United Airlines has gotten a pretty bad rap over the past few years. And to be quite honest, they deserve it. So, what they really need is someone who can turn PR lead into PR gold. Which is why they’ve hired … Josh Earnest?
United Airlines has hired Josh Earnest, President Barack Obama’s former press secretary, as its chief communications officer and senior vice president, the airline announced Thursday morning.
“Josh is a proven leader and world-class communications strategist who has thrived when the stakes are the highest — and the margin for error is the smallest. He’ll play a crucial role on our leadership team as we position our brand and this company for success,” United CEO Oscar Munoz said in a press release.
United said Earnest’s two decades of working in strategic communications and representing the White House to the media during his eight-year tenure indicate he will be able to “shape the airline’s public image.”
Josh Earnest going to United will be all the proof conservatives need to reconfirm that the Obama administration was staffed by multiple clones of the devil incarnate.
A new Project Veritas video revealed a New Jersey teacher’s union president admitting a cover up to protect a teacher who allegedly had sex with a student.
The video, released on Wednesday, is part of a series of undercover videos of teachers unions from around the country that will reportedly be released by Project Veritas in the coming weeks. The new release comes in the wake of the suspension of Hamilton Township Education Association President Dr. David Perry who was caught on video saying he would cover up physical abuse of a student by a teacher.
Union City Education Association President, Kathleen Valencia, appeared in the March 27th 2018 video recorded at the Union City Education Association office, as she explained why there would be no reprimand for a teacher who bruised a student in school.
“Did the kid’s parent come in? No? Nothing happened… There’s no video? Nothing happened… [The teacher] is fine,” she said.
“I’m going to get your brother a lawyer. Your brother’s not going to admit anything happened. The only witness is the scumbag kid… he’s got a record,” Valenica told the undercover Veritas journalist who was posing as the family member of a fictitious teacher.
When asked if other incidents have occurred that have had to be covered to protect the teachers, Valencia pointed to a file on her desk.
“This file right here is from a teacher who had sex with a student,” she said. “You know what this whole file is about? It’s about whether or not the teacher gets to keep their pension. Sex with a teenage girl. Is he going to jail? No. How come? Because the child’s not pressing charges. They have no proof there was sex.”
Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe called for the Union City Education Association to reveal the identity of the teacher it is protecting instead of protecting children.
The first video in the series involved a man identified as HTEA President David R. Perry telling the undercover Veritas journalist how he would “bend the truth” about an incident involving a teacher hurting a student. The incident was fabricated but Perry said the teacher should come to him and tell him “the truth” adding that he could change the date of any records and play down the incident.
“I need to know the truth, so that we can bend the truth,” he said in the video. “If nobody brings it up from (the) school, I don’t say boo.
“I’m here to defend even the worst people,” he added.
O’Keefe personally confronted Perry about the undercover video.
“I said, what we do is we help people,” Perry said in the second video. “And what they do wrong, they deserve their punishment.”
Perry was suspended as a result of the video, NJ.com reported.
“The true beliefs and values of this school district are not represented in this video and are not aligned with who we are as faculty, staff, administration, and community,” Hamilton Township Superintendent Scott Rocco said in a statement Wednesday.
Michelle Malkin praised O’Keefe and his organization for lifting “the rug so we can se how the cockroaches operate,” during a radio segment on the Sean Hannity Show on Wednesday. O’Keefe noted the problem is “systemic” and more videos would be coming.
“Any and all parents should be paying attention. This union would rather protect their teachers than their students,” he said.
We know first-hand that censorship against conservative news is real. Please share stories and encourage your friends to sign up for our daily email blast so they are not getting shut out of seeing conservative news.
The recent huge omnibus spending bill and growing interest rates are slowing the economy while creating a “false dawn,” according to former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who added the nation’s fiscal system is “out of whack.”
Imagine your own beloved child was lying in a hospital with a mysterious brain disease. Should you, as the parent, be allowed to decide whether to continue treatment for your son or daughter? Or should the state have the power to overrule you and cut off life support over your objections?
The vast majority of Americans say the final decision should be left with parents. That’s because, under our system, the purpose of the state is to protect our inalienable rights to life and liberty. But in Britain, it seems, the state has the power to trample life and liberty and condemn a disabled child to death.
A woman looks at flowers, candles and childrens’ toys left as a memorial to Alfie Evans, the 23-month-old toddler who died a week after his life support was withdrawn, outside Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool, Britain, April 28, 2018. Reuters
That is precisely what the British High Court of Justice did in the case of Alfie Evans, a little boy who suffered from a rapidly progressive terminal brain disease. Doctors at London’s Alder Hey Children’s Hospital concluded that further treatment was futile and asked the court — over his parents’ objections — to order the removal of his ventilator. Alfie’s parents pleaded for permission to transfer him to Bambino Gesù Pediatric Hospital in Rome, where doctors had agreed to take over his treatment at no cost. Pope Francis had arranged free medical transport, and the Italian government had granted Alfie citizenship to facilitate his transfer. A hospital in Munich had also offered to relieve British doctors of the burden of caring for Alfie.
But the court ruled that it was in Alfie’s “best interests” to die. Doctors had told the court he might “be able to muster just a handful of breaths and survive just a few minutes if ventilation were completely stopped.” In fact, he kept fighting to live for five full days without life support. A phalanx of police officers was posted outside his hospital, holding the child hostage in order to ensure that his mom and dad did not try to take him away while the death sentence was carried out.
This is, quite simply, tyrannical. It is one thing for a judge to decide that British taxpayers should not have to bear the cost of what doctors in its national health service have concluded is futile treatment. Under a single-payer system, resources are limited and care is rationed (which is why we don’t want socialized medicine here in America). But where does a British court get the right to deny the child life-extending treatment abroad when someone else is willing to pay for it? Who gave the British state the right to determine what kind of life is worth living and for how long?
Diabolically, High Court Justice Anthony Hayden actually cited the pope in justifying his decision to end Alfie’s life, quoting out-of-context a speech Francis gave in which he warned against “the temptation to insist on treatments that have powerful effects on the body, yet at times do not serve the integral good of the person.” But Francis also declared in that speech that decisions about whether to continue treatment “should be made by the patient.” Nowhere did he say such decisions should be made by the state. And indeed, the pontiff made clear he stood with Alfie’s parents, tweeting, “I renew my appeal that the suffering of his parents may be heard and that their desire to seek new forms of treatment may be granted.” For the British High Court to twist the pope’s words to justify killing a little boy is monstrous.
The culture of death is on the march across Europe. CBS News recently reported that Iceland was on the verge of “eliminating” Down syndrome, not by some medical miracle but because the country’s abortion rate for Down syndrome babies is close to 100 percent. Now, with Alfie Evans and previously Charlie Gard, British courts have ordered the death of disabled children over the objections of parents.
That is barbaric. Nikolaus Haas, a German physician who had offered to take over Alfie’s care, told the court, “Because of our history in Germany, we’ve learned that there are some things you just don’t do with severely handicapped children. A society must be prepared to look after these severely handicapped children and not decide that life support has to be withdrawn against the will of the parents.” Hayden declared this “inflammatory.” In fact, the comparison is spot on. London survived the Blitz to stop the advance of a regime bent on the eugenic killing of, among others, the handicapped. Now Britain has such a regime anyway, by self-imposed judicial fiat.
Unless Americans are vigilant, it is only a matter of time before it happens here.
Rudy Giuliani dropped what many are calling a bombshell during an interview on Fox News Channel’s Hannity, saying that President Donald Trump paid back his personal attorney, Michael Cohen, the $130,000 paid to porn star Stormy Daniels.
And while Giuliani was adamant that the pay off didn’t involve campaign money, the revelation sent the left into a frenzy because Trump stated on April 6 that he was not aware of the payment — even Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, a former defense attorney, said “that’s a problem,” but is there a simple explanation that’s being missed?
In a panel discussion Wednesday night on FNC’s The Ingraham Angle, contributor Byron York suggested that Giuliani “may not have thought this whole thing through,” prompting an interesting reply from Ingraham.
“If you go on ‘Hannity,’ you better think it through,” she said. “I love Rudy, but they better have an explanation for that, that’s a problem.”
Giuliani told Hannity that the $130,000 payment was “perfectly legal.”
“That money was not campaign money, sorry,” he claimed. “I’m giving you a fact now that you don’t know. It’s not campaign money. No campaign finance violation.”
When Hannity asked if this was because the money was “funneled” through Cohen’s law firm, the former mayor said, “Funneled it through the law firm, and the President repaid him.”
But Giuliani would also say Trump “didn’t know the specifics” of the payment.
Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., a participant on Ingraham’s panel, had a ready explanation that proved to be much closer to the truth, based on a later clarification by Giuliani.
“I don’t think somebody with President Trump’s income level writes all of his checks, you know what I mean?” he told Ingraham. “It would not surprise me if he authorized a payment and it gets lost in the shuffle. I know that sounds crazy perhaps on a certain level but here’s a guy with a massive income and he’s dealing with a lot of things.”
In a later interview with the Washington Post, Giuliani insisted the disclosure was no gaffe, saying he discussed it with Trump beforehand.
With the anti-Trump forces whipped into a lather over the possibility that Trump has been caught in a lie, Giuliani added more context to his comment with Fox News’ John Roberts — which is being described as “damage control” by the media.
“Rudy Giuliani told me that while @realDonaldTrump reimbursed Cohen for the $130k SD payment, POTUS didn’t know what the money was used for. Giuliani says Cohen merely told the President he had “expenses” for which POTUS reimbursed him,” Roberts tweeted.
Rudy Giuliani told me that while @realDonaldTrump reimbursed Cohen for the $130k SD payment, POTUS didn’t know what the money was used for. Giuliani says Cohen merely told the President he had “expenses” for which POTUS reimbursed him.