The New Yorker’s new blockbuster piece exposing the ‘echo chamber’ conspiracy memo only helps prove the document’s contention.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans deserve special credit for removing politicians with credible charges of rape, abuse, or criminality leveled at them.
Evidently, Dan Piepenbring can’t understand why Chick-fil-A is so popular with New York City residents, given the city’s progressive political and social leanings.
Liberals can’t stand the success of a Christian-run company selling folks fried chicken sandwiches successfully with a smile.
Liberals aren’t peddling typical political euphemisms. They are corroding language, and we shouldn’t allow it to be normalized.
The New Yorker, along with many other ‘mainstream media’ publications, obfuscates the truth in subtle ways. Here we’ll focus on anonymous sources.
One does not have to have read the Clarence Thomas canon, like I have, to know that Jeffrey Toobin’s recent article in The New Yorker is nonsense.
Reminder: The Clintons are the kind of people who would use the execution of a mentally disabled man to distract from an extramarital affair.
College students from Baylor to Oberlin are right: they’re being exploited and oppressed. They’re just aiming their fire at the wrong part of the system.
Larry Taunton’s recollections of Christopher Hitchens’ struggles with Christianity are not the unprovable fancies of a manipulative evangelist making up a story to appease insecure evangelicals.
In discussing the Hurricane Katrina victims who left New Orleans, Malcolm Gladwell ignores a major factor contributing to modern U.S. poverty.
The only thing that’s inevitable in politics is crushing disappointment. So you might as well be entertained.
The New Yorker magazine this week tries to airbrush away the diversity of the GOP field. Next time they should try to be a tad more subtle about it.
Liberals love America’s checks and balances when the system works for them. But just let courts interfere, and they’re immediately illegitimate.
At some point, Americans just decided they were going to be offended by everything. And that really offends me.
Imagine if Lena Dunham had insinuated that a Muslim or a black boyfriend was indistinguishable from a dog. So why is it okay to imply that about Jews?
MSNBC’s audience is less liberal than that of the New York Times, Politico, NPR or Washington Post. Hate-watching can’t explain it all. What’s the reason?
Why would those we’d expect to march in a transgender rainbow parade rain on it instead?
- Will Unleashing Kavanaugh’s Accuser Suck Away Democrats’ Midterm ‘Blue Wave’?If Christine Blasey Ford doesn’t show up to Monday’continue reading >
- Whatever Happens To Kavanaugh, Feinstein Got Exactly What She WantedDianne Feinstein, who rose to the Senate in the originacontinue reading >
- There’s No Reason To Delay The Kavanaugh Vote Any FurtherIf Christine Ford doesn’t show up on Monday in front continue reading >