Three Things You Need to Know - December 14, 2017

December 14, 2017

Writer

The Justice System Has Been Politicized

Shady meetings in high-level offices, off the books burner phones to hide communications, and whispers of a coup. These plot lines sound like they’re ripped straight out of a late night ID channel espionage series: “Case Files of the KGB”... or something like that. In reality, everything I just described was going inside the hallowed halls of the FBI.

It was reported last week that the former second-in-command of counterintelligence at the FBI had been relieved from the Muller investigation due to a series of anti-Trump text messages. At first - to be honest - this seemed kind of eye roll worthy. I mean, who hasn’t sent a few ant-Trump text messages? Even if you’re fully in the President’s corner - come on - I KNOW you’ve sent at least ONE text saying, “crap I wish he wouldn’t have tweeted that.” That’s really all I was expecting to see here.

On Tuesday night, 375 of the 10,000 text messages were released to the press. Many of them, as expected, were just kind of stupid. Sure there’s a clear disdain for Trump and admiration for Hillary Clinton, but there’s a big difference in having a political opinion versus showing bias in an investigation. That was the vibe Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was giving to Congress yesterday and that’s primarily how the mainstream media is reporting it.

So that’s that… well, not quite. I kept scanning through the meaningless texts until I came across this one. It says quote:

“So look, you say we text on that phone when we talk about Hillary because it can’t be traced…”

Ok, that sounded a little bad. What could they possibly be discussing about Hillary that requires them to hide their communications? Maybe the fact that this FBI agent was the one that doctored Comey’s Clinton statement to help her avoid indictment? I mean I’m just guessing here… let’s read on.

Ok, there’s an “Eff Trump”... yadda yadda yadda… “Congrats on a woman nominated for President”... wait, what’s this:

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office - that there’s no way Trump gets elected - but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’ like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

Is that what I think it is, because it sounds an awful lot like the second-in-command of counterintelligence - who was working on both the Clinton investigation AND the Trump/Russia investigation - was making plans with a colleague to undermine Donald Trump. Oh yeah, and the office referenced in the text - “Andy’s” - was likely Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s.

I’m sorry, but this isn’t a case of a little harmless “political preference”, this sounds like bias with the intent to conspire against a then-presidential candidate. How far did this plot go? At this point we need a Special Counsel… to investigate the Special Counsel.

Rotten Apples in the Movie Biz

Have you heard of the new movie review website called Rotten Apples?

Not Rotten Tomatoes – that’s the one people use to try to convince each other to see a movie. “But honey, it got 92% on Rotten Tomatoes. It must be really good.”

Rotten Apples isn’t like that. It really boils things down for the movie, or TV show consumer. You type in any title and it gives you an instant rating, either “Fresh Apples” or “Rotten Apples.”

It’s a website that really addresses current needs. It’s very of-the-moment, you might even say it’s very #MeToo… because that is exactly what inspired it.

You see, Rotten Apples is a brand-new website that tells you if anyone involved in a movie or show has been accused of sexual misconduct. Notice I said accused of. It’s not a criminal database. And no, I’m not making this up.

If you type in a movie title and no one’s been accused of anything, the page reads “Fresh Apples – This movie has no known affiliation to anyone with allegations of sexual misconduct against them.”

If you type in a show like House of Cards, however, the page reads “Rotten Apples” followed by the name of the person accused. If you click on the name, it links to an article from another media source about the allegations against that person.

The team of four – two males, two females – who created the site, say it’s not meant to incite boycotts of movies or shows, but to help people make “ethical media consumption decisions.”

Wow. This site just launched on Tuesday. It’s so new, I’m not even sure what to think of it yet. Is this another example of the internet keeping an industry honest – like travel or restaurant review sites? Could something like this actually help keep Hollywood predators at bay?

Or, is this website a one-way ticket to libel town since it’s based on accusations?

Regardless, it’s kind of a suspenseful game, to type in your favorite movies and shows, cross your fingers, and hope your childhood isn’t ruined by finding out your hero is a total creep. The results can be surprising. Or not.

Whatever you do, just don’t type in Home Alone 2. Under any circumstances. Or The Little Rascals. Trust me. Just don’t type those in.

Harvey Weinstein Was Salma Hayek's #MeToo Monster

“I will kill you, don’t think I can’t.”

Those are the cruel words Harvey Weinstein reportedly said to Salma Hayek.

The actress is the latest and one of the most high-profile women to share her frightening experience with Weinstein.

In a shocking essay published by the New York Times, Hayek detailed her hellish encounters with the disgraced producer.

She met Weinstein when she approached his company Miramax to help finance and distribute her film, Frida.

He agreed, but his involvement came with a hefty price: her mental and physical wellbeing.

She claims that Weinstein repeatedly stalked her and asked for sexual favors.

When she declined his advances in private, he made a demand for a sex scene in the film with her co-star, Ashley Judd, who was also harassed by Weinstein. An emotionally battered Hayek begrudgingly agreed because the future of the film was at stake.

Frida went on to win Two Academy Awards.

But Hayek clearly lost when she partnered with Weinstein. After reading her essay, it’s clear he made the most important experience of her career a living hell.

Salma Hayek will not be the last person to add to the mountain of allegations against Weinstein, but her account is noteworthy because it draws the line between Weinstein and the other men accused of sexual misconduct. It’s clear Weinstein is in a league of his own.

MORE 3 THINGS

Could China OWN our National Parks?

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

EXPOSED: Why the left’s trans agenda just CRASHED at SCOTUS

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

You never know what you’re going to get with the U.S. Supreme Court these days.

For all of the Left’s insane panic over having six supposedly conservative justices on the court, the decisions have been much more of a mixed bag. But thank God – sincerely – there was a seismic win for common sense at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It’s a win for American children, parents, and for truth itself.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s state ban on irreversible transgender procedures for minors.

The mostly conservative justices stood tall in this case, while Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson predictably dissented. This isn’t just Tennessee’s victory – 20 other red states that have similar bans can now breathe easier, knowing they can protect vulnerable children from these sick, experimental, life-altering procedures.

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying Tennessee’s law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. It’s rooted in a very simple truth that common sense Americans get: kids cannot consent to permanent damage. The science backs this up – Norway, Finland, and the UK have all sounded alarms about the lack of evidence for so-called “gender-affirming care.” The Trump administration’s recent HHS report shredded the activist claims that these treatments help kids’ mental health. Nothing about this is “healthcare.” It is absolute harm.

The Left, the ACLU, and the Biden DOJ screamed “discrimination” and tried to twist the Constitution to force this radical ideology on our kids.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court saw through it this time. In her concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett nailed it: gender identity is not some fixed, immutable trait like race or sex. Detransitioners are speaking out, regretting the surgeries and hormones they were rushed into as teens. WPATH – the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the supposed experts on this, knew that kids cannot fully grasp this decision, and their own leaked documents prove that they knew it. But they pushed operations and treatments on kids anyway.

This decision is about protecting the innocent from a dangerous ideology that denies biology and reality. Tennessee’s Attorney General calls this a “landmark victory in defense of America’s children.” He’s right. This time at least, the Supreme Court refused to let judicial activism steal our kids’ futures. Now every state needs to follow Tennessee’s lead on this, and maybe the tide will continue to turn.

Insider alert: Glenn’s audience EXPOSES the riots’ dark truth

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

Glenn asked for YOUR take on the Los Angeles anti-ICE riots, and YOU responded with a thunderous verdict. Your answers to our recent Glennbeck.com poll cut through the establishment’s haze, revealing a profound skepticism of their narrative.

The results are undeniable: 98% of you believe taxpayer-funded NGOs are bankrolling these riots, a bold rejection of the claim that these are grassroots protests. Meanwhile, 99% dismiss the mainstream media’s coverage as woefully inadequate—can the official story survive such resounding doubt? And 99% of you view the involvement of socialist and Islamist groups as a growing threat to national security, signaling alarm at what Glenn calls a coordinated “Color Revolution” lurking beneath the surface.

You also stand firmly with decisive action: 99% support President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to quell the chaos. These numbers defy the elite’s tired excuses and reflect a demand for truth and accountability. Are your tax dollars being weaponized to destabilize America? You’ve answered with conviction.

Your voice sends a powerful message to those who dismiss the unrest as mere “protests.” You spoke, and Glenn listened. Keep shaping the conversation at Glennbeck.com.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

EXPOSED: Your tax dollars FUND Marxist riots in LA

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

Protesters wore Che shirts, waved foreign flags, and chanted Marxist slogans — but corporate media still peddles the ‘spontaneous outrage’ narrative.

I sat in front of the television this weekend, watching the glittering spectacle of corporate media do what it does best: tell me not to believe my lying eyes.

According to the polished news anchors, what I was witnessing in Los Angeles was “mostly peaceful protests.” They said it with all the earnest gravitas of someone reading a bedtime story, while behind them the streets looked like a deleted scene from “Mad Max.” Federal agents dodged concrete slabs as if it were an Olympic sport. A man in a Che Guevara crop top tried to set a police car on fire. Dumpster fires lit the night sky like some sort of postapocalyptic luau.

If you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

But sure, it was peaceful. Tear gas clouds and Molotov cocktails are apparently the incense and candles of this new civic religion.

The media expects us to play along — to nod solemnly while cities burn and to call it “activism.”

Let’s call this what it is: delusion.

Another ‘peaceful’ riot

If the Titanic “mostly floated” and the Hindenburg “mostly flew,” then yes, the latest L.A. riots are “mostly peaceful.” But history tends to care about those tiny details at the end — like icebergs and explosions.

The coverage was full of phrases like “spontaneous,” “grassroots,” and “organic,” as if these protests materialized from thin air. But many of the signs and banners looked like they’d been run off at ComradesKinkos.com — crisp print jobs with slogans promoting socialism, communism, and various anti-American regimes. Palestinian flags waved beside banners from Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, and El Salvador. It was like someone looted a United Nations souvenir shop and turned it into a revolution starter pack.

And guess who funded it? You did.

According to at least one report, much of this so-called spontaneous rage fest was paid for with your tax dollars. Tens of millions of dollars from the Biden administration ensured your paycheck funded Trotsky cosplayers chucking firebombs at local coffee shops.

The same aging radicals from the 1970s — now armed with tenure, pensions, and book deals — are cheering from the sidelines, waxing poetic about how burning a squad car is “liberation.” These are the same folks who once wore tie-dye and flew to help guerrilla fighters and now applaud chaos under the banner of “progress.”

This is not progress. It is not protest. It’s certainly not justice or peace.

It’s an attempt to dismantle the American system — and if you dare say that out loud, you’re labeled a bigot, a fascist, or, worst of all, someone who notices reality.

And what sparked this taxpayer-funded riot? Enforcement against illegal immigrants — many of whom, according to official arrest records, are repeat violent offenders. These are not the “dreamers” or the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. These are criminals with long, violent rap sheets — allowed to remain free by a broken system that prioritizes ideology over public safety.

Photo by Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg | Getty Images

This is what people are rioting over — not the mistreatment of the innocent, but the arrest of the guilty. And in California, that’s apparently a cause for outrage.

The average American, according to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, is supposed to worry they’ll be next. But unless you’re in the habit of assaulting people, smuggling, or firing guns into people’s homes, you probably don’t have much to fear.

Still, if you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

The left has lost it

This is what happens when a culture loses its grip on reality. We begin to call arson “art,” lawlessness “liberation,” and criminals “community members.” We burn the good and excuse the evil — all while the media insists it’s just “vibes.”

But it’s not just vibes. It’s violence, paid for by you, endorsed by your elected officials, and whitewashed by newsrooms with more concern for hair and lighting than for truth.

This isn’t activism. This is anarchism. And Democratic politicians are fueling the flame.