attack

Comedian Ian Cognito died during a stand-up act in which he joked about dying on stage and then fell silent while the audience continued laughing, thinking it was a joke.

“Imagine if I died in front of you lot here,” Cognito, 60, joked on stage during his set Thursday. Andrew Bird, who runs the Lone Wolf Comedy Club in Bicester England, told the BBC: “Everyone in the crowd, me included, thought he was joking. Even when I walked on stage and touched his arm I was expecting him to say ‘boo’.”

Audience members were mortified when they learned that had been chuckling at a man dying. “We came out feeling really sick, we just sat there for five minutes watching him, laughing at him,” said audience member John Ostojak. He added: “Only 10 minutes before he sat down he joked about having a stroke He said, ‘Imagine having a stroke and waking up speaking Welsh?'”

Fellow comedians extended their sympathies on Twitter after hearing the news of Cognito’s death, but commented that his demise was in some ways fitting.

“Died with his boots on. That’s commitment to comedy. I’ll never forget his kindness when I started out & how god damn funny he was,” said comedian Jimmy Carr.

Comedian Mark Steel said Cognito had “expired in his natural home” and was “a difficult awkward hilarious troubled brilliant sort, a proper comic.”

Bird said that dying on stage would have been the way Cognito “would have wanted to go,” adding: “Except he’d want more money and a bigger venue”

There is a comedic tradition of dying on stage. In 1984, comedian Tommy Cooper suffered a heart attack in the middle of his set on live television.His assistants and viewers back home thought he was making a joke as he slumped over and then writhed on the ground.

Cognito, whose real name was Paul Barbieri, had been performing since the mid-1980s. He won the Time Out Award for Stand-up Comedy in 1999 but never really hit the big time.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday she is trying to get in touch with Rep. Ilhan Omar to discuss her latest attention-getting tweet about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that has drawn new backlash to the freshman Minnesota Democrat.

“I haven’t had the opportunity to speak with her,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said Friday when asked about Omar’s tweet, which has attracted strong criticism. “We tried to reach her, she was in transit.”

Pelosi said she wants to speak to Omar about her tweet questioning then-President George W. Bush’s New York City address to rescue workers at Ground Zero, days after the worst terror attack in American history, in which he declared “The people who knocked down there towers will hear all of us soon.”

Omar tweeted “Was Bush downplaying the terrorist attack? What if he was a Muslim,” under the Bush quote delivered at Ground Zero.

The tweet quickly drew criticism and came just a day after Omar was the subject of a New York Post cover depicting the flaming twin towers and the lawmaker’s comments before a Muslim advocacy group that “some people did something,” on Sept. 11, 2001. The commentwas widely seen as downplaying the significant and horror of a tragedy that claimed nearly 3,000 lives. Omar claimed in the aftermoth of 9/11 Muslim civil liberties had suffered.

Pelosi has yet to comment on Omar’s recent comments and tweets, but plans to respond at some point, she said.

“As is my custom with my colleagues, I call them in before I call them out,” Pelosi said. “I’ll have some comment after I do speak to her.”

A back-and-forth over Twitter about whether Rep. Ilhan Omar had downplayed the significance and horror of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks sparked debate on Capitol Hill this week.

On Friday, she suggested that President George W. Bush would have faced more scrutiny for his comments in the aftermath of the attacks if he were Muslim.

“Was Bush downplaying the terrorist attack?” Omar asked in a tweet sharing an article to the Washington Post. “What if he was a Muslim?”

The Post story included a fact check on Omar’s remarks and said they were reminiscent of President George W. Bush’s “bullhorn speech.”

“The people — and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” Omar said, quoting Bush’s speech.

A video surfaced over the weekend showing Omar referring to the 9/11 hijackers as “some people who did something.”

That speech was met with instant criticism from Republicans and conservative media.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, condemned Omar for trivializing the deadliest terror attack in American history.

“You described an act of terrorism on American soil that killed thousands of innocent lives as ‘some people did something,’” Crenshaw said of Omar in a tweet. “It’s still unbelievable, as is your response here.”

The right-leaning New York Post published a dramatic front page Thursday with the screaming headline “ Here’s your something.”

Former FBI Investigator and now CNN Legal Analyst James Gagliano called Omar’s tweet a “false equivalence”

“President Bush made this statement days after World Trade Center was reduced to rubble, as he stood atop the smoking pile. I was there,” Gagliano said. “We, in FBI, were working to determine involvement in conspiracy, following evidence.”

Omar and other Democratic freshman lawmakers have said that criticizing her for speaking about her experiences as a Muslim American puts her in danger.

Authorities charged a New York man last week with threatening to assassinate Omar.

“I’m not going to quote the NY Post’s horrifying, hateful cover,” tweeted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. “She‘s done more for 9/11 families than the GOP who won’t even support healthcare for 1st responders- yet are happy to weaponize her faith.”

FILE PHOTO: Amit Shah, president of India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party addresses party workers in Ahmedabad
FILE PHOTO: Amit Shah, president of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) addresses party workers in Ahmedabad, India, February 12, 2019. REUTERS/Amit Dave/File Photo

April 12, 2019

By Devjyot Ghoshal

NEW DELHI (Reuters) – The head of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling Hindu nationalist party took his invective against illegal Muslim immigrants to a new level this week as the general election kicked off, promising to throw them into the Bay of Bengal.

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) President Amit Shah referred such illegal immigrants as “termites”, a description he also used last September, when he drew condemnation from rights groups. The U.S. State Department also noted the remark in its annual human rights report.

“Infiltrators are like termites in the soil of Bengal,” Shah said on Thursday at a rally in the eastern state of West Bengal, as voting in India’s 39-day general election started.

“A Bharatiya Janata Party government will pick up infiltrators one by one and throw them into the Bay of Bengal,” he said, referring to illegal immigrants from neighboring Muslim-majority Bangladesh.

Shah nevertheless reiterated the BJP’s stance on giving citizenship to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs from Bangladesh and Pakistan.

India is already working on deporting an estimated 40,000 Rohingya Muslims living in the country after fleeing Buddhist-majority Myanmar. New Delhi considers them a security threat.

The comments from Shah, the right-hand man of Modi, drew criticism from the main opposition Congress party as well as minority groups. On Twitter, some users likened his speech to a suggestion of ethnic cleansing.

“The statement is a direct attack on the identity and integrity of the nation as a secular state,” the Kerala Christian Forum, a group from the southern state, said in a statement. It demanded an apology from Shah.

A BJP spokesman declined to comment on the speech.

Congress spokesman Sanjay Jha said Shah’s remarks were a deliberate attempt to polarize voters along sectarian lines.

“The political business model of the BJP is to raise the communal temperature, keep it at a boil, and to keep India in a permanent religious divide,” Jha said.

(Reporting by Devjyot Ghoshal; Additional reporting by Munsif Vengattil; Editing by Krishna N. Das)

Source: OANN

Considering her qualified apologies following repeated statements in evidence of such a viewpoint, Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., is likely anti-Semitic.

But I do not believe she is being judged fairly for her recent remarks on the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. As the video below shows, Omar told a gathering of the Council on American-Islamic Relations that CAIR was founded after the terrorist attacks “because [CAIR] recognized some people did something and all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”

Many observers are now criticizing Omar. They say her words diminish the 2,977 victims who died on 9/11, and the significance of that day in American history. But I suspect Omar’s intent was not malicious or derisory. Rather, I believe Omar was attempting to draw divergence between her Islamic faith and the al Qaeda fanatics who carried out the 9/11 attacks. When she says that “some people” did it, she meant “some people who are not us” or “not like us,” referring to herself and peaceful, mainstream adherents of Islam in the U.S.

Yes, Omar’s words were poorly chosen. And as my colleague Tiana Lowe aptly observes, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is utterly wrong to support Omar by challenging the patriotism of Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas. Crenshaw is a combat veteran of the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq. He has done a lot more to serve this nation than AOC, Omar, and just about every other member of Congress for that matter.

But I do not believe Omar’s words were designed to deride our fallen fellow citizens. The freshman congresswoman was drawing a positive application of “otherness” with regards to the ideological separation between American Muslims and al Qaeda. While it is true that al Qaeda are Islamic fanatics, it is also understandable why Omar would be frustrated at the damage that the 9/11 attacks did to American perceptions of her faith.

Many Muslims also died on 9/11, and that the vast majority of American Muslims are decent patriots. Maybe I’m wrong, but I think that was her key point: al Qaeda are not us, and their evil should not be used to collectively punish Muslims. You don’t have to approve of CAIR or Omar to appreciate the legitimacy of this idea.

[Related: New York Post cover hits back at Ilhan Omar for 9/11 remarks: ‘Here’s your something’]

Journalist and The Intercept founder Glenn Greenwald went on a Twitter rampage Thursday, excoriating fellow reporters who didn’t denounce the arrest of Julian Assange.

Greenwald tweeted:

“If you’re a US media star who has spent 2 years claiming to be so concerned about press freedoms over Trump’s mean tweets about your friends, but don’t raise your voice in protest over this grave attack on press freedom, take a hard look in the mirror.”

He also blasted reporters who were silent after the Department of Justice announced its hacking accusation against Assange for allegedly helping Chelsea Manning break into a Department of Defense computer.

Greenwald asserted the DOJ is wrong — and it essentially was criminalizing journalism.

Greenwald tweeted:

“The DOJ says part of what Assange did to justify his prosecution – beyond allegedly helping Manning get the documents – is he encouraged Manning to get more docs for him to publish.

“Journalists do this with sources constantly: It’s the criminalization of journalism.”

MSNBC justice and security analyst Matthew Miller, however, countered Greenwald’s argument, leading the pair to debate about whether hacking is a “journalistic technique.”

Greenwald famously reported on U.S. and British global surveillance programs based on documents provided by former National Security Agency contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Source: NewsMax America

The new poll out from Siena College of New York’s 14th Congressional District shows that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is personally popular back home, sporting a 52% favorability rating.

But the poll also shows that her ideas and actions are not so popular — not even in a seat as heavily Democratic as hers. Any strong Democratic candidate with a bit of money and the right message should have a real shot at knocking her off in next year’s primary.

The first part of that message has to be about the Amazon deal. AOC was a minor player in blocking the business and the jobs it would have brought. But her outright opposition to Amazon is something that 57% of her constituents reject — I suspect the same is true of her longstanding opposition to building pretty much anything useful in the area. (It’s kind of amusing to see politicians treat Queens like it’s ANWR.) In fact, 58% of AOC’s constituents want Amazon to reconsider and come back over her objections.

This is, of course, the very issue on which to hit AOC hardest — she turned jobs away from the district she’s supposed to represent. After that, 40% already view her as too inexperienced to represent the district. Forty-three percent believe her views are “too far to the Left.” That can form another bit of the attack: She has these national and ideological ambitions, and her constituents’ interests come in a distant second, even in the event that she actually understands what they are.

As for AOC’s 52% favorability, it’s high, but it won’t take long to knock it down in a local campaign. Attack her actions in office and attack her extremism. Slam her as the camera-happy lightweight she’s proven to be so far in office. Ask if people wouldn’t rather elect someone who isn’t an embarrassment to her district and her party. Point to how AOC humiliated so many of the Democrats’ presidential candidates with her Green New Deal fiasco.

Conservatives would sorely miss AOC if she were to go down in a primary. They haven’t had anyone quite this fun to highlight and run against in some time — Nancy Pelosi doesn’t even come close. AOC has arguably made the careers of some YouTubers on the Right.

But nothing lasts forever. Politics abhors a vacuum, and New York’s 14th is looking pretty empty up there, if only the right person dares go for it.

This week the Bulwark, known for their incredibly critical commentary of President Trump by any means necessary, perhaps went a few steps too far. In two separate pieces by Executive Editor Jonathan V. Last, and Senior Editor Jim Swift, they accuse some Trump supporters — as well as the president himself — of being mentally ill.

In the first article published by Last on April 1, he claimed that pundits and commentators such as Jesse Kelly, Julie Kelly, Alex Jones, Denise McAllister, and Laura Loomer are all crazy, and agrees with Jones on his self-diagnosed psychosis. Last even uses the tweets of a former coworker of McAllister as proof that she exhibits bipolar tendencies.

Perhaps some of these individuals should see a therapist — as should most adults. But I disagree with Last’s central premise. He suggests that because these people support Trump the way that they do, they are mentally incapable, and therefore have nothing worthwhile to contribute to political discourse.

Yes, the ragtag group Last calls out by name could use a giant dose of reality, except for Jesse Kelly, in my opinion (a friend of mine). They travel in the conspiracy-addled circles of politics. Grifters by their own right. But how does calling them mentally unstable help improve the discourse of the country? It does nothing but raise the stigma around mental health and dissuade people who need help from getting it. Rather than using mental health as a bludgeon against an opponent, attack their arguments and ideas. Conserve conservatism.

Jim Swift posted a similar article on April 3, calling the president mentally unwell. His examples include a few slip-ups from Trump: stating his father was born in the wrong country, forgetting his speech was being broadcast, and claiming windmills cause cancer. Not a great week, to be sure. But the biggest problem Swift created within his argument is his opening line: “I regret to inform you of this. Our president is mentally unwell. It does not require a degree in medicine or psychiatry or neurology to make this observation.”

You would not trust a pre-med student to diagnose cancer, nor would you trust a dentist to perform a colonoscopy. Why on Earth would someone armchair-diagnose a politician with a mental illness? Swift would like us all to provide a defense of Trump, but I reject his premise in the first place. Swift does not have a degree in psychiatry, and until he gets one and spends enough time in a clinical setting with Trump to diagnose him, I’m going to say that Swift is causing more harm than the argument is worth.

[Read more: George Conway diagnoses Trump with narcissistic personality disorder]

It’s undeniable that there’s a mental health epidemic in this country. To call people sick for their worship of a political personality for Internet points is certainly not a solution.

I would not have written this a year ago, but my own life circumstances have brutally educated me as to the poor state of mental healthcare and the stigma attached to mental illness in the U.S. It is a horrific and life-changing experience to see someone close to you suffer. Last and Swift imply that the mentally ill have opinions that should never see the light of day, and that just can’t be true. We, as a nation, should not allow that to be true.

Mental health is a deep and serious issue in this country. Every day, 20 veterans commit suicide due to mental health issues. The more we belittle mental health by using it as an attack or a facetious, armchair diagnosis of our political opponents, the less likely people with real problems will seek help. In their quest to call Trump a lousy president, unfit for office, and “mentally unwell,” these gentlemen whom I have a high level of respect for do a grave disservice to those veterans, and to anyone else suffering from mental health concerns.

Raising the stigma levels around treatment is a great way to help precisely zero people. Last and Swift have both railed against grifters on the right who cling to Trump, and I have raised my voice with them. But at what point does it turn into grifting from the other direction?

Alec Sears (@SearsAL) is a writer and political consultant.

Spread the love

During the Oscars, childhood actor Macaulay Culkin tweeted semi cryptic posts about those involved in the Oscars. Below are the screenshots of his tweets. There weren’t many tweets but the few he did post helps further the beliefs that Hollywood is run solely by satanic child predators, racist Anglophobes and anti-conservative leftists.

“Rain Malek Eats Babies”

This tweet speaks for itself. Many people have accused elites (political and Hollywood) of eating babies. There is a belief that elites eat a chemical produced by children who are abused called “adrenochrome”. This chemical gets the abuser or “pedovore” high. For centuries, there are stories of high-powered people drinking the blood of young victims.

1)

This tweet is in reference to director Bryan Singer who has been accused of raping multiple children.

2)

Without naming names, Culkin does confirm that there are many rapists in attendance of the event.

3)

Culkin compares Hudson to R Kelly, who has been accused of raping children. There have been rumors of Hudson being involved in child sex trafficking.

4)

Culkin is referring to a “list” that involves sexual favors that both Crystal and Kimmel have been accused of offering desperate actors in order to advance their career. Culkin makes light of his failed career by saying he’ll perform the “favors” to get the job.

5)

Culkin refers to Adam Levine’s name as an anagram for “mediaeval”. He doesn’t elaborate on what his name means but drops the breadcrumbs for the reader to figure it out.

6)

Culkin refers to the fake Hate crime that took place between Jussie Smollet and two extras from Nigeria. He’s pointing out the leftist stronghold held by Hollywood elites and their encouragement & support of any attack on conservatives. Just don’t get caught.

7)

The last tweet Culkin Made was a jab at the Oscars. He makes it clear that Hollywood is full nobodies who suck the life out of innocent and desperate people for personal gain. While they are so busy harming others with evil deeds, most of America doesn’t care about who they are. Hollywood is a failed industry.

Source: The Washington Pundit

Spread the love

An elderly man was attacked in a supermarket while wearing a MAGA cap, in the latest act of violence and hate towards supporters of President Trump.

The attack occurred at a Shoprite in Somerset, N.J., according to local prosecutors.

The man, whose name has not been released, suffered “minor” injuries, according to NBC 4, a New York-based affiliate of NBC News.

Continue reading here.

Source: The Washington Pundit


[There are no radio stations in the database]