Lib Paper Embarrassingly Contradicts Own Article While Trying To Take Down GOP Candidate

Some eagle-eyed Washington Post readers were confused Wednesday morning upon reading an article that seemed at odds with the publication’s own research. The article’s headline left little question regarding the current status of its subject: Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.

“Lagging in polls, Huckabee takes a leap of faith,” the print edition’s headline declared.

As Breitbart noted, an online version of the same story carried a different – and more accurate – headline: “Mike Huckabee, looking for a niche, woos blacks in GOP primaries.”

Writer Philip Rucker acknowledged Huckabee’s past success among black voters but relegated him to “the second tier” of GOP primary candidates.

Some, including Breitbart’s Alex Swoyer, wondered how describing Huckabee as a “second tier” candidate “lagging” in the polls squared with the newspaper’s recent poll placing the former Arkansas governor in the top quartile of a crowded 16-candidate field.

The Washington Post/ABC poll showed Donald Trump with a commanding lead and Huckabee in fourth place behind Jeb Bush and Scott Walker.

Regardless of Huckabee’s standing this early in the primary, however, Rucker ended his report on the candidate’s stop at a predominantly black South Carolina church by emphasizing the impact his message is having on audiences.

“I’m a Democrat,” local Nathaniel Pugh said, “but I might cross the line to vote for him. We can talk till we’re blue in the face, but until our hearts get right, there will be racism. For Gov. Huckabee to come into our little town and talk about this, that’s huge. He got my attention.”

Is the mainstream press trying to sabotage GOP candidates? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: NBC BLK Commentator Demands Gov’t Punish Those Who Do This To Transgender People

Danielle Moodie Mills, a pundit on the controversial race-based network NBC BLK, recently appeared on MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry to discuss additional ways Americans should be compelled to placate members of the transgender community.

Asked how she would respond to perceived mistreatment of “trans-women of color,” Moodie-Mills said the first order of business should be addressing the “misgendering” of people by media outlets.

“There needs to be some type of fine,” she suggested, “that’s put into place for outlets, for media outlets that, whether they be print, online, radio or what have you, that decide they are just not going to call people by their name, right? And they’re just going to misgender them just because they can.”

She went on to lament the fact that transgender Americans have already faced discrimination by reporters who do not immediately refer to them precisely how they wish to be addressed.

“There are guidelines that have been put into place by GLAAD, right? That have been put out to all press outlets,” she said. “And if you don’t follow them, you should be fined by the FCC. It should be that serious.”

Her remarks attracted some pointed social media criticism.

Moodie-Mills provided no metric by which she contends a special interest group like GLAAD should be able to determine what language those operating in accordance with the First Amendment should be allowed to use. As of this writing, she has not responded to Western Journalism’s inquiry regarding whether she would similarly support fines against reporters who fail to use language approved by typically conservative advocacy groups, including those that support gun ownership or oppose abortion.

h/t: Hot Air

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Hillary Caught On Camera Doing Something That Destroys Her Message From Just HOURS Before

Hillary Clinton is receiving some heat for her use of a lavish corporate jet immediately after making a speech about the need to take drastic measures to address man-made climate change.

The 2016 presidential candidate, after her speech in Iowa, boarded a plane bound for New Hampshire, which was caught on video by the conservative PAC America Rising.

The Daily Mail reports that the French-made corporate jet she used, the “Dassault model Falcon 900B, burns 347 gallons of fuel per hour,” adding: “The Trump-esque transportation costs $5,850 per hour to rent, according to the website of Executive Fliteways, the company that owns it.”

In her Monday speech and in a video released by the campaign, Clinton urged the taking of immediate action to address the supposed global menace. In her video, she says: “You don’t have to be a scientist to take on this urgent challenge that threatens us all. You just have to be willing to act.”

When the campaign was questioned about its double standard of urging Americans to act to address the ‘urgent challenge’ and Clinton’s use of a corporate jet that releases more carbon emissions into air in a single flight than most Americans burn in an entire year, an aide responded on Tuesday: “The campaign will be carbon neutral. We’ll be offsetting the carbon footprint of the campaign and that includes travel.”

“The most common way to achieve carbon neutrality is by buying voluntary carbon offsets that make up for things like private air travel and driving. There are other ways to reach carbon neutrality, they include planting trees, counting clean commuting and making changes in an office environment, but those are far less common,” according to CNN.

Clinton states in her climate video that “It’s hard to believe that people running for president refuse to believe the settled science of climate change,” as quotes attributed to GOP hopefuls fill the screen, including Jeb Bush stating “I’m a skeptic. I’m not a scientist.” Ted Cruz is quoted saying “There’s been no warning whatsoever,” while Donald Trump simply labels it a “Hoax.”

Clinton’s plan calls for uping America’s use of renewable energy from its current level of 7 percent to 33 percent by 2027. President Obama has set a goal of 20 percent by 2030. To achieve her higher benchmark, Clinton wants to grow the nation’s current amount of solar panels in the United States by 7 times to reach a half a billion by 2020, the New York Times reports.

Scientists differ on whether the climate is warming and, if it is, what effect man may be having. Many have noted there has been a 17-year “pause” since 1998 in the rise of global temperatures documented over the last century, which raises doubts whether human activity is the primary cause of any change.

There is no doubt for Clinton, however. In her climate video, the candidate says: “I’m just a grandmother with two eyes and a brain and I know what’s happening in the world is going to have a big effect on my daughter and especially on my granddaughter.”

“The reality of climate change is unforgiving no matter what the deniers say,” according to Clinton.

When questioned about her view on completing the Keystone XL oil pipeline in New Hampshire Tuesday, the former secretary of state refused to take a position. The pipeline is opposed by many environmental groups, but popular with labor unions, whose support Clinton will likely want to secure.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

#SJW Feminists Now Claim Air Conditioning Is Sexist. Yes, Really…

“No pleasure, no rapture, no exquisite sin greater… than central air.” Jason Lee said that in the 1999 movie “Dogma.”

You would think air conditioning would be something on which we can all agree, but you would be WRONG! That’s right; air conditioning is now sexist.

Over at The Washington Post, writer Petula Dvorak theorizes that intensely cold office temperatures are yet another example of the patriarchy dominating an environment. Dvorak researched this by talking to both women and men who are outside on their breaks away from their cubicles. Many of the women were “thawing out,” trying to soak up the warm weather. When the men were asked if the temperature inside their offices was too, they had no issues. How nice for them.

Dvorak observes that the women are dressed appropriately for summer weather, but once they step inside, have to resort to cardigans and pashminas to keep from freezing. In an office I worked at where the majority of the staff was women, blankets and scarves were draped over numerous chairs. Back in my old teen days of working at a retail store (Hot Topic), I’d constantly complain about the blasting AC. My manager (a man) would say that cold temperatures kept workers awake and more alert.

So not only is it sexist, but it’s double-secret-sexist.

Firstly, I find it hilarious that we consider Petula Dvorak to be “theorizing.” I know technically, the definition of the word is applicable here; but usually it’s reserved for things like cold fusion theory, economic models or hell, even whether a Gorilla could beat a Grizzly bear in a fist-fight. Air conditioning is so trivial, it doesn’t really warrant “theorizing” so much as turning the thermostat half an inch counter-clockwise.

Secondly, does anyone else find it ironic that feminists are accusing men of secretly stacking the deck against women in order to get them to… put on more clothes? Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to assume that men would more likely crank up the heat to get women to strip down? First step: set thermostat to 91 degrees. Second step: pitch “Casual Bra and Panty Friday.”

We’re setting the mark…this is the most ridiculous feminist outrage you’re going to see this week.

Send me any articles you think prove us wrong. Tweet them to @Scrowder

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Obama Praises Australia’s Gun Ban. Here Are The Actual Results…

In 1996, a massacre in Tasmania left 35 people dead, and caused Australia to establish draconian gun control laws. They literally rounded up, destroyed and banned guns. Now, the rumor goes, they haven’t had any mass shootings since; and crime has decreased as a result. HINT: not quite.

Enter Obama, who said:

When Australia had a mass killing, it was just so shocking to the system, the entire country said, “Well, we’re going to completely change our gun laws,” and they did. And it hasn’t happened since.

Okay, we’ll get to his false quote in a second; but first, watch the video below.

It’s pretty obvious, by the currently measurable barometers we have available, that Australia’s disarmament was a disaster. Maybe they didn’t have any more “mass-shootings.” Great. But what about the rest of the crime?

Well, there’s argument about whether the gun related homicides and other various crimes have actually increased or not. Some places have the homicide rate increasing at 3.2% along with armed robbery at 44%, while some other stats have them remaining about the same. At the very least, we do know that the policies have not significantly decreased crime. That’s not even being debated. Which…considering that the Australian government spent a considerable amount of money on the laws…seems, at the very least, disappointing.

That’s not to address the most important issue at play here: what the Australian government did was an unfettered act of tyranny. Despite how leftists try to sugarcoat it, the Australian gun “buyback” program was mandatory. That makes it effectively a gun ban. When American leftists support Australian policies, they are absolutely, unequivocally supporting an outright ban on firearms. Disarming a populace is, at its very core, the denial of a human right to self-preservation.

I acknowledge that maybe some countries get lucky. Maybe they ban guns and crime decreases. It certainly would seem the exception to the rule, but it’s certainly not outside the realm of possibility.

That doesn’t make it any less tyrannical.

When a woman is facing a psychotic stalker, needing to protect herself from the inevitable attack that will occur, and the government denies her right to protection… that’s a travesty.

When somebody finds themselves on CAIR’s jihadi watch list and knows beyond any shadow of a doubt that protection of his family is imperative, and the government says “nuh uh”… that’s a travesty.

When a woman in Sweden (now the rape capital of the civilized world) faces a religiously-motivated gang-rape, and her only chance at getting out alive–a gun–is removed from her… that’s a travesty.

Yes, evil is and will always be among us. Yes, bad people will do bad things with guns. That does not, and will never, change the fact that it is morally imperative for law-abiding citizens to maintain their right to self-preservation. Period.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth