Posted on

Vaxxed Comedian Goes Off On CDC Mask Flip-Flop: ‘I Ain’t No F**king Super Spreader!’

You know what they say about broken clocks, right? Well one of the most beat to hell and worn out clocks in existence – washed up comedian and Trump family hater Michael Rapaport – actually made a good point. Recently, he took a shot at the leftists in government who are now recommending that vaccinated people wear masks. 

Sounds like even some of the most obedient Democrat sheep are breaking off from the herd. 

In a rant that went viral on July 29, the comedian – who normally reserves his disgusting and disturbing rants for conservatives – posted a video rant taking aim at Fauci and corporate news for flipping the script on vaccinated people and saying that they now should wear masks again.

The annoyed comedian basically asked “what gives?” and pointed out that this bureaucratic flip-flopping is inconsistent and makes no sense.

The video, which featured a caption with the question, “Am I a Hero or A Super Spreader?” depicted Rapaport as his usual self – annoyed and ranting with taking up most of the shot. “I just watched Tony Fauci and CNN – and Fox – tell me that people with the vaccine, vaccinated people are now spreading the coronavirus.”

The video continued with Rapaport saying that he thought getting vaccinated meant he never had to deal with masks or lockdowns or COVID precautions in the future. Watching him internalize that the joke is now on him was a sight to behold.

Rapaport mentioned how he went out like a good citizen and got his COVID-19 shot “a couple of weeks ago.” ”Yes, I’m vaccinated! Yeah, your little sticker – Yay! I’m vaccinated! Be a hero! Be vaccinated!” he exclaimed with sarcastic enthusiasm about having done his part. 

Then he started in on how Fauci, the government and mainstream media may have duped him. “I went from being a hero ‘cause I’m vaccinated and now you motherf****rs are calling me a super spreader? I ain’t no f***ing super spreader,” he stated, adding, “Figure this shit out.”

Posted on

Vaxxed Comedian Goes Off On CDC Mask Flip-Flop: ‘I Ain’t No F**king Super Spreader!’

You know what they say about broken clocks, right? Well one of the most beat to hell and worn out clocks in existence – washed up comedian and Trump family hater Michael Rapaport – actually made a good point. Recently, he took a shot at the leftists in government who are now recommending that vaccinated people wear masks. 

Sounds like even some of the most obedient Democrat sheep are breaking off from the herd. 

In a rant that went viral on July 29, the comedian – who normally reserves his disgusting and disturbing rants for conservatives – posted a video rant taking aim at Fauci and corporate news for flipping the script on vaccinated people and saying that they now should wear masks again.

The annoyed comedian basically asked “what gives?” and pointed out that this bureaucratic flip-flopping is inconsistent and makes no sense.

The video, which featured a caption with the question, “Am I a Hero or A Super Spreader?” depicted Rapaport as his usual self – annoyed and ranting with taking up most of the shot. “I just watched Tony Fauci and CNN – and Fox – tell me that people with the vaccine, vaccinated people are now spreading the coronavirus.”

The video continued with Rapaport saying that he thought getting vaccinated meant he never had to deal with masks or lockdowns or COVID precautions in the future. Watching him internalize that the joke is now on him was a sight to behold.

Rapaport mentioned how he went out like a good citizen and got his COVID-19 shot “a couple of weeks ago.” ”Yes, I’m vaccinated! Yeah, your little sticker – Yay! I’m vaccinated! Be a hero! Be vaccinated!” he exclaimed with sarcastic enthusiasm about having done his part. 

Then he started in on how Fauci, the government and mainstream media may have duped him. “I went from being a hero ‘cause I’m vaccinated and now you motherf****rs are calling me a super spreader? I ain’t no f***ing super spreader,” he stated, adding, “Figure this shit out.”

Posted on

CORRUPT MSNBC Chats With Sharpton About Lobbying Dems to Rig Elections

In yet another example of the blatant corruption that consumes the left-wing media, on Thursday, MSNBC anchor Chris Jansing brought on race-baiting Democratic Party activist and weekend PoliticsNation host Al Sharpton to openly lobby Congress to rig elections in favor of Democrats. Sharpton shamelessly touted how he and other leftists were conducting meetings on Capitol Hill to pressure lawmakers to pass the radical legislation.  

“Right now on Capitol Hill, Democrats are getting ready to go public with a new version of a voting rights bill,” Jansing announced while filling in for Hallie Jackson in the 10:00 a.m. ET hour, desperately trying to keep hope alive for bill that had no chance of passing. The host gushed: “Among those working on it, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senator Raphael Warnock, and Senator Joe Manchin….As civil rights leaders keep the pressure for action on, including in more behind the scenes talks with Manchin…”

 

 

At the mention of “civil rights leaders,” footage appeared on screen of Sharpton holding a press conference in Washington, D.C. with fugitive Texas Democratic state lawmakers. Talking to Sharpton moments later, Jansing emphasized his direct political involvement with shaping and pushing the legislative action: “Where do you think this is going? You’ve had a lot of conversations with a lot of the key people. What are you hearing?”

Sharpton, who is given a weekly national television “news” platform by MSNBC, happily bragged about how he was urging senators to get on board with a federal takeover of elections:

Yesterday, Martin Luther King III and Andrea King and I met with Senator Manchin and Lindsey Graham and the Speaker, a whole host of people. And we met with Senator Schumer after the eight members of the Democratic Party leadership met with him to come out with what they’re going to reveal today….I sense from our meeting with Manchin that he is willing to do some things if it is in fact something that he could live with and try to get him to come along.

Jansing chimed in: “Well, what does that mean in terms of Joe Manchin, that he can live with?…did you feel like there’s still room there, you’re making progress, you’re being heard?” Again, this a fellow host on her network and she’s asking if elected officials are going to pass legislation that he’s instructing them to pass.

Sharpton replied: “I think we’re being heard. The question is, what will be done?”

Concerned over the fate of the likely doomed bill, Jansing fretted: “But look, you know the reality of Congress and what Democrats and activists are up against. What’s it gonna take, what’s gonna have to happen for some real movement, do you think?” Sharpton proclaimed: “I think that it’s gonna have to have sustained indignation….If everyone continues to agitate, agitate, agitate….that will turn the public sentiment, public sentiment turns the Congress.”

By employing a left-wing hack like Sharpton, MSNBC is just a front for lobbying in favor of the Democratic Party’s radical agenda.

Sharpton’s shilling for Democrats rigging elections was brought to viewers by Dell and Citi. You can fight back by letting these advertisers know what you think of them sponsoring such content.

Here is a full transcript of the July 19 segment:

10:17 AM ET

CHRIS JANSING: Right now on Capitol Hill, Democrats are getting ready to go public with a new version of a voting rights bill. NBC News confirming Senate Democrats plan to unveil that new plan within the coming days. Among those working on it, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senator Raphael Warnock, and Senator Joe Manchin, with some of Manchin’s proposals expected to be in the bill. As civil rights leaders keep the pressure for action on, including in more behind the scenes talks with Manchin, who holds that critically important vote.

And over in the House, Texas Democrats are testifying at a hearing about what’s happening on the state level. As we learn they’ll also be meeting with Bill and Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams.

NBC’s Garrett Haake is on Capitol Hill. Also with us, the Reverend Al Sharpton, president of National Action Network and host of MSNBC’s PoliticsNation. Good to see you guys. So Garrett, what have you learned so far about what’s expected to be in that bill?

GARRETT HAAKE: Well, we expect it to be narrower than the For the People Act that was originally voted on in the Senate and blocked by Republicans. It will focus more narrowly on voting rights provisions and likely drop some of the other material about how campaigns are financed, perhaps some of the redistricting elements could go away as well.

The only new additions that we’re hearing about are something that might not have been in that – or that wasn’t in the For the People Act originally, and that’s how to deal with what might be considered election interference on the back end, how votes are counted and by whom. Concerns that have been raised by some of these new state-level bills that have been brought forward in some of these other states.

So a narrower package, an updated sort of 2021 version of what’s in this package, but no specific details released yet. It’s our understanding that bill is still very much under construction.

JANSING: So Reverend Al, as that construction happens, is narrower better than nothing? Where do you think this is going? You’ve had a lot of conversations with a lot of the key people. What are you hearing?

AL SHARPTON: Well, I think narrower could be better or could not be better. It’s according to what’s in the narrow. Yesterday, Martin Luther King III and Andrea King and I met with Senator Manchin and Lindsey Graham and the Speaker, a whole host of people. And we met with Senator Schumer after the eight members of the Democratic Party leadership met with him to come out with what they’re going to reveal today.

One of the concerns is nullification. You know, Martin Luther King, in his speech August 28th, 1963, talked about interposition and nullification. We’re having a big march on voting rights the same date this year, his son and I, and others. And nullification is exactly what he was referring to, is who counts at the end of the proceeding? If you now empower states to have local boards or local groups decide on what votes are counted, then you are nullifying votes. And that is part of what I understand has been put on the table now, with the meeting that Schumer and some of them had before they met with us yesterday.

So we’re waiting to see about nullification, we’re waiting to see what is in and what is out. I sense from our meeting with Manchin that he is willing to do some things if it is in fact something that he could live with and try to get him to come along.

JANSING: Well, what does that mean in terms of Joe Manchin, that he can live with? And particularly, as you point out, in that very critical area of voter nullification, did you feel like there’s still room there, you’re making progress, you’re being heard?

SHARPTON: I think we’re being heard. The question is, what will be done? I think the meeting with Manchin was somewhat positive in the sense that he said he is for the John Lewis bill, voting bill. The question is, what will be in that bill? People keep forgetting, the John Lewis bill has not been completely written. And that’s what we want to see. Lindsey Graham did not say – commit at all to either. But Manchin did.

The question is, what is in the John Lewis bill? And then, will they break the filibuster to pass the bill or work a carve-out? Because even if you have a perfect bill, even if whatever comes out today from the eight that met with Majority Leader Schumer yesterday, you still have to then deal with how do you pass it? Which is going to bring you right back to either filibuster reform or a carve-out for voting.

JANSING: So there you go. The devil’s in those very tricky details.

We’ve also been watching, Rev, this hearing with Texas lawmakers. They’ve had some luck, I think, focusing attention on the challenges at the state level, as an example of why federal action is needed. Add to that our NBC reporting that they’re going to be meeting with the Clintons and Stacey Abrams. They’re going to make this big push, all hands on deck, essentially. But look, you know the reality of Congress and what Democrats and activists are up against. What’s it gonna take, what’s gonna have to happen for some real movement, do you think?

SHARPTON: I think that it’s gonna have to have sustained indignation. Martin III and Andrea King and I met with them yesterday, took them to the King Memorial. The picture you showed is them standing at the King Memorial with Dr. King’s son. Because this is what Dr. King stood for, and we stood with them. They told us of others they’re meeting. They have to keep doing that. Today, women’s round – black women’s roundtable, Melanie Campbell and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee are doing things, people are doing things around the country. The national march will be August 28th.

How did we get here in the first place, Chris? By continued marching, SNICK did some, Dr. King did some, NAACP did some. If everyone continues to agitate, agitate, agitate, as Frederick Douglass said, that will turn the public sentiment, public sentiment turns the Congress. Congress never volunteered voting rights. It came from the bottom up. And it came from various strains and various traditions of movement.

JANSING: And those folks from Texas are on the Hill today continuing to remind us the challenges that are out there in so many different states. Reverend Al Sharpton, always good to see you. Thank you so much.

Posted on

More Corporate Satanism: ‘Converse’ Unveils New Occult Shoe Line

Legitimate satanism seems to be a growing trend in pop culture these days. As society seems to lose all moral footing, it’s no coincidence that musicians, influencers and mainstream shoe companies are embracing their infernal sides and selling it to kids.

The latest promotion of Lucifer comes from classic footwear brand Converse. In an advertisement for its latest limited edition line of sneakers, the company thought using a pentagram – a classic symbol of witchcraft and devil worship – was a hip idea. Hey, pop star Lil Nas X had sex with the devil in a music video and it got hundreds of millions of views. Maybe this way Converse can sell millions of shoes … it just has to be ok with selling its soul to the devil.

Converse’s new line of Chuck Taylor shoes is a collaboration with Goth artist and fashion designer Rick Owens called “TURBODRK.” “TURBODRK” is just one part of Owen’s new “DRKSHDW” fashion collection which is all about “refashioning classic silhouettes with a heavy injection of glam-rock and grunge,” well, and the Devil himself.

Converse’s Instagram post about the collaboration featured a short video of two ghoulish models posing in all black jumpsuits, disturbing white masks that would make Michael Myers blush, and the new edgy Chuck Taylors. Though, the characters themselves weren’t the most disturbing aspect of the clip, it was how they were posing. Together, both models were arranged in such a way as to convey an obvious upside down pentagram.

So, yeah, how ‘bout that, kids? Get your pentagram shoes so you can look fresh as you join Lil Nas X on his stripper pole ride to hell.

Apparently, the inclusion of the pentagram isn’t just some edgy, scare-your-Christian-parents shtick. For Owens, who wrote the caption that went along with Converse’s Insta post, there’s an actual evil and subversive philosophy behind its use. He wrote, “I’ve been using this pentagram for a long time because obviously, it has adolescent occult associations… I like the fact that it refers to an alternative system.” 

Oh, an “alternate system,” eh? He obviously means a system contrary to what many progressives consider to be an oppressive western civilization built on Christian repression and white supremacy. 

Think about that in terms of the last year with Black Lives Matter riots, Critical Race Theory and all manner of anti-American talking points that came to a head. That ideology was all about undoing the white supremacist system. Throwing off the prevailing system seems to be all the rage right now, and some people like Owens and Converse are flirting with the satanic nature of this revolution. 

It got even worse. Owens added that the pentagram “suggests openness and empathy. It suggests the pursuit of pleasure, this pursuit of sensation … So that leads us to be more accepting and tolerant of other systems, which I think is a good thing.” Oh, right. We are witnessing this kind of “tolerance” creep into our society, aren’t we? It preaches that Christians and conservatives must let go of their morals for the sake of not offending others, but then ultimately becomes intolerant of Christian views and drives them out of society. 

And, of course, isn’t that exactly what Satan wants? It’s quite telling that these people are associating the pentagram with goodness and social justice. Take note!

Posted on

Column: You Can’t Be Friends with Conservatives?

One of the most obvious misconceptions about liberals today is that they personify tolerance. The Oxford Dictionary defines tolerance as “the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.”

A recent poll by the Survey Center on American Life at the American Enterprise Institute found that Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans to report ending a friendship over a political disagreement (20 percent vs. 10 percent). Liberals are also far more likely than conservatives to say they are no longer friends with someone over political differences (28 percent to 10 percent). No group is more likely to end a friendship over political differences than liberal women – 33 percent responded they stopped a friendship over politics.

This was underlined by CBS News digital reporter Kathryn Watson, who tweeted out a chart of some of these numbers, adding “This is so wild to me. I can’t imagine not having friends across the political spectrum.” Twitchy.com captured a flock of “tolerant” leftists expressing hot outrage at this notion.

First up was Aaron Rupar, a Vox reporter who’s popular on lefty Twitter: “It’s hard to be friends with intolerant and irrational people.” That’s classic: I’m not intolerant. I am intolerant of the intolerant.

Race and racism worked its way in. The account “More_moxie” tweeted “Tell me you’re a straight white without telling me you’re a straight white.” Jersey Craig added “Siri, what is white privilege?

“Powerful Mel Ankoly” joked with this interpretation: “I’ve got Klan friends and non-Klan friends!” Leftists imagine you can’t possibly be a Republican without being a Klansman. Aren’t these people supposed to be the ones who are intellectually nimble, adept at nuance? No.

“GOPocalypseNow” added “Shorter Kathryn Watson: ‘it’s only normal to have friends who are racist traitors.’” Here’s just one more, from “Masked Carpenter,” who arrogantly announced “I don’t want to be friends with racist, anti-science people who support a police state. But that’s just me.

Derek Thompson of The Atlantic, whose tweet Watson tweeted over, deleted the tweet, perhaps to evade incoming fire at his account. He later tweeted in support of the notion that Twitter “is mostly a Dutch oven of indignation.” Or: Twitter is full of some of the most intolerant, bullying leftists on the planet.

I don’t know Kathryn Watson. She’s not a friend of mine. But I have liberal friends, and I don’t generally speak about politics in mixed company unless I’m asked about it. That’s out of a sense of keeping the peace. Decades ago, my wife insisted this would be the wisest course.

The Survey Center found 55 percent of their sample said they discuss politics or government with their friends less than a few times a month. There’s a fear there of losing friendships, and even losing jobs, if you’re talking to work friends. Social media has enhanced the heat of our political interaction. So has Donald Trump, who has enraged the left further into its already-increasing intolerance.

Today, merely stating to friends that Trump did anything right as president could cause a frothing horror. The same thing could happen after saying “all lives matter,” or “there are two genders,” or “China is responsible for the pandemic.”

Then imagine people you’ve just met. It’s sad when you’re conservative that people can’t see any dimension of you except the political one. You’re immediately a “racist traitor” unless proven otherwise.    

This “progressive” thought-cartooning just sadly calls to mind the 80s movie WarGames about simulating global nuclear war: “The only winning move is not to play.”

Posted on

Column: You Can’t Be Friends with Conservatives?

One of the most obvious misconceptions about liberals today is that they personify tolerance. The Oxford Dictionary defines tolerance as “the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.”

A recent poll by the Survey Center on American Life at the American Enterprise Institute found that Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans to report ending a friendship over a political disagreement (20 percent vs. 10 percent). Liberals are also far more likely than conservatives to say they are no longer friends with someone over political differences (28 percent to 10 percent). No group is more likely to end a friendship over political differences than liberal women – 33 percent responded they stopped a friendship over politics.

This was underlined by CBS News digital reporter Kathryn Watson, who tweeted out a chart of some of these numbers, adding “This is so wild to me. I can’t imagine not having friends across the political spectrum.” Twitchy.com captured a flock of “tolerant” leftists expressing hot outrage at this notion.

First up was Aaron Rupar, a Vox reporter who’s popular on lefty Twitter: “It’s hard to be friends with intolerant and irrational people.” That’s classic: I’m not intolerant. I am intolerant of the intolerant.

Race and racism worked its way in. The account “More_moxie” tweeted “Tell me you’re a straight white without telling me you’re a straight white.” Jersey Craig added “Siri, what is white privilege?

“Powerful Mel Ankoly” joked with this interpretation: “I’ve got Klan friends and non-Klan friends!” Leftists imagine you can’t possibly be a Republican without being a Klansman. Aren’t these people supposed to be the ones who are intellectually nimble, adept at nuance? No.

“GOPocalypseNow” added “Shorter Kathryn Watson: ‘it’s only normal to have friends who are racist traitors.’” Here’s just one more, from “Masked Carpenter,” who arrogantly announced “I don’t want to be friends with racist, anti-science people who support a police state. But that’s just me.

Derek Thompson of The Atlantic, whose tweet Watson tweeted over, deleted the tweet, perhaps to evade incoming fire at his account. He later tweeted in support of the notion that Twitter “is mostly a Dutch oven of indignation.” Or: Twitter is full of some of the most intolerant, bullying leftists on the planet.

I don’t know Kathryn Watson. She’s not a friend of mine. But I have liberal friends, and I don’t generally speak about politics in mixed company unless I’m asked about it. That’s out of a sense of keeping the peace. Decades ago, my wife insisted this would be the wisest course.

The Survey Center found 55 percent of their sample said they discuss politics or government with their friends less than a few times a month. There’s a fear there of losing friendships, and even losing jobs, if you’re talking to work friends. Social media has enhanced the heat of our political interaction. So has Donald Trump, who has enraged the left further into its already-increasing intolerance.

Today, merely stating to friends that Trump did anything right as president could cause a frothing horror. The same thing could happen after saying “all lives matter,” or “there are two genders,” or “China is responsible for the pandemic.”

Then imagine people you’ve just met. It’s sad when you’re conservative that people can’t see any dimension of you except the political one. You’re immediately a “racist traitor” unless proven otherwise.    

This “progressive” thought-cartooning just sadly calls to mind the 80s movie WarGames about simulating global nuclear war: “The only winning move is not to play.”

Posted on

Former President Obama to Advance ‘Social Responsibility’ Through NBA Africa

The National Basketball Association is bringing in former President Barack Obama to help it export wokeball social justice to Africa. Obama confirmed he is joining the NBA’s Africa project to help advance “social responsibility” across the continent.

Obama is gaining a minority equity stake in NBA Africa, and make no mistake about it, he’s going to help spread radical left-wing ideology throughout Africa. His aim is to advance the league’s social responsibility efforts across the continent, including programs and partnerships supporting greater gender equality and economic inclusion. Sound similar to some of the social justice obsessions of the NBA here in the U.S.?

“I’ve been impressed by the league’s commitment to Africa, including the leadership shown by so many African players who want to give back to their own countries and communities,” Obama’s statement read.

Additionally, this partnership will benefit the Obama Foundation, which, among other missions, seeks to re-imagine policing, combat so-called climate change and pursue more left-wing agendas. The foundation also touts the “My Brother’s Keeper” program. Though the former president’s half-brother George was once found living in a shack in Kenya, disconnected from the big-talking president.

Obama tweet on NBA Africa

By partnering with NBA Africa, the former president gains a foothold to use his radical foundation to engage the young people of Africa. That’s not a good thing, not when he’ll get the opportunity to force his pet passions — socialism, victimization, abortion, the LGBT agenda and anti-Americanism — onto African nations. This isn’t about hoop dreams.

The NBA announced in 2019 that it would partner with the International Basketball Federation (FIBA) to form the Basketball Africa League. Twelve pre-existing teams across the African continent were lined up “to create a unified league supported by the NBA’s considerable resources.”

Since then, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver announced the creation of NBA Africa. Former NBA players Grant Hill, Dikembe Mutombo, Junior Bridgeman, Joakim Noah and Luol Deng have provided financial support. Obama will now come on board to help shape the league’s woke identity.

This move by the NBA notably deepens the league’s commitment to Democrats and Democrat politics. NBA players warred with Republican former President Donald Trump and actively benefited the presidential campaign of Joe Biden.

In 1996, the NBA founded the WNBA, which is now arguably the most far-left pro sports league going. With its attachment to the NBA, NBA Africa is susceptible to the same radical fate. It admitted as much by indicating it will focus on “expanding the NBA’s presence in priority African markets and Africa’s basketball ecosystem.” That automatically precludes any good conservative values from being spread throughout Africa.

By sticking its talons into Africa, the NBA will find much smoother sailing than it’s experiencing in China. That communist nation runs roughshod over the NBA and is intimidating the league and the players reaping financial windfalls from slave labor into keeping their mouths shut over human rights abuses.

Posted on

Former President Obama to Advance ‘Social Responsibility’ Through NBA Africa

The National Basketball Association is bringing in former President Barack Obama to help it export wokeball social justice to Africa. Obama confirmed he is joining the NBA’s Africa project to help advance “social responsibility” across the continent.

Obama is gaining a minority equity stake in NBA Africa, and make no mistake about it, he’s going to help spread radical left-wing ideology throughout Africa. His aim is to advance the league’s social responsibility efforts across the continent, including programs and partnerships supporting greater gender equality and economic inclusion. Sound similar to some of the social justice obsessions of the NBA here in the U.S.?

“I’ve been impressed by the league’s commitment to Africa, including the leadership shown by so many African players who want to give back to their own countries and communities,” Obama’s statement read.

Additionally, this partnership will benefit the Obama Foundation, which, among other missions, seeks to re-imagine policing, combat so-called climate change and pursue more left-wing agendas. The foundation also touts the “My Brother’s Keeper” program. Though the former president’s half-brother George was once found living in a shack in Kenya, disconnected from the big-talking president.

Obama tweet on NBA Africa

By partnering with NBA Africa, the former president gains a foothold to use his radical foundation to engage the young people of Africa. That’s not a good thing, not when he’ll get the opportunity to force his pet passions — socialism, victimization, abortion, the LGBT agenda and anti-Americanism — onto African nations. This isn’t about hoop dreams.

The NBA announced in 2019 that it would partner with the International Basketball Federation (FIBA) to form the Basketball Africa League. Twelve pre-existing teams across the African continent were lined up “to create a unified league supported by the NBA’s considerable resources.”

Since then, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver announced the creation of NBA Africa. Former NBA players Grant Hill, Dikembe Mutombo, Junior Bridgeman, Joakim Noah and Luol Deng have provided financial support. Obama will now come on board to help shape the league’s woke identity.

This move by the NBA notably deepens the league’s commitment to Democrats and Democrat politics. NBA players warred with Republican former President Donald Trump and actively benefited the presidential campaign of Joe Biden.

In 1996, the NBA founded the WNBA, which is now arguably the most far-left pro sports league going. With its attachment to the NBA, NBA Africa is susceptible to the same radical fate. It admitted as much by indicating it will focus on “expanding the NBA’s presence in priority African markets and Africa’s basketball ecosystem.” That automatically precludes any good conservative values from being spread throughout Africa.

By sticking its talons into Africa, the NBA will find much smoother sailing than it’s experiencing in China. That communist nation runs roughshod over the NBA and is intimidating the league and the players reaping financial windfalls from slave labor into keeping their mouths shut over human rights abuses.

Posted on

NPR Ethics Striptease on Protests: Let Your Progressive Flag Fly, Reporters!

National Public Radio is bowing to pressure from leftist journalists inside their workforce, and loosening restrictions on their “objective” reporters marching in protests for the “freedom and dignity of human beings.” You don’t have to choose between activism and journalism. Blur it up! 

We can all guess this verbiage doesn’t mean they all wanted to participate in the March for Life or an NRA event. As often happens, NPR is leading the rest of the press further to the left…with our tax dollars. 

NPR Public Editor Kelly McBride wrote an article explaining the relaxation of the taxpayer-supported network’s media ethics: 

NPR rolled out a substantial update to its ethics policy earlier this month, expressly stating that journalists may participate in activities that advocate for “the freedom and dignity of human beings” on both social media and in real life.

The new policy eliminates the blanket prohibition from participating in “marches, rallies and public events,” as well as vague language that directed NPR journalists to avoid personally advocating for “controversial” or “polarizing” issues….

The new NPR policy reads, “NPR editorial staff may express support for democratic, civic values that are core to NPR’s work, such as, but not limited to: the freedom and dignity of human beings, the rights of a free and independent press, the right to thrive in society without facing discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, disability, or religion.”

Is it OK to march in a demonstration and say, ‘Black lives matter’? What about a Pride parade? In theory, the answer today is, “Yes.”

McBride endorsed the change, calling it a “solid step in the right direction.” The right side of history meets the right side of ethics! She concluded: “these guidelines affirm that during this chaotic time in which we are living, being a journalist and standing up for human dignity are not mutually exclusive.”

Ian Millhiser at Vox surely represents the leftist majority inside NPR: 

The revised Ethics Handbook tries to argue conservatives “politicize social issues,” like a Pride parade isn’t political: 

We recognize that the line between standing up for human rights and being “political” is a fine one that looks different from different perspectives. A march for racial equality may be non-political in principle, for instance, but that may not hold true if the march is for a specific piece of legislation or where organizers or speakers include politicians aligned only with one party. The fact that others may attempt to politicize social issues or the way people live their lives does not mean that journalists are engaging in political activity.

As usual, Generation Z wants to obliterate conflict-of-interest restrictions on their wokeness: 

As social justice causes took to the platforms, journalists were often caught in a new gray area between longtime professional practices and mores around personal communication. In the wake of George Floyd’s murder, a younger generation of journalists pushed NPR to modify its traditional prohibitions.

“Our goal was to make NPR a place that employees felt they could be themselves at work, and they wouldn’t have to be one version of themselves outside of work and another version at work,” said Alex Goldmark, senior supervising producer for Planet Money and co-chair of the 22-member committee that handled the revision.

While the country was experiencing widespread calls for institutions of all kinds to reckon with systemic racism, newsrooms were facing internal pressure. Black, Hispanic, Asian and Native American journalists have argued that they have been disproportionately confined by — even disciplined over — policies that limit personal expression.

Posted on

NPR Ethics Striptease on Protests: Let Your Progressive Flag Fly, Reporters!

National Public Radio is bowing to pressure from leftist journalists inside their workforce, and loosening restrictions on their “objective” reporters marching in protests for the “freedom and dignity of human beings.” You don’t have to choose between activism and journalism. Blur it up! 

We can all guess this verbiage doesn’t mean they all wanted to participate in the March for Life or an NRA event. As often happens, NPR is leading the rest of the press further to the left…with our tax dollars. 

NPR Public Editor Kelly McBride wrote an article explaining the relaxation of the taxpayer-supported network’s media ethics: 

NPR rolled out a substantial update to its ethics policy earlier this month, expressly stating that journalists may participate in activities that advocate for “the freedom and dignity of human beings” on both social media and in real life.

The new policy eliminates the blanket prohibition from participating in “marches, rallies and public events,” as well as vague language that directed NPR journalists to avoid personally advocating for “controversial” or “polarizing” issues….

The new NPR policy reads, “NPR editorial staff may express support for democratic, civic values that are core to NPR’s work, such as, but not limited to: the freedom and dignity of human beings, the rights of a free and independent press, the right to thrive in society without facing discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, disability, or religion.”

Is it OK to march in a demonstration and say, ‘Black lives matter’? What about a Pride parade? In theory, the answer today is, “Yes.”

McBride endorsed the change, calling it a “solid step in the right direction.” The right side of history meets the right side of ethics! She concluded: “these guidelines affirm that during this chaotic time in which we are living, being a journalist and standing up for human dignity are not mutually exclusive.”

Ian Millhiser at Vox surely represents the leftist majority inside NPR: 

The revised Ethics Handbook tries to argue conservatives “politicize social issues,” like a Pride parade isn’t political: 

We recognize that the line between standing up for human rights and being “political” is a fine one that looks different from different perspectives. A march for racial equality may be non-political in principle, for instance, but that may not hold true if the march is for a specific piece of legislation or where organizers or speakers include politicians aligned only with one party. The fact that others may attempt to politicize social issues or the way people live their lives does not mean that journalists are engaging in political activity.

As usual, Generation Z wants to obliterate conflict-of-interest restrictions on their wokeness: 

As social justice causes took to the platforms, journalists were often caught in a new gray area between longtime professional practices and mores around personal communication. In the wake of George Floyd’s murder, a younger generation of journalists pushed NPR to modify its traditional prohibitions.

“Our goal was to make NPR a place that employees felt they could be themselves at work, and they wouldn’t have to be one version of themselves outside of work and another version at work,” said Alex Goldmark, senior supervising producer for Planet Money and co-chair of the 22-member committee that handled the revision.

While the country was experiencing widespread calls for institutions of all kinds to reckon with systemic racism, newsrooms were facing internal pressure. Black, Hispanic, Asian and Native American journalists have argued that they have been disproportionately confined by — even disciplined over — policies that limit personal expression.