westernjournal--2020-02-11--Trump Cuts New Hampshire Rally Short To Attend Ceremony for Two Fallen Soldiers

President Donald Trump wrapped up his re-election campaign rally in New Hampshire early Monday so he could attend a dignified transfer ceremony for two fallen U.S. Army soldiers .
After touting job growth , gun rights and his tough stance on immigration , Trump quickly finished his speech in an hour in “ a rare display of brevity and punctuality , ” Politico reported .
National Security Adviser Robert O ’ Brien told reporters that the president cut the rally short and traveled to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to visit with the families of the soldiers who were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox News .
“ These are terrible sacrifices for the families .
And these guys are heroes , they ’ re real warriors and did a great job for the American people , ” O ’ Brien said .
“ These are tough times .
It ’ s tough for the president , but he thinks it ’ s important to be there for the families and recognize them.
” TRENDING : Nearly 3 Years Later , FBI Director Admits Surveillance of Carter Page Was Illegal The soldiers were identified as Sgt .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
1st Class Antonio Rey Rodriguez .
Six other U.S. soldiers were wounded in the attack in eastern Afghanistan .
Both Gutierrez and Rodriguez were 28 .
“ Sgt .
1st Class Gutierrez was a warrior that exemplified selfless service and a commitment to the mission , both values that we embody here in the 7th Special Forces Group , ” Col. John W. Sannes said in a statement , according to Fox News .
“ Our priority now is to take care of his family and teammates , we will provide the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times.
” Sannes also delivered a statement about Rodriguez , saying that he was “ among the best in our unit.
” “ Sgt .
1st Class Rodriguez was selfless and served honorably ; he was certainly among the best in our unit , ” he said .
RELATED : Governor of New Hampshire Says Trump Will Win His State in General Election “ Here at the Red Empire , we take care of our own , and Sgt .
1st Class Rodriguez ’ family will forever be a part of us , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can to help them through these trying times.
” The two fallen soldiers were posthumously awarded the Bronze Star Medal and Purple Heart and promoted to sergeant 1st class .
Six U.S. service members have been killed in Afghanistan in 2020 .
Last year , 20 service members were killed in action .
Saturday ’ s attack remains under investigation .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

President Donald Trump wrapped up his re-election campaign rally in New Hampshire early Monday so he could attend a dignified transfer ceremony for two fallen U.S. Army soldiers.
After touting job growth, gun rights and his tough stance on immigration, Trump quickly finished his speech in an hour in “a rare display of brevity and punctuality,” Politico reported.
National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien told reporters that the president cut the rally short and traveled to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to visit with the families of the soldiers who were killed Saturday in Afghanistan, according to Fox News.
“These are terrible sacrifices for the families. And these guys are heroes, they’re real warriors and did a great job for the American people,” O’Brien said.
“These are tough times. It’s tough for the president, but he thinks it’s important to be there for the families and recognize them.”
Vice President Mike Pence joined Trump at the dignified transfer ceremony.
WH says Pres Trump cut short his campaign speech in New Hampshire last night in order to attend the Dignified Transfer ceremony. pic.twitter.com/J9OvGrN4mi — Mark Knoller (@markknoller) February 11, 2020
The soldiers were identified as Sgt. 1st Class Javier Jaguar Gutierrez and Sgt. 1st Class Antonio Rey Rodriguez. Six other U.S. soldiers were wounded in the attack in eastern Afghanistan.
Are you proud of the president for honoring these soldiers and their families? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 100% (3622 Votes) No: 0% (2 Votes)
Both Gutierrez and Rodriguez were 28.
“Sgt. 1st Class Gutierrez was a warrior that exemplified selfless service and a commitment to the mission, both values that we embody here in the 7th Special Forces Group,” Col. John W. Sannes said in a statement, according to Fox News.
“Our priority now is to take care of his family and teammates, we will provide the best possible care possible during these trying times.”
Sannes also delivered a statement about Rodriguez, saying that he was “among the best in our unit.”
“Sgt. 1st Class Rodriguez was selfless and served honorably; he was certainly among the best in our unit,” he said.
“Here at the Red Empire, we take care of our own, and Sgt. 1st Class Rodriguez’ family will forever be a part of us, we will assist them in any way we can to help them through these trying times.”
A most solemn moments last night at Dover AFB as @POTUS and @VP salute the dignified transfer of two US soldiers killed Saturday in combat ops in Afghanistan:
-Sgt 1st Class Javier Jaguar Gutierrez, 28, San Antonio
-Sgt 1st Class Antonio Rey Rodriguez, 28, Las Cruces pic.twitter.com/1GXj9T5bO2 — Mark Knoller (@markknoller) February 11, 2020
The two fallen soldiers were posthumously awarded the Bronze Star Medal and Purple Heart and promoted to sergeant 1st class.
Six U.S. service members have been killed in Afghanistan in 2020. Last year, 20 service members were killed in action. Saturday’s attack remains under investigation.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-02-11--Cali Considering Another Travel Ban, This One Targeting Trump Hotels

The state of California doesn ’ t like Republicans .
With plenty of problems to solve — what with a mass demographic exodus and a huge homelessness problem — the Golden State nevertheless decided to take some time out in 2016 to prohibit official state travel to states that have laws it deems to be anti-LGBT .
The imminent collapse of these states , if indeed such a condition is to be induced , has yet to be reported .
Undaunted , state Assemblyman Evan Low — from Silicon Valley , because of course — plans to strike at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Low introduced a bill that flew under the radar as the impeachment of President Donald Trump raged on .
The legislation “ would prohibit taxpayers from funding or reimbursing state employees ’ travel and lodging expenses at businesses owned by current or former Presidents of the United States.
” Low , according to The Sacramento Bee , is also the author of the 2016 travel ban , so this is clearly a man with a history of efficacious legislation in this department .
TRENDING : Nearly 3 Years Later , FBI Director Admits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Public officials , at any level , should not profit off the constituents that they were elected to serve and represent , ” the assemblyman said in a statement .
“ No branch of government is above the Constitution , and this legislation will ensure that California taxpayers are not further exploited by Donald Trump ’ s violations of the emoluments clause , ” he said .
“ Further exploited ” is an interesting way of putting it .
As Fox News dryly noted in its report , Trump properties “ are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially since the average going rate for a room at one of his resorts far exceeds the $ 90 per night state employees are authorized to spend on a hotel room .
“ Since 2016 , only one state worker has booked a stay at a Trump hotel through the state ’ s contracted travel agency or its online booking tool , according to the Department of General Services.
” This doesn ’ t mean the hotels aren ’ t popular with individuals from other states — usually Republican , and usually of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s hotels and resorts are frequented by lawmakers and officials from other states , with 47 state officials — including 20 Republican governors — making 64 visits to Trump properties since the president took office and at least 90 members of Congress visiting his properties 188 times since January 2017 , ” Fox reported .
And Assemblyman Low ’ s bill will address absolutely none of that .
Nor is this a case of Republicans flouting the emoluments clause of the Constitution .
It ’ s like putting a Trump bumper sticker on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staying in a hotel .
No one has stated they ’ ve broken any laws through the arrangements .
RELATED : 'The View ' Panel Gushes Over Gov .
Newsom as He Declares 'Trump Is Scared of California' But I digress , because Low ’ s legislation is so fatuous that it ’ s not just Fox News poking fun at it .
In an editorial published Tuesday , the Los Angeles Times noted that “ some of the proposals aimed at President Trump [ in California ] seem designed solely to score @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state in any real way.
” “ The 2019 law requiring presidential candidates to show their tax returns to be allowed on the state ’ s primary ballot was one example .
That measure was obviously unconstitutional as well as partisan and pointless , ” the Times ’ editorial board wrote .
“ Even if it hadn ’ t been struck down by the state Supreme Court last year , it wouldn ’ t have changed Trump ’ s behavior — he would have just skipped the primary .
“ Now , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) follows that churlish example by prohibiting state employees and officials from being reimbursed for the cost of staying at a hotel or resort owned by Trump — or any president in the future .
That might be meaningful if there were lots of state travel involving Trump ’ s hotels .
There isn ’ t. ” Lest you have doubt as to where the Times stands , the editorial board concluded , “ We agree with the spirit of the bill , which objects to the president ’ s brazen disregard of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ integrity of the nation ’ s highest office .
But it is not up to California to police the restrictions the U.S. Constitution places on the president .
We don ’ t need another meaningless , partisan gesture from Democrats in Sacramento to know how they feel about Trump.
” Sacramento , by the way , is the capital of California .
I say that for the benefit of our liberal readers who think this will actually do anything .
This is how California sees itself : as the corporeal home of # @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things don ’ t seem to be working out quite the way everyone planned .
In an appearance on ABC ’ s “ The View ” on Monday , California Gov .
Gavin Newsom showed just how real the disconnect is .
“ We are the most un-Trump state in America .
We ’ re also the most diverse state in America .
… We ’ re also prospering together across every conceivable difference , ” Newsom said .
He went on to claim the president is “ scared of California.
” Oh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure he ’ s waiting for his hotel empire to collapse like the social systems California has in place to deal with its homelessness problem any day now .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

The state of California doesn’t like Republicans. With plenty of problems to solve — what with a mass demographic exodus and a huge homelessness problem — the Golden State nevertheless decided to take some time out in 2016 to prohibit official state travel to states that have laws it deems to be anti-LGBT.
The imminent collapse of these states, if indeed such a condition is to be induced, has yet to be reported.
Undaunted, state Assemblyman Evan Low — from Silicon Valley, because of course — plans to strike at the Trumps next.
Late last month, Low introduced a bill that flew under the radar as the impeachment of President Donald Trump raged on. The legislation “would prohibit taxpayers from funding or reimbursing state employees’ travel and lodging expenses at businesses owned by current or former Presidents of the United States.”
Low, according to The Sacramento Bee, is also the author of the 2016 travel ban, so this is clearly a man with a history of efficacious legislation in this department.
“Public officials, at any level, should not profit off the constituents that they were elected to serve and represent,” the assemblyman said in a statement.
“No branch of government is above the Constitution, and this legislation will ensure that California taxpayers are not further exploited by Donald Trump’s violations of the emoluments clause,” he said.
“Further exploited” is an interesting way of putting it.
As Fox News dryly noted in its report, Trump properties “are not popular with state workers in California — especially since the average going rate for a room at one of his resorts far exceeds the $90 per night state employees are authorized to spend on a hotel room.
Do you think this bill should be passed? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 2% (11 Votes) No: 98% (580 Votes)
“Since 2016, only one state worker has booked a stay at a Trump hotel through the state’s contracted travel agency or its online booking tool, according to the Department of General Services.”
This doesn’t mean the hotels aren’t popular with individuals from other states — usually Republican, and usually of high station.
“The president’s hotels and resorts are frequented by lawmakers and officials from other states, with 47 state officials — including 20 Republican governors — making 64 visits to Trump properties since the president took office and at least 90 members of Congress visiting his properties 188 times since January 2017,” Fox reported.
And Assemblyman Low’s bill will address absolutely none of that.
Nor is this a case of Republicans flouting the emoluments clause of the Constitution. It’s like putting a Trump bumper sticker on your car, except it’s staying in a hotel. No one has stated they’ve broken any laws through the arrangements.
But I digress, because Low’s legislation is so fatuous that it’s not just Fox News poking fun at it.
In an editorial published Tuesday, the Los Angeles Times noted that “some of the proposals aimed at President Trump [in California] seem designed solely to score political points, not to improve the state in any real way.”
“The 2019 law requiring presidential candidates to show their tax returns to be allowed on the state’s primary ballot was one example. That measure was obviously unconstitutional as well as partisan and pointless,” the Times’ editorial board wrote. “Even if it hadn’t been struck down by the state Supreme Court last year, it wouldn’t have changed Trump’s behavior — he would have just skipped the primary.
“Now, a bill by Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell) follows that churlish example by prohibiting state employees and officials from being reimbursed for the cost of staying at a hotel or resort owned by Trump — or any president in the future. That might be meaningful if there were lots of state travel involving Trump’s hotels. There isn’t.”
Lest you have doubt as to where the Times stands, the editorial board concluded, “We agree with the spirit of the bill, which objects to the president’s brazen disregard of conventions and laws meant to protect the integrity of the nation’s highest office. But it is not up to California to police the restrictions the U.S. Constitution places on the president. We don’t need another meaningless, partisan gesture from Democrats in Sacramento to know how they feel about Trump.”
Sacramento, by the way, is the capital of California. I say that for the benefit of our liberal readers who think this will actually do anything.
This is how California sees itself: as the corporeal home of #TheResistance. And like #TheResistance, things don’t seem to be working out quite the way everyone planned.
In an appearance on ABC’s “The View” on Monday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom showed just how real the disconnect is.
“We are the most un-Trump state in America. We’re also the most diverse state in America. … We’re also prospering together across every conceivable difference,” Newsom said.
He went on to claim the president is “scared of California.”
Oh, I bet. I’m sure he’s waiting for his hotel empire to collapse like the social systems California has in place to deal with its homelessness problem any day now.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-02-11--Poll Finds Two-Thirds of Voters Think Trump Will Be Re-Elected; Media Tries To Ignore It

While Democrats are still trying to pick their party ’ s nominee for the 2020 race , most of the country thinks it already knows how it ’ s going to end .
How does four more years of President Donald Trump sound ?
According to a Monmouth University poll released Tuesday , two-thirds of all registered voters expect Donald Trump to be the one declaring victory after the Nov. 3 election .
And Republicans report being far more enthusiastic about the election than Democrats , the poll found .
“ Enthusiasm is up compared to 2016 , but optimism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conflicting findings in public opinion seem to reflect the muddled state of the race on the Democratic side right now , ” Patrick Murray , director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute , said in a news release .
TRENDING : Nearly 3 Years Later , FBI Director Admits Surveillance of Carter Page Was Illegal Republicans have a reason to be enthusiastic .
Sixty-six percent of those polled said Trump will “ definitely ” or “ probably ” be re-elected ( 27 percent and 39 percent , respectively ) , according to Monmouth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fed by mass media ranging from self-promoting Hollywood personalities to late-night comedians who think their job is political propaganda , Americans can see with their own eyes what ’ s happened since Trump took office .
Despite three years of Sturm und Drang from a relentlessly hostile Democratic # Resistance abetted by a ludicrously slanted mainstream media , Trump ’ s time in the White House has seen the country ’ s economy humming again after the malaise of the Obama years , unemployment is at or near record lows , and international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as much as an ever-present evil in the world ever can be , anyway ) .
According to the Monmouth release , the poll was conducted by telephone from Feb. 6 to 9 , and included a total of 902 adults .
The general election results were based on interviews with 827 registered voters , and conclusions have a margin of error of 3.4 percent .
To get an idea of how bad its findings are for the Democrat-backing media , just look at how the poll ’ s results have been covered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aspect of the release completely , reporting only the results related to the Democratic primary field ( which came from a smaller poll sampling size and had a higher margin of error . )
RELATED : GOP Turns Impeachment into Giant Win with Massive Fundraising in Final Days Bloomberg News — owned by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg , the billionaire contender for the Democratic nomination — chose to focus solely on the poll ’ s findings about the Democratic primary contest with the headline : “ Bernie Sanders Leads Over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Races.
” The name “ Trump ” wasn ’ t even mentioned .
That might be understandable considering Bloomberg ’ s eponymous owner , but The Hill , an allegedly nonpartisan news outlet in Washington , took the same tack , reporting only the poll ’ s findings regarding the Democratic races and omitting the current president ’ s position completely .
Sure , Tuesday ’ s New Hampshire primary is the dominant news story of the day , and yes , that primary is a strictly Democratic affair , considering Trump has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But a normal person might think poll results that show two-thirds of respondents expect the incumbent president to keep leading the free world after November ’ s vote should be mentioned somewhere .
In fact , the organizers of the Monmouth poll must have thought so , since the news release was headlined : “ Most Expect Trump Will Be Reelected ; Sanders Overtakes Biden Among Dem Voters.
” ( Emphasis added . )
NBC News , oddly enough , not usually a Trump-friendly news outlet , managed to find the story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ Most voters think President Trump will win reelection , new poll finds.
” It ’ s a rock-solid bet that if the results had shown two-thirds of Americans didn ’ t expect Trump to be re-elected , that would be the headline and lede of every story coming out .
If the results of November ’ s vote turn out as this poll ’ s participants expect , no news outlet in the world is going to be able to ignore it .
And quite a few are going to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

While Democrats are still trying to pick their party’s nominee for the 2020 race, most of the country thinks it already knows how it’s going to end.
How does four more years of President Donald Trump sound?
According to a Monmouth University poll released Tuesday, two-thirds of all registered voters expect Donald Trump to be the one declaring victory after the Nov. 3 election.
And Republicans report being far more enthusiastic about the election than Democrats, the poll found.
“Enthusiasm is up compared to 2016, but optimism has split along party lines. These conflicting findings in public opinion seem to reflect the muddled state of the race on the Democratic side right now,” Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute, said in a news release.
Republicans have a reason to be enthusiastic.
Sixty-six percent of those polled said Trump will “definitely” or “probably” be re-elected (27 percent and 39 percent, respectively), according to Monmouth.
There’s a good reason for that.
Regardless of the liberal pap being fed by mass media ranging from self-promoting Hollywood personalities to late-night comedians who think their job is political propaganda, Americans can see with their own eyes what’s happened since Trump took office.
Do you agree with this poll's findings about Trump's re-election chances? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 99% (1184 Votes) No: 1% (8 Votes)
Despite three years of Sturm und Drang from a relentlessly hostile Democratic #Resistance abetted by a ludicrously slanted mainstream media, Trump’s time in the White House has seen the country’s economy humming again after the malaise of the Obama years, unemployment is at or near record lows, and international terrorism has been brought to heel (as much as an ever-present evil in the world ever can be, anyway).
According to the Monmouth release, the poll was conducted by telephone from Feb. 6 to 9, and included a total of 902 adults.
The general election results were based on interviews with 827 registered voters, and conclusions have a margin of error of 3.4 percent.
To get an idea of how bad its findings are for the Democrat-backing media, just look at how the poll’s results have been covered.
Some news outlets ignored the Trump aspect of the release completely, reporting only the results related to the Democratic primary field (which came from a smaller poll sampling size and had a higher margin of error.)
Bloomberg News — owned by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire contender for the Democratic nomination — chose to focus solely on the poll’s findings about the Democratic primary contest with the headline: “Bernie Sanders Leads Over Biden in New National Poll of 2020 Races.”
The name “Trump” wasn’t even mentioned.
That might be understandable considering Bloomberg’s eponymous owner, but The Hill, an allegedly nonpartisan news outlet in Washington, took the same tack, reporting only the poll’s findings regarding the Democratic races and omitting the current president’s position completely.
Headline: “Poll: Sanders overtakes Biden, Buttigieg gains momentum after Iowa.”
(UPDATE: A separate article published by The Hill on Tuesday focused exclusively on the expectations for Trump’s re-election, but the headline, naturally, tried to play up the negative side for Trump’s hopes: “Most voters think Trump will be reelected, less than half think he should be: poll.”)
Sure, Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary is the dominant news story of the day, and yes, that primary is a strictly Democratic affair, considering Trump has no real opposition in his own party.
But a normal person might think poll results that show two-thirds of respondents expect the incumbent president to keep leading the free world after November’s vote should be mentioned somewhere.
In fact, the organizers of the Monmouth poll must have thought so, since the news release was headlined: “Most Expect Trump Will Be Reelected; Sanders Overtakes Biden Among Dem Voters.” (Emphasis added.)
NBC News, oddly enough, not usually a Trump-friendly news outlet, managed to find the story others missed, headlining a brief article: “Most voters think President Trump will win reelection, new poll finds.”
It’s a rock-solid bet that if the results had shown two-thirds of Americans didn’t expect Trump to be re-elected, that would be the headline and lede of every story coming out.
If the results of November’s vote turn out as this poll’s participants expect, no news outlet in the world is going to be able to ignore it.
And quite a few are going to have a lot of explaining to do.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-02-11--Man Drains Life Savings To Pay for Dog’s $45K Surgery: ‘I Would Do Absolutely Anything To Save Her’

Jason Garrett is has a miniature schnauzer named Lola .
But she ’ s not just a dog to Garrett : She ’ s a close friend and a confidante , and he credits her with his being able to thrive .
The two live in Alameda , California , and have been together since Garrett got her as a pup .
A therapy dog , Lola brings comfort to people — not least of all her owner .
“ I suffer from severe depression and bipolar disorder , ” Garrett said in a video .
“ The real reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the disease is — you guessed it — Lola.
” “ Lola has undoubtedly saved my life countless times , and as you can imagine , I would do absolutely anything to save her.
” TRENDING : Nearly 3 Years Later , FBI Director Admits Surveillance of Carter Page Was Illegal For 12 years the two have been inseparable , but last year they experienced a health scare that had Garrett scrambling to find a solution .
“ We had an episode in November where she came back from a walk and she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to KGO-TV .
“ She has an enlarged heart because she has a damaged mitral valve.
” The condition is common , but the solution is not .
Veterinarians initially gave Lola eight or nine months to live , but that prognosis was unacceptable to Garrett , who found that there was a Japanese surgeon who ’ d pioneered a surgery for just such cases .
“ The downside is it ’ s about $ 45,000 .
I ’ ve already cashed out my 401K and using every penny of my savings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ selling my car if need be , ” Garrett explained .
“ I work for an affordable housing nonprofit providing social services to at-risk youth , low-income families and seniors , ” he added in his video and on his GoFundMe page .
“ As you can imagine , no one goes into nonprofit to get rich so money is always tight for us.
” “ I ’ ve cashed out my 401K , using every penny of savings and I ’ m looking to sell my car , ” he said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking , 2018 Hyundai Elantra !
License but must keep the license plate : LOLANME.
” RELATED : Man Credits Dog with Saving His Life by Waking Him Up in the Middle of Severe Heart Attack Garrett has already done what he can on his own to financially secure the surgery , but he reached out for help all the same .
As of Tuesday , his GoFundMe page states that over $ 49,000 has been donated .
“ Whatever you can give will help with the cost of this surgery , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Masami Uechi , the Japanese veterinarian , will be training surgeons at the University of Florida to do the procedure and the surgery should become more available after that .
Meanwhile , Lola has been accepted and is set to have the life-saving surgery sometime during the summer of 2020 .
Garrett is convinced that a successful operation will give his girl another couple years of life .
“ Anything for Lola , ” he said .
“ She ’ s family.
” We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Jason Garrett is has a miniature schnauzer named Lola. But she’s not just a dog to Garrett: She’s a close friend and a confidante, and he credits her with his being able to thrive.
The two live in Alameda, California, and have been together since Garrett got her as a pup. A therapy dog, Lola brings comfort to people — not least of all her owner.
“I suffer from severe depression and bipolar disorder,” Garrett said in a video. “The real reason I continue to survive and thrive with the disease is — you guessed it — Lola.”
“Lola has undoubtedly saved my life countless times, and as you can imagine, I would do absolutely anything to save her.”
How much would you pay ? to save your best friend’s life? This man’s paying $45,000 for his dog Lola’s revolutionary new heart ❤ surgery. The procedure could save millions of dogs. @abc7newsbayarea pic.twitter.com/bgpi9NuORP — Dion Lim (@DionLimTV) February 6, 2020
For 12 years the two have been inseparable, but last year they experienced a health scare that had Garrett scrambling to find a solution.
“We had an episode in November where she came back from a walk and she fainted,” he said, according to KGO-TV. “She has an enlarged heart because she has a damaged mitral valve.”
The condition is common, but the solution is not. Veterinarians initially gave Lola eight or nine months to live, but that prognosis was unacceptable to Garrett, who found that there was a Japanese surgeon who’d pioneered a surgery for just such cases.
“The downside is it’s about $45,000. I’ve already cashed out my 401K and using every penny of my savings, and I’m also looking into selling my car if need be,” Garrett explained.
“I work for an affordable housing nonprofit providing social services to at-risk youth, low-income families and seniors,” he added in his video and on his GoFundMe page. “As you can imagine, no one goes into nonprofit to get rich so money is always tight for us.”
“I’ve cashed out my 401K, using every penny of savings and I’m looking to sell my car,” he said. “So, if you know anyone looking, 2018 Hyundai Elantra! License but must keep the license plate: LOLANME.”
Garrett has already done what he can on his own to financially secure the surgery, but he reached out for help all the same. As of Tuesday, his GoFundMe page states that over $49,000 has been donated.
“Whatever you can give will help with the cost of this surgery,” he wrote.
According to KGO-TV, Masami Uechi, the Japanese veterinarian, will be training surgeons at the University of Florida to do the procedure and the surgery should become more available after that. Meanwhile, Lola has been accepted and is set to have the life-saving surgery sometime during the summer of 2020.
Garrett is convinced that a successful operation will give his girl another couple years of life.
“Anything for Lola,” he said. “She’s family.”
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-02-11--Poll: Majority of Americans Would Not Vote for a Socialist, Even if Otherwise Qualified

A majority of Americans say they would not vote for a socialist presidential candidate even if the person was otherwise qualified for the position , according to a new poll .
The Gallup poll ’ s results , released Tuesday , showed that only 45 percent of Americans would vote for their party ’ s presidential nominee if he or she was a socialist , and over 53 percent of respondents said they would not .
Democrats are more willing to vote for a socialist candidate than Republicans , with 76 percent of Democratic respondents and 17 percent of Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Forty-five percent of independents also said they would support a socialist candidate .
Gallup found that opposition to a socialist president is up 2 percentage points since it last asked the question in June 2015 .
TRENDING : Nearly 3 Years Later , FBI Director Admits Surveillance of Carter Page Was Illegal It is possible that these polling results could play out in the upcoming presidential election .
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist who is currently at or near the top of most polls for the Democratic presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ average , as of Tuesday , Sanders had 23.8 percent support nationwide , closely followed by former Vice President Joe Biden at 19.8 percent .
Biden has criticized Sanders ’ policies and said that Democrats will face a “ bigger uphill climb ” to defeat President Donald Trump in 2020 if Sanders wins the nomination .
“ So you think flat out Democrats can ’ t defeat Trump if they have to defend socialism ?
” George Stephanopoulos asked Biden in an interview on ABC ’ s “ This Week ” that aired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s going to be incredibly difficult , ” Biden replied .
“ Look , if I don ’ t get the nomination and Bernie gets it , I ’ m going to work like hell for him , but I ’ ll tell you what , it ’ s a bigger uphill climb , running as a senator or congressperson or as a governor on a ticket that calls itself a democratic socialist ticket , ” he said .
Gallup was testing to see if different characteristics affected people ’ s willingness to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominee if he or she was otherwise “ generally well-qualified ” for the position .
It found over 90 percent of respondents would vote for a candidate who was black , Catholic , Hispanic , Jewish or a woman .
RELATED : Struggling Biden Abruptly Cancels NH Victory Party Speech , Throws in the Towel and Leaves State Seventy-eight percent responded they would vote for a gay or lesbian candidate , like former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg .
People were less likely to vote for a Muslim or atheist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent support respectively .
To conduct research for this poll , Gallup conducted telephone interviews from Jan. 16-29 with 1,033 voting aged adults .
There is a margin of sampling error of 4 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

A majority of Americans say they would not vote for a socialist presidential candidate even if the person was otherwise qualified for the position, according to a new poll.
The Gallup poll’s results, released Tuesday, showed that only 45 percent of Americans would vote for their party’s presidential nominee if he or she was a socialist, and over 53 percent of respondents said they would not.
Democrats are more willing to vote for a socialist candidate than Republicans, with 76 percent of Democratic respondents and 17 percent of Republican respondents saying they would support the candidate.
Forty-five percent of independents also said they would support a socialist candidate.
Gallup found that opposition to a socialist president is up 2 percentage points since it last asked the question in June 2015.
It is possible that these polling results could play out in the upcoming presidential election. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist who is currently at or near the top of most polls for the Democratic presidential nomination.
According to the RealClearPolitics polling average, as of Tuesday, Sanders had 23.8 percent support nationwide, closely followed by former Vice President Joe Biden at 19.8 percent.
Biden has criticized Sanders’ policies and said that Democrats will face a “bigger uphill climb” to defeat President Donald Trump in 2020 if Sanders wins the nomination.
“So you think flat out Democrats can’t defeat Trump if they have to defend socialism?” George Stephanopoulos asked Biden in an interview on ABC’s “This Week” that aired Sunday.
“I think it’s going to be incredibly difficult,” Biden replied.
.@GStephanopoulos: “So you think flat out Democrats can’t defeat Trump if they have to defend socialism?” Joe Biden: “I think it’s going to be incredibly more difficult.” https://t.co/nPQ57Pvs7t pic.twitter.com/bZvoDVs4mJ — This Week (@ThisWeekABC) February 9, 2020
“Look, if I don’t get the nomination and Bernie gets it, I’m going to work like hell for him, but I’ll tell you what, it’s a bigger uphill climb, running as a senator or congressperson or as a governor on a ticket that calls itself a democratic socialist ticket,” he said.
Gallup was testing to see if different characteristics affected people’s willingness to vote for their party’s presidential nominee if he or she was otherwise “generally well-qualified” for the position.
It found over 90 percent of respondents would vote for a candidate who was black, Catholic, Hispanic, Jewish or a woman.
Do you think Sanders will win the Democratic nomination? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 22% (630 Votes) No: 78% (2194 Votes)
Seventy-eight percent responded they would vote for a gay or lesbian candidate, like former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
People were less likely to vote for a Muslim or atheist candidate, with 66 percent and 60 percent support respectively.
To conduct research for this poll, Gallup conducted telephone interviews from Jan. 16-29 with 1,033 voting aged adults. There is a margin of sampling error of 4 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-02-11--Dick Morris: Bernie Won the New Hampshire Debate – Will He Win the NH Primary?

The Democratic establishment and the media it controls are desperate to defeat Bernie Sanders , who , they correctly believe , can not beat Trump in November .
In Friday ’ s Democratic debate — the last before the New Hampshire primary — they said Pete Buttigieg won .
But it was Sanders who showed the difference between men and boys , putting forth an impassioned , policy-rich presentation to counter glib soundbites .
Can this callow child , who tries to imitate Obama and JFK , run the country ?
He couldn ’ t stand up to Sanders or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down China and Putin ?
Give me a break .
But remember , it ’ s not yet Sanders vs. Buttigieg .
That comes next week .
For now its Sanders vs. Elizabeth Warren on the left and Buttigieg v Biden on the right .
TRENDING : Nearly 3 Years Later , FBI Director Admits Surveillance of Carter Page Was Illegal Sanders won his half of the contest easily .
Warren seems to give the same speech over and over .
The words don ’ t vary nor does the tone of indignation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his speech to the moment without backing off his ideas .
It was a jukebox versus a seasoned candidate as Warren faced off with Sanders on Friday night .
Warren rattled on about “ corruption , ” but Sanders wondered if it could have “ something to do with the fact that the health care industry last year made $ 100 billion in profit.
” I think Warren may drop further still with her voters largely defecting to Sanders , thus accelerating his momentum going into Super Tuesday .
With his back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ performance of the campaign , speaking in a matter-of-fact/cut-the-bulls–t style that was refreshing and earnest .
When Buttigieg spoke glibly of the politics of the past , Biden turned sharply and asked what was wrong with the past , citing the passage of Obamacare in that era .
Biden also noted that , in the Obama administration , millions of stimulus dollars flowed to South Bend to help to create the record of which Buttigieg was boasting .
Buttigieg was pathetic when he was asked about Hunter Biden .
Displaying the only passion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he deplored attacking someone ’ s family .
Come on , young man , that is not what this is about .
It is about a son of a vice president using his name to make a million dollars a year off a weak , dependent country .
But in his opening statement , Biden may have blown it by conceding that he lost Iowa and predicting another defeat in New Hampshire .
You don ’ t do that .
This message tells his voters their support for him is a wasted vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate with a chance to win .
New Hampshire voters are very tactical and sophisticated .
They are used to casting politically wise votes to advance their real preferences .
RELATED : Dick Morris : Predicting the Rest of the Democratic Primary War story : In 1976 , at the age of 29 , I worked for Indiana Democratic Senator Birch Bayh .
Jimmy Carter , then the moderate candidate , had won the Iowa caucuses , beating out two liberals — Bayh and Arizona Democrat Mo Udall .
Liberal New Hampshire voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t know who to back , Bayh or Udall .
When Bayh beat out Udall for second place ( behind Carter ) in Iowa , the media lavished praise on his unexpected finish and asked if he might be the guy to beat front-runner Carter in New Hampshire .
That freaked out Bayh ’ s handlers who doubted he could pull it off and they sought to moderate expectations by predicting a third-place finish in New Hampshire , behind not only Carter but Udall as well .
Their idea was to look good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ miscalculated .
Told that of the two liberals opposing Carter , Udall was most likely to finish strongly , Bayh ’ s voters left him .
He finished third and dropped out of the race shortly after , leaving Carter and Udall to battle it out .
Did Biden just make the same mistake in downplaying his chances in New Hampshire ?
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website .
We are committed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

The Democratic establishment and the media it controls are desperate to defeat Bernie Sanders, who, they correctly believe, cannot beat Trump in November.
In Friday’s Democratic debate — the last before the New Hampshire primary — they said Pete Buttigieg won.
But it was Sanders who showed the difference between men and boys, putting forth an impassioned, policy-rich presentation to counter glib soundbites.
Can this callow child, who tries to imitate Obama and JFK, run the country? He couldn’t stand up to Sanders or Joe Biden but he hopes to face down China and Putin? Give me a break.
But remember, it’s not yet Sanders vs. Buttigieg. That comes next week. For now its Sanders vs. Elizabeth Warren on the left and Buttigieg v Biden on the right.
Sanders won his half of the contest easily. Warren seems to give the same speech over and over. The words don’t vary nor does the tone of indignation. But Bernie is topical, tailoring his speech to the moment without backing off his ideas. It was a jukebox versus a seasoned candidate as Warren faced off with Sanders on Friday night.
What causes high medical costs?
Warren rattled on about “corruption,” but Sanders wondered if it could have “something to do with the fact that the health care industry last year made $100 billion in profit.”
I think Warren may drop further still with her voters largely defecting to Sanders, thus accelerating his momentum going into Super Tuesday.
Do you think Bernie Sanders will win the Democratic nomination? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 59% (53 Votes) No: 41% (37 Votes)
With his back to the wall, Biden delivered his best performance of the campaign, speaking in a matter-of-fact/cut-the-bulls–t style that was refreshing and earnest. When Buttigieg spoke glibly of the politics of the past, Biden turned sharply and asked what was wrong with the past, citing the passage of Obamacare in that era. Biden also noted that, in the Obama administration, millions of stimulus dollars flowed to South Bend to help to create the record of which Buttigieg was boasting.
Buttigieg was pathetic when he was asked about Hunter Biden. Displaying the only passion in his vanilla, scripted performance, he deplored attacking someone’s family.
Come on, young man, that is not what this is about. It is about a son of a vice president using his name to make a million dollars a year off a weak, dependent country.
But in his opening statement, Biden may have blown it by conceding that he lost Iowa and predicting another defeat in New Hampshire. You don’t do that. This message tells his voters their support for him is a wasted vote and they should cast it for another candidate with a chance to win.
New Hampshire voters are very tactical and sophisticated. They are used to casting politically wise votes to advance their real preferences.
War story: In 1976, at the age of 29, I worked for Indiana Democratic Senator Birch Bayh. Jimmy Carter, then the moderate candidate, had won the Iowa caucuses, beating out two liberals — Bayh and Arizona Democrat Mo Udall. Liberal New Hampshire voters wanted to stop Carter and didn’t know who to back, Bayh or Udall.
When Bayh beat out Udall for second place (behind Carter) in Iowa, the media lavished praise on his unexpected finish and asked if he might be the guy to beat front-runner Carter in New Hampshire.
That freaked out Bayh’s handlers who doubted he could pull it off and they sought to moderate expectations by predicting a third-place finish in New Hampshire, behind not only Carter but Udall as well. Their idea was to look good when they finished second. But they miscalculated. Told that of the two liberals opposing Carter, Udall was most likely to finish strongly, Bayh’s voters left him. He finished third and dropped out of the race shortly after, leaving Carter and Udall to battle it out.
Did Biden just make the same mistake in downplaying his chances in New Hampshire?
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-02-11--Giuliani: Trump Will Be ‘Totally Vindicated’ After Biden ‘Smoking Gun’ Revealed

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said Saturday he has the “ smoking gun ” as it relates to what he says is Hunter Biden ’ s connection to alleged corruption in Ukraine .
Giuliani , who is now the personal lawyer to President Donald Trump , spoke on the Fox News show “ Watters World ” about his long-running personal investigation into the activities of Hunter Biden and his father , Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden .
Giuliani said that despite Trump ’ s acquittal on impeachment charges in the Senate , the full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to prove what happened , because I believe if we prove what happened , he will be totally vindicated , ” Giuliani said .
Giuliani referenced a January 2016 National Security Council meeting that he said may have been attended by the whistleblower whose complaint sparked the months-long controversy over Trump ’ s July 25 phone call with Ukraine ’ s president .
TRENDING : Nearly 3 Years Later , FBI Director Admits Surveillance of Carter Page Was Illegal “ Obama and Biden representatives tell Ukrainian officials , ‘ Get me dirt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to that , ” Giuliani said , referring to Paul Manafort , who was Trump ’ s campaign chairman during part of 2016 .
Manafort was later convicted on fraud charges for his previous activities in Ukraine that were not part of his association with the Trump campaign .
“ Three witnesses are willing to get on the witness stand and say that in January 2016 , members of Obama ’ s NSC violated the law Mueller was investigating Trump for violating , ” Giuliani said .
From 2017 to 2019 , then-special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump campaign and Russia , only to report that none could be found .
The crux of the issue , Giuliani said , is that under former President Barack Obama , those NSC members “ asked foreigners for dirty information on an American citizen who was going to be involved in a political campaign.
” Giuliani has said the extent of corruption related to Joe Biden and his son is vast : RELATED : Struggling Biden Abruptly Cancels NH Victory Party Speech , Throws in the Towel and Leaves State Host Jesse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s business dealings in Ukraine , and noted that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham , a South Carolina Republican , has said he will be investigating Hunter Biden ’ s activities in Ukraine .
“ I have what I used to call when I was U.S. attorney , a smoking gun , ” he continued , outlining what he said are documents sent from the Latvian government to the Ukrainian government that show “ Hunter Biden is under investigation for corruption.
” “ This should have been investigated , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government has been so lax in investigating this , it ’ s pathetic .
These are crimes that when I was a U.S. attorney , the day Joe Biden made that boastful announcement about how he bribed … the investigation would have begun the next day for bribery.
” Giuliani was referring to 2018 comments that Biden made about a 2016 visit to Ukraine when he demanded that nation ’ s government fire a prosecutor who had investigated the company where his son served on the board if it wanted to receive U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by saying other governments also wanted the prosecutor , who Biden said was corrupt , fired .
He has claimed he did not act because of his son ’ s connection to Burisma , the company that had been investigated .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said Saturday he has the “smoking gun” as it relates to what he says is Hunter Biden’s connection to alleged corruption in Ukraine.
Giuliani, who is now the personal lawyer to President Donald Trump, spoke on the Fox News show “Watters World” about his long-running personal investigation into the activities of Hunter Biden and his father, Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden.
Giuliani said that despite Trump’s acquittal on impeachment charges in the Senate, the full truth must be told.
“I want to prove what happened, because I believe if we prove what happened, he will be totally vindicated,” Giuliani said.
Giuliani referenced a January 2016 National Security Council meeting that he said may have been attended by the whistleblower whose complaint sparked the months-long controversy over Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukraine’s president.
“Obama and Biden representatives tell Ukrainian officials, ‘Get me dirt on Manafort.’ I have three witnesses to that,” Giuliani said, referring to Paul Manafort, who was Trump’s campaign chairman during part of 2016. Manafort was later convicted on fraud charges for his previous activities in Ukraine that were not part of his association with the Trump campaign.
Do you think Giuliani will be able to produce "smoking gun" evidence against the Bidens? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 97% (420 Votes) No: 3% (14 Votes)
“Three witnesses are willing to get on the witness stand and say that in January 2016, members of Obama’s NSC violated the law Mueller was investigating Trump for violating,” Giuliani said. From 2017 to 2019, then-special counsel Robert Mueller investigated alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, only to report that none could be found.
The crux of the issue, Giuliani said, is that under former President Barack Obama, those NSC members “asked foreigners for dirty information on an American citizen who was going to be involved in a political campaign.”
Giuliani has said the extent of corruption related to Joe Biden and his son is vast:
Tdy @RudyGiuliani “The crimes Democrats committed in Ukraine are astounding. Treasury should look at every one of the family transactions, a pattern of behavior. The familywas monetizing Joe’s public office when he was a senator. ” @FoxNews @SundayFutures pic.twitter.com/PvXiRR9ha4 — Maria Bartiromo (@MariaBartiromo) February 9, 2020
These two smoking gun documents have been displayed and discussed on my podcast Rudy Giuliani Common Sense. It’s now up to 5 episodes proving major Democrat corruption in Ukraine. Get it at https://t.co/OGyi1JKawT. Please Subscribe two more next week, one a surprise. — Rudy W. Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) February 9, 2020
.@RudyGiuliani has seemingly strong evidence of massive corruption tied to Ukraine. And it goes well beyond the Bidens — deep into the State Dept. Explains why State is stonewalling @JudicialWatch FOIA requsts. https://t.co/sXyxBSn0Ly — Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) February 9, 2020
Host Jesse Watters asked Giuliani about documents on Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine, and noted that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, has said he will be investigating Hunter Biden’s activities in Ukraine.
“Lindsey, get started,” Giuliani said.
“I have what I used to call when I was U.S. attorney, a smoking gun,” he continued, outlining what he said are documents sent from the Latvian government to the Ukrainian government that show “Hunter Biden is under investigation for corruption.”
“This should have been investigated,” Giuliani said. “Look, the government has been so lax in investigating this, it’s pathetic. These are crimes that when I was a U.S. attorney, the day Joe Biden made that boastful announcement about how he bribed … the investigation would have begun the next day for bribery.”
“He violated the bribery statute, announced it.”
Giuliani was referring to 2018 comments that Biden made about a 2016 visit to Ukraine when he demanded that nation’s government fire a prosecutor who had investigated the company where his son served on the board if it wanted to receive U.S. aid.
Biden has defended his actions by saying other governments also wanted the prosecutor, who Biden said was corrupt, fired.
He has claimed he did not act because of his son’s connection to Burisma, the company that had been investigated.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


Feeling the Heat

For more A.F .
Branco cartoons , go to WesternJournal.com/opinion/cartoons .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all @ @ @ @ @ our editorial standards .

Aldi opened its first store in the U.S. in 1976 after it was founded a decade earlier in Germany by two brothers.


westernjournal--2020-02-11--Poll: Most NH Dems Would Prefer Every Man, Woman and Child Die to a Trump 2020 Victory

A recent poll found that the majority of New Hampshire Democrats surveyed would prefer for a giant meteor to strike the Earth and extinguish all human life than for President Donald Trump to win re-election .
According to the University of Massachusetts Lowell survey , conducted between Jan. 28 and Jan. 31 , 400 likely Democratic primary voters were asked which presidential candidate they planned to cast their ballot for in Tuesday ’ s New Hampshire primary .
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden , the poll ’ s front-runners , were neck and neck , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden at 22 percent .
While most questions in the poll asked about Democrats ’ attitudes concerning presidential candidates and government operations , one query stood out from the rest .
“ Which of the following outcomes would you prefer occur on November 3 , 2020 ?
” the question read .
TRENDING : Nearly 3 Years Later , FBI Director Admits Surveillance of Carter Page Was Illegal The survey offered two answers : “ Donald Trump wins re-election ” or “ a giant meteor strikes the earth , extinguishing all human life.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ said they would rather see every man , woman and child wiped from the face of the Earth than deal with another 4 years with Trump in office .
Just thirty-eight percent said they would prefer a Trump victory .
Respondents who earned under $ 50,000 a year , and those who did not have a 4-year college degree , were generally more likely to favor death by meteor ( 69 percent and 66 percent of each demographic , respectively ) .
The survey further found that 95 percent of participants disapproved of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while 65 percent said they thought House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should retain her role if Democrats keep their majority in the House this November .
A satirical Twitter account called Sweet Meteor O ’ Death , which tweets as a meteor headed for Earth that is running for president , shared the poll ’ s results and wrote , “ winning.
” Twitter users had mixed reactions to the results of the survey : RELATED : Struggling Biden Abruptly Cancels NH Victory Party Speech , Throws in the Towel and Leaves State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the University of Massachusetts Lowell , designed and analyzed by the Center for Public Opinion and fielded by YouGov , ” the survey ’ s methodology section said .
The results had a margin of error of 6.8 percentage points that was “ adjusted to include for design effects resulting from weighting and survey design features.
” We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

A recent poll found that the majority of New Hampshire Democrats surveyed would prefer for a giant meteor to strike the Earth and extinguish all human life than for President Donald Trump to win re-election.
According to the University of Massachusetts Lowell survey, conducted between Jan. 28 and Jan. 31, 400 likely Democratic primary voters were asked which presidential candidate they planned to cast their ballot for in Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden, the poll’s front-runners, were neck and neck, with Sanders at 23 percent support and Biden at 22 percent.
While most questions in the poll asked about Democrats’ attitudes concerning presidential candidates and government operations, one query stood out from the rest.
“Which of the following outcomes would you prefer occur on November 3, 2020?” the question read.
The survey offered two answers: “Donald Trump wins re-election” or “a giant meteor strikes the earth, extinguishing all human life.”
Sixty-two percent of the Democrats surveyed said they would rather see every man, woman and child wiped from the face of the Earth than deal with another 4 years with Trump in office.
Just thirty-eight percent said they would prefer a Trump victory.
Respondents who earned under $50,000 a year, and those who did not have a 4-year college degree, were generally more likely to favor death by meteor (69 percent and 66 percent of each demographic, respectively).
Would you rather have a giant meteor wipe out humanity rather than have Trump be re-elected? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 55% (109 Votes) No: 45% (91 Votes)
The survey further found that 95 percent of participants disapproved of the way Trump has handled being president, while 65 percent said they thought House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should retain her role if Democrats keep their majority in the House this November.
A satirical Twitter account called Sweet Meteor O’Death, which tweets as a meteor headed for Earth that is running for president, shared the poll’s results and wrote, “winning.”
Twitter users had mixed reactions to the results of the survey:
Seems awfully hateful. NH Democrats would rather everybody on earth die if they can’t get their way. This is how petulant children think. — Man-Bear-Pig (@Man_Bear_Pig3) February 7, 2020
Wow, left logic is pretty odd. Death to a planet or robust economy and better lives. Hopefully a joke, if not, very concerning mental health issues at play. — Jason B (@jasonbluaz) February 7, 2020
I think the meteor would be safer for mankind and the planet than another 4 years of him. — KD (@D227Kristen) February 7, 2020
“This poll was independently funded by the University of Massachusetts Lowell, designed and analyzed by the Center for Public Opinion and fielded by YouGov,” the survey’s methodology section said.
The results had a margin of error of 6.8 percentage points that was “adjusted to include for design effects resulting from weighting and survey design features.”
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-02-11--Sanders Pushes Pro-Life Voters to Trump: Supporting Abortion Is ‘Essential’ To Being a Dem

At the count of three , let ’ s all give Bernie Sanders a huge ovation .
Seriously , President Donald Trump and his supporters owe the Democratic presidential hopeful some gratitude .
While every other candidate undoubtedly recognizes the importance of each and every vote , Sanders is in the business of pushing potential voters away .
In doing so , he has quite possibly helped the president ’ s re-election efforts .
During a candidate forum Saturday in Concord , New Hampshire , the Vermont senator was asked , “ Is there such a thing as a pro-life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” Sanders ’ response : “ I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat , if you ’ re asking me.
” “ And I may be wrong on this , I think , in the Senate , probably 95 percent of the Democrats are pro-choice .
You have a few who are not , ” he continued .
“ In the House , maybe even a higher percentage .
So that ’ s kind of what my view is .
TRENDING : Nearly 3 Years Later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Page Was Illegal “ I think by this time in history , when we talk about what a Democrat is , I think being pro-choice is essentially , an essential part of that.
” In other words , Sanders believes pro-life Americans have no place in the Democratic Party .
Talk about ostracizing potential voters !
According to a 2019 Gallup poll , 29 percent of Democrats identified as “ pro-life.
” Moreover , as noted by TheBlaze , “ Marist polling conducted in January found that 44 % of Democrats favor restrictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first three months of a pregnancy to not allowing it under any circumstances.
” Marist Abortion Survey by The Western Journal on Scribd Sanders ’ comments did not sit well with many on social media .
RELATED : Imploding Biden Undermines Himself by Saying Even ‘ Mickey Mouse ’ Could Beat Trump If Sanders does not recognize how many potential Democratic voters he ostracized by way of his stance , he need only look at the response that another Democratic candidate , former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a recent Fox News town hall .
Pro-life Democrat Kristen Day asked Buttigieg , “ Do you want the support of pro-life Democratic voters ?
There are about 21 million of us .
And if so , would you support more moderate platform language in the Democratic Party to ensure that the party of diversity and inclusion really does include everybody ?
” Buttigieg made it clear that he disagreed and that he believes almost all abortions should be legal .
While Sanders and Buttigieg likely garnered some support from some in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other potential Democratic voters .
Gone are the days when Democrats modulated their view on the issue of abortion with the phrase “ safe , legal , and rare.
” Now , many of the party ’ s leaders support abortion right up to the ninth month of pregnancy and even after the baby is born .
As an example of just how extreme some Democrats have become , 44 Senate Democrats voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act , a bill that was meant to “ prohibit a health care practitioner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.
” President Donald Trump and the GOP owe Sanders a great deal of gratitude .
He has made it clear : Pro-lifers are not welcome in the Democratic Party .
Fortunately , these millions of people are not without a home .
Trump and other Republicans throughout the country will welcome them with open arms .
They should remember that come Election Day .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read @ @ @ @

At the count of three, let’s all give Bernie Sanders a huge ovation.
Seriously, President Donald Trump and his supporters owe the Democratic presidential hopeful some gratitude. While every other candidate undoubtedly recognizes the importance of each and every vote, Sanders is in the business of pushing potential voters away. In doing so, he has quite possibly helped the president’s re-election efforts.
During a candidate forum Saturday in Concord, New Hampshire, the Vermont senator was asked, “Is there such a thing as a pro-life Democrat in your vision of the party?”
Sanders’ response: “I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat, if you’re asking me.”
“And I may be wrong on this, I think, in the Senate, probably 95 percent of the Democrats are pro-choice. You have a few who are not,” he continued. “In the House, maybe even a higher percentage. So that’s kind of what my view is.
“I think by this time in history, when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is essentially, an essential part of that.”
In other words, Sanders believes pro-life Americans have no place in the Democratic Party. Talk about ostracizing potential voters!
According to a 2019 Gallup poll, 29 percent of Democrats identified as “pro-life.”
Moreover, as noted by TheBlaze, “Marist polling conducted in January found that 44% of Democrats favor restrictions on abortions ranging from limiting it to the first three months of a pregnancy to not allowing it under any circumstances.”
Marist Abortion Survey by The Western Journal on Scribd
Sanders’ comments did not sit well with many on social media.
And that is why I’m not a Democrat! — David (@DLB1952) February 11, 2020
I used to think people that voted a straight party ticket were small minded. However, if Bernie is right and an entire party is ok with killing babies, voting against them all may be the thing to do. — Chris Mcleod (@cemchargers) February 9, 2020
If you are trying to win over republican voters this is not how it’s done! — Helen (@HelenBlue9) February 9, 2020
If Sanders does not recognize how many potential Democratic voters he ostracized by way of his stance, he need only look at the response that another Democratic candidate, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, received when confronted with a similar question at a recent Fox News town hall.
Pro-life Democrat Kristen Day asked Buttigieg, “Do you want the support of pro-life Democratic voters? There are about 21 million of us. And if so, would you support more moderate platform language in the Democratic Party to ensure that the party of diversity and inclusion really does include everybody?”
Buttigieg made it clear that he disagreed and that he believes almost all abortions should be legal.
Pete Buttigieg just told a pro-life, Democrat *woman* she has no place in today’s Democrat Party. All she asked for was a recognition there is diversity of thought on the issue and that it be put in the platform language. He said no and told her to deal with it. — Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) January 27, 2020
While Sanders and Buttigieg likely garnered some support from some in their base, they also exiled many other potential Democratic voters.
Gone are the days when Democrats modulated their view on the issue of abortion with the phrase “safe, legal, and rare.” Now, many of the party’s leaders support abortion right up to the ninth month of pregnancy and even after the baby is born.
Do you think the Democrats' hard line on abortion will hurt them in November? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 98% (919 Votes) No: 2% (23 Votes)
As an example of just how extreme some Democrats have become, 44 Senate Democrats voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, a bill that was meant to “prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.”
President Donald Trump and the GOP owe Sanders a great deal of gratitude. He has made it clear: Pro-lifers are not welcome in the Democratic Party.
Fortunately, these millions of people are not without a home. Trump and other Republicans throughout the country will welcome them with open arms.
They should remember that come Election Day.
Thank you, Bernie!
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-02-11--NYT Columnist Calls Trump’s Illegal Alien Crime Stories ‘Bogus,’ So DHS Sets Him Straight

David Brooks should keep up with The Times .
The New York Times columnist — one of few “ conservatives ” in the Gray Lady ’ s stable of otherwise left-to-far-left herd of opinion writers — took to PBS “ NewsHour ” last week to brand as “ bogus ” President Donald Trump ’ s descriptions of crimes committed by illegal aliens .
While complimenting Trump ’ s State of the Union address overall , Brooks apparently couldn ’ t resist a Times-style denigration of one of the more powerful parts of Trump ’ s speech .
“ I actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as president , ” Brooks said .
“ He had some of the stuff he has always had , which is these bogus stories of crimes that immigrants have committed.
” So the Department of Homeland Security had to set him straight : TRENDING : Nearly 3 Years Later , FBI Director Admits Surveillance of Carter Page Was Illegal “ Saw your interview , where you said POTUS had ‘ bogus stories of crimes that immigrants have committed.
’ Not true .
Let me introduce you to a few .
I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many tragic stories of lives destroyed and lost due to crimes by illegal aliens.
” Swift then cited the case of Reeaz Khan , an immigrant from Guyana charged with the Jan. 6 murder and sexual assault of a 92-year-old woman in the New York City borough of Queens .
Khan had been arrested after allegedly beating up his father in November .
Immigration and Customs Enforcement said it had issued a detainer requesting that he be turned over for possible deportation , The Times reported , though the New York City Police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
ICE actually posted a copy of its detainer request on Twitter to prove its side of the argument , and considering the NYPD has a documented history of ignoring ICE detainers , it ’ s easy to believe the federal agency in this case .
RELATED : Lib Org Admits Obama Sent Deportees To Their Deaths , but Blasts Trump Instead But that ’ s actually beside the point .
No one is arguing that the victim , a woman named Maria Fuentes , was not sexually assaulted and killed .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ bogus , ” no matter what Brooks seems to think .
( There ’ s also little doubt Khan is the guilty party , since he admitted to the sexual assault , The Times reported . )
That was one case Trump specifically cited in his State of the Union speech and , as Swift noted , Brooks ’ own newspaper had covered the crime , so The Times columnist didn ’ t really have reason to doubt it .
Swift added a couple more tweets for good measure , backing up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a very real problem with illegal aliens who are not only in the country illegally , but have actually been arrested .
In a sane country , they would have been kept behind bars , but in certain “ sanctuary ” jurisdictions , where liberal elected officials have seen fit to defy federal laws , they were let loose to prey on the innocent population again .
While nobody gets to be a columnist for The Times by being stupid , Brooks ’ acumen has always been suspect .
Besides being a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a lot easier than finishing them ) , his powers of deduction aren ’ t necessarily the best .
This is the “ conservative , ” remember , who was so impressed in 2005 by the crease in then-Sen. Barack Obama ’ s pants that he predicted Obama was not only going to be the president someday , he ’ d be a “ very good president.
” So give Brooks points for the presidential prediction , but since Obama ’ s presidency — from a “ conservative ” point of view @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” than “ very good , ” Brooks clearly has some foresight issues .
But no one can be expected to be perfect when it comes to seeing the future .
For Brooks to have problems seeing the present , when it ’ s being documented by the very journalistic institution he works for , is a different matter .
There was literally nothing “ bogus ” about Trump ’ s description of crimes committed by illegal aliens in that State of the Union address .
( Not even the nit-picking liberals at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that part of the speech . )
It ’ s unclear why Brooks — a Times “ conservative ” who has been known to insult conservatives in his work — chose that particular line of attack on Trump ’ s State of the Union .
Anyone who follows the issue of crime and “ sanctuary ” jurisdictions knows that the situation is a disgrace to the idea of a nation supposedly governed by laws , not men .
But it is clear that he was so far off base the Department of Homeland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him straight — and direct him to his own newspaper ’ s coverage .
It wasn ’ t the president ’ s words that were “ bogus ” here .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

David Brooks should keep up with The Times.
The New York Times columnist — one of few “conservatives” in the Gray Lady’s stable of otherwise left-to-far-left herd of opinion writers — took to PBS “NewsHour” last week to brand as “bogus” President Donald Trump’s descriptions of crimes committed by illegal aliens.
While complimenting Trump’s State of the Union address overall, Brooks apparently couldn’t resist a Times-style denigration of one of the more powerful parts of Trump’s speech.
“I actually thought it was his most effective speech as president,” Brooks said. “He had some of the stuff he has always had, which is these bogus stories of crimes that immigrants have committed.”
So the Department of Homeland Security had to set him straight:
Hi, @nytdavidbrooks. Saw your interview, where you said POTUS had “bogus stories of crimes that immigrants have committed.” Not true. Let me introduce you to a few. I’m sad to say there are many, many tragic stories of lives destroyed and lost due to crimes by illegal aliens. — Heather Swift, DHS spokesperson (@SpoxDHS) February 10, 2020
“Hi, @nytdavidbrooks,” DHS spokeswoman Heather Swift wrote in a Twitter post Monday.
“Saw your interview, where you said POTUS had ‘bogus stories of crimes that immigrants have committed.’ Not true. Let me introduce you to a few. I’m sad to say there are many, many tragic stories of lives destroyed and lost due to crimes by illegal aliens.”
Swift then cited the case of Reeaz Khan, an immigrant from Guyana charged with the Jan. 6 murder and sexual assault of a 92-year-old woman in the New York City borough of Queens.
From your own paper, the story @POTUS shared in the SOTU. A 92 year old woman was savagely raped and murdered by an illegal alien NYC refused to turn him over to @ICEgov after he was arrested for assault. https://t.co/EOHhQW5f72 — Heather Swift, DHS spokesperson (@SpoxDHS) February 10, 2020
Khan had been arrested after allegedly beating up his father in November.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement said it had issued a detainer requesting that he be turned over for possible deportation, The Times reported, though the New York City Police Department denied it had received the request.
ICE actually posted a copy of its detainer request on Twitter to prove its side of the argument, and considering the NYPD has a documented history of ignoring ICE detainers, it’s easy to believe the federal agency in this case.
But that’s actually beside the point. No one is arguing that the victim, a woman named Maria Fuentes, was not sexually assaulted and killed.
The claim there was a crime was not “bogus,” no matter what Brooks seems to think. (There’s also little doubt Khan is the guilty party, since he admitted to the sexual assault, The Times reported.)
That was one case Trump specifically cited in his State of the Union speech and, as Swift noted, Brooks’ own newspaper had covered the crime, so The Times columnist didn’t really have reason to doubt it.
Swift added a couple more tweets for good measure, backing up Trump’s contention that the country has a very real problem with illegal aliens who are not only in the country illegally, but have actually been arrested.
In a sane country, they would have been kept behind bars, but in certain “sanctuary” jurisdictions, where liberal elected officials have seen fit to defy federal laws, they were let loose to prey on the innocent population again.
Another horrible example in NY/NJ where two child rapists were released in New York and New Jersey after they refused to hold the suspects in jail for ICE. https://t.co/TyV0CcWOn1 — Heather Swift, DHS spokesperson (@SpoxDHS) February 10, 2020
An illegal immigrant targeted a woman he previously raped once he was released from custody in Oklahoma after authorities failed to honor an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer https://t.co/e99dr4vAFp — Heather Swift, DHS spokesperson (@SpoxDHS) February 10, 2020
While nobody gets to be a columnist for The Times by being stupid, Brooks’ acumen has always been suspect.
Besides being a crushingly boring writer (starting his columns is a lot easier than finishing them), his powers of deduction aren’t necessarily the best.
This is the “conservative,” remember, who was so impressed in 2005 by the crease in then-Sen. Barack Obama’s pants that he predicted Obama was not only going to be the president someday, he’d be a “very good president.”
So give Brooks points for the presidential prediction, but since Obama’s presidency — from a “conservative” point of view — is better described as “disastrous” than “very good,” Brooks clearly has some foresight issues.
Are "sanctuary" policies endangering American citizens? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 100% (788 Votes) No: 0% (1 Votes)
But no one can be expected to be perfect when it comes to seeing the future. For Brooks to have problems seeing the present, when it’s being documented by the very journalistic institution he works for, is a different matter.
There was literally nothing “bogus” about Trump’s description of crimes committed by illegal aliens in that State of the Union address. (Not even the nit-picking liberals at FactCheck.org came up with any complaints about that part of the speech.)
It’s unclear why Brooks — a Times “conservative” who has been known to insult conservatives in his work — chose that particular line of attack on Trump’s State of the Union. Anyone who follows the issue of crime and “sanctuary” jurisdictions knows that the situation is a disgrace to the idea of a nation supposedly governed by laws, not men.
But it is clear that he was so far off base the Department of Homeland Security had to step in to set him straight — and direct him to his own newspaper’s coverage.
It wasn’t the president’s words that were “bogus” here.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.


westernjournal--2020-02-11--XFL Commissioner: Kaepernick’s ‘Exorbitant’ Salary Demands Kept Him Out of the League

Former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick priced himself out of a job with the XFL , according to Commissioner Oliver Luck .
The eight-team league held its first slate of games over the weekend , but without Kaepernick , who last year indicated he wanted to return to the NFL .
The XFL operates under a different player management model than the NFL , centrally hiring all of the teams ’ players prior to the first draft .
In an interview with NPR about the upstart league , Luck was asked about the quarterback who began the trend of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ player , ” he said .
“ I — you know , I ’ m not going to talk about any particular player outside of the group of guys that we have because we think — again , we ’ ve got the best 500 or so players under contract who aren ’ t in the National Football League or in other professional leagues , ” he said .
TRENDING : Nearly 3 Years Later , FBI Director Admits Surveillance of Carter Page Was Illegal “ We gave it some thought , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretty significant salary restrictions , you know .
We ’ re a startup league , so we want to make sure that we can be fiscally responsible and fiscally prudent .
And the salary requirements that some folks shared with us were in our case exorbitant , so we couldn ’ t go down that path.
” When asked again if it all boiled down to money , Luck was emphatic .
“ I ’ m saying that we spoke with his representative , and the salary requirements that were broached in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our range , ” he said .
Kaepernick ’ s last NFL contract was a six-year , $ 126 million extension , according to CBS Sports — averaging $ 21 million per year .
Last year , Sporting News , citing sources it did not name , reported that Kaepernick had sought nearly that much — $ 20 million per year — to play in the XFL .
According to The Associated Press , he had demanded the same amount to play in the other upstart spring league , the Alliance of American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the middle of its first season .
The average XFL player is expected to make $ 55,000 this season , according to Fox News .
Asked whether the league would be interested in Kaepernick if his salary demands were reasonable , Luck said he didn ’ t know .
He said the league ’ s last contact with the quarterback was “ well over a year ago , so I don ’ t know what kind of shape Colin is in .
And we haven ’ t followed that because obviously , again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are interested in playing in our league .
That ’ s pretty much a requisite for our job.
” In the interview , Luck noted that the league requires players to stand for the national anthem .
“ Players have numerous opportunities to express themselves with all the platforms that exist today , ” he said .
“ So standing for the national anthem , we believe , is a part of their responsibility as players in our league .
But we think it ’ s important to have that requirement for our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has no interest in playing for XFL .
In December , Luck told the Tampa Bay Times that Kaepernick and the XFL were not a match .
At the time , Kaepernick had recently staged a workout in hopes of returning to the NFL .
“ I think his salary demands are way out of our ballpark .
He was never really a viable option , ” Luck said .
XFL owner/CEO Vince McMahon said back in January 2018 that limiting protests and requiring athletes to stand for the anthem made sense for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a time-honored tradition to stand and appreciate the national anthem with any sport .
Here in America — for that matter , in any country…so I think it ’ d be appropriate to do that , ” he told The Wrap .
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism .
Read our editorial standards .

Former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick priced himself out of a job with the XFL, according to Commissioner Oliver Luck.
The eight-team league held its first slate of games over the weekend, but without Kaepernick, who last year indicated he wanted to return to the NFL.
The XFL operates under a different player management model than the NFL, centrally hiring all of the teams’ players prior to the first draft.
In an interview with NPR about the upstart league, Luck was asked about the quarterback who began the trend of national anthem protests.
“Great football player,” he said. “I — you know, I’m not going to talk about any particular player outside of the group of guys that we have because we think — again, we’ve got the best 500 or so players under contract who aren’t in the National Football League or in other professional leagues,” he said.
Kaepernick was considered, Luck said.
“We gave it some thought,” he said. “We have some pretty significant salary restrictions, you know. We’re a startup league, so we want to make sure that we can be fiscally responsible and fiscally prudent. And the salary requirements that some folks shared with us were in our case exorbitant, so we couldn’t go down that path.”
When asked again if it all boiled down to money, Luck was emphatic.
“I’m saying that we spoke with his representative, and the salary requirements that were broached in that conversation were exorbitant and certainly out of our range,” he said.
Would you be more likely to watch the XFL if it had Kaepernick? Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Yes: 0% (3 Votes) No: 100% (822 Votes)
Kaepernick’s last NFL contract was a six-year, $126 million extension, according to CBS Sports — averaging $21 million per year.
Last year, Sporting News, citing sources it did not name, reported that Kaepernick had sought nearly that much — $20 million per year — to play in the XFL. According to The Associated Press, he had demanded the same amount to play in the other upstart spring league, the Alliance of American Football, which folded last April in the middle of its first season.
The average XFL player is expected to make $55,000 this season, according to Fox News.
Asked whether the league would be interested in Kaepernick if his salary demands were reasonable, Luck said he didn’t know.
He said the league’s last contact with the quarterback was “well over a year ago, so I don’t know what kind of shape Colin is in. And we haven’t followed that because obviously, again, we want the best players who are interested in playing in our league. That’s pretty much a requisite for our job.”
In the interview, Luck noted that the league requires players to stand for the national anthem.
“Players have numerous opportunities to express themselves with all the platforms that exist today,” he said. “So standing for the national anthem, we believe, is a part of their responsibility as players in our league. But we think it’s important to have that requirement for our players.”
Some on Twitter said Kaepernick has no interest in playing for XFL.
.@MarcellusWiley isn’t disappointed that Colin Kaepernick isn’t playing in the XFL “He’s just a social justice shoe salesman right now.” pic.twitter.com/wUtdYYftvD — Speak For Yourself (@SFY) February 7, 2020
@Kaepernick doesn’t get it. He has to prove his worth. Get in the league show everyone you can play then renegotiate for more money. At this point hes a liability no one trusts him. He might turn around and sue the xfl,he doesn’t want to play,all he wants is to play games — mark (@MarkMisixoo8) February 10, 2020
He doesn’t want to play, he just wants to complain about not playing. — Nick Bell (@nickrandomstuff) February 11, 2020
This weird cat doesn’t want to play football period. — K. Floros (@kfloros82) February 11, 2020
In December, Luck told the Tampa Bay Times that Kaepernick and the XFL were not a match. At the time, Kaepernick had recently staged a workout in hopes of returning to the NFL.
“I think his salary demands are way out of our ballpark. He was never really a viable option,” Luck said.
XFL owner/CEO Vince McMahon said back in January 2018 that limiting protests and requiring athletes to stand for the anthem made sense for the new league.
“It’s a time-honored tradition to stand and appreciate the national anthem with any sport. Here in America — for that matter, in any country…so I think it’d be appropriate to do that,” he told The Wrap.
Truth and Accuracy Submit a Correction → * Name
* Email
* Message
* All fields are required. Success! We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.