She should have a right to wear this because it is her body right? Liberals don’t like it.
Singer Joy Villa made another statement on this year’s Grammy red carpet, stepping out on Sunday in a gown painted with a rainbow fetus and the words “choose life” on her purse.
The white dress and its colorful uterus detailing was paired with her statement purse and crown. This is far from Villa’s first conservative statement at the Grammys, as last year she wore a blue “Make America Great Again” dress that featured Donald Trump’s embellished along the back. In 2015, she again created controversy when she wore a sheer dress of orange netting.
Villa, who is also a Fox News contributor, posted on Twitter that she hand painted the wedding dress picked from the Bridal Garden, a non-profit with all proceeds going to Brooklyn Charter, a Bedford-Stuyvesant charity. The singer has long been vocal about her support for Trump and the conservative movement, featuring a picture with herself and Ivanka Trump on her Twitter profile.
Liberals might try to kill her.
The Grammys return to New York this Sunday for the first time in 15 years and feature performances from nominees Kendrick Lamar, Bruno Mars, Kesha and Pink. The show will be broadcast live from Madison Square Garden at 4:30 p.m. PT/7:30 p.m. ET on CBS. “The Late Late Show” host James Corden returns to emcee the ceremony for a second year.
Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” host Chuck Todd questioned Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) about his claim President Donald Trump did not call some counties “shitholes.”
Thus, Todd accused Cotton of calling Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) “liars.”
Partial transcript as follows:
TODD: I’ve got to ask you about the infamous meeting of ten days ago. Did the president use a vulgarity?
COTTON: Chuck, I’m not going to get into every word that was or was not said. I will say, as many people have said, Kirstjen Nielsen under oath, a lot of strong language was used. I think it is fair to say there was cursing behind closed doors.
TODD: What I don’t understand is in the first 48 hours if there was a controversy about whether it was said, you implied it wasn’t said at all. you didn’t — and it made it seem as if you were accusing Dick Durbin of being a liar and Lindsey Graham of being a liar.
COTTON: As far as I know Lindsey Graham hasn’t spoken on the record about this, Chuck. Here’s the point that Senator Durbin represented that President Trump used repeatedly, repeatedly used vile, racist, lays if the language. That’s not the case. If he was, why didn’t he slam anything and slam his paper up and get up and walk out. What Trump and others in that meeting expressed was astonishment that Senator Durbin and Senator Graham would bring a proposal that won’t move us towards a skill-based system but towards a system where we’re rewarding people based on where they come from, not who they are. the point of immigration reform is to judge people as individuals based on who they are and what they can contribute to society, not who they are and who they are related to.
TODD: But to go back to the issue of trust on both sides, You let it sort of hang out there that Dick Durbin and Lindsey Graham were misleading the public completely and only now are you admitting, well, yeah, there was some vulgarity used. That isn’t what you said a week ago or ten days ago at the time. Why?
COTTON: Chuck, I’ve never denied that there wasn’t strong language used in the meeting by lots of people. You know, I’m not a shrinking violet about these things. I’ve been in a command post overseas and I’ve heard salty language before. What I’m saying it’s a gross mess representation.
TODD: Were you offended? Lindsey Graham appears to be offended. He said his piece. Were you offended by what the president said.
COTTON: I was not offended and nobody in the meeting expressed their offense.
TODD: Lindsey Graham didn’t make his peace?
COTTON: Lindsey Graham made a case about immigration policies, not about what the president was saying.
TODD: He said he said his peace about what American ideals are about.
COTTON: Yes, he did and that’s part of immigration policy because immigration policy is a part of who we are, who we’re going to bring to this country to become new American citizens.
Google Lies All The Time And The Government Should Break Up The Google And YouTube Monopoly.
Google, the most powerful search engine in the world, is now displaying fact checks for conservative publications in its results.
No prominent liberal site receives the same treatment.
And not only is Google’s fact-checking highly partisan — perhaps reflecting the sentiments of its leaders — it is also blatantly wrong, asserting sites made “claims” they demonstrably never made.
When searching for a media outlet that leans right, like The Daily Caller (TheDC), Google gives users details on the sidebar, including what topics the site typically writes about, as well as a section titled “Reviewed Claims.”
Vox, and other left-wing outlets and blogs like Gizmodo, are not given the same fact-check treatment. When searching their names, a “Topics they write about” section appears, but there are no “Reviewed Claims.”
In fact, a review of mainstream outlets, as well as other outlets associated with liberal and conservative audiences, shows that only conservative sites feature the highly misleading, subjective analysis. Several conservative-leaning outlets like TheDC are “vetted,” while equally partisan sites like Vox, ThinkProgress, Slate, The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Salon, Vice and Mother Jones are spared.
Occupy Democrats is apparently the only popular content provider from that end of the political spectrum with a fact-checking section.
Big name publications like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times are even given a column showcasing all of the awards they have earned over the years.
The Robert Mueller fact check (pictured above) is a case in point for Google’s new feature.
Ostensibly trying to sum up the crux of the post, the third-party “fact-checking” organization says the “claim” in a DC article that special Counsel Robert Mueller is hiring people that “are all Hillary Clinton supporters” is misleading, if not false.
The problem is that TheDC’s article makes no such claim. Their cited language doesn’t even appear in the article. Worse yet, there was no language trying to make it seem that the investigation into the Trump administration and Russia is entirely comprised of Clinton donors. The story simply contained the news: Mueller hired a Hillary Clinton donor to aid the investigation into President Donald Trump.
Still, the Washington Post gave the claim, which came from Trump himself, its official “Three Pinocchios” rating. The method applies to several other checks. Claims concocted or adulterated by someone outside the TheDC are attributed to TheDC, in what appears to be a feature that only applies to conservative sites.
Examples of such misattribution and misrepresentation are aplenty.
For instance, using Snopes.com, an organization with highlydubious fact-checking capabilities, Google’s platform shows an article by TheDC to have a so-called “mixture” of truth.
The “claim” made, according to Snopes.com and Google, is “a transgender woman raped a young girl in a women’s bathroom because bills were passed…”
A quick read of the news piece shows that there was no mention of a bill or any form of legislation. The story was merely a straightforward reporting of a disturbing incident originally reported on by a local outlet.
And like Snopes, another one of Google’s fact-checking partners, Climate Feedback, is not usually regarded as objective.
Snopes and Google also decided to “fact-check” an obviously tongue-in-cheek article in which a writer for TheDC pokes fun at a professor saying the solar eclipse in 2017 was naturally racist.
Even Vox pointed out the absurdity of the educator’s literary tirade on Mother Nature’s purported racial prejudice, and the damage it might have done to real arguments of apparent racism. While Snopes got some flak for its choice, no one seems to have noticed the absurdity of the world’s go-to search engine providing fact-checks to purposefully irreverent content, rather than hard news stories.
Overall, such inclusion embodies Google’s fact-checking services, which, as many presciently feared, are biased, if not also downright libelous.
Google acknowledged it received an inquiry from TheDCNF, but did not fully respond by time of publication.
ABC News announced Saturday that Chief Investigative Correspondent Brian Ross would be suspended for four weeks without pay over a botched “exclusive” about former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
During a live “special report” Friday morning, Ross reported that Flynn would testify that Donald Trump had ordered him to make contact with Russians about foreign policy while he was still a candidate. The report raised the specter of Trump’s impeachment and sent the stock market plummeting.
Later in the day, ABC issued a “clarification” to Ross’s report, saying that Trump’s alleged directive came after he’d been elected president. Ross himself appeared on “World News Tonight,” several hours after the initial report, to clarify his error.
In a statement, ABC News said Ross’ report “had not been fully vetted through our editorial standards process.”
“It is vital we get the story right and retain the trust we have built with our audience,” ABC’s statement added. “These are our core principles. We fell far short of that yesterday.”
