Connect with us

Opinion

CNN Tried to Bait POTUS at Rally – Trump Fully Outsmarts Them

CNN was trying to create the news rather than report on it, and that is despicable.

Published

on

CNN

You would think that the mainstream media would have had better things to do yesterday, but, apparently not.

During one of the most egregious and abhorrent acts of domestic terrorism in years, a number of rudimentary, possibly functional pipe bombs were sent to prominent globalist democrats…and CNN and Robert DeNiro.

Thankfully, or perhaps by design, none of these devices detonated and no one was physically hurt.

Given the targets chosen by this serial bomber or bombers, there is little doubt that the motives behind the attack were purely political.  What we don’t know, however, is whether or not this was perpetrated to frame conservatives just before the midterm elections, or if the devices were created by a genuine, right wing lunatic.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

What we do know, however, is that CNN tried to turn the incident into a big “win” for themselves, prompting one former NYPD official to even walk off set.

But there was something else going on, behind the scenes at the network, that frankly scares me to death:  The network was attempting to bait the President.

In the middle of the day, as this story was developing, CNN was quick to point out that supporters of the President often chanted “lock her up” at rallies at the mere mention of Hillary Clinton.  This is true, absolutely, but CNN’s assertion was that this bomber, who targeted Hillary specifically, shared the sentiments of those Trump supporters.  Pundits on the network wondered if the “deplorables” would do that again at last night’s Trump rally, even after Hillary was targeted with one of these devices.

But, at the same time, CNN was attempting to goad the President by complaining that he had yet to use the names of those targeted.  The network was upset that Trump hadn’t said the words “Hillary Clinton” or “CNN” during his address to the nation on the subject of the attacks, claiming that this wasn’t an adequate response because of it.

Do you see where I’m headed here?

CNN was insisting that the President use Hillary Clinton’s name when condemning the attacks, knowing full well that the mention of Hillary Clinton at last night’s rally would have started the “lock her up” chant, thusly satisfying their desire to create conflict by airing that hypothetical clip over and over again, to further divide our nation.

Had Trump mentioned “CNN”, there would certainly be a “CNN sucks” chant initiated as well.

President Trump outsmarted them last night by keeping his message broad and inclusive, wherein CNN was hoping for a divisive, combative moment to sell commercials around.

CNN was trying to create the news rather than report on it, and that is despicable.

 

News

‘RUST’ SHOOTING: Alec Baldwin Not Out of The Woods Yet, Says Santa Fe District Attorney

Baldwin has suggested that he won’t be charged, but the local DA has other ideas.

Published

on

The story surrounding the shooting death of cinematographer Halya Hutchins continues to grow stranger by the day, and a district attorney in New Mexico just dropped a major bombshell in the direction of Alec Baldwin.

Baldwin was rehearsing for a scene when the firearm he was holding discharged live ammunition, killing Hutchins and injuring others.  The gun somehow had a live round in it, despite there being a number of ethical and legal reasons why this should not have been possible.

To further confuse things, Baldwin has wildly suggested that he never pulled the trigger of the gun – something that experts are going to have to find a way to prove in order to clear Baldwin’s culpability.

Now, a local litigator has suggested that Baldwin should be prepared for the worst.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

On Friday, First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies clarified that it is still very possible for Alec Baldwin to be “criminally culpable” in Hutchins’ death depending on what the investigation yields.

“Certain individuals may be criminally culpable for his/her actions and/or inactions on the set of Rust,” Carmack-Altwies told Deadline.

Carmack-Altwies asserted that she will “exercise my prosecutorial discretion to its fullest, including filing charges that are supported by probable cause.”

The possibilities are numerous.

The district attorney further clarified that “everyone” handling firearms on the set of Rust had a duty to follow safety protocols.

“Everyone involved in the handling and use of firearms on the set had a duty to behave in a manner such that the safety of others was protected, and it appears that certain actions and inactions contributed to this outcome,” Carmack-Altwies the attorney said.

During the interview in which Baldwin suggested that he never pulled the trigger, he also insinuated that he’d spoken with the local sheriff’s department, and that there was some sort of understanding between he and them regarding the lack of charges to be brought.

The story surrounding the shooting death of cinematographer Halya Hutchins continues to grow stranger by the day, and a district attorney in New Mexico just dropped a major bombshell in the direction of Alec Baldwin. Baldwin was rehearsing for a scene when the firearm he was holding discharged live ammunition, killing Hutchins and injuring others.  The gun somehow had a live round in it, despite there being a number of ethical and legal reasons why this should not have been possible. To further confuse things, Baldwin has wildly suggested that he never pulled the trigger of the gun – something that experts are going to have to find a way to prove in order to clear Baldwin’s culpability. Now, a local litigator has suggested that Baldwin should be prepared for the worst. On Friday, First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies clarified that it is still very possible for Alec Baldwin to be “criminally culpable” in Hutchins’ death depending on what the investigation yields. “Certain individuals may be criminally culpable for his/her actions and/or inactions on the set of Rust,” Carmack-Altwies told Deadline. Carmack-Altwies asserted that she will “exercise my prosecutorial discretion to its fullest, including filing charges that are supported by probable cause.” The possibilities are numerous. The district attorney further clarified that “everyone” handling firearms on the set of Rust had a duty to follow safety protocols. “Everyone involved in the handling and use of firearms on the set had a duty to behave in a manner such that the safety of others was protected, and it appears that certain actions and inactions contributed to this outcome,” Carmack-Altwies the attorney said. During the interview in which Baldwin suggested that he never pulled the trigger, he also insinuated that he’d spoken with the local sheriff’s department, and that there was…

Continue Reading

Opinion

US State Pushes to Make Mask Mandates Permanent

The move is sure to have freedom advocates in the Beaver State enraged. 

Published

on

The American landscape is currently littered with a hodgepodge of coronavirus precautions, as each state, country, town, and business takes the COVID-19 pandemic at their own level of seriousness.

This has, of course, made it somewhat difficult for any individual to navigate their day in compliance to the ever-changing rigidity of the pandemic’s threat.  And, furthermore, it has led to some questionable decisions by local leaders looking to simplify the issue.

The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) assembled a Rules Advisory Committee (RAC) earlier this week to address a permanent indoor mask mandate in the state. Oregon is one of a few states that still retain one nearly two years into the pandemic.

The committee included several community stakeholders, including representatives from the hospitality industry, the business sector, and faith communities, according to local ABC affiliate KATU.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Local leaders attempted to downplay the “permanent” status of the mandate.

Dr. Paul Cieslak, the medical director for communicable diseases and immunizations with OHA, explained to KATU that OHA’s potential “permanent” indoor mask mandate is not necessarily permanent because it can be repealed.

“Permanent means indefinite. It doesn’t necessarily mean permanent,” Cieslak said. “We can repeal it as well, but we are only allowed to have a temporary rule for 180 days, and anything that goes beyond 180 days, we cannot extend it.”

The move is sure to have freedom advocates in the Beaver State enraged.

The American landscape is currently littered with a hodgepodge of coronavirus precautions, as each state, country, town, and business takes the COVID-19 pandemic at their own level of seriousness. This has, of course, made it somewhat difficult for any individual to navigate their day in compliance to the ever-changing rigidity of the pandemic’s threat.  And, furthermore, it has led to some questionable decisions by local leaders looking to simplify the issue. The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) assembled a Rules Advisory Committee (RAC) earlier this week to address a permanent indoor mask mandate in the state. Oregon is one of a few states that still retain one nearly two years into the pandemic. The committee included several community stakeholders, including representatives from the hospitality industry, the business sector, and faith communities, according to local ABC affiliate KATU. Local leaders attempted to downplay the “permanent” status of the mandate. Dr. Paul Cieslak, the medical director for communicable diseases and immunizations with OHA, explained to KATU that OHA’s potential “permanent” indoor mask mandate is not necessarily permanent because it can be repealed. “Permanent means indefinite. It doesn’t necessarily mean permanent,” Cieslak said. “We can repeal it as well, but we are only allowed to have a temporary rule for 180 days, and anything that goes beyond 180 days, we cannot extend it.” The move is sure to have freedom advocates in the Beaver State enraged.

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week