Bill Maher Finally Speaks Out AGAINST Gavin Newsom On Live TV

Agenda Insight  Comments to this video included.   "Bill Maher takes California Governor Gavin Newsom to task live on TV in a moment that’s got everyone talking. Maher challenges Newsom on key issues like homelessness, taxes, and the state’s ongoing struggles — sparking a heated and honest exchange.

"Watch the full clip and see why this conversation is making headlines across the country.

"Newsom refused to listen. Everything Maher said fell on deaf ears. If this man Newsom EVER becomes President, America will become one big California, with absolutely no apologies from Newsom. You've been warned.

"Roads in Los Angeles (at least) are crap, broken tar, ruts from the heat and constant 18 wheeler traffic. The movies lie, they only shoot on the the more rare 'good' roads. The stuff we drive on every day is absolute garbage, an obstacle course. Thats why people drive SUVs, bigger tires and suspensions that deaden the hammering cars take from these roads. Yet Cal Trans has a $16 BILLION annual budget... theft?

Trump plans a billion-dollar lawsuit against the liars at the BBC who interfered with OUR election.

Don Surber; Substack 

"BBC sounds just like AP, NYT, WaPO and every TV network in America except Fox when it comes to these biases. In the Telegraph report, the Beeb checks all the current boxes of fanatical liberalism."

"The British call the BBC the Beeb, which makes sense only if Beeb is the plural of boob. The broadcaster—paid in large part through a licensing fee, which is a property tax on television sets in England—doctored President Trump’s speech to a quarter million supporters on the National Mall on January 6, 2021. BBC edited his speech to make it sound like he was inciting a riot at the Capitol . . .

. . . "The New York Times headlined its version of the story, “BBC says Trump threatened to sue over how a program edited his speech.”

"Bad headline, but Paragraphs 5 and 6 were devastating:

The hourlong documentary—titled “Trump: A Second Chance?”—was broadcast as part of the BBC’s Panorama series days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election. It spliced together three quotes from two sections of the 2021 speech, delivered almost an hour apart, into what appeared to be one quote in which Trump urged supporters to march with him and “fight like hell.” Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.

In a resignation letter to staff, [Tim Davie, drector general of the BBC] said: “There have been some mistakes made and as director general I have to take ultimate responsibility.”

This was not an honest mistake. This was dishonest reporting by charlatans who wanted to meddle in an American election.

The New York Times reported:

A highly critical letter, written by a former external adviser to the BBC board, Michael Prescott, said that a documentary called “Trump: A Second Chance?,” broadcast before the presidential election last year, at one point spliced together footage from comments that Mr. Trump made about 50 minutes apart. In his speech on Jan. 6 to supporters in Washington as Congress was certifying the results that showed Joseph R. Biden Jr. had won the election, Mr. Trump said, “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.”

But the documentary, produced as part of the BBC’s long-running Panorama series, cut that together with a previous sentence in which the president said, “I’ll be there with you,” and with a much later quote from his speech. The edited version suggested that he had said: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol … and I’ll be there with you … and we fight. We fight like hell.”

The documentary is no longer available to watch on the BBC’s online player. Samir Shah, the BBC’s chairman, said in a letter Monday that complaints about the editing of the clips had been discussed by the standards committee in January and May, and that the points raised in the review had been relayed to the Panorama team.

“With hindsight, it would have been better to take more formal action,” he wrote. He added: “We accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action. The BBC would like to apologize for that error of judgment.”

Hindsight? . . .

Chicago Declares War on Faith

 Townhall  

"If America is to remain the land of the free, we must defend the right of every citizen—and every college, ministry, or school—to live by the truth they profess, even when it’s unpopular. The founders of this nation enshrined religious liberty as the first freedom for a reason. Without it, every other right eventually crumbles."

"Chicago’s public school bureaucracy has decided that the faith of a Bible college is suddenly disqualifying—and that should chill every freedom-loving American to the bone.

"In a lawsuit now drawing national attention, the Moody Bible Institute alleges that Chicago Public Schools barred its students from student-teaching positions because Moody’s hiring practices require faculty and staff to affirm a biblical statement of faith and live accordingly. In plain English: because Moody hires Christians to teach in a Christian school, Chicago says they can’t send their students to teach in public classrooms.

"Let’s be clear—Moody isn’t discriminating against anyone. It’s being discriminated *against* for daring to live out its faith.

"What Chicago has done isn’t some paperwork misunderstanding. It’s a direct assault on the idea that religious institutions have the right to exist openly, consistently, and without apology in accordance with their own beliefs. CPS demanded that Moody sign a nondiscrimination policy that would forbid it from limiting employment to those who share its Christian confession. When Moody refused to violate its own conscience, CPS responded by kicking them out of the district’s student-teaching program.

"That’s not inclusion. That’s coercion. And it’s the kind of governmental overreach our Founders specifically wrote the First Amendment to prevent.

"The irony is rich. Chicago will gladly accept teachers from almost any secular institution that preaches every kind of ideology imaginable—but if your worldview happens to be biblical, you’re unfit to teach? What Moody believes about human nature, morality, and truth is not a PR slogan—it’s the foundation of their education model. Expecting them to “turn off” their faith to participate in a government program is like asking a doctor to renounce medicine before performing surgery. It’s absurd." . . .

. . . "Chicago Public Schools may think they’re punishing one Bible college, but what they’re really testing is whether the First Amendment still means what it says. Moody Bible Institute is right to fight back. They are right on principle, right on the law, and right for the country. Because if we don’t draw the line here—we may never get another chance."

Michelle Obama tries so hard to play the victim that she instead provides comedy gold

Miranda Devine   

. . . "Poor Michelle. Has any flesh-and-blood human ever gotten more universally favorable media coverage than her? Well, besides her husband? This was the woman, after all, whose last unscripted utterance was back in 2008, when she told an adoring crowd, “Let me tell you something. For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country — and not just because Barack has done well but because I think people are hungry for change.”  Source

It’s no coincidence that multimillionaire Michelle Obama is on a self-pity jag as she promotes her latest expensive coffee table memoir as her husband’s Democratic Party succumbs to its socialist fringe.

"You see it everywhere. Democratic Marie Antoinettes moaning about their plight and the ingratitude of the serfs as the revolution devours their dominion.

"For the former first lady, a week of softball interviews for her new $50 tome, “The Look,” has been dominated by bizarre complaints about her time in the White House with President Barack Obama.

"She is rewriting history to claim bitterly that, as the first black first couple, “we didn’t get the grace that I think some other families have gotten.”

"Whom does she think she’s kidding? Martians?

"Melania Trump would like a word. There was no grace in the daily savaging that President Trump’s wife was subjected to in her first term in the White House. There were invasive questions about her marriage designed to damage it, dirty gossip packaged as news, xenophobic attacks on her accent and Slovenian origins. Even her Christmas decorations were slammed as ugly and cold.

"Despite being a successful international model who always dressed impeccably, and without complaint, she was never asked to grace the cover of Vogue, while far frumpier first ladies who dressed like sofas were lavishly showcased in the fashion mag two or three times each. No wonder she has retreated into herself in her husband’s second term.

"By contrast, it’s hard to remember another presidential couple so swooned over by the media as the Obamas, even by the standards of Democrat privilege. They were treated like Camelot Redux.

"But Michelle Obama, with all her millions, is at such pains to portray herself as a victim that she inadvertently provides us with comedy gold while begging more questions than she explains." . . .  More...

What's the Worst, Most Divisive Thing Michelle Obama Has Said as First Lady?

"While delivering the commencement speech at City College in New York City, Michelle Obama notably referred to waking up every day in a house built by slaves. Mrs. Obama never misses an opportunity to bait racism and divide the country. She's made many divisive remarks during her tenure as first lady."  "Which is the worst?" . . .

Ronald Reagan said, "If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism."

 Ronald Reagan: 'If Fascism Ever Comes to America, It Will Come in the Name of Liberalism'

The Economics of Zohran Mamdani’s New York: A Radical Turn in America’s Urban Policy     Price freezes will result in shortages; a rule in economics.

What Zohran Mamdani's big win means for Main Street business owners: . . The $30 minimum wage issue

"Bufano says the biggest concern she hears from small business owners is about the proposed $30-per-hour minimum wage by 2030, something she says could cause a real headache for some. Bufano points out that pay structures inside most small businesses are tiered, with more experienced workers receiving higher wages.

“ 'If wages jump to $30 per hour for entry-level workers, small businesses will have to raise pay across the board to keep the tiered structure in place. And that will add up fast for small businesses,” Bufano said, with many small businesses running on thin margins unable to absorb the cost.

"This proposal could create new pressures for small business owners already navigating high overhead and post-pandemic recovery.

“I work directly with small businesses and entrepreneurs across the NYC metro area and nationally, and as a small business owner myself, I see every day how even small policy shifts can have big ripple effects,” Bufano said. “This is especially true for small businesses operating on tighter margins, with limited budgets, and lacking the financial cushion or capital reserves that larger companies can rely on.” . . .More...

The Economics Behind Zohran Mamdani’s Biggest Plans  "Zohran Mamdani's ambitious plans as New York City's mayor aim to reshape the economic landscape by prioritizing social equity through policies like a $30 minimum wage, rent freezes, and increased taxes on the wealthy."

. . . "His plans include:

• Phased $30 Minimum Wage: Mamdani aims to raise the minimum wage to $30 by 2030, which he argues is necessary to keep pace with the cost of living in New York City.
• Rent Freeze: He proposes freezing rents for one million rent-stabilized apartments, which is intended to provide immediate relief to tenants facing rising housing costs.
• Universal Childcare: Expanding access to affordable childcare is a key component of his ageand, aimed at supporting working families and promoting economic participation.
• Free Public Transportation: Making city buses free is another initiative designed to ease the financial burden on residents and encourage public transit use. . . . 

Much more here in this article

When Should You Use ‘Lay’ vs. ‘Lie’?

Word Smarts

"One of the trickiest (and most easily forgotten) lessons seems to be the difference between “lay” and “lie” and when it’s appropriate to use one over the other."

"When you’re feeling tired, sometimes you just need to lay down. Or wait — is it lie down? Grammar can be confusing, but don’t fret: You’re not the only person who is fuzzy on the details of grade-school English class. One of the trickiest (and most easily forgotten) lessons seems to be the difference between “lay” and “lie” and when it’s appropriate to use one over the other. To clarify, in this context, “lie” doesn’t mean “to fib” — we’re talking exclusively about the placement meaning of the verb.

"“Lay” and “lie” are mixed up more frequently than identical twins, as both words refer to people or objects positioned horizontally on a surface. But it’s actually quite easy to tell the two words apart — at least in the present tense. The past tense, however, is where things get tricky. Here are a few easy tips to help you differentiate between the two words.

“Lay” is a transitive verb, and “transitive” refers to objects that are being acted upon. So, if you’re in the act of putting down a book before going to sleep, you’d say, “I lay the book on the nightstand,” because you’re performing an action on the book. In the past tense, you would say, “I laid the book on the nightstand.” 

"Intransitive verbs such as “lie” refer to things acting of their own volition — such as humans. (Here’s a quick memory tip: Only a person can lie on a bed and tell a lie.) An appropriate use here would be, “I lie on the grass in my yard.” But this is where things get even more confusing — the past tense of “lie” is “lay.” So, if you were sitting in the grass hours ago, you’d say, “I lay in my yard.”

"As for that nap conundrum? It’s “I’m going to lie down,” but “I lay down for a nap earlier.”

Lining Up For Gas In California

From the state that gives us Eric Swalwell, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Ted Lieu, Adam Schiff,  performance artist  Alex Padilla, and ad nauseum, et in. TD

Issues & Insights

"So the pain will be doubled – time burned “a mouldering” in lines waiting to pay the Golden State premium just to get to work, the store and home again."

"California has the trendiest, and most foolish, energy policies in the U.S. The result is a return to the early ’70s, when drivers lined up around the block, hoping and praying the gasoline wouldn’t run out before they got to the pumps.

"“California’s oil industry now sits at the precipice of complete collapse,” says Edward Ring, director of water and energy policy at the California Policy Center, “and if that happens, more imports will not prevent lines at the pumps.”

"How could California, which has the sixth most proved crude reserves in the country, be looking over the edge of a gasoline crisis?

"California is hurtling toward the gas panic of ’25 because it has been at war with fossil fuel for decades. In the case of motor fuel, “the state legislature has disincentivized the production, distribution, and refining of oil in California,” says Ring, while “cities and counties have followed suit.”

"Two refineries are closing their facilities, the companies that own them having determined that it’s become too difficult to do business in California, which is hostile to energy companies that aren’t sucking up taxpayer-provided dollars to build politically preferred solar and wind projects.

"“By this time next year,” says the Pacific Research Institute, “there might not be even a dozen refineries left in the state to produce the 38 million gallons of California’s boutique blend that’s consumed every day.” 

"A quarter of a century ago, there were 23 refineries in California, 40 in 1983. The remaining sites are the only ones in the country that make California’s special formulation – which adds 10 to 15 cents to the cost of a gallon of gasoline – so importing fuel from other states is not a readily available option." . . .More

Lines for Gas Coming to California — Californians for Energy and Water Abundance

Mayor-elect Mamdani reeks of Lenin — but NYC’s wise safeguard against Marxism stands in his way

 Charles Gasparino

"No matter how many freebees Mamdani doles out, how many grocery stores or rent-free apartments he creates, bondholders get first dibs on city tax revenues because Carey & Co. knew that we need them to keep buying debt or the place shuts down."

"Zohran Mamdani’s victory-lap speech Tuesday night reeked of Vladimir Lenin after Russia’s 1917 communist revolution.

"But instead of commanding a Red Army, the mayor-elect should be aware he will be facing lots of red ink. 

"That’s on top of some very strict and sensible financial rules put in place some 50 years ago — just in case a deranged Marxist ended up running New York City. 

"Yes, socialism can sound rousing when it’s pitched by a skilled orator.

"Mamdani spoke of soaking the rich — failing to mention, of course, that they’re already paying some of the highest taxes in the country.

"He ranted how the poor will finally have their day — in a city that already doles out everything from free health care to subsidized housing. 

"He also dared President Trump, who was in DC undoubtedly watching this spectacle, to “turn up the volume” as he doubled down on his vision: free buses, government groceries, more welfare and free trans medical treatment — even for children. 

"But NYC — with plenty of welfare statism already on the books — will never go full-on Soviet ­Union.

"That’s because laws must be followed — even by a 34-year old backbench, lefty assemblyman with a degree in “Africana Studies” who visions himself as the second coming of Fidel. 

"Those laws include something called “The Financial Emergency Act” of 1975.

"It was the brainchild of former Gov. Hugh Carey and his outside adviser, the great philanthropist and investment banker Felix Rohatyn.

"It was designed to prevent another politician-made catastrophe like the fiscal crisis of the 1970s, when the Big Apple nearly went bankrupt and began to implode, fiscally and socially. 

"Cops were laid off and garbage piled up because we had no money and no one would lend to us — the budget was such a mess, no one knew if they would get paid back.

"The mayor at the time was Abraham Beame but years of bad government, perverse spending and spotty accounting contributed to the mess. " . . .More

How Nancy Pelosi Betrayed the People She Pretended to Protect

 The American Spectator  

"Pelosi leaves behind a party addicted to performance and a nation more cynical than ever."

"Nancy Pelosi’s farewell was less a retirement than an encore — one final pirouette in the long, exhausting pageant of American power. For nearly forty years, she ruled Washington like a monarch in pearls and Prada. A mistress of manipulation whose smile stretched wider than the chasm between her sermons and her sins. When Barack Obama gushed that she was “one of the best speakers the House has ever had,” he wasn’t lying. Pelosi could speak. She could sermonize, sanctify, and spin with unmatched flair. What she never managed was to see beyond herself.

"Her gift was never governance; it was performance in its purest form. Pelosi turned morality into marketing, and the House into her own Broadway stage. The taxpayer was merely her patron. When she wasn’t preaching unity, she was kneeling in a Kente cloth beside Chuck Schumer, a tableau so contrived it made Hollywood blush. The moment was hailed as courage by the credulous and as comedy by everyone else. Yet it defined her perfectly: the politics of pose over purpose, where conviction is cosmetic and every crisis demands a wardrobe change.

"Behind the podium, she preached compassion; behind closed doors, she perfected profit. Her husband, Paul Pelosi, traded stocks with timing so immaculate it bordered on clairvoyance. From Tesla to tech IPOs, the Pelosi portfolio outperformed the market like divine revelation. Any other citizen might have faced indictment; Pelosi faced applause. “We’re a free-market economy,” she quipped once, flashing that lacquered smile. Indeed — and few have freeloaded on freedom with such finesse.

"In Washington, she ruled not by charm but by fear, flattery, and an inexhaustible supply of donor cash. Committee seats became favors; loyalty, currency. To her admirers, she was Saint Nancy, defender of democracy. To her detractors, Machiavelli in Manolo heels. Both descriptions fit. She was relentless, calculating, and convinced that virtue, like diamonds, mattered only when it caught the light.

. . . "Pelosi learned early that outrage paid better than compromise. Every cultural wound became a weapon — every tragedy, a means to tighten her grip. When George Floyd’s death convulsed the nation, she moved quickly, not toward compassion but control. She spoke of justice while supporting policies that gutted police forces and left the poorest neighborhoods to fend for themselves. Businesses burned, families fled, and those meant to be helped were hurt most. Yet the fury persisted, because it served its purpose. Pelosi understood what few dared admit: outrage could be organized, monetized, and endlessly recycled. The country didn’t need healing — not when division had become the Democrats’ most dependable currency." . . . More...

Trivializing Religion Left Us Unprepared for Political Islam

 The American Spectator 

 "Explicitly religious conversations have driven freedom before. They are uniquely capable of doing that today."

. . . "and having forgotten religious discourse we were handicapped in understanding religions well enough to make necessary critical distinctions. Thus, very quickly, when the intolerant apologists for 9/11 reacted to the least critical comment on the beliefs of the attackers by calling it “Islamophobia,” far too few of our cultural leaders knew how to respond with critical truth. As intolerant religionists through the ages have loved to do, even the most worthy of criticism was powerfully repressed in the very nations that al-Qaida and their likes wish to destroy.

"We have learned that lesson less than perfectly. A major party and its president mocked and trivialized American religionists — “bitter clingers” to their guns and Bibles. And now that party, as indicated by recent polls, is liking guns and their application to our politics, excusing or even advocating for violence to change the politics of the country to the way they prefer. And they embrace with almost no criticism whatsoever advocates of religious violence and coercion, those who call for the imposition of religious law with no deference necessary to other religions or the robust and deeply religiously meaningful idea of religious freedom which is our American heritage and the Western heritage.

"New York has elected a mayor who in the heat of his campaign told us that the real take-home image we should have of 9/11 was not the death of 3,000 citizens in New York at the hand of utterly intolerant religionists willing to establish their empire by whatever force necessary. No, no! We should rather make our stand, moved to tears by his painful simulation of genuine emotion, with an alleged relative of his who, in his telling, was fearful to ride the subway because she wore a hijab. Following the rules of the intolerance of the movements the mayor-elect fails to condemn, she had an expectation of some kind of angry reaction to her because of the slaughter executed by co-religionists." . . .More...

The Exodus of Black Men From The Democrat Party

Marcus Watkins AFNN

"It doesn’t matter if they bring in your “BIG GUN” Barack Obama to come out, chastise, and lecture us like political children to get us to behave like sheep and do what “Masta” says. We’re not falling for it. Times are changing."

"There has been a lot of talk about Black men this election cycle. Black men are still the Democratic party’s second most loyal voting bloc, but the left’s hostility toward masculinity and embrace of the matriarchy is causing a lot of Black men to reconsider whom they are voting for. The primary vocation of Black men is “voter,” not father, husband, coach, or mentor for the left. Black men are noticing and are no longer putting up with the disrespect.

"Black people, particularly Black men, are more vocal than ever about their criticism of the Democrat Party and their support for Trump. If you haven’t heard it in person, all it takes is just a quick scroll on X (formerly Twitter), and you are likely to find more people than ever voicing their disgust with the current Democrat party and/or their support for former President Trump. The most interesting thing is, that these are everyday “Black people,” not your well-known Black conservative influencers with thousands of followers that we are used to seeing.

"I believe we are seeing a major political shift happening in real time. I’ve been saying for quite some time now (at least 5 or 6 years) that Black men’s vote (as a voting block) is up for grabs. It’s good that Republicans are finally starting to see. But the Democrats are too. The gender gap issue is real. If we had taken Black men as a voting block seriously, I doubt that this election would look as close as it does. Hence, this is why you see the Democrat party making these recent awkward pitches toward men to try and get their votes in the final weeks leading to the election. Here’s the thing, for the people that we see who are speaking out in opposition against the Democrat Party, there are probably four to five more people on the fence who are silent but feel somewhat the same way.

"I want to make something very clear. These Black men aren’t walking away from the Democrat Party because they’re in their feelings. They’re not walking away from the Democrat Party because they’re somehow misinformed and they’re being fooled. The “everyday” Black man has been invisible to the Democrat Party for quite some time now. So what is happening is that Black working-class men simply are realizing that the politics of the so-called political left in the United States does not serve them and by extension does not serve their Black family or our Black communities." . . .More  

Marcus Watkins is a God first conservative, grassroots GOP political activist and proud family man. He has a Bachelor’s Degree in Broadcast Journalism from Columbia College Chicago. Marcus is National Director for the Michigan Republican Assembly, an advisor to and member of BLEXIT Michigan (Former Assistant State Director), a member of the Wayne County Republican Party, Citizens of Free Speech and Michigan Leadership Group.

Newly found video shows moments US troops saved thousands of Jews from Nazi train

When Western students using Greta Thunberg chant "Death to Israel!", they need to know this is what they are talking about. Is there no limit to those who want to kill the Jewish people? TD

The Times of Israel   Researcher finds archived video of liberation of Bergen-Belsen camp prisoners near Farsleben in 1945; survivors identify themselves in clip. 

"As Allied armies advanced against Germany in the closing stages of the war the Nazis tried to hide the atrocities they had committed in concentration camps.

"Rare footage of the moment when US soldiers liberated thousands of Jews from a Nazi death train has been uncovered by a researcher, with some of those who were on board since spotting themselves or family members in the silent, black-and-white clip.

Though many photographs exist of the so-called Farsleben Train, liberated on April 13, 1945, it is the first time that moving images of the dazed, relieved prisoners greeting their GI rescuers have emerged.

The film was recently found in the US National Archives by author Matthew Rozell, a Holocaust researcher who in 2016 published a book about the train liberation titled “A Train Near Magdeburg.”

"Rozell published the clip to his YouTube channel on July 29 along with the archive remarks.

“Summary: Numerous scenes, freed Jewish prisoners in groups along railroad tracks,” the comments read. “Their expressions furnish a clue to the suffering they endured. Individual shots: men, women and children, some of them in various stages of emaciation. Flashes of US soldiers distributing food. The group surrounding the soldiers push forward to receive meager bits of food. LS, village being shelled by German artillery from across the Elbe River.”...

Screen capture from video of Jacob Barzilai, his mother and sister, group right, as
 they were liberated from a Nazi death train near Farsleben, Germany  April 1945.
 (YouTube. Used in accordance with Clause 27a of the Copyright Law)

"On April 7, 1945, 2,500 Jewish prisoners from Bergen-Belsen concentration camp were put on the train and were set to be transported to Theresienstadt. However, on April 13, the train was forced to stop near the town of Farsleben due to bombings by Allied forces advancing in the area. Some of those on board escaped the train and met up with soldiers from the 30th Division of the US Army who then returned to liberate those still trapped in the carriages.

"When the handful of Nazi soldiers guarding the train saw an American tank and jeep coming over the hill, they fled. US soldiers then flung open the doors to the carriages and the occupants poured out." . . .  More..

The Nazis tried to hide all they did; Hamas showed off the fact that they did it all with glee.