Twitter Restricts State-Sponsored Media Ads

Twitter will no longer support advertisements created by state-sponsored media entities, the social media company announced in a blog post on Monday.

“Going forward, we will not accept advertising from state-controlled news media entities,” Twitted stated. “Any affected accounts will be free to continue to use Twitter to engage in public conversation, just not our advertising products. This is a global approach and will be enforced across our entire business.”

The blog post explained Twitter made this decision because the company wants to provide a space online where users can participate in open conversations, without undue influence from government-controlled entities.

“We believe that there is a difference between engaging in conversation with accounts you choose to follow and the content you see from advertisers in your Twitter experience which may be from accounts you’re not currently following,” Twitter wrote. “We have policies for both but we have higher standards for our advertisers.”

Twitter noted, however, that it will not restrict advertising from tax-payer funded media outlets, which include broadcasters such as NPR and PBS. The company stated that one of its primary concerns in implementing the policy is allowing for freedom of the press.

“We will be making policy determinations on the basis of critical issues of media freedom and independence, such as control of editorial content, financial ownership, influence or interference over broadcasters, editors, and journalists, direct and indirect exertion of political pressure, and/or control over the production and distribution process,” the blog post stated. “This policy will not apply to entities that are solely dedicated to entertainment, sports, and travel content. However, if the content is mixed with news, it will be prohibited.”

Twitter updated its policy the same day the company revealed in a separate blog post that the Chinese government had been backing a disinformation campaign on the site, using Twitter accounts to derail the anti-communism demonstrations in Hong Kong.

“Covert, manipulative behaviors have no place on our service—they violate the fundamental principles on which our company is built,” Twitter stated before updating its policies to prevent a similar state-sponsored campaign.

The post Twitter Restricts State-Sponsored Media Ads appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Go to Source
Author:

Advertisements

Omar: Withhold Israel Aid Unless They Give Full Rights to Palestinians

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) said Monday Israel has not behaved as an ally of the United States, or even a democracy, and shouldn’t be receiving aid.

Omar has come under fire for anti-Semitic comments and support of the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, which prompted Israeli officials to deny her entry to the country in accordance to a law passed in 2017. She and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.), who also supports BDS, held a press conference to hit back at Israel.

“We give Israel more than $3 million in aid every year,” Omar said. “This is predicated on their being an important ally in the region and the only democracy in the Middle East. But denying visit to duly elected members of Congress is not consistent with being an ally, and denying millions of people freedom of movement or expression or self-determination is not consistent with being a democracy.”

Omar and Tlaib had planned to meet with the radical group Miftah during their visit, and upon being barred they have launched attacks on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Miftah has published pieces in favor of terror activities against the Israeli “occupation” and even one article espousing a American neo-Nazi theory about Jewish control of the media.

“We must be asking, as Israel’s ally, the Netanyahu government [to] stop the expansion of settlements on Palestinian land and ensure full rights for Palestinians if we are to give them aid,” Omar said. “These are the views held by the range of experts [and] peace advocates on this issue.”

Omar blamed President Donald Trump for wanting to “pit Muslims and Jewish Americans against each other,” but she pointed out she brought some Jewish opponents of Israel to the press conference. Later in the presser, those Jewish women spoke about how they disapproved of Israel’s security policies.

Omar said it was Congress’s responsibility to conduct oversight on Israeli use of aid and said they should also work to “end [the occupation] together.”

“We cannot let Trump and Netanyahu succeed in hiding the cruel reality of the occupation from us,” Omar said. “I call on all of you to go. The occupation is real. Barring members of Congress from seeing it does not make it go away. We must end it together.”

During the events last week, Omar and Tlaib were denied entry to Israel over their support for the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction (BDS) movement that seeks to destabilize the Jewish state. Tlaib was given permission to visit for humanitarian reasons in order to see her grandmother, but she decided against it because of Israel’s “racist treatment” of her.

Omar and Tlaib then shared a cartoon by notorious anti-Semite Carlos Latuff, who drew them being forcibly silenced by Netanyahu and Trump. Latuff is known for downplaying and invoking the Holocaust in his criticism of Jews, and in 2006 came in second in an Iranian “International Holocaust Cartoon Contest.”

The post Omar: Withhold Israel Aid Unless They Give Full Rights to Palestinians appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Go to Source
Author:

Peters (D): Dems Should Be Party of ‘the Heartland’

The Democratic Party should be “a party of the heartland of America,” according Sen. Gary Peters (D., Mich.), but the majority of the freshman Senator’s campaign contributions have come from donors in coastal states.

“I think it’s important for the Democratic Party to understand we’re not just a party of the coasts,” Peters told Politico on Monday. “We’re also a party of the heartland of America.”

Although Michigan is the state with the highest contribution of $1,183,611, the majority of his campaign contributions have come from out-of-state donors. Peters was especially successful in Washington, D.C., California, and New York, where he raised $966,553, $363,281, and $298,048, respectively. Peters also raised over $100,00 in Virginia and Massachusetts, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

The Michigan Senator’s campaign has also received fundraising plugs from fellow Democratic Senators who represent coastal states. Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D., Mass.) presidential campaign sent out a fundraising email urging her supporters to donate to Peters on August 11.

“If Gary loses in Michigan, the path to a Democratic Senate majority gets significantly more narrow. That’s why I’m asking for your donation,” Warren’s campaign wrote in an email highlighting the necessity of regaining ground in Michigan, a state which President Donald Trump won the 2016 election. It’s similar to when Warren asked her supporters to donate former Rep. Beto O’Rourke’s long shot campaign for Senate in April of 2018.

Fellow presidential contenders Sens. Cory Booker (D., N.J.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.) also sent out fundraising emails for Peters in December 2018 and January 2019, according to MLive. Gillibrand’s email promoted Peters as a “fierce champion for our shared progressive values in the Senate.”

Nevertheless, Peters has struggled to gain name recognition. Although he was elected to the Senate in 2014, Peters consistently ranks as one of the least-known Senators, with a 2018 Morning Consultant survey finding that 40 percent of respondents have never heard of him. Locally, a third of Michiganders have also never heard of him, according to Politico.

Peters’s apparent Republican challenger John James unsuccessfully ran against Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) in 2018. James announced his 2020 campaign in June on Fox News Channel’s Fox and Friends, where he decried “career politicians.”

The Peters campaign did not respond to request for comment.

The post Peters (D): Dems Should Be Party of ‘the Heartland’ appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Go to Source
Author:

Liberal CNN Panelist Blows Up When Confronted Over Palestinian Terrorism

Liberal writer Peter Beinart erupted at fellow CNN panelist Rich Lowry on Monday while attempting to excuse Palestinian violence toward Israelis, saying he didn’t agree but they also didn’t have to be “saints” to have rights.

The debate began following a news conference by Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.), the two Muslim congresswomen recently denied entry to the country over their support for the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) movement. Condemned by the Anti-Defamation League, BDS has links to terrorism and has been called anti-Semitic by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.).

Miftah, the Palestinian nonprofit that organized Tlaib and Omar’s delegation to Israel, promoted the anti-Semitic “blood libel” conspiracy theory that accused Jews of putting Christian blood in in matzah. It also has terrorist sympathizers among its membership.

Beinart, a writer for The Atlantic, bristled when The Lead fill-in host John Berman noted Miftah’s ugly background and Omar only making a passive reference to it in her comments.

“Palestinians don’t have to be saints in order to have the basic rights that all of us take for granted,” Beinart said. “Miftah has said things that I disagree with. They made an anti-Semitic statement they apologized for  … The first time I went to spend time with Palestinians in the the West Bank, it was a shattering experience.”

He compared their situation to the Jim Crow South in the United States. Beinart, while noting he had a friend killed in a suicide bombing, said what was most important was Omar’s remarks about the state of Palestinians under Israeli occupation.

Lowry responded, however, by saying the media wouldn’t give a white nationalist organization the “leeway” Beinart was giving Miftah.

“This is an anti-Semitic group that’s supported terrorism, supports blowing up innocent civilians and children and no matter what you think of the dispute between Palestinians and Israel, that is an illegitimate tactic that no one should associate with,” Lowry said.

“There are many Palestinians who believe the Palestinians have the right to use violence because of the daily violent oppression they feel,” Beinart said. “I disagree with them. I believe in only nonviolent protest but the point is every time any Palestinian leader or any Palestinian organization tries to expose what happens, this is exactly what happens. People try to discredit them because they don’t want to talk about the real issue. The real issue is an absolutely indefensible denial of basic human rights.”

Lowry said no one had an issue with criticizing Israel, but “you don’t support blowing up innocent people.” Beinart, growing heated, snapped back that it was a distraction from U.S. funding for settlement expansion.

Lowry again asked if this would be Beinart’s standard for white nationalists.

“Why does the organization publish things supporting terrorism?” Lowry asked.

“Rich, I disagree with violent resistance!” Beinart said, changing the word “terrorism.” “Because a lot of Palestinians believe because they are subject to daily violence of a system which denies them basic rights, they have the right to respond violently. I disagree with them.”

Lowry said no one was forcing the organization to publish material backing or excusing terrorism. Hanan Ashrawi, the founder and chair of the MIFTAH board of directors, excused Palestinian terrorist attacks in 2017 by saying they are “seen by the people as resistance. And you cannot somehow adopt the language of either the international community or the occupier by describing anybody who resists as terrorists.”

Beinart defended Ashrawi and shouted at Lowry that his conservative magazine National Review had a “tradition” of supporting segregation and now defending Israeli oppression of Palestinian basic rights.

“When they protest nonviolently you discredit them as well!” Beinart said.

“You’re saying in some sense that justifies terrorism?” Lowry asked.

“Of course it doesn’t justify terrorism,” Beinart said. “I’ve said again and again I disagree with terrorism. What I’m saying is you’re trying to distract from the real issue. The real issue is American complicity in the denial of basic Palestinian rights.”

The post Liberal CNN Panelist Blows Up When Confronted Over Palestinian Terrorism appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Go to Source
Author:

Tlaib, Omar Fundraise on Back of Canceled Israel Trip

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.) is fundraising off her aborted trip to Israel, just days after she refused an Israeli invitation permitting her to visit her ailing grandmother and, instead, shared an anti-Semitic cartoon about the Jewish state.

A fundraising email sent by Democracy for America, a far left political action committee, implores readers to “chip in whatever you can to stand with her and [Rep.] Ilhan [Omar (D., Minn.)] now as they continue to fight for justice for all.”

The fundraising plea, which includes a direct pitch from Tlaib, falsely states that the lawmakers “were banned from traveling to Israel and Palestine.” Israel granted Tlaib special permission to enter the country to visit her grandmother. Moreover, Palestine does not, in fact, exist.

“I’ve dealt with sexism, racism, and Islamophobia my entire life—so I knew that would continue if I pursued a high-profile public office and won. What I didn’t anticipate was for that discrimination to come from the President of the United States,” Tlaib writes in the fundraising email.

Tlaib also uses the email to bash Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

“It’s very telling when a so-called democratic ally bans elected members of Congress from visiting because of our political views and values,” the lawmaker writes. “It’s even more disturbing and completely unprecedented that our own president encouraged this undemocratic action. What is Netanyahu afraid that we will witness, that we will bring to light?”

“Not only am I heartbroken that I cannot meet the people of Israel and Palestine to witness their struggles firsthand, but I am heartbroken I can no longer visit my Palestinian grandmother, who just days ago was excited to decide which fig tree we’d pick from together,” Tlaib continues.

Tlaib goes on to defend her support of the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, which seeks to wage economic warfare on Israel. She also further disseminates factually inaccurate statements about Israel that are routinely used by anti-Semites and those seeking to demonize the Jewish state.

“The Israeli government ultimately decided they would let me visit, but under one condition: that I sign a letter restricting my freedom of speech in order to stop me from speaking out against the inhumane conditions Palestinians like my grandmother are forced to face by the Israeli military occupation,” she writes in another statement riddled with factual inaccuracies.

“No matter how badly I wish to see my grandmother, I know she would not want me to do so under such degrading circumstances that go against everything I believe in: fighting racism, oppression, and injustice,” she writes.

The post Tlaib, Omar Fundraise on Back of Canceled Israel Trip appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Go to Source
Author:

Gillibrand Can’t Believe She Has Uncles Who Voted for Trump

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.), who often touts her former representation of a majority Republican district, expressed scorn Monday for family members who supported Donald Trump.

Gillibrand told the Washington Post‘s Robert Costa she was different from other 2020 Democratic candidates because she had a “sensibility and an understanding” about how rural, Republican voters see the world.

“I hate to admit this fact, but I have uncles who voted for Trump,” she said in the next breath, theatrically sighing before continuing to discuss her push for universal health insurance.

Gillibrand first was elected to her upstate New York district in 2006, although at the time she held conservative views on guns and illegal immigration. She has renounced those positions since entering the U.S. Senate in 2009, but continued to boast of her ability to appeal to voters across the political spectrum.

When Costa brought up her family again, Gillibrand cut him off.

“I have not spoken to them about it, so I cannot tell you why. I’m still angry,” Gillibrand said, smiling. “And I didn’t find out from him, by the way. I found out from my cousin, because she was at an event with me. She was like, ‘Well, you know, I’m talking to my dad about it,’ and I was like, ‘What?’ And she tells me this, and I said, ‘That can’t be true.’ They knew how much I loved Hillary. That can’t be true.”

Now one of the most liberal members of Congress, Gillibrand has placed some of the onus for her past conservatism on her district. She called it “98 percent white” and said she only had the “lens of upstate New York” when called out for her flip-flops last year on 60 Minutes.

A corporate lawyer in the 1990s, she rose in politics as a devotee of Hillary Clinton, assisting on her successful 2000 U.S. Senate run. She praised the Clintons again on Monday, in spite of her past remarks that Bill Clinton should have resigned the presidency over his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky.

Gillibrand, who is in danger of missing the third round of debates next month in Houston, told Costa she would be open to being a running mate for the eventual 2020 nominee.

The post Gillibrand Can’t Believe She Has Uncles Who Voted for Trump appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Go to Source
Author:

FLASHBACK: Kamala Harris Loved Bernie Sanders’s Medicare for All Act

Kamala Harris was the first Democrat to announce her support for the Bernie Sanders Medicare for All bill when it was unveiled, but she now is telling donors she is no longer “comfortable” with the single-payer healthcare proposal.

Harris jumped at the opportunity to endorse the radical healthcare proposal in August 2017, telling voters at a California town hall of her plans to co-sponsor the bill before it was even proposed.

“Here, I’ll break some news: I intend to co-sponsor the Medicare-for-all bill, because it’s just the right thing to do,” she told the crowd, making her the first lawmaker to back the bill. “Somebody should tell my staff.”

After two years of embracing the bill—she cosponsored it both in 2017 and when it was re-introduced this year—Harris now says she can no longer support it.

“I finally was like, I can’t make this circle fit into a square,” Harris explained before expressing support for an alternative plan with more choice.

“Look, I’m still committed to reining in the private insurance companies,” Harris said, according to the Washington Post. “They’re jacking up prices. But people want choice, and I don’t want to be in the business of just taking choice from them without figuring out a way to create options.”

The remark is the latest in a series of reversals on healthcare by Harris, who appeared alongside Sanders at a press conference announcing the bill in September 2017. 

She thanked Sanders upon taking the podium and called his plan the “right thing to do morally and ethically.”

“I’m proud to stand with my colleagues and friends and support Medicare for All,” she said to applause alongside Sanders.

Harris shared the same sentiment in a video tweeted the morning of the announcement, calling Sanders’s plan “smart for us as tax payers” and “just the right thing to do.”

When Sanders re-introduced an updated version of the Medicare for All Act in April, Harris expressed her pride to once again cosponsor the bill.

“Medicare is the most popular health plan in the country because it works,” Harris said in a press release detailing her support for Sanders’s bill. “Medicare for All finally makes sure every American has affordable, comprehensive health care.”

Harris during a January CNN town hall said she wanted to get rid of private health care entirely, but then backtracked the very next day.

In May, Harris told CNN’s Jake Tapper her own health care plan would not eliminate private insurance. Then, during the first Democratic primary debate, Harris again said she supported abolishing private insurance in favor of a government run-plan.

Harris’s own plan was then released in July. Though she calls it Medicare for All, it is not a single-payer health care system and does not eliminate the private insurance industry. 

Her back-and-forth on the issue has frustrated some voters. Harris’s most recent critique of Sanders’s plan comes after an elderly voter told Harris to “leave our health care system alone.”

The post FLASHBACK: Kamala Harris Loved Bernie Sanders’s Medicare for All Act appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Go to Source
Author:

Bernie Plans Jailbreak

If elected president, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) plans to free more than a million people from America’s prisons, according to a campaign plan released Sunday.

Sanders’s new “Justice and Safety for All” proposal is far from the first criminal justice plan floated by 2020 Democrats. Among others, former vice president Joe Biden and Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.) have offered their own proposals. The socialist senator’s plan is perhaps the field’s most comprehensive, totaling more than 6,000 words.

It offers a smorgasbord of progressive policy designs, including increased scrutiny of police and canards about the role the “war on drugs” and private prisons have played in “mass incarceration.” Most of the proposals, however, are in service of Sanders’s plan “to cut the incarcerated population in half,” meaning the release of some 1.1 to 1.2 million current prisoners.

While it promises sweeping reform, Sanders’s plan is light on the details of how exactly it would get there. It is likely to be stymied both by the issues Sanders chooses to focus on and by the limited role the federal government plays in criminal justice.

America’s prison system is a popular subject of criticism from both the left and libertarian right. Although the prison population is at its smallest in twenty years, the system still incarcerates a substantial number of people. State and federal prisons hold roughly 1.4 million people, according to the Prison Policy Initiative, with a further 660,000 held in jails and 143,000 held in other detention facilities.

As large as it is, the prison system is also highly fragmented, with criminal justice one of the few functions of government that remains primarily at the discretion of the states, and even counties, rather than the federal government. Federal prisoners comprise just 12 percent of the U.S. prison population. President Sanders could, in theory, pardon every single federal prisoner and only reduce total incarceration by about 200,000.

This fragmentary nature means that the impact a president can have on the size of the criminal justice system is fairly limited. The FIRST STEP Act, widely heralded as a major criminal justice reform achievement, has released just 5,000 people, under 3 percent of federal prisoners. Even that achievement was only possible through an uncharacteristic level of congressional bipartisanship. Many of Sanders’s more radical proposals, like ending federal mandatory minimum sentences or three-strikes laws, would need to command a unified Congress unlikely to go so far.

Actually accomplishing goals when in power, however, may be less of a concern to the Sanders campaign than signaling its support for progressive priorities on criminal justice. Rafael Mangual, Deputy Director for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute, says the Sanders plan is based more in progressive bromides than facts.

“In general, the plan strikes me as unsurprising in that it reflects what I think is a false narrative about our criminal justice system—namely that it is fairly characterized on the whole as both overly punitive and irredeemably racist,” Mangual told the Washington Free Beacon. “As such, I don’t think it’s calculated to do us any good were policymakers to adopt its policy prescriptions.”

Front and center in the Sanders plan is a call to “end profiteering in our criminal justice system.” This covers a number of changes to reduce costs to prisoners, such as making prison phone calls free of charge—changes Sanders could not implement on the state level. It also includes a ban on for-profit prisons. Such facilities are a popular boogeyman in the story of mass incarceration, routinely blamed for the rise in incarceration rates despite detaining just 8 percent of all prisoners.

The biggest proposed change would be to end cash bail at the state and federal levels. Several states have already embraced replacements for cash bail, which leaves poor defendants languishing in jail despite a lack of conviction. Those states have replaced their bail systems with “risk assessment tools” designed to determine the danger of releasing an offender on his own recognizance. The Sanders plan would “place a moratorium on the use” of such tools, following progressive concerns about their racial impact. The result is an end to cash bail, with no clear replacement besides mass release.

This focus on “profit” is only a prelude to Sanders’s plan to dramatically overhaul federal sentencing. That includes the aforementioned changes to federal mandatory minimum and three strike laws, as well as reinstating federal parole, and substantially expanding executive clemency. It also includes ending the “war on drugs” by legalizing marijuana federally and expanding access to treatment and harm reduction measures.

These changes would necessitate some uncomfortable trade-offs, however. Although the plurality of federal offenders are held on drug charges, essentially all of these are drug traffickers (just 75 federal inmates are held for marijuana possession). The remainder of the federal prison population are also in for serious offenses. Even if the president could affect the state system, only 15 percent of those offenders are in for any drug offense, including just 3.5 percent for possession. The majority are in for violent offenses. In other words, Sanders’s proposal would mean early release for many serious, often violent offenders, a move unlikely to be politically popular or beneficial to public safety.

Mangual told the Free Beacon that such an approach would undermine the plan’s stated goals of preserving fairness and public safety.

“For example, the plan calls for halving the incarcerated population, which I and others have argued would require putting or leaving scores of serial and violent offenders on the street, where you can be sure they will do harm,” Mangual said. “The plan also calls for eliminating the use of solitary confinement, also known as ‘punitive segregation.’

“This is a policy experiment that has already been done, albeit on a smaller scale, only as to inmates 21 and under, in New York City jails, and it has resulted in a huge spike in inmate violence.”

While violent criminals would get a break under the Sanders plan, police would not. “Justice and Safety for All” calls for a score of new federal oversight measures on local police departments, including a return to the use of consent decrees curtailed by former attorney general Jeff Sessions. These are a response to the perception on the left that police misconduct is widespread—a belief, according to Mangual, that is widely misplaced.

“Police wield an awesome power that comes with great responsibility; and it is a proper function of the state to ensure that the police power is exercised morally and wisely,” Mangual told the Free Beacon. “But here again, the plan’s starting point is a series of false premises, namely that ‘broken windows’ policing is a ‘harmful policing practice’ on par with ‘racial profiling,’ and that the ‘use of excessive force’ by police ‘including deadly shootings of unarmed civilians’ is ‘widespread.’ In fact, police uses of force—both reasonable and excessive—are quite rare. Indeed, one study recently found that less than one percent of arrests involve the use of force by police.”

The post Bernie Plans Jailbreak appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Go to Source
Author:

Mayor Pete’s Ice Cream GAFFE Shows He’s Too Elitist, Indecisive For the Presidency

Democratic Mayor Pete Buttigieg is running for president based on the remarkable achievement of elevating South Bend from the fourth best city in Indiana to the third best. A recent video of his visit to Iowa makes it clear that despite such an unimpeachable accomplishment, the 37 year old lacks the mettle to serve as leader of the free world.

In the video put out by his campaign, we see Mayor Pete spending an extended amount of time anguishing over what to order at an ice cream stop. Allowing for the fact that the campaign edited the video and the number of cuts, it took a minimum of thirty seconds for the mayor to order (another video this week showed Buttigieg taking 45 seconds to pick a slushee). The actual length of the encounter was probably somewhere between thirty minutes and an hour.

Already, Mayor Pete has shown himself to be either an out-of-touch elitist or horribly indecisive. Every person in the world does the same thing in every ice cream joint they’ve walked into. First you scan the board, then you confirm that your favorite flavor is on the board, then you order that flavor. That takes five seconds, ten tops, if you’re a slow reader. Worse, the video shows that Pete ordered after a couple, giving him ample time to figure out his flavor. Maybe the signs should’ve been in Norwegian.

So why is Pete taking so long? Well, when asked his favorite ice cream flavor last month, he responded, “For my and Chasten’s wedding, a local vendor called Outside Scoop made a flavor with Michigan cherries, local honey and chocolate and whiskey from Indiana, so I have to go with that one.”

Oohohohoho, Mayor Pete is a fan of artisanal, locally-sourced ice cream. While the rest of us buy Neapolitan ice cream by the gallon, some waitress is telling Pete that her executive chef created his own unique helado tailandés combining his indigenous Chilean flavors with his experiences backpacking amongst the street vendors of Thailand. It’s served with a smidge of red velvet chocolate and nutmeg, only $14 and it pairs well with the madeira.

So having scanned the ice cream board and finding no flavors with saffron, gold flakes, or chunks of swan, Pete is forced into what Dubya used to call a Decision Point. After floundering for what seems like decades, he poses a question to buy time. “I mean, chocolate almond does sound pretty good,” he asks. “Does it have almonds in it?”

Does chocolate almond ice cream have almonds in it? Well, Baskin-Robbins’ chocolate almond ice cream has almonds in it. Perry’s chocolate almond ice cream has almonds in it. Friendly’s chocolate almond ice cream has almonds in it. Turkey Hill’s chocolate almond ice cream has almonds in it. Every chocolate almond ice cream I’ve ever encountered has had almonds in it, but maybe the good mayor has comes across almond-less almond ice cream!

“Yeah,” an employee responds, no doubt holding back an “of course it does, you doofus.”

Pete is now naturally forced into the position of getting the chocolate almond ice cream. Other flavors on the board included cookie dough, strawberry, black cherry, cookies and creme, chocolate marble, cherry nut, and black raspberry marble. Pete has made a terrible decision, and I challenge anyone to say otherwise.

Mayor Pete’s ice cream gaffe merely proves that he’s an out-of-touch university town elitist who crumbles under the slightest pressure. What America needs for president is someone like Donald Trump, who decisively knows what ice cream he wants, so much so that he orders for the rest of the table and realizes that while he should get two scoops, everyone else should only get one. That’s presidential.

The post Mayor Pete’s Ice Cream GAFFE Shows He’s Too Elitist, Indecisive For the Presidency appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Go to Source
Author:

Moderator Shocked by Lack of Native American Enthusiasm for Warren

The moderator at a Native American forum was shocked on Monday after Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) received very little enthusiasm about her potential election.

Warren participated in the presidential forum on Native American issues in Sioux, City, IA, where she apologized for the “harm” she caused for her past claims of Native American ancestry.

“It’s a wonderful day and Native Americans across this country should celebrate. Today we’re sharing the stage with a future president perhaps,” the moderator said.

There was some applause and one person who appeared to cheer. Warren bowed and shook hands with the moderator before he followed up to address the crowd.

“I would expect more excitement from our native citizens,” the moderator said, prompting the crowd to cheer louder.

Warren received scrutiny earlier this year from Native Americans and progressives for releasing her DNA test, a strategy they believed played into the hands of President Donald Trump and Republican allies, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. blasted Warren the day of her DNA revelation, saying such tests are “useless to determine tribal citizenship” and accusing Warren of “undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”

“Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person’s ancestors were indigenous to North or South America,” he said. “Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation. Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong.”

A descendant of Pocahontas even called Warren out, saying she should apologize for using Native American heritage for political gain.

The post Moderator Shocked by Lack of Native American Enthusiasm for Warren appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Go to Source
Author: