Tag Archives: Jack Cashill

Sometimes The Double Standard Is Glaring

Posted on by

It is quite possible that Don Lemon will not face serious consequences for denying First Amendment rights to church goers. The excuse will be that he is a reporter and wasn’t part of the disruption. That is garbage, but the right jury might buy into it. Let’s contrast that with the treatment of another reporter, David Daleiden.

On Friday, Jack Cashill posted the following on Substack:

While the details of church stormer Don Lemon’s arrest sort themselves out, I thought it would be a good time to remember the active oppression of real journalists doing real work by Democrats, national and local. I could go 10-deep on this story, but one prosecution stands out for its coordinated ruthlessness.

I do not use the term “fascist” lightly, but when even the liberal Los Angeles Times opens an article with a paragraph like the one that follows, I think fascist is apt: “California Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris is drawing fire from supporters of an anti-abortion activist whose undercover videos and identity cards were seized by the state Department of Justice this week after Harris’ political campaign sought to drum up support for Planned Parenthood.”

The activist was David Daleiden. In April 2016, California authorities raided his Huntington Beach apartment. At the time, Harris was running for California’s open U.S. Senate seat. Her campaign website was asking supporters “to take a stand and join Kamala in defending Planned Parenthood.” In the course of Planned Parenthood’s history no one had presented a greater threat to the organization’s federal funding and public support than Daleiden and his partner Sandra Merritt.

In 2013, the then 24-year-old Daleiden launched the most sustained and effective undercover journalism project in decades. Working through a journalistic entity of his own creation, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), he and Merritt learned the language and the mechanics of the fetal tissue procurement business and went to work.

The article concludes:

In 2017, Harris’s successor as attorney general, Xavier Becerra, filed 15 felony charges against Daleiden and Merritt and tied them up in court for the next eight years. In May 2020, Daleiden filed suit against Becerra and Harris, claiming Harris violated his civil rights by conspiring with Planned Parenthood to silence him.

In 2025, after nine years of politically-driven lawfare, the State of California essentially dropped all charges against Daleiden and Merritt. The damage, however, had been done. With the pair silenced, the baby parts industry continued on its barbaric way.

In the Democrats’ America, killing and dismembering unborn babies and marketing their body parts is perfectly acceptable. Reporting on the practice is criminal. If that is not fascistic, I am not sure I know what is.

Unfortunately, the uncivilized practice of selling aborted baby body parts continues.

Remembering Some Not-So-Recent History

Posted on by

There has been a lot of noise lately about the fact that Jimmy Kimmel was not on the air for a few days. There are still a few stations that have chosen not to air his late-night show. Considering the ratings of the show, I do wonder how long he will remain on the air. However, there has also been a lot said about the ‘tyranny’ of the Trump administration in wanting his show to go away. Hollywood has been very vocal about protecting their right to free speech. However, they have not been consistent.

On Wednesday, Jack Cashill posted an article at Substack reminding us of some of Hollywood’s not-so-recent history.

The article reports:

Those of us who know even a little recent history can only snicker at the CNN headline, “Jennifer Aniston, Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks join 400 artists to back Jimmy Kimmel against ‘government threats.’” To “back” here meant signing an ACLU letter. Such bravery!

The letter reads, “We the people must never accept government threats to our freedom of speech. Efforts by leaders to pressure artists, journalists, and companies with retaliation for their speech strike at the heart of what it means to live in a free country.”

Although I agree with the sentiment, I am astonished anew at Hollywood’s selective outrage. They sat in silence these past four years while the Biden administration used every lever of power to silence critics on the internet, even to the point of imprisonment. Those offenses they could pretend not to notice, not so the hunt through the Hollywood Hills in 2012 for filmmaker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a hunt that the media gleefully joined.

Just three days after the September 11, 2012, disaster in Benghazi, the New York Times Ian Lovett reported that the feds were inquiring into whether Nakoula “had been the person who uploaded the video to YouTube.” The video was actually a 14-minute trailer for a proposed film titled, “The Innocence of Muslims.”

Nakoula was eventually arrested on September 15, just four days after the Benghazi attack, and held him in secret without charge or without access to an attorney.

The article notes:

Nakoula was vulnerable. He was on parole for his involvement in a check-kiting scheme. Even more worrisome, he had quietly cooperated with the feds and fingered the scheme’s ringleader.

Less than 48 hours after Secretary of State Clinton first alluded to Nakoula’s video, someone in the Obama administration had unsealed the indictment and exposed Nakoula to retaliation. “Why did the government release the deal?” Nakoula asked me when I first spoke to him after his release from prison. “Why did they put my life in danger?”

They put his life in danger because they knew they could get away with it. With Nakoula silenced, they could perpetuate the lie that the attack on the consulate in Benghazi was not a result of the administration’s disastrous policies but of a spontaneous protest inspired by Nakoula’s “hateful” film trailer.

No one’s life was endangered by taking Jimmy Kimmel off the air for a few days. Spare me your outrage when you kept quiet while an American citizen’s civil rights were totally violated to protect a false narrative created by the Obama administration. That also happened on January 6th, 2021, but the truth on that has not totally been revealed. Stay tuned.

A Short History Lesson

Posted on by

The Democrat party is asking that every person who is in America be given a court trial before they are deported. I assume that includes major criminals as well as those who simply broke the law getting here. The Democrats have not always felt that way.

On Friday, Jack Cashill posted an article at Substack reminding us of some not-so-distant history. The article deals with the case of six-year-old Elian Gonzalez, whose mother died while trying to bring him to America. Elian was found floating in an inner tube on Thanksgiving Day, 1999, by two fishermen who rescued him and brought him to his relatives in Miami. Because the Clinton administration was trying to be nice to Fidel Castro (to prevent Castro from sending criminals to America), the administration immediately took action to take Elian away from his American relatives.

The article reports:

On Easter Saturday, April 22, 2000, heavily armed federal agents seized six-year-old Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint from a closet in his uncle’s Miami home where he had been hiding.

…Almost from day one the Clinton White House did everything in its power—and outside its power—to send Elian back to Cuba. Google AI, an aggregator of mainstream reporting, sums up the case:

“Attorney General Janet Reno and later the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, disagreed with a court ruling and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) determination regarding the case. They determined that Elian should be returned to his father in Cuba, overriding the court and INS’s decisions. Specifically, Holder later claimed he didn’t need a court order to make this decision, stating that he believed the court and INS rulings were invalid.” Overriding? Didn’t need a court order? Invalid? Interesting.

Not surprisingly, Holder, who was Reno’s Deputy Attorney General, has a much softer spot in his heart for MS-13 gangbanger Kilmar Abrego Garcia than he did for Elian. Speaking with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, he called Trump’s treatment of Garcia “disgusting, shameful.” This new found champion of due process urged viewers to “stand up and fight now,” adding, “There’s a treadmill that we’re potentially getting on here that could result in the erosion of rights for American citizens.”

The article concludes:

Until April 22, 2000, Gore was the odds-on favorite to win the presidency. In 1996, Clinton had won Florida by a comfortable margin. Gore expected to do the same, but the raid on Elian’s Miami home reminded those Cuban-Americans drifting to the left that Democrats were not necessarily their friends.

The shift in their vote gave George W. Bush just enough margin to be declared the winner by the U.S. Supreme Court. If I remember right, the Democrats did not exactly applaud that bit of due process, now did they?

The history of the Democrats is that they would send a young child back to a country run by a tyrannical dictator and keep a proven gang member in America. It makes no sense to me.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. The maneuvering that the Clinton administration was willing to go through to deport Elian is amazing.