
All this proof in the form of emails and texts and no one bothers to– oh, wait…
8. Uhm, Trump Doesn’t Use Email or Texts
Trump is famous for refusing to use texts and emails. So how can the smoking guns be texts and emails?
See how none of this makes sense…
A guy who has spent his life avoiding putting anything down in writing would break that rule to obstruct justice, to commit a felony?
Other than texts and emails from Trump himself, whose texts or emails would corroborate such a thing?
9. This Is the 657th Bombshell Certain to Get Trump Impeached
Not this shit again.
From my count, this is the gabillionth time a left-wing news outlet went ahead and ran an unverified anti-Trump bombshell based on deep state sources… And let’s not forget that all the ones that came before were either eventually exposed as fake news or Nothingburgers sold as something else.
What’s more, even though the rest of the media have yet to independently corroborate the BuzzFeed report, they are still running amok with it. We now live in a media world where the guy who moderates Meet The Press is so excited he decided to light himself on fire this morning: “NBC News has not yet confirmed the Buzzfeed report. But if true — and if Mueller does have the receipts — why is this news significant?”
“Has not yet confirmed.”
Here’s an idea…
How about if you wake me when you have a smoking gun that is not clenched in the fist of a bitter deep stater who refuses to show that smoking gun to a “serial fabulist” working for a partisan racket like Buzzfeed?
In the meantime, ZZZZzzzzzz *snort* zzzzzzz….
Then again, the story could be true.
The media needs to go back and consider the story of the boy who cried wolf. It didn’t end so well for him.
They just don’t need to bother anymore. We Deplorables in the foxholes have gotten used to the incoming. We simply shrug anymore and go on about our business.
Every time they do this the media loses credibility and Trump gains it. He’s gone well beyond a Teflon presidency. And it’s all been applied by the media. By the time they’re finished they’ll end up canonizing him.
The Flyer thinks so, or at least reporter Chris Davis does who wrote this:
On Gannett, The Commercial Appeal, and Digital First
Dead Pools & Death Stars
“I am most afraid of our important, consequential work getting upended because our business model is further disrupted.”
– Commercial Appeal managing editor Mark Russell in an interview published by Poynter.org, 1-13-2019.
“In April, The Post published the editorial headlined ‘As vultures circle, The Denver Post must be saved,’ calling on Alden Global Capital to sell the newspaper after it cut 30 more positions in the newsroom, leaving it at a fraction of its size just a few years ago. Then in May, three top figures at the Denver Post, including its former owner, resigned amid budget and staff cuts.”
– From an AP report about Alden-backed Digital First Media’s move to acquire The Commercial Appeal’s parent company, Gannett Co. Published 1-14-2019.
If MNG/Digital First Media successfully acquires The Commercial Appeal’s parent company, Gannett Co., it’s time to start a dead pool. Only, instead of celebrity deaths, we’ll bet on daily newspapers. Also, I’m calling first dibs: The Commercial Appeal, 2021 — RIP.
After news broke that Digital First media was making moves to acquire Gannett, many local media watchers wondered if there was any juice left to squeeze from Memphis’ already greatly diminished daily newspaper. It’s a fair question, but only a tiny piece of the bigger picture. Whether or not the CA can withstand another round of screw-tightening, the market’s certainly interested in finding out. Gannett stock rose 21 percent following the announcement and, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal, this makes it harder for Gannett to, “justify turning its back on the offer,” or go forward with plans to expand its own digital footprint by purchasing Gizmodo Media (Previously Gawker Media).
Frankly, if not for Digital First’s reputation as “The Death Star of newspaper chains,” the company’s reasons for making an offer and encouraging Gannett to pursue other offers, might sound downright noble.
From the WSJ:
In the letter, Digital First accused [Gannett’s] management of poor stewardship and of damaging the company’s financial position by making several “aspirational digital deals” that haven’t paid off. It demanded that Gannett put all digital acquisitions on hold and hire bankers to review strategic alternatives.
That sounds like the Gannett we all know. But to extend the Star Wars metaphor, this isn’t Han Solo swooping in with his blaster to save the day. To borrow from Will Bunch at Philly.com:
“The dirty little secret is that DFM learned — at least for now — that it can sell longtime readers an inferior (or, to use the technical term, crappier) newspaper and only 10 percent of reach each year will cancel. Do the math, though, and it’s clear that much of America outside the biggest cities will become news deserts by the early 2020s, after Smith and his fellow hedge-funders have sucked out every last drop.”
Is Bunch being alarmist? He’s certainly not the only media watcher to sense a disturbance in the force. I caught a similar chill and the market’s positive response to the Digital First news instantly called to mind a line in James T. Hamilton’s 2003 book All The News That’s Fit to Sell. When applied to the information business, economics really earns its reputation as “the dismal science.”
Hamilton’s book is aging well. It delves into how markets shape media bias with attention paid to how little the value of well-informed communities has to do with the value of commodified media product. It more or less describes and defines the kinds of changes we’ve all observed in local media markets. It’s what happens when the public’s interest shapes public interest and profit drives all.
What happened to Alderaan can happen here.
The Digital First news took me back to that happy moment in 2018 when The Daily Memphian, a new startup, siphoned away much of the CA’s top talent, effectively cloning the ailing Gannett property in a locally owned but digital-only environment. Most media consumers cheered, but I went full Cassandra on social media and any excitement generated by the prospect of a new information startup was dampened by the sense that we’d now crossed some kind of risk threshold. Every media startup’s a dicey proposition; now the Gannett-damaged CA had been cut in half — its talent gutted by a digital twin with good intentions. The idea of having no daily non-broadcast news source in Memphis within the next decade had to be seriously entertained.
In spite of recent and well-justified optimism, I once again submit my modest observation: The sky is falling. Maybe not for everybody and maybe not right now. But someday and soon and as reported elsewhere, there are no good guys in this deal. But if Digital First takes Gannett there won’t be a Commercial Appeal in 2022.
Write it down.
The Daily Memphian reported this on the SCOTUS arguments concerning Midtown’s Kimbrough Liquors:
ennessee’s liquor lobby squared off against mom-and-pop liquor store operators from Midtown Memphis and a national chain Wednesday in arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association argued Tennessee is well within its rights to require store operators to be longtime Tennessee residents, while lawyers for Total Wine & Spirits and Kimbrough Fine Wine & Spirits argued the rule is blatantly unconstitutional.
Justices alluded to the case possibly having broader, perhaps Amazonian implications, as Total Wine’s lawyer argued the Tennessee law should be struck down as pure economic protectionism.
“The sole purpose of this statute was, as my friend here who represents the retailers association proves beyond any question, what this is designed to do is be exclusively protectionist,” said Carter Phillips, representing Total Wine, a national retailer, and Kimbrough owners Doug and Mary Ketchum. Phillips argued the law runs counter to Commerce Clause protections against state laws suppressing interstate commerce.
But attorneys for the retailers association and the state of Illinois argued store owners hadn’t proven a case that the Commerce Clause trumps a state’s right to regulate the liquor industry under the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition.
“The statute here, Your Honor, goes to the question of who can sell to whom and on what terms,” said Illinois solicitor general David L. Franklin. “That’s always been at the heartland of what the 21st Amendment was meant to protect, the state’s ability to structure the intrastate sale of its product.”
Michael Bindas, senior counsel for the Institute for Justice, which represents the Ketchums, said later, “We’re very confident that the Supreme Court is going to hold that Tennessee’s discriminatory residency requirements are unconstitutional.”
“As Justice (Elena) Kagan pointed out, if you accept that the state can pass these kinds of laws to protect in-state interests, then the sky’s the limit, the state can do whatever it wants. I don’t think the court is willing to accept that argument,” Bindas said.
Mary Ketchum agreed. “Oh yeah, we won. I hate to be so … but I’m pretty sure. Doug and I both agreed, we’re not lawyers, but we agreed we’d be really surprised if they kept any kind of residency requirement at all.”
Phillips, the store owners’ lawyer, made a point of lack of participation in the case by Tennessee’s attorney general. The case revolves around the state law’s residency requirement for retail liquor store licenses. Tennessee officials didn’t file a brief in the case.
The law says a person must live in Tennessee two years to initially receive a liquor store license and 10 years to renew the license. Because a license is good for one year, it effectively means a person must live in Tennessee nine years to own and operate a liquor store on a continuing basis.
The Ketchums moved from Utah in 2016 to buy the 80-year-old Kimbrough store at 1483 Union, but found themselves at the center of a legal controversy over the residency rule. They got their license, as did Total Wine for a Knoxville superstore, after a federal court in Nashville ruled the residency rule unconstitutional.
The association, representing more than 500 independent store owners, has led appeals of the lower court rulings.
The stakes are high for the Ketchums. They could lose their store, purchased with their life savings, if the ruling goes against them. Bindas said it could be a couple of months before the Supreme Court rules.
“We’re mostly just happy that a majority of this is all done,” Mary Ketchum said. “Right now, it’s in the justices’ hands and they get to decide what they want to do. We can just let it go and try to move on.”
The Ketchums traveled to Washington with their daughter, Stacie, who has cerebral palsy, and whose health challenges motivated their decision to move to Memphis from Salt Lake City and buy a business.
Observers have said the case could lead to further expansion for Total Wine, which operates megastores in multiple states, and entry into the market by companies such as Amazon.
The oral arguments at times led to laughter in the high court chamber, such as when Justice Samuel Alito commented, when questioning the association’s attorney, “Suppose if it was … a grandparents requirement. So you can’t — you can’t get a liquor license in Tennessee unless your grandparents were Tennessee residents. That would not create a dormant Commerce Clause problem?”
Shay Dvoretzky, representing Total Wine, said it wouldn’t be an interstate commerce problem because the 21st Amendment enshrined the states’ pre-Prohibition powers to regulate liquor, “which included the power to discriminate against out-of-state interests.”
Justice Stephen Breyer said suppose Tennessee had a law that “any liquor store has to use paint made in Tennessee, asphalt made in Tennessee for the parking lot, neon — you know, I can go on?”
Justices questioned the liquor stores’ lawyer about where the challenges of state liquor regulations would end.
“Isn’t the next business model just to try and operate as the Amazon of liquor?” asked Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Phillips said, “No, Amazon wants to operate … as the Amazon of liquor or may at some point. No, my client operates on a more brick-and-mortar business model that says we’re perfectly comfortable operating within the sphere of regulation that the state imposes on in-state operator(s). And all we are seeking to have is not to be discriminated against.”
Dvoretzky said residency rules help states better police the industry. “It facilitates investigation and enforcement of the law because somebody who’s been there for a while is more likely to have substantial assets that can be enforced — that can be seized, and is less likely to flee at the first sign of trouble,” he argued.
Phillips said Total Wine “would regard ourselves as an in-state retailer within the meaning of that. We have satisfied every condition necessary to … operate in state, with a presence in state of a very large facility that can be examined, can be determined to be in compliance, can satisfy every single one of the state’s vast requirements.”
The case of Kimbrough liquor owners who are fighting the Tennessee law requiring 10 years’ residency, was in front of the court today.
Here’s what happened, via Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog:
Argument analysis: Justices weigh text and history of 21st Amendment in challenge to state residency requirement for liquor licenses
Ratified in 1933, the 21st Amendment ended Prohibition – which (fun fact!) was established by the 18th Amendment, ratified 100 years ago today. It also gave states broad power to regulate alcoholic beverages. At today’s oral argument in Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair, the justices considered exactly how expansive that regulatory power is. In particular, does the 21st Amendment allow Tennessee to impose a two-year residency requirement for anyone who wants a retail license to sell alcohol there, or is the state’s power instead limited by a doctrine known as the dormant commerce clause, which bars states from discriminating against interstate commerce? The Supreme Court’s answer could have a significant impact on where Americans buy their alcohol and what kinds are available to them, but after an hour of oral argument it was hard to see exactly where the justices were headed in the case.
The dispute pits Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association, a trade association that has taken the lead in defending the Tennessee law, against both Total Wine, the national mega-chain with nearly 200 stores in 23 states, and Doug and Mary Ketchum, who moved to Tennessee to buy a liquor store after doctors told them that the weather in their home state of Utah was bad for their disabled daughter. When Total Wine and the Ketchums applied for licenses to run retail stores in Nashville and Memphis, respectively, the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission was poised to approve their applications, until the retailers – citing the residency requirement – threatened to sue the state.
The retailers’ threat prompted the TABC to go to federal court, seeking a ruling on whether the residency requirement is constitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit struck down the requirement, and the justices agreed last year to hear the case.
At this morning’s oral argument, there was general agreement that, if Total Wine and the Ketchums wanted to sell something else – for example, milk or paint – Tennessee’s residency requirement would be unconstitutional, because it violates the dormant commerce clause by discriminating against out-of-state residents. The question before the court, then, was whether the 21st Amendment “saves” laws like Tennessee’s.
Representing the retailers defending the residency requirement, attorney Shay Dvoretzky told the justices that it does. The 21st Amendment, Dvoretzky argued, was intended to give back the powers that the states had had before Prohibition under two federal laws – the Wilson Act and the Webb-Kenyon Act – that gave them “near complete” power to regulate the distribution of liquor. States can do almost anything, Dvoretzky stressed, as long as they treat in-state and out-of-state products the same, which the residency requirement does.
This expansive power, Dvoretzky made clear in responding to a question from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, means that laws like Tennessee’s residency requirement do not violate the Constitution even if they are intended to protect in-state retailers from competition. There is no “economic protectionism” exception to the 21st Amendment, Dvoretzky emphasized.
Dvoretzky later repeated this idea in response to a question from Justice Samuel Alito, who asked him whether the state could impose a requirement that the grandparents of an applicant for a liquor license have lived in Tennessee. Dvoretzky responded that such a requirement “would not create a dormant Commerce Clause problem.” Before Prohibition, Dvoretzky said, the states’ powers included the power to discriminate against out-of-state interests.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh was skeptical. The problem I’m having, Kavanaugh said to Dvoretzky, is that nothing in the text of the 21st Amendment – which bars the “transportation or importation” of liquor into a state in violation of that state’s laws – gives the states complete authority over the distribution of liquor. All that the 21st Amendment was intended to do, Kavanaugh suggested, was let states remain “dry” if they opted to do so; it wasn’t intended to allow states to pass laws that discriminate against out-of-state interests.
Arguing as a “friend of the court” supporting the retailers, Illinois Solicitor General David Franklin represented 34 states and the District of Columbia. Franklin told the justices that the twin questions of who can sell alcohol and on what terms have always been at the heart of the 21st Amendment.
Justice Elena Kagan appeared unconvinced that states have complete latitude to regulate those questions, observing that Tennessee’s residency requirement seems to be an outlier. “Is there anything in your argument,” she asked Franklin, “that would give us a way to say that” these kinds of extreme examples are “clearly protectionist” and must be struck down, even if more reasonable residency requirements might survive?
Franklin pushed back, responding that although Tennessee’s residency requirements could potentially violate other parts of the Constitution, they do not violate the dormant commerce clause. That prompted Kagan to ask whether a better option for the court would be for it to rule that the dormant commerce clause does apply to the residency requirement, at which point the state could come back and demonstrate that it has “real health and safety concerns” that justify the laws.
Franklin resisted, telling Kagan that such an approach would “still embroil the courts in the kind of line drawing that the 21st Amendment was designed to relieve them of” and would “be at odds with the broad regulatory discretion” that the 21st Amendment gives the states. The argument that Total Wine and the Ketchums are making, Franklin emphasized, would strip all meaning from the 21st Amendment by treating alcohol the same as any other commodity. “But it’s not,” Franklin concluded.
Appearing on behalf of Total Wine and the Ketchums, lawyer Carter Phillips reiterated Kavanaugh’s suggestion (later echoed by Alito) that the 21st Amendment does not give states broad authority to regulate alcohol but instead was intended to allow states that had decided to remain “dry” to stop the importation of alcohol from other states.
Justice Stephen Breyer countered that the Supreme Court’s earlier cases had already recognized that the 21st Amendment gives states “virtually complete control” over how they want to structure their liquor-distribution systems. What’s more, Breyer added, most states have long had some sort of residency requirement. “The history favors the other side,” Breyer told Phillips, even if it doesn’t necessarily make sense.
Kagan and Justice Neil Gorsuch fretted aloud about the prospect that a ruling for Total Wine and the Ketchums would open the doors to new challenges – for example, to other state laws regulating the sale and distribution of liquor. If we rule for you, Gorsuch told Phillips, the next case will argue that the current system discriminates against out-of-state residents by requiring retailers to have a physical presence in the state. Isn’t the next business model, Gorsuch continued, just to operate as the Amazon of liquor?
Phillips demurred, noting that Total Wine is a brick-and-mortar retailer. In any event, he responded, if such cases come to fruition, the states can make different arguments about why liquor retailers need to have an in-state presence. But in this case, he emphasized, Tennessee has never tried to explain why its residency requirements are necessary.
This is a hard case to handicap: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was absent, Chief Justice John Roberts said very little, and Justice Clarence Thomas did not say anything at all. Throw in the fact that Tennessee has made only a half-hearted attempt to defend the residency requirements, and it becomes even more difficult to predict exactly what the justices are likely to do. A decision in the case is expected by summer.
I didn’t know there was an 11th commandment brought down by Moses. “Thou shalt not consume sugary drinks” was not on my list. But, according to today’s CA editorial, all sweet drinks should have a “sin tax.”
Sin? Forgive me Father, I have sipped a Coke?
But watch out Southerners! She doesn’t just mean Cokes. Sweet tea and Koolaid made the list, too.
“Tennessee is second only to Mississippi in soda consumption,” the editorial writer says. “An excise tax on sugar sweetened beverages is needed to reduce sugar consumption in children and reduce the continuing rise of obesity in Tennessee’s children.”
What’s the natural conclusion to this? Should the purveyors be arrested and jailed like heroin and opioid suppliers? If it’s that bad, you might decide that.
Quick! Someone go get the Dinstuhls and Gibson donut people. Obviously they are doing evil work by providing irresistible treats.
The writer goes on to speak of diabetes, obesity and – you guessed it – let’s put the government in control of our health care and therefore monitor what we eat. It’s the progressive dream.
She ignores that targeting sugar soda makes it very glamorous in a way that it isn’t in daily life. Kids will want it even more when it is forbidden, just like they did the red hot cheetohs that schools embargoed.
Has this woman not heard of what happened with the soda tax imposed in Philadelphia? Consumers there were forced to pay outrageous sums for a single drink and $10 plus for a six pack. Surely that’s unfair, even to her.
It didn’t work either, as none of these self righteous, imposed attitudes do. Here in the Mid South, how easy would it be to go to Arkansas, Mississippi or another county to avoid the tax? Then you get in a Prohibition situation where you’re encouraging mob type trafficking and crime.
This person believes that “an excise tax on sugar sweetened beverages is not the total solution to childhood obesity, but it is an important first step to ensuring a healthy future for Tennessee.”
It’s not a total solution, it’s not even a solution.
Seems that everything the government takes over – especially when they wrest it from parental control – makes it much worse.
So would this.
Dems are lining up to run against President Trump. They think they have a shot at taking him down in 2020.
OK, well so far we have a useless guy in Julian Castro (Can you imagine the vote Castro signs?). Then there is the terminally angry Fauxahontas, Elizabeth Warren, and the aged walking mishap, Joe Biden (he hasn’t officially declared yet, but indications are that he will) plus anti-Catholic bigot Kamala Harris who told everyone that her ancestral country, India, is the oldest democracy (since 1947!). Joining them is an attractive young woman congressman from Hawaii, Tulsi Gabbard.
On paper, she might seem worthy. She’s a war veteran, seems amiable and hasn’t embarrassed herself – yet.
The only problem for them is that Gabbard is involved in a cult, lead by a guru. A fellow cult member describes it at medium.com:
The group I was involved in is called The Science of Identity Foundation, and it was started by a man called Chris Butler, who has variously been known as Siddhaswarupananda, Srila Prabhupada or Jagad Guru. His “philosophy” is a mishmash of Buddism, Vaishnava Hinduism and Christianity. There’s around 1,000 or so followers across Australia, New Zealand, Philippines and the US. Chris Butler himself was born in Hawaii and from what I’ve been able to glean from my research, was a college drop out who started a small group in the mid 60’s. When the Hare Krishna movement started gaining traction in Hawaii during this time, he found it difficult to find new followers and instead of competing with the Hare Krishna movement, decided to take his current followers, along with a $20,000 donation, and join the Hare Krishna’s instead.
During his tenure with the Hare Krishna movement, he struggled often with the leadership of the group (AC Bhaktivedante Swami who was his initiating spiritual master), and was repeatedly reprimanded by Bhaktivedante for publishing booklets expounding Chris’s own philisophical views. This was heavily frowned upon, and when he refused to curtail his actions, he was sent away to a small temple in New Zealand. It was during this time that he met a fellow Hare Krishna by the initiated name of Tusta Krishna Swami. They became close friends and when the relationship between Butler and AC Bhaktivedante Swami further fractured in the late 1970’s he and Tusta founded their own small group, bought a farm in Australia and all of his new followers left New Zealand for Australia around 1980–1981. My parents were amongst them.
I remember very clearly the plane ride to Australia, the mix of excitement and fear.
I also remember Chris Butler held this larger than life presence in my childhood. Everything I did I had to think about how it benefitted him. He was my parents spiritual master and they looked to him for guidance on everything, from what to eat, to how to raise their children, and they did it all without question. When I talk to people about the lack of questioning, they find that aspect odd. It is odd, but to put it into perspective, I was raised to believe Chris Butler was God’s voice on earth, and if you questioned him or offended him in any way, you were effectively offending God, and because we believed in reincarnation, that meant that you would be reborn as the lowest life form imaginable and then have to spend eons working your way back into God’s good graces. So questioning the leader was spiritual suicide, which was seen as worse than death. So no one questioned. Chris Butler also would ridicule the intelligence of anyone he didn’t like, belittling anyone he felt was questioning his authority even slightly. He demanded the utmost dedication and loyalty from his followers and if he didn’t get it, the punishments were swift and severe. I remember hearing stories of people who were told they weren’t allowed to eat because they didn’t make food to his liking, who were not allowed to sleep because there was a light making a buzzing noise in the house, and the follower didn’t have the foresight to fix the issue ahead of time.
Literally everything we did had to go through Chris. If you wanted to work outside of the group, you had to ask his permission. No-one could get married without his consent. From the late 80’s all of us kids were removed from public schools because he didn’t want them influencing our minds away from our service to him. So from that point we were home schooled, until there were schools established in the Philippines. After that all the children were sent to the boarding schools there for intensive schooling. From the small pieces of information that made it out of the schools to me, a lot of the kids were traumatised by the environment, as it was almost prison like. Classes were on hygiene and cooking and all the ways that they would need to serve Chris Butler best. It’s only speculation, but I am certain that this was because places like the US and Australia had standards of education that the home schools has to meet, and they just weren’t. They could avoid scrutiny by having the kids in boarding schools in the Philippines. I can’t even imagine how dreadful it was for my friends who got sent there. I was lucky to avoid it. I didn’t avoid the lack of schooling though, and by the time I officially left the Science of Identity Foundation in 1997, just before I turned 20, I had only received up to a 5th grade education.
From a young child I remember one of the main features of my life was the lectures that were sent to us via tape for us to listen to. Basically these were 1 hour long sessions of Chris talking about his beliefs – how evil and out of control gay people were, how women were inferior and sub human and should be controlled by their husbands, how messed up and evil the outside world was, and how his relationship with God was so special, only he could lead you back to Godhead (Heaven) and that he had so much control over his existence on earth, he could choose the moment of his death. We worshipped him, loved him even. Another part of his teachings was that all life is an illusion, and because of that all relationships were an illusion. We were encouraged to not invest in any relationships other than with him, so we were in effect isolated from our parents who did their best to not love us as per his recommendation, and instead looked at him like a surrogate father/messiah figure. He was this imposing force in our life that we weren’t supposed to offend, which is frankly terrifying when you’re a small child. I remember having many nightmares and a condition called sleep paralysis which can be brought on in times of great stress. My sister developed stress induced epilepsy during the time when we were supposed to be taken out of school. For my parents part, they did try to keep us in school for as long as they could, but when Chris heard parents were resisting him, his directive was clear – get them out or else. Every time my parents would try to take us to school, my sister would become hysterical and then she started having seizures. That was the power he had over us.
I really wanted to paint this picture of my childhood, because Tulsi Gabbard grew up in the same group that I did. She was subjected to the same environment I was. She’s still surrounded by this group and calls Chris Butler her guru. This is why the increased interest and her rise to power concerns me so greatly. I want to be very clear, I have no issue with Tulsi, as far as I am concerned, she’s as much a victim as I am, more so because she was groomed from an early age specifically for the path she is now on. What I am concerned about is the control I know Chris Butler has over her, the influence he has over her ability to make decisions, decisions that could become law and impact a whole lot of people. I know what an abusive, misogynistics, homophobic, germophobic, narcissistic nightmare Chris Butler is. And I know what kind of relationship he has with Tulsi…
Not only would she lose support for the position she holds, but she would lose her family, all of her friends, and this messiah/father figure if she opposed Chris Butler. She would be outcast from the only existence she has ever known. That’s a hugely powerful reason to continue to please Chris Butler without question.
I truly feel for Tulsi. Hers is not an enviable position. I know because I spoke out about Chris Butler a few years ago, and my family cut off all contact from me. This has happened to every other person I know of who got out. I hope one day Tulsi does reject Chris and finds her own voice. She has done amazing things and it makes me sad to think that another victim who was been abused and manipulated her whole life isn’t able to have the career she’s worked so hard for, free and clear of Chris’ toxic influence. Maybe one day she will, but while he is her guru, his influence over her makes her dangerous and unreliable, because Chris is dangerous and unpredictable.
Will you hear any of this from the media? Just like they did with Obama, they will hide any dubious connections she has. Question them and you become a racist or phobe of some kind.
Let’s hope her candidacy self destructs early.
This map is from 2018, but consider how much states pay for illegal immigrants.
In Tennessee, it’s almost $800 million.
The story from the Federalist goes on to say that
The map doesn’t include federal costs.
According to the Washington Examiner, when federal costs are included, illegal immigrants cost $135 billion a year.
Liberals like to justify their opposition to the deportation of illegal immigrants due to their estimations of initial costs for actually enforcing our federal immigration laws.
But considering that current data suggests over a trillion dollars spent supporting illegal immigrants a decade, leftist arguments that deportation is too expensive crumble rather quickly.
Furthermore, Democrats like to point out that illegal immigrants pay some taxes, such as sales tax. According to the social security administration, about 3.4 million illegal immigrants (out of 11.1 million people illegally residing in the U.S.) pay social security taxes.
However, the How Much map takes into account taxes paid by illegal immigrants. So the costs represented on the map fall entirely to legal U.S. residents’ taxes.
The Washington Examiner continues:
The costs cover added expenditures for education, welfare, law enforcement, and medical care.
When federal costs are included, the price tag nationally soars to $135 billion a year.
FAIR’s data also includes the offset of taxes paid by illegal immigrants, though the numbers are much lower. In the state and local column, they are $3.5 billion. Nationally they are $15 billion.
Overall, costs associated with illegal immigrants is much higher for state and local governments than the federal government. States pay $89 billion, Uncle Sam $46 billion.
Below are the ten states most heavily weighed by the cost of illegal immigration:
1. California – $23,038,125,353
2. Texas – $10,994,614,550
3. New York – $7,489,141,357
4. Florida – $6,290,429,108
5. New Jersey – $4,466,838,574
6. Illinois – $3,220,767,517
7. Georgia – $2,487,719,503
8. North Carolina – $2,437,965,113
9. Maryland – $2,378,996,947
10. Arizona – $2,314,131,964
Are Democrats willing to continue this sort of spending for years to come?
$5 billion seems like a deal to stop this monetary bleed out.
While federal workers are not getting paid – and we are subjected to various sob stories from all media about it – Democrats are fiddling.
Not in Rome, but in Puerto Rico.
About 30 Democrats of the Hispanic Caucus are attending. The trip was planned ahead of the shutdown and Puerto Rico was picked to draw attention to the hurricane disaster that happened there. (And the supposed poor response from the Trump team, although the Democrat mayor of San Juan was later shown to have halted distribution of desperately needed commodities.)
Then again, who wouldn’t want to go to Puerto Rico in January? DC can be quite nasty and cold then. Add to it the lawmakers will get to attend the Broadway show Hamilton, that new darling of progressive Trump haters. With tickets going for $500 apiece you can bet the Congress people wanted to get on the freebie train. Democrats expect perks.
The retreat was organized by BOLD Pac, a political committee and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus’ fundraising arm.
Nauseatingly, Sen. Bob Menendez, who has quite a history of free trips to Caribbean islands, complete with hook ups with the ladies, attended, too. He must be feeling pretty confident since the case against him in court was more or less dropped, although evidence was easily available.
Did I mention their families can attend, too?
109 lobbyists will also be there. As the Washington Examiner points out, that’s 3.6 lobbyists for every member including several big K Street firms, R.J. Reynolds, Facebook, Comcast, Amazon, PhRMA, Microsoft, Intel, Verizon, and unions like the National Education Association.
The Washington Examiner also says that guests will have to pay for Hamilton tickets themselves, but evidently most of them have been cut to a price of $10. Hope they can scoop together the money. The event is taking place in a seaside resort where rooms go for $429 a night, most likely comped and food is being provided. I hope so!
“BOLD PAC, the political arm of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, chartered a 737 for members, their families, and chiefs of staff to attend the weekend. The memo said the weather will be a balmy 80 degrees. The dress code is resort casual.”
Everybody left in the continental United States should be outraged at this trip. Can you imagine if Republicans had skipped town? Or President Trump? He has foregone all holidays until the border wall is funded. The media would be going nuts.
Their refusal to cover this just adds to our outrage. But they don’t get it. Congress doesn’t and the media doesn’t.
Bill O’Reilly’s release from Fox News has given him a better perspective than he had – and he can say what he wants.
He understands now that the news has become toxic. Audiences are leaving cable news channels. The obsession they have with President Trump has become old. I agree. I have not watched Fox or Fox Business nearly as much as I did. I watch One America News for a fuller picture of what’s going on in the world, not just Capitol Hill in D.C.
He writes on billoreilly.com:
…The arrogant, mostly liberal national press dismissed Donald Trump as a vulgarian but gave him constant exposure. He was good for ratings and was destroying the Republican Party in the process. Both positive things for the media chieftains.
But then Trump won the nomination and faced Hillary Clinton.
Once again the establishment TV news media derided Trump but hung on his every word. He remained great for business and couldn’t possibly defeat Mrs. Clinton.
They were absolutely certain of that.
But then he won again.
Almost instantly, business plans were put into place. CNN and MSNBC, with a large helping hand from NBC News, set themselves up as the “resistance,” openly demonstrating to their viewers that fair coverage was not even being considered.
The mandate became “destroy Trump.”
Anti-Trump Americans now had two networks that would bash the President non-stop. Because MSNBC was more vicious than CNN, it garnered the biggest audience of the two.
On the other side, Fox News made a corporate decision to support Donald Trump and appeal to the 60 million Americans who voted for him. Because FNC stood almost alone in defending Trump, it remained the highest rated cable news operation – there was no where else for the President’s supporters to go.
But all three cable networks basically stopped covering the news, devoting most of their presentations to Trump. Unending Trump. Always Trump.
Many viewers became exhausted.
So, Fox News has begun losing viewers especially in the 25 to 54 years old category. MSNBC is actually beating FNC in prime time on some nights which rarely happened in the past.
Correction, it never happened.
Many philosophers believe that hate is a stronger emotion than love, and that might be what we are seeing here. The MSNBC people are better haters than the CNN crew although it’s close. MS trounces CNN in the ratings because their Trump loathing is kept at a white hot temperature. It’s almost amusing to watch.
How do they keep it up every hour on the hour?
Fox News allows some of its on air talent to hate Trump too, and that is not sitting well with its core audience who now have alternatives on radio and the net.
But the basic problem with FNC is a lack of entertainment value.
Hating is fun for some; defending the object of hate, not so much.
When Donald Trump leaves the national stage, all three cable news operations will likely decline in a major way. Covering the news fairly and accurately is difficult. Today, cable news doesn’t even try. If you are looking for accurate information and honest perspective, you better bring a strong microscope.
Americans know that. They clearly see what’s happening. And when the blood sport of Trump-era politics finally ends, viewers will not be back for an encore.
They have had it.
I would like to know a little bit more about international news, but I don’t get it from Fox. It’s as if the rest of the world and the rest of the country beyond New York and DC don’t matter.
He is correct that the anti Trump people on Fox are contributing to the problem. There are no pro Trump people at all on CNN or MSNBC, ABC, CBS or NBC. That makes Neil Cavuto, Shepard Smith, Brett Baier and many others unwatchable.
And you get far more intelligent insight from Scott Adams and his podcast and Dan Bongino and his. Graham Ledger and Liz Wheeler, two nighttime hosts on OAN, actually let guests speak for more than three minutes and are more conservative than many Fox hosts. With only so many hours in the day, many of us are choosing to skip Fox for these or to read blogs.
Funny that Bill O’Reilly has become better off the network than he was on.