Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Funny

Trump Had a Surprise Waiting For CNN When They Tried To Enter The White House – PRICELESS!

Grab the popcorn. This is great!

Published

on

One of the well-known journalists from CNN got quite a surprise as he arrived at the White House. Anyone who may have seen this probably had quite a laugh as they witnessed the power of Trump and the little surprise that may or may not have been planned. Most likely not planned at all, but this sure caught CNN’s Jim Acosta off-guard. He was caught on camera having a meltdown when the White House Secret Service failed to recognize him as he tried to enter the White House yesterday.

Michael J. Morrison, who posted the video confirmed that Acosta was having a meltdown when the Secret Service stopped him after he had walked from the South Lawn into the White House without wearing his credentials around his neck. Sadly Morrison said that by the time he was able to get his camera out and start recording that Acosta was already cooling off.

Clearly defeated, as Acosta left he said: “I have been here 5 years and no one said anything to me before.”

Note from the Editor: This was a popular story for Right Wing News when it first ran a couple weeks ago. We’re bringing it back for your enjoyment and the important message Americans need to receive.

As reported on National Review, Acosta has a history of odd behavior:

“Jim Acosta, CNN’s White House correspondent, has been having a public meltdown regarding the president’s treatment of the media, and the Washington Post has noticed.

The Post’s media reporter, Paul Farhi, launched an inquiry into Acosta’s “grandstanding” in a piece in Sunday’s style section.

“Acosta’s remarks aren’t just blunt; they’re unusual. Reporters are supposed to report, not opine,” wrote Farhi. “Yet Acosta’s disdain has flowed openly, raising a question about how far a reporter — supposedly a neutral arbiter of facts, not a commenter on them — can and should go.”

While CNN host Brian Stelter’s 15-minute monologues moaning about Trump’s treatment of the press are run-of-the-mill for cable-news pundits, Acosta’s public displays of resistance in the White House press-briefing room break all precedent. Rather than press Sean Spicer or Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Trump’s agenda, Acosta has spent since roughly last February focusing on how the White House conducts its press briefings and how it treats CNN.

Acosta’s repeated badgering of Spicer to hold on-camera briefings creates clip-worthy scenes, which feel like a bold defense of journalism, even though, given the nature of White House press briefings, they do not actually matter much. Briefings say most about a president’s communications angle, and seeing as Trump seems not to have any clear communications strategy or message beyond his Twitter feed, the briefing has become little more than a charade.

That has not stopped Acosta from tweeting out photos of his socks at non-televised briefings (“I can’t show you a picture of Sean. So here is a look at some new socks I bought over the wknd”), changing his Twitter bio to “I believe in #realnews,” and lambasting an “erosion of our freedoms” at every possible television appearance.

Of course, CNN has been goading this inanity at every point of his performance, no doubt because this “feud” between CNN and the White House generates so many views. While Trump’s communications team has haplessly attempted to cling to #EnergyWeek and #InfrastructureWeek as the media cares only about Russia, CNN has sent its Supreme Court sketch artist to the briefings at which cameras are prohibited. After all, nothing stands more in the way of democracy than not knowing what color tie Sean Spicer chose on a given day.

But of course, if Acosta has legitimate concerns with Trump’s policy and politics, it makes sense that he would clamor for direct access. For the sake of fairness, let’s go through Acosta’s journalistic highlights since the ascent of Trump.

While the rest of CNN’s reporters were presumably licking their wounds and listening to some spoken-word poetry following Trump’s victory, Acosta broke out some of the network’s hardest-hitting reporting, booking reservations at the Michelin-starred Jean Georges restaurant to stalk the then-president-elect at dinner with Reince Priebus and rumored secretary of state candidate Mitt Romney. At least 20 feet away from the dinner, Acosta live-tweeted all sorts of juicy scoops, such as “Trump crossing his arms for a good while now as Romney smiles and speaks” and “Fresh marshmallows are prepared as Trump, Romney, and Priebus dine.” Acosta was promptly “#busted” — yes, that’s a direct quote from Acosta’s tweets — when Trump approached Acosta, but that didn’t stop him from reporting later that “Trump, Romney, and Priebus have moved on to dessert.”

In June, Acosta was quick to quote an anonymous White House official, claiming that Trump did not meet with Representative Steve Scalise following the s******g at Alexandria. Fewer than 30 minutes later, Acosta debunked his own false claim, which had presumably come from a made-up or unreliable source.

Last Thursday, Acosta perpetuated the New York Times’ erroneous assertion that 17 intelligence agencies have claimed that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections (in fact, it was four), but not before calling Trump’s joint news conference in Poland a “fake news conference” for taking a question from a Daily Mail reporter who is “essentially an ally of the White House.”

Never mind that Trump also called on MSNBC’s Hallie Jackson at the conference. (Jackson called on Trump to formally acknowledge that Russia interfered in the election. Trump said that it might be Russia and then deflected to “But Obama” and a strange aside about Iraq’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.)

Perhaps Acosta’s complaints would be more valid if he agitated for the rights of any other news organizations. Instead, his complaining revolves solely around Trump and CNN, obsessing over this relationship rather than what the government is actually doing.

Furthermore, Trump’s antipathy to the media is not exactly unprecedented. Throughout his presidency, Obama openly and repeatedly derided Fox News’s “destructive viewpoint.”

Less than a year into his presidency, Obama’s communications director, Anita Dunn, told the New York Times, “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent.”

“Attacking the news media is a time-honored White House tactic, but to an unusual degree, the Obama administration has narrowed its sights to one specific organization, the Fox News Channel, calling it, in essence, part of the political opposition,” wrote the Times. “But shots are still being fired, which animates the idea that both sides see benefits in the feud.”

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Culture

Melania Just Broke Her Silence On Trump-Trashing Omarosa And Drops The Hammer Hard!

Here comes the Boom!

Published

on

From the first time I saw President Trump hit the campaign trail, I never doubted that he adored Melania and she felt nothing but love and admiration for him. The left has constantly tried to allege that their marriage is in disarray and that Melania is getting ready to leave Trump at any moment. President Trump’s former aide, Omarosa Manigault Newman, became one of the left’s minions in her new book “Unhinged,” where she claimed that the Trumps were on the verge of divorce.

At first, Melania seemed to have nothing much to say about the accusation. Her silence is now over and she’s dropping the hammer hard on the allegations by Omarosa. Melania’s office has issued a statement that solidly refutes claims by Omarosa that she is seeking a divorce from Trump. The statement suggests that Omarosa should be more grateful for the opportunities afforded to her by President Trump. There’s no arguing with that. Not only did Trump have her repeatedly on The Apprentice, he brought her on his White House team when her qualifications certainly didn’t merit it. He gave her a chance to serve her country and instead, she is serving herself.

Omarosa is a TV celebrity, not a marriage counselor. But that doesn’t stop her from trying to play one in real life. Evidently, the book insinuates that due to Trump’s alleged affairs, Melania can’t wait to dump him. That’s just laughable. “In my opinion, Melania is counting every minute until he is out of office and she can divorce him,” the former aide wrote. Then she really stepped over the line by suggesting that if the first lady were to divorce Trump while he was in office, he might counter by negating her citizenship. He can’t do that and anyone who knows anything about the law and the Constitution would tell you that. She’s just making stuff up and it’s not only entirely false, it’s disgusting.

Omarosa was obviously furious that Kelly fired her and that Trump let it happen. She’s being childish and petulant about it. Frankly, Kelly did the right thing. She thinks very highly of herself and because she feels she was slighted, she is turning on someone who was a very good friend to her. Way to bite the hand that feeds you.

Omarosa went on to address Melania’s fashion choices, which far outclass the TV reality star’s own fashion sense. She went after the “I really don’t care, do you?” jacket incident and had the nerve to claim it was meant to punish President Trump. Again, there is nothing to back that up and it doesn’t even make sense. I believe that happened after she left the White House so how would she even know? “I believe Melania uses style to punish her husband,” Omarosa writes. “At any time, if she so desired, she could humiliate him in public with small, ambiguous gestures, just as he’d openly humiliated her with his affairs and lascivious behavior for years.” Omarosa has no idea what Melania thinks and she has no right to pretend she does. She claims that she had a great connection with Melania. I highly doubt that assertion.

It didn’t take long for Melania to shoot down those claims. Her office indicated that they never really interacted with each other at all. Melania’s Communication Director Stephanie Grisham made that crystal clear by saying that the first lady “rarely, if ever, interacted” with Manigault Newman. Why would she? Their paths would not cross as Omarosa was an aide to Trump, not Melania. They certainly weren’t close friends. Grisham continued speaking for Melania, “It’s disappointing to her that she is lashing out and retaliating in such a self-serving way, especially after all the opportunities given to her by the president.” Very, very true.

Omarosa signed a non-disclosure agreement when she went to work in the White House. She has obviously broken the terms of that agreement and I would wager she is going to have legal troubles over all of this. And she should. This is not reality TV, this is the presidency and your actions have consequences. But her legal woes may not end there. A number of people that Omarosa has claimed were involved in incidents with the president are claiming that she is not telling the truth. She is making accusations with no proof to back them up and that will not end well for Omarosa. Her recording White House officials in the Situation Room is also something that will get her in legal hot water.

Kellyanne Conway’s husband, George Conway, is nixing a story about President Trump using racial epithets in addressing him. Pollster Frank Luntz also stated that Omarosa did not tell the truth when he was named as an individual who had heard President Trump use the n-word. “I’m in [Omarosa’s] book on page 149,” Lutz tweeted. “She claims to have heard from someone who heard from me that I heard Trump use the N-word. Not only is this flat-out false (I’ve never heard such a thing), but Omarosa didn’t even make an effort to call or email me to verify. Very shoddy work.”

I haven’t heard anyone from the White House, that has left or is there presently, that backs up Omarosa’s claims. Not one bit. A furious President Trump tweeted praise for General John Kelly firing her, “When you give a crazed, crying lowlife a break, and give her a job at the White House, I guess it just didn’t work out. Good work by General Kelly for quickly firing that dog!” Melania probably seconds that sentiment wholeheartedly. I know I do.

Continue Reading

Funny

Viewers Floored By What Happened After Fox News Host Ate Steak In Front Of Ultra-Liberal Vegan

The look in her eyes was pure evil!!

Published

on

Jesse Watters had some fun when he invited a doctoral candidate on his show to debate her about the effects of eating meat. His guest was Anne Delassio-Parson and she’s a candidate for getting her Ph.D candidate at Penn State. Her big thing? She thought that eating meat reinforced gender stereotypes. Sounds pretty stupid, right? Don’t worry, it gets better. The thought was that eating meat supports a “hegemonic masculinity” or a “meat-centric culture” but that’s also fairly unintelligent, right? It is because men and women both enjoy eating meat products and no one really looks at another man or woman and thinks anything different of them, of course, unless you’re a liberal with some strange identity problem.

Usually what happens is a man and woman decide what they want to eat and no one else really cares unless they’re eating monkey brains or something totally exotic that’s out of the norm. If a girl wants a double cheeseburger or a salad, then more power to them. If a guy wants to chomp a steak or have a milkshake, then more power to him. No one cares.

Either way, eating meat somehow became the topic of this bizarre woman who doesn’t seem to be the best product of Penn State. She’s certainly a better representative than Jerry Sandusky, but that’s not very hard to do.

They then talked about “doing vegetarianism” and “de-linking” meat from gender hegemony and all I could think of was “who cares?” Not me. I’m pretty sure no one living their life in any state of normalcy would care about the nonsense that this lady is spewing.

Here’s where it gets even better. Jesse Watters ate a steak right in front of her. BOOM! Absolutely hilarious and if it’s cooked any more than medium rare, then he better send it back. What’s better than that? The fact that it was recorded. Watch the Jesse Watters steak video below, then tilt your head back and laugh. Just remember folks – eat whatever you want. No one cares. It’s your life and your belly. Eat whatever makes you happy, but not so much that it makes you an obese Trump hating complainer like Michael Moore.

Fox News: “Jesse Watters on Saturday debated a doctoral candidate from Penn State University, who contended that eating meat reinforces gender stereotypes.

As FoxNews.com reported, Anne DeLessio-Parson published an article in the “Journal of Feminist Geography” after studying Argentina’s “meat-centric culture.”

An academic journal has published an article by a Ph.D. candidate at Pennsylvania State University that argues eating meat maintains a society where “hegemonic masculinity” is the norm.

“I contend that in such a context, we cannot separate the ways people ‘do vegetarianism’ from how they ‘do gender,’” Anne DeLessio-Parson wrote. “Doing vegetarianism in interactions drives social change, contributing to the de-linking of meat from gender hegemony and revealing the resisting and reworking of gender in food spaces.”

DeLessio-Parson theorizes that being a vegetarian in the South American nation is a political act that contributes to the destabilization of the gender binary, or the view that there are only two sexes, masculine and feminine.

“[V]egetarians defy attempts to hold them accountable to gendered social expectations,” she wrote. “Women, for example, assert authority over their diets; men embody rejection of the meat-masculinity nexus by adopting a worldview that also rejects sexism and racism.”

On “Watters’ World,” Watters challenged her on the claim, and enjoyed a late-night snack during the debate.

DeLessio-Parson said Watters was slightly incorrect when he said consuming meat “creates toxic masculinity” because the phenomenon is “already there.”

She said it “reinforces certain social structures, including patriarchy” through its “symbolism.”

Watters then produced some symbolism of his own, as a producer laid a plate of steak — “medium rare” — in front of him.

“Is this bad — that I’m eating meat?” he asked.

DeLessio-Parson said it would be more acceptable if he hunted or procured the meat himself, rather than “enjoying the benefit [with] the blood on someone else’s hands.”

“What if you’re just hungry, and the animals are there for us to enjoy?” he asked.”

Continue Reading

Thanks for sharing!

We'd like to invite you to become a RWN insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend