Alex Jones Loses Child Custody Battle to Jew ex-Wife

Austin, Texas is one of the most liberal cities in America. Austinites hate Alex Jones. After all, he’s a Trump supporter and he’s eccentric in a right-wing sort of way. I’m sure the hippies and hipsters in Austin think he’s an evil Nazi.

Alex’s half Jewish kids (all Jewish by Jewish law since their mother is a Jew) would have had a lot of weird fun growing up in the Jones household. Now, they’ll grow up to be neurotic Jews that Alex will hardly recognize as his own.

Excerpt from Buzzfeed

AUSTIN — After a grueling 10-day trial, a jury has ruled in favor of Infowars founder and CEO Alex Jones’ ex-wife, Kelly, in the custody of their three children.

The jury, which deliberated for roughly nine and a half hours, ruled Thursday night to give Kelly Jones joint custody with the ability to dictate the residence of the children. Previously she had joint custody with limited, supervised visitation rights with residence dictated by Alex Jones.

It was a defeat for Alex Jones, who watched the verdict with a stoic expression and left promptly after the verdict without talking to reporters. Upon hearing the verdict, Kelly Jones dabbed her eyes with a tissue and hugged her lawyer, Robert Hoffman.

Moments later, Kelly Jones spoke briefly to the press, thanking God for the verdict.

“I’m so blessed to have such a wonderful support system, such a wonderful family and friends who stood beside me through all this, and I just pray that from what’s happened to my family that people can really understand what parental alienation syndrome is and get an awareness about it, ’cause we could stop this from happening in future,” she said.

The verdict came on the same day as the lawyers delivered their closing arguments. On Alex Jones’ side, his lawyers portrayed his ex-wife as emotionally unstable and quick to wrongly accuse the Texas family court system of deep corruption against her. Conversely, Kelly Jones’ lawyers made the case that Alex Jones was a “master manipulator” who’d alienated the children against her.

“Mr. Jones is like a cult leader,” attorney Hoffman told the jury. “And we’ve seen the horrific damage cult leaders do to their followers.”

Hoffman argued that the trial focused unjustly on the faults of Kelly Jones, allowing Alex to fly under the radar. “Is it Mr. Jones’ celebrity or his vast wealth that’s allowed him to escape detection? Nobody can stop this man,” he said to the jury, allowing the words to hang in the air for dramatic effect. “Except for you.”

The custody case — a somewhat ordinary family law matter — quickly captured national media attention after news broke that Jones’ attorneys planned to defend his custody on the grounds that his two-plus decades of conspiracy theorizing has been “performance art.”

For onlookers, the trial then offered the allure of answering the burning question: Where does Alex Jones the character end and Alex Jones the man begin?

Questions of Alex Jones’ character were discussed. On the witness stand, Kelly Jones accused him of being a “violent, cruel, and abusive man who engages in hate speech at home and in public.”

She accused him of racist and homophobic comments, as well as frequent comments demeaning to women. “He’s enraged and out of control all the time,” she said, calling Infowars (which Mrs. Jones was involved with many years ago) “a portal of hate.”

Jones and his lawyers meanwhile painted a picture of a kind and gentle family man who never brings his work home with him. “I just want to be with the kids, swim in the pool, and eat hamburgers,” Alex Jones told the court last week.

Well, trying to find a silver lining in the dark cloud for Alex, maybe the unfairness of the court system to men will get as much publicity as Super Male Vitality at Infowars now.

United Reaches Settlement with Dr. Gook, but What About Big Bunny?

The violent, mentally ill Asian doctor with a criminal past whose removal from a United Airlines flight earlier this month sparked nationwide outrage (except from me) has reached a settlement with the airline for an undisclosed amount. Speculation ranges from $2.5 million to $25 million, but for now we just don’t know how much he received for throwing a tantrum on board the airliner.

This video describes the scumbag’s criminal past.

Excerpt from Reuters

United Airlines (UAL.N) and the passenger who was dragged from a Chicago flight earlier this month have reached a settlement for an undisclosed sum, they said on Thursday, in the carrier’s latest step to contain damage from an incident that sparked international outrage.

Viral videos of Dr. David Dao being dragged down the aisle of a United jet and Chief Executive Oscar Munoz’s handling of the incident touched off a public outcry, prompted calls from congressmen for new industry regulation, and led United’s board of directors to reverse an agreement to make Munoz company chairman in 2018.

United said earlier on Thursday that it would offer passengers who give up their seats up to $10,000, reduce overbooking of flights and no longer call on law enforcement officers to deny ticketed passengers their seats.

Some of the best comments I’ve read about the whole affair at at Lawnewz.

Here are some comments that run counter to popular opinion.

It’s amazing to me that anyone defends this sexual deviant, who instead of getting off the plane like an adult, threw a tantrum like a child and was dragged off squealing.

His grifting is complete. For at least a few months. We hope.

Hope nobody sits in his waiting room, refuses to leave when asked and is dragged out shrieking.

glad the cops beat him up ,
go Cops

He didn’t have any legal standing, at least not for the injury. UA paid him off for publicity reasons.

Since the life of a beloved bunny to a white person is worth more than the minor injuries sustained by Dr. Gook, I only hope that the public outrage about the big bunny is equal to or greater than the outrage over Dao’s treatment.


The Sun

A GIANT rabbit who died on his way to a new owner in the US collapsed waiting for a connecting flight.

United Airlines said 3ft Simon appeared “happy and healthy” as his first plane landed at Chicago’s O’Hare airport.

But he collapsed in his cage at a pen ahead of a flight to Kansas.

Staff at a company-run pet facility noticed the 10-month old rabbit was lifeless and still but initially believed he was sleeping.

Bryan Bergdale, who bought the ten-month-old on behalf of his boss for £1,815, told The Sun: “We’re still in the mourning process.

“We’re not quite sure what to do.”

The obvious thing to do is hire lawyers and try to reach an “amicable settlement” with United Airlines.

Bunny lives matter. I hope Simon’s family had an autopsy done that proves that United was responsible for his untimely passing.

It’s times like these that I am glad I vowed never to fly again.

President Trump says he may break up 9th Circuit Court after rulings go against him

Apparently, the United States Senate would first have to pass legislation to break up the ninth circuit court of appeals. Legislation is currently pending, but Democrats would stand opposed to the breakup.

Hopefully, President Trump will not flip flop and will support Republicans in the Senate seeking the breakup.

The Hill

President Trump is considering breaking up the 9th Circuit Court after a federal district court judge in its jurisdiction blocked his order to withhold funding from “sanctuary cities.”

In a Wednesday interview with the Washington Examiner, Trump said “there are many people who want to break up the 9th Circuit. It’s outrageous.”

In the interview, Trump accused liberals of “judge-shopping” for a court that would strike down his executive order.

“I mean, the language on the ban, it reads so easy that a reasonably good student in the first grade will fully understand it. And they don’t even mention the words in their rejection on the ban,” Trump said.

Trump claimed the court oversteps its authority and that his opponents “immediately run” to the court for “semi-automatic” rulings.

The 9th Circuit earlier this year blocked Trump’s executive order that barred immigration from certain Muslim-majority countries and banned all Syrian refugees from the U.S. for a period of time.

Earlier Wednesday, Trump railed against the 9th Circuit over a judge blocking his order withholding funds from sanctuary cities.

If Trump decides to move forward with plans to break up the court, he’ll have Republican support. Earlier this year, Sen Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) voiced support for breaking up the court, which is seen as one of the most liberal in the country.

On Tuesday, a federal judge rejected Trump’s order to defund sanctuary cities, arguing that the White House had overreached with requirements not related to law enforcement.

The 9th Circuit Court covers Arizona, California, Alaska, Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Washington and Hawaii, as well as Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Eighteen of the court’s 25 judges were appointed by Democratic presidents.


Alaska Public covered the story of legislation aimed at breaking up the 9th circuit last year, before President Trump’s threat.

The age-old effort to split up the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is back. Republican senators Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Steve Daines of Montana have co-sponsored the latest bill. The Ninth Circuit is the federal appeals court for Alaska and eight other western states. It is by far the biggest of all the circuit courts, serving a population nearly double the second largest.

Campaigns to split it up date back to at least the 1940s.

Many critics say the court is dominated by California judges and too liberal. The co-sponsors, though, stuck to statistics in a statement today promoting their bill. The senators say the court has over 14,000 pending cases, more than three times the volume of any other circuit, and takes longer, on average, to resolve them.

The bill would leave California and Hawaii in the Ninth and move the other states to their own circuit.

California’s Democratic senators have fiercely opposed such bills. And environmental groups have charged that splitting the Ninth Circuit is really an effort to gerrymander the court.

CNN offers a balanced story on the issue that goes into more depth than this post.

What is clear is that Republicans should have fought tooth and nail to prevent liberals from being confirmed to serve on the 9th circuit. The liberal philosophy of legislating from the bench is not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.

Lawsuit: Black Fox News Anchor Plays the Race Card

Kelly Wright? Who dat?

Excerpt from

An African-American on-air host for Fox News has joined a group of current and former employees suing the cable channel and some of its senior executives for alleged racial discrimination.

Kelly Wright, who is a Saturday afternoon anchor for Fox News and a former co-host of the weekend edition of “Fox & Friends,” is one of 11 current and former employees seeking class action status for their lawsuit. Mr. Wright claims in the suit that his race has held him back at the channel and that he has been “asked to perform the role of a ‘ Jim Crow ’— the racist caricature of a Black entertainer.”

A 14-year Fox News veteran, Mr. Wright said he hasn’t been offered the same chances for advancement as his white colleagues and that he was “forced to endure many racist comments,” according to the complaint. He added it is a running joke among the cast and crew at Fox News that he would get more air time if “he dyed his hair blonde.”

The suit, which was originally filed in the New York State Supreme Court in Bronx County last month by two black women who worked in the payroll department at Fox News, has been amended to include 11 people. Aside from Mr. Wright, the rest of the plaintiffs are current and former employees at the channel who work in payroll and accounting.

Determined Ann Coulter to Speak at Berkeley Public Square on Thursday

This story broke about a half hour ago. The situation is fluid and subject to change. The important thing to bear in mind is that the liberal/progressive/Communist police state in Berkeley wants Ann not to speak. If she does speak, some of them would like her dead, which poses problems for law enforcement.

By this point in time, the Berkeley police have had plenty of time to infiltrate the violent criminal thug groups that call themselves the antifa. If a pro-white group were as violent, all its leaders would be under arrest and charged with hate crimes.

The Hill

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter will give a speech at a public plaza at the University of California at Berkeley on Thursday, sparking concerns about massive protests causing safety hazards.

Coulter will speak at Sproul Plaza, the legendary site of the 1960s Free Speech Movements, an area that is open to the public.

UC Berkeley’s chancellor Nicholas Dirks told the Washington Post the school is worried about not being able to screen attendees for weapons.

If the event were inside, the university could use metal detectors and otherwise search for weapons, Dirks said.

“In an open space, you have almost no control over that,” he added, according to the Post report. “The challenges are immense.”

The Post report indicated the school is readying police for the event.

Coulter has repeatedly insisted she will speak on Thursday, despite Berkeley initially canceling the event over safety concerns. Berkeley attempted to move the event date until May 2, but Coulter rejected the proposed change.

“Nice day for an outdoor speech at Berkeley,” Coulter tweeted Monday, sharing a Thursday weather report for the area.

On Monday, the students who initially invited Coulter to speak filed a lawsuit against the school.

The suit accuses “university administrators and campus police” of “repressive actions” to stifle free speech.

Berkeley’s concerns for safety follows massive protests that erupted on campus in February, after the same College Republicans group that invited Coulter brought right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at the university.

A Berkeley student who is a member of the student groups that invited Coulter told the Post that he shares the school’s concerns for safety, and they are hoping to find an off-campus space for the talk.

He said Coulter has still insisted she will speak at the public plaza.

“We’re worried about it turning into a huge battle between her security and conservative militia and anti-fascists and others,” student Pranav Jandhyala told the Post. “To have that right in middle of Sproul doesn’t bode well for the image of our school or the city. We’re worried about violence and student safety and our own safety as well. It’s a huge safety concern.”

While I was putting together this post, Breitbart broke the news that the Young Americans for Freedom are pulling out of the Ann Coulter event due to the extreme danger. YAF blames a university administration hostile to free speech for their action. I believe we might call their action cowardly.

Sad Bill O Breaks Silence: “The truth will come out.”


Bill O’Reilly admits he would like to be King of Cable News again.

Will someone hire him, given the cloud of accusations hanging over him? His fans don’t care about those accusations or simply don’t believe them.

At age 67 does Bill O have enough time to rehabilitate himself the way Mel Gibson did? Probably not, so he’d better move fast.

NY Mag

Bill O’Reilly returned from vacation on Monday night, but in a much different venue than he anticipated when he signed off of his Fox News show on April 11. Five days after he was fired from the network over allegations of sexual harassment, O’Reilly addressed the controversy in a podcast posted on his personal website. “I am sad that I’m not on television anymore,” O’Reilly said. “I was very surprised how it all turned out.”

O’Reilly’s podcast, The No Spin News, has been available to his website’s subscribers since 2009. New episodes, which air Monday through Thursday, will be free to download this week.

During Monday night’s 19-minute episode, O’Reilly said he intends to turn the podcast “into a genuine news program.” The broadcast included a discussion of President Trump’s poll numbers, attacks on the mainstream press, and a dig at Senator Elizabeth Warren. This is how he addressed his firing from Fox News:

I am sad that I’m not on television anymore. I was very surprised how it all turned out. I can’t say a lot, because there’s much stuff going on right now.

But I can tell you that I’m very confident the truth will come out, and when it does, I don’t know if you’re going to be surprised — but I think you’re going to be shaken, as I am. There’s a lot of stuff involved here.

Now, I can’t say any more because I just don’t want to influence the flow of the information. I don’t want the media to take what I say and misconstrue it. However you, as a loyal O’Reilly listener, have a right to know, I think, down the lane what exactly happened. And we are working in that direction, okay?

It’s unclear why O’Reilly felt he couldn’t say more. As the Washington Post notes, the sexual harassment lawsuits against O’Reilly have been settled, and presumable his $25 million severance package bars him from suing Fox News.

O’Reilly has insisted that the harassment allegations were all unfounded. His attorneys claimed he was the victim of a “smear campaign is being orchestrated by far-left organizations,” and said they had evidence to prove it. As we learned from strategy emails the O’Reilly team accidentally forwarded to a Politico reporter last week, they considered telling the Murdochs about a conference call the liberal watchdog group Media Matters and Democratic fundraiser Mary Pat Bonner were coordinating to discuss their effort pressure advertisers to pull out of his show.

Tucker Carlson praised Bill O as he took over the king’s time slot on Monday.

Feds tell Supreme Court that mug shots should stay secret


Here’s an issue you may not have thought of before: Should mugshots be made freely available to the public, such as online?

People indicted on federal charges have their mugshots kept under wraps. For other crimes at the state and local level, you’ve seen the mugshots lined up row and row on the mugshot sites. You’ve also seen them here.

Mugshots provide useful information to the public. For example, suppose a Dan Smith is arrested. Is that the Dan Smith that lives down the street or some other Dan Smith? If the public has a mugshot to look at, then people know the answer. They also get to learn the race of the arrested person, although that’s sometimes clear from the name.

USA Today

The Justice Department won’t budge from its position that federal mug shots of criminals should be kept secret, arguing in a U.S. Supreme Court brief that jailhouse photos are “embarrassing, nonpublic” moments that add to defendants’ grief.

The agency clarified its stance as part of an ongoing legal battle over whether federal law enforcement, like many states, should be required to hand over booking photos.

“Mug shots reveal much more than the sterile fact of arrest and booking,” the Justice Department wrote in a Supreme Court brief filed this month. “They graphically depict individuals in the embarrassing, nonpublic moment of their processing into the criminal justice system.”

The case has been appealed to the nation’s highest court following a lawsuit brought by the Detroit Free Press newspaper. The Free Press, which is owned by Gannett, the publisher of USA TODAY and dozens of other newspapers, has challenged the federal government over its decision not to release the mug shots of four Michigan police officers charged with public corruption charges in 2013.

The Free Press has won four lawsuits over the issue.

The agency’s response aligns with the rulings of three federal appeals courts, which determined the photos should be kept from the public. In July, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found the promotion of mug shots on the internet and social media have made booking photos more “embarrassing and humiliating” than before.

The Justice Department, in its latest response, played to the demeaning nature of the photos.

“The adage that one picture is worth a thousand words is apt in this context,” the response said. “The visual depiction of the individual’s appearance at booking in a law-enforcement facility reflects a uniquely powerful and lasting image of what can be one of the most difficult episodes in an individual’s life.”

Lawyers for the Free Press have contended the government is less interested in protecting the reputations of the accused, but rather want to have a grip on the flow of information to the press.

“The public has a right to see who the government is indicting,” said Free Press attorney Herschel Fink on Saturday. “Given the fact that names can be similar, a photo is the best way to identify who the government is prosecuting.”

Dissemination of mug shots can serve the public interest by revealing whether or not a suspect has been beaten by police, the Free Press has argued. Media scrutiny of mug shots can also reveal whether federal agencies are arresting high numbers of minorities, and in some cases, a suspect’s photo may help solve crimes if a past victim recognizes the person.

I think an argument could be made to keep mugshots under wraps when people have committed minor, nonviolent crimes, i.e. class C and class B misdemeanors, for example. A woman arrested for jaywalking perhaps deserves some privacy protection.

What do you think? Does the public always have the right to see every mugshot.