Connect with us

Politics

Jim Acosta Virtue Signals to Trump About Female Reporters. Trump Has Perfect Response.

Published

on

Jim Acosta loves Jim Acosta.

As Ben Shapiro often says, find you someone who loves you like Jim Acosta loves Jim Acosta.

Jim Acosta loves Jim Acosta so much, he took the opportunity to ask President Trump during a press conference at the UN if Trump would give his next question to a female reporter, instead of, you know, simply giving a female reporter an opportunity to ask the next question instead of Jim Acosta.

Trending: Black Man Brutally Attacks Mexican Woman He Thinks is Asian

Jim Acosta was likely incredibly please with Jim Acosta for thinking of saying this.

take our poll - story continues below

Is the Biden Administration Destroying Our Constitution?

  • Is the Biden Administration Destroying Our Constitution?  

  • 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.

Trump, on the other hand, whether consciously or not, totally called his bluff and had the perfect response: “Sure, whatever.”

The Daily Caller reports:

Acosta received a question from the president at a press conference at the United Nations in New York City on Wednesday. Before asking his question, Acosta demanded that the next question go to one of his female colleagues in the press corps.

“If you don’t mind, after I’m finished if … one of our female colleagues could go after me that would be great,” Acosta said.

Trump appeared confused and asked, “What does he mean by that?”

“What does that mean?” he repeated. “What does it mean, no, what does it mean?”

Acosta explained, “It would be great if a female reporter asked you a question about this issue,” referring to the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

“I wouldn’t mind that at all,” Trump replied with a shrug and a bit of an eye roll. “Wouldn’t make any difference to me.”

I don’t get CNN and Jim “We Are Real News, Sir” Acosta. They’re always whining about how Trump calls them “fake news”, and yet they use their opportunity to ask the President a question to shamelessly show their partisan colors.

Is Acosta a reporter, a commentator, or the Politically Correct police?

Trump’s response was, of course, perfect because, it truly makes no difference whether a female reporter asks him a question or not. That’s what equality is. The press pool is obviously full of female reporters, and when it comes to the hot news topic du jour, Kavanaugh’s sexual assault accusations, a woman is no more capable of extracting the truth than the president.

That’s how truth works.

 

Opinion

DC Statehood Incoming: House Set to Vote Within Days

Biden and his team are wasting no time setting up ways to stack the electoral deck in their favor.

Published

on

Joe Biden and his cohorts in the Democratic Party are doing everything in their power to never lose another election again, and they are doing so with all the subtlety and grace of a three-legged hyena that stepped into a yellow-jacket nest. First and foremost, there are their recently-revealed plans to pack the Supreme Court with several new justices during Joe Biden’s first term. Now they’re looking to make good on their long-held pipe dream of making Washington DC its own state…and they are wasting no time. The House of Representatives will vote Tuesday on whether to make Washington, D.C., a State. The House Oversight Committee, chaired by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), voted the bill, H.R. 51, out of committee by a vote of 25-19 to create D.C. statehood Wednesday. But there are likely constitutional issues at play here. The ultimate argument seems to be whether the 23rd Amendment guarantees the federal Capitol at least three electors in presidential elections, Rep. Any Biggs (R-AZ) suggested Wednesday. Biggs’ view is supported by legal scholars, who opposed D.C. statehood’s feasibility without a Constitutional amendment to the 23rd Amendment. The Office of Legal Counsel in 2007 believed it was unconstitutional, the Justice Department under former President Reagan and former President Carter stated the transformation was unconstitutional, and so did Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, when he sat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The move is highly controversial, and twenty-two state attorney generals have already sent a stern letter warning President Joe Biden about the danger of moving forward.

Continue Reading

News

Dems Begin Assault on 2A with Bill to Confiscate Suppressors

Here comes the heat from the left.

Published

on

When it comes to the right to bear arms, there truly is no foreseeable future in which the Constitutional guarantee will disappear entirely.  It’s a logical fallacy to suggest otherwise…just look at how well outlawing guns went in Chicago starting back in 1982. There will likely never be a full repeal of the right, either, as the idea of disarming the American people, particularly as Russia and China grow ever bolder in their international devilishness, leaves the world’s greatest nation feeling like sitting ducks. So, instead of working toward a total nullification of the inalienable right, the Democrats simply work to make if more difficult, more annoying, and more expensive to own the sort of firearms equipment that they want. This year will be no exception. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) introduced legislation on Wednesday to ban the sale and possession of firearm suppressors. His legislation, the Help Empower Americans to Respond (HEAR) Act, is co-sponsored by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), among others. It would ban the importation, sale, manufacture, transfer, and possession of firearm suppressors. Menendez commented on the legislation, saying: Gun silencers are dangerous devices with one purpose and one purpose only – to muffle the sound of gunfire from unsuspecting victims. The sound of gunshots is what signals you to run, hide, take cover, call the police and help others save themselves; however, this is nearly impossible when a gun silencer is used. That is why we must pass the HEAR Act, commonsense legislation that will prevent armed assailants from using these deadly devices to make it easier to shoot and kill another person. Of course, there was no definitive plan as to how confiscation would work, or what the left believes an acceptable amount of casualties would be for…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week