On Tuesday, former President Donald Trump will debate Vice President Kamala Harris in their first direct encounter of the 2024 presidential election. Looking back at Trump’s three debates with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016, expect the press to adore Harris’s performance, while deriding Trump as someone out of a “third world” “banana republic.” The media tone was established early, just minutes before the candidates met in their first (September 26, 2016) debate, as CNN’s Van Jones extolled Hillary’s supreme abilities. “She is the Michael Jordan of policy in multiple, multiple areas,” Jones crowed. “She’s like the valedictorian running against this crazy frat boy.” With NBC’s Lester Holt asking the questions, Hillary escaped scrutiny on her health (just days earlier, she’d collapsed at a 9/11 ceremony), foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation, and her role in the debacle that led to the murder of a U.S. Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya while she was Secretary of State. “I thought it was a shutout for Hillary,” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews cheered during his network’s post-debate coverage. “She cleaned his clock tonight. It was a bit embarrassing for Trump. I thought a bit that I was watching A Few Good Men and she was Tom Cruise and he was Jack Nicholson. It was not close. It was over tonight. Very clear result: Hillary won big time. It was a shutout.” “I think that Hillary’s composure and her mastery of the detail was consistent throughout, and she was pleasant throughout,” assessed NBC’s Tom Brokaw, as he faulted Trump for resorting to “bombast.” Over on ABC, Cokie Roberts scolded the Republican nominee: “His facial expressions throughout were condescending and in ways just rude, and early in the debate he was also bullying, so, I think there are a variety of things here that did not work for him.” “This was the worst debate performance I have ever seen,” concluded the Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman on MSNBC. “In every respect, it was awful. Hillary wiped the floor with him in this debate.” The front page of the next morning’s New York Times featured a one-sided “news analysis” trashing Trump’s “hurricane of factual distortion, taunting interruptions and blustery generalities.” “Mrs. Clinton’s challenge was evident from the moment she walked onto the stage at Hofstra University on Long Island,” political reporters Michael Barbaro and Matt Flegenheimer wrote. “How much respect should she show to a rival of unparalleled incivility, who misrepresents the truth with abandon, crassly rates women’s looks on a scale of 1 to 10 and casually denigrates entire ethnic groups — a man whose words Mrs. Clinton has described as racist, xenophobic and misogynistic?” “To call Trump a con man, as many have, is a disservice to the art of the con,” ex-CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather wrote on Facebook the day after the debate. “By its definition a con requires deceit. But Trump has not tried to hide his lies or the sheer unrealistic audacity of his cartoonish policy positions.” Thirteen days later (October 9), the pair met again for their second debate. The reviews sounded as if they could have been lifted from coverage of the first debate. “I just hope to God I don’t see another campaign like this one. America can do better than what we have seen here tonight. This was just disgraceful,” CBS’s Bob Schieffer grumped when it was over. “This was WrestleMania, this wasn’t about presidential politics.” “I can’t even recall a debate ever in the American history with that much venom between the two,” fretted NBC’s Andrea Mitchell. In an indication of just how far the media goalposts have shifted in eight years, journalists in 2016 found it completely objectionable that Trump floated the idea that Hillary belonged “in jail” for her mishandling of classified e-mails as Secretary of State. “Not to sound too corny, but what makes this country different from countries with dictators in Africa, or Stalin or Hitler, or any of those countries with dictators and totalitarian leaders, is that when they took over, they put their opponents in jail. To hear one presidential candidate, say — even if it was a flip comment, which it was — ‘you’re going to be in jail’ to another presidential candidate on the debate stage in the United States of America, stunning, just stunning,” griped CNN’s Dana Bash. “This is the kind of thing that they do in countries not like the United States, where you lock up and jail your political opponents,” CNN’s Jake Tapper agreed. “I mean this is what they do in banana republics,” groused Schieffer on CBS. Prior to the debate, Trump appeared with several women — Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey — who had been victimized by Bill Clinton before and during his presidency. The media didn’t like that, either. Former New York Times Executive Editor Jill Abramson wrote in The Guardian that Trump’s appearance with the women “resembled a Soviet show trial,” while the Washington Post’s Margaret Sullivan sneered the look of Trump sitting at a long table with the women “looked like a twisted version of ‘The Last Supper.’...Bringing the accusers into a presidential-debate town hall was nothing but hate-theater: a counterpunch to deflect criticism of Trump’s own shameful history with women.” “Only in a third world country, and only in the, sort of, the mind of some sort of movie writer of a third world democracy or dictatorship would you have a candidate publicly humiliate a former occupant of that office by parading all of these other people around,” NBC’s Chuck Todd blasted on MSNBC Live the next day. While the media derided Trump, there was yet more predictable praise for Hillary. “Everything about her was presidential tonight. Her poise, her speech delivery was confident, mellifluous, even. She has a beautiful voice,” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews proclaimed. “She was very winning. She had winning personality again.” Ten days later (October 19), Clinton and Trump met for the final time. “This is a very sad night for the country. You can’t polish this turd,” CNN’s Van Jones mourned as he slammed Donald Trump’s performance. MSNBC’s coverage included the vehemently anti-Trump one-time Republican operative Steve Schmidt, who derided Trump as “incoherent....He was like an old man in the park feeding squirrels.” “There just wasn’t a moment that I saw in this debate where Donald Trump had an advantage over Hillary Clinton,” extolled The Last Word host Lawrence O’Donnell. “It was nothing but a romp by Hillary Clinton all the way through here.” “I’ve heard from Republicans tonight who also thought it was her best performance,” raved Nicolle Wallace. Over on ABC, political analyst Matthew Dowd agreed, arguing that Clinton’s strong showing meant that a Democratic victory was now all-but-assured: “This debate was a clear win for Hillary Clinton. She has the lead. She is actually in the process of running out the clock and unless some unknown event occurs, Hillary Clinton is going to be elected president of the United States.” Oops. The forthcoming Trump-Harris debate may or may not be a “shitshow,” as an irate media slammed the 2020 Trump-Biden debate. But it already seems a foregone conclusion that they’re going to declare Kamala Harris the winner, and blame Trump for any incivility that erupts.   For more examples from our flashback series, which we call the NewsBusters Time Machine, go here. 

You might have missed the invocation on the first day of the Democratic National Convention last month. Chicago’s Roman Catholic archbishop, Cardinal Blase Cupich, prayed for peace, hope, and love in vague and non-Christian terms.The problem wasn’t the prayer so much as the context, which was a veritable pro-abortion carnival. Outside the convention, mobile clinics offered free abortions and vasectomies. Ever more bizarre, pro-abortion activists paraded, cosplayed as white mifepristone pills, and set up a massive 18-foot-tall inflatable intrauterine device.Is it necessary for a cardinal of the Catholic Church to remain mute about the destruction of millions of preborn lives to support other moral issues?Several speakers praised abortion and in vitro fertilization but barely mentioned the struggles of the working class or the broader plight of the oppressed — issues that Democrats were once known for championing.But the Democratic Party’s behavior outside the DNC carnival has been even worse. During Joe Biden’s term in office, the Department of Justice has been conducting a persecution campaign against pro-life activists, often throwing them in jail for peacefully protesting outside clinics where mothers are about to abort their unborn children. The latest person to be targeted is 89-year-old Eva Edl, who survived a communist death camp as a child in Yugoslavia before fleeing to America.Considering all this, how could Chicago’s archbishop justify — even to himself — blessing such an obviously immoral and anti-religious event?Cupich likely would claim that was not endorsing the Democrats’ pro-abortion plank but rather all those other planks that align with Christian teaching, such as caring for the marginalized, championing social justice, and welcoming the stranger. After all, according to the “consistent life ethic,” also known as the “seamless garment” theory, there are different ways to be pro-life, and all of them are equally valid. If traditional Catholics interpret the prohibition on murder to include opposing abortion, progressives can interpret it as providing welfare entitlements to illegal aliens.Cupich might argue that he is following Pope Francis’ example by avoiding an overemphasis on issues like abortion and homosexuality. Accordingly, Christians should view abortion as a complex issue within an increasingly complicated world. The moment calls for more listening and dialogue and less judgment and action.The political dimension complicates matters. While the Catholic Church should not align itself with any political party, it is expected to work within various political systems and serve the community. Therefore, even if a presidential campaign backs the most anti-Catholic candidate in recent memory, Cupich believes he should still engage with the nearly half of the country that supports Kamala Harris.Besides, isn’t it simply prudent for an esteemed member of the clergy to add his voice to encourage a political party that might come into power? By accepting the invitation, isn’t the archbishop making it more likely that Christians will have a seat at the table?Moral equivocationWith all due respect to Cupich, these arguments fall flat and only serve to harm Christian communities. All it amounts to is a rhetorical sleight of hand that turns Christianity, evangelization, and progressive politics into their opposites.An invocation is not some politically benign, neutral act. Under the circumstances, it is a virtual endorsement. Therefore, applying “seamless garment” thinking in this case just excuses moral equivocation.The seamless garment should affirm an ethical framework that is consistent and total, not one that is zero-sum, relative, and utilitarian. That means being pro-life in one way (e.g., protecting the unborn) should not impede being pro-life in another way (e.g., protecting the poor and marginalized.) The two positions are entirely compatible with one another in practice and should be upheld in theory as well.Cupich’s presence at the DNC suggests that the Catholic Church has made a trade-off: to support those on the margins, it must accept a political party that advocates the legality of killing the unborn at any stage of pregnancy — even after birth. Instead of maintaining a seamless ethical stance, these compromises tear at certain partisan litmus tests.Consequently, he put himself in the position of ignoring the Democrats’ virtual idolatry of abortion and contraception. But is it necessary for a cardinal of the Catholic Church to remain mute about the destruction of millions of preborn lives to support other moral issues? If the Democrats and their progressive allies hadn’t made an idol out of baby-killing, Christians might have sided with them without compromising their faith.As for the political argument of trying to forge ties with the potential ruling party in an attempt to influence them, this nearly always backfires: The church becomes more worldly and corrupt while the state continues to become less Christian.A signal of surrenderAs historian Tom Holland details in his masterpiece “Dominion,” beginning with Pope Gregory VII’s rejection of lay investiture (the appointment of clergy by secular leadership) in the 11th century, the Catholic Church traditionally operates best when it does so on its own terms and challenges political authorities to follow or be shunned (i.e., excommunicated). Consequently, those in government would at least pay lip service to Christian teachings or show the Church a fair degree of tolerance.When the Catholic Church’s teachings are compromised to satisfy political ideologies, it inevitably loses life and ceases to be a public presence. One only needs to look at Western Europe, where churches are currently dwindling or being subsumed by government authorities.Cupich’s invocation sends a clear signal of surrender to secular modernity, the culture of death, and the supremacy of the state. This act represents an unforgivable and irredeemable concession to the enemies of Christ. Experience and common sense reveal that Cupich and other like-minded progressives are actually “casting pearls before swine,” who will trample them and turn to tear faithful Christians to pieces.

James O’Keefe has struck gold again, this time focusing his lens on the Washington Commanders. The NFL team had famously changed their name from the Washington Redskins in an attempt to be politically correct, and after an undercover date set up with their VP of social media — it appears the woke rot is completely forced. “Over 50% of our roster, right, is either white, religious, and God says, 'F*** the gays,' in their interpretation,” the VP told his undercover date. “Another big chunk is very low income African-American that comes from a community that is inherently very homophobic.” “That doesn’t mean they want to go on record with a video saying, ‘Come out to Pride parades,’” he added, as the investigative reporter asked, “Why not?” “There’s some that are dumb as all hell, and there are others that are very smart. I think there’s also a sad but true reality that like some start smart and they get hit in the head so much, they don’t stay smart,” he said, adding that the more they get hit in the head, the more susceptible they are to “stupid conspiracy theories.” The VP then called the fan base “high school-educated alcoholics,” “mouth breathers,” and “lower-class people.” He went on to call the NFL’s social justice activism “performative.” “It’s not done out of the goodness of their heart, morality; it’s done because George Floyd changed the game,” he said, adding, “The social justice efforts are a performance for the sake of public perception, and not because they want to actually push progress.” “The NFL cares about the bottom line like any corporation above all else, and they don’t need to really pinch pennies because they make so much revenue,” he continued. “Therefore, they can faux prioritize DEI for the sake of good publicity.” While Jason Whitlock of “Fearless” doesn’t have sympathy for the NFL, he does have some for this man. “The guy thinks he’s out on some date, and he’s actually being set up and he’s saying what he really thinks,” Whitlock says. “I have some sympathy for him.” Want more from Jason Whitlock?To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Call 9-1-1! Twitter/X Wipes the Floor With Mark Cuban for Claiming the Mainstream Media PROTECTS Trump

Van Jones Can Do NOTHING But Smile AWKWARDLY As Scott Jennings SLAMS Kamala with Dick Cheney's Vote-Watch

Will Abortion Be on the Ballot in Missouri in November? Latest Court Ruling Calls That Into Question

What comes to the mind when one says Anatolia? Does the phrase “land of the rising sun” (as the ancient Greeks called it) appear? Or, because it technically belongs to the Middle East, do you think of an arid desert? Anatolia was arguably the most desired land of the ancient and medieval world. Read moreSection: NewsAncient PlacesAsiaHistoryImportant EventsRead Later 

Former Rep. Liz Cheney, with her endorsement of Democrat nominee Kamala Harris over former President Donald Trump for the presidency, no longer gets to call herself a conservative or a Republican, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Sunday.

As Congress prepares to come back from August recess with less than two months before the Nov. 5 presidential election, House Republicans are taking aim at the Democratic ticket through a flurry of investigations…

Democrats and media have been going all in to demonize former President Donald Trump as we count down to the election. We see that in the constant drumbeat of bad press for him and positive press for…