Connect with us

test-email

Priceless Video: Brian Stelter Gets Cut Down to Size During Outrageous Ambush on His Own Show

Western Journal

Published

on

CNN host Brian Stelter got roasted on his own show Sunday by his guest, anti-Trump author Michael Wolff, who torpedoed the left-wing pundit as a sanctimonious windbag who pushes fake news.

“I think you yourself, you know, while you’re a nice guy, you know, you’re full of sanctimony,” Wolff said on “Reliable Sources.” “You know, you’ve become part of, one of the parts of the problem of the media.

“You know, you come on here and [you think] you have a, you know, a monopoly on truth. You know, you know exactly how things are supposed to be done. You know, you are why — one of the reasons people can’t stand the media. I’m sorry.”

A red-faced Stelter disingenuously laughed and said, “You’re cracking me up.”

take our poll - story continues below

Should Congress Remove Biden from Office?

  • Should Congress Remove Biden from Office?  

  • 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.

Wolff replied, “It’s your fault.”

Stelter asked, “So what should I do differently, Michael?”

Wolff suggested that Stelter listen more and talk less if he wants to be taken seriously.

“You know, don’t talk so much. Listen more,” Wolff advised. “You know, people have genuine problems with the media. The media doesn’t get the story right. The media exists in its own bubble.”



Surprisingly, Stelter agreed with the scorching rebuke.

Wolff continued his smackdown by blasting Stelter and CNN for attacking former President Donald Trump around the clock in a desperate bid for ratings.

“I mean, that last segment that I just had to listen to, of all of the people saying the same old stuff,” Wolff lamented. “Also, you’re incredibly repetitive. It’s week after week. I mean, you’re the flip side of Donald Trump.”

The irony is that Wolff despises the former president and has written three anti-Trump books, and even he’s disgusted by CNN’s nonstop vitriol.

Wolff said CNN pretends it’s presenting objective news when it’s actually indoctrinating its audience with virtue-signaling propaganda that he dubbed “virtuous news.”

When Stelter insisted that he and his network are merely trying to helping their viewers “figure out what is real,” Wolff told him not to flatter himself.

“Most people don’t want to turn to Brian Stelter to tell us what’s real. I’m sorry,” he said.

A defensive Stelter then asked Wolff why he comes on CNN several times a week if he has such disdain for the network.

Wolff replied that — like CNN — he’s merely using the platform to make money.

Does Stelter deserve to be mocked?

“You know, I’m a book salesman,” Wolff said.

On Monday, Fox News host Greg Gutfeld mocked Stelter on “The Five,” where he ridiculed the CNN host as a “roly-poly guacamole gossip goalie” who deserved the verbal beating he got.

“How embarrassing,” said Gutfeld, who frequently lampoons CNN. “Good thing it happened on CNN so no one saw it.”

He said Stelter will probably replay that mortifying interview in his mind for years to come, wishing he had said something clever instead of cackling like a hyena.

“You know Brian is going to replay that segment in his head over and over again for the next four years with different responses, and probably get better ratings,” he said.

This is not the first time that Stelter has been humiliated during a live TV broadcast. In June, a stream of callers derided him and CNN as liars and propaganda ministers during a C-SPAN interview.

One caller said: “I would like to ask Brian to, on national television, admit he and his network are a bunch of liars about Donald Trump.”

Another caller remarked, “CNN is just something that’s just a joke. It’s a joke.”

A third caller said, “Mr. Stelter is the biggest minister of misinformation I have ever heard.”

These embarrassing incidents should serve as a wake-up call for both Stelter and CNN that their jig is up because the public now realizes they’re partisan political activists masquerading as “journalists.”

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

test-email

Judge Orders Trump Supporter to Remove 'F*** Biden’ Signs from Yard or Face $250-a-Day Fine

Western Journal

Published

on

A judge in New Jersey has ruled that a homeowner must remove the “obscene” political signs from her yard within a week or she will face a daily fine.

According to NJ.com, Gary Bundy, a municipal court judge in Roselle Park, ordered the homeowner, Patricia Dilascio, to remove the signs within seven days or she will be forced to pay a $250 fine for each day the signs remained up. The three signs affected by the court ruling include the phrase “F*** Biden,” and were put out by Dilascio’s daughter, Andrea Dick.

While this should undoubtedly be considered a free speech issue, there is some context here for people to consider.

Joseph Signorello III, the Democratic mayor of Roselle Park, previously said the signs displeased some residents due to the home being close to an elementary school. Signorello said the issue had “been brought to our attention less because of the political aspect of it, but the vulgarity of it,” according to NJ.com.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Congress Remove Biden from Office?

  • Should Congress Remove Biden from Office?  

  • 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.

The signs did not formally become a problem until a code enforcement officer for the borough was called by the mayor regarding the signs, according to the officer’s court testimony. Last month, the officer investigated, issued a violation notice, and when the sign had not been taken down after a few days, issued a court summons.

Dick had previously told WABC-TV that she had “a right to have those flags there” because of freedom of speech.



The violations in question have to do with a local ordinance regarding obscenity.

According to the Borough of Roselle Park, NJ Municipal Code, it is against the law for anyone to “display or exhibit any obscene material, communication or performance or other article or item which is obscene.”

“Obscene,” meanwhile, is defined under the code as “any material, communication or performance which the average person applying contemporary community standards existing within the municipality, would find, when considered as a whole: Appeals to the prurient interest; Depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct as hereinafter specifically defined, or depicts or exhibits offensive nakedness as hereinafter specifically defined; and Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”

This language is similar to the definition of obscenity issued in the landmark 1973 Supreme Court Miller v. California case, which determined that the First Amendment did not protect obscene materials, according to Oyez, a United States Supreme Court archive.

The homeowner was only directed to remove the signs displaying the word “f***,” according to NJ.com. Other anti-Biden signs can stay.

Filings from the borough’s attorney, Jarrid Kantor, which were read in court, posited that freedom of speech was not an “absolute right” because certain unprotected speech could be considered subject to limitations, within reason, NJ.com reported.

Meanwhile, a lawyer representing Dilascio, Michael Campagna, said that obscenity standards have evolved throughout history and that the use of the F-word toward another person, as in the case of the signs, does not contain any sexual connotation in modern times, but is merely a “colloquialism,” according to the report.

When making his ruling, Bundy rhetorically asked if there could be a balance between a parent having to describe to their child the definition of the vulgar word and Dilascio’s free speech, NJ.com reported.

Dilascio can appeal the decision within 20 days.

It is easy for anyone to see why people might be upset by the vulgarity of the signs. Most can understand why their fellow citizens, parents especially, are hyper-vigilant when it comes to what their children are exposed to.

In this day and age, where parents are fighting for the well-being of their children, their outrage certainly makes sense.

However, I can’t help but be reminded of a quote from sci-fi author Robert A. Heinlein, who wrote in his 1950 novella, “The Man Who Sold the Moon,” that censorship is akin to “demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can’t eat steak.”

Simply put, the government should not be allowed — regardless of what any local ordinance might say — to hinder someone’s right to utilize their freedom of speech anywhere, let alone on private property.

This scenario certainly appears to be an infringement on those rights, and a lawsuit waiting to happen — especially when one considers the ruling in another Supreme Court case, Cohen v. California, decided two years before Miller v. California.

According to Oyez, the court ruled in favor of a young worker who wore a coat that displayed his antipathy toward the Vietnam War with the same type of expletive phrase currently being labeled obscene in Roselle Park, New Jersey.

It seems pretty clear: If one can wear clothing with vulgar, expletive phrases on it out in public for all to see, then one can surely utilize similar expressions on their own private property.

While there are a few particular limits to the concept of freedom of speech, it is ultimately a natural right given to all of us.

We are protected by our country’s Bill of Rights from the government — at any level — impeding our First Amendment rights to free speech. No government official or policy should have the ability to take that away, regardless of how much we dislike or hate how others choose to express those rights.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

A judge in New Jersey has ruled that a homeowner must remove the “obscene” political signs from her yard within a week or she will face a daily fine. According to NJ.com, Gary Bundy, a municipal court judge in Roselle Park, ordered the homeowner, Patricia Dilascio, to remove the signs within seven days or she will be forced to pay a $250 fine for each day the signs remained up. The three signs affected by the court ruling include the phrase “F*** Biden,” and were put out by Dilascio’s daughter, Andrea Dick. While this should undoubtedly be considered a free speech issue, there is some context here for people to consider. Joseph Signorello III, the Democratic mayor of Roselle Park, previously said the signs displeased some residents due to the home being close to an elementary school. Signorello said the issue had “been brought to our attention less because of the political aspect of it, but the vulgarity of it,” according to NJ.com. The signs did not formally become a problem until a code enforcement officer for the borough was called by the mayor regarding the signs, according to the officer’s court testimony. Last month, the officer investigated, issued a violation notice, and when the sign had not been taken down after a few days, issued a court summons. Dick had previously told WABC-TV that she had “a right to have those flags there” because of freedom of speech. https://youtu.be/j3MEblQ3nnU The violations in question have to do with a local ordinance regarding obscenity. According to the Borough of Roselle Park, NJ Municipal Code, it is against the law for anyone to “display or exhibit any obscene material, communication or performance or other article or item which is obscene.” “Obscene,” meanwhile, is defined under the code as “any material, communication…

Continue Reading

News

Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream Pulls Out of Israel in Support of Hamas Terrorists

Ben & Jerry’s ice cream is once again proving how extreme and anti-American the company is.

Published

on

Ben & Jerry’s ice cream is once again proving how extreme and anti-American the company is by announcing it is pulling out of Israel over its support for Palestinian terrorists.

On Monday, the company put out a tweet briefly announcing its intentions:

take our poll - story continues below

Should Congress Remove Biden from Office?

  • Should Congress Remove Biden from Office?  

  • 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.

The tweet linked to a statement:

We believe it is inconsistent with our values for Ben & Jerry’s ice cream to be sold in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). We also hear and recognize the concerns shared with us by our fans and trusted partners.

We have a longstanding partnership with our licensee, who manufactures Ben & Jerry’s ice cream in Israel and distributes it in the region. We have been working to change this, and so we have informed our licensee that we will not renew the license agreement when it expires at the end of next year.

If you buy Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, you support terrorism.

It is just that simple.

The company, which has been owned by multi-national conglomerate Unilever since 2000, has been extreme for decades. Check out Daily Wire for other examples.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Ben & Jerry’s ice cream is once again proving how extreme and anti-American the company is by announcing it is pulling out of Israel over its support for Palestinian terrorists. On Monday, the company put out a tweet briefly announcing its intentions: https://twitter.com/benandjerrys/status/1417128875075719172 The tweet linked to a statement: We believe it is inconsistent with our values for Ben & Jerry’s ice cream to be sold in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). We also hear and recognize the concerns shared with us by our fans and trusted partners. We have a longstanding partnership with our licensee, who manufactures Ben & Jerry’s ice cream in Israel and distributes it in the region. We have been working to change this, and so we have informed our licensee that we will not renew the license agreement when it expires at the end of next year. If you buy Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, you support terrorism. It is just that simple. The company, which has been owned by multi-national conglomerate Unilever since 2000, has been extreme for decades. Check out Daily Wire for other examples. Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week