Problematic Women: Reporter Asks Sarah Huckabee Sanders This Extremely Inappropriate Question

On Monday, Brian Karem, CNN political contributor and Playboy White House correspondent, asked White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders if she’s ever been sexually harassed.

“As a woman, standing up there talking to us, I know your job is to relate what the president says—have you ever been sexually harassed?” Karem asked. “And I’m not saying by the president, I’m saying ever.”

“I’m not here to speak about my personal experience on that front,” Sanders responded. “But I am here to relay information on behalf of the president and that’s what I’m focused on doing here today.”

In light of Karem’s inappropriate question suggesting Sanders is incapable of empathizing with victims of sexual harassment without experiencing it herself, The Daily Signal’s “Problematic Women” is crowning her our “Problematic Woman of the Week.”

Co-hosted with Bre Payton of The Federalist, “Problematic Women” shines a spotlight on strong conservative women, current events, and the hypocrisy of the “feminist” left. Also covered in this week’s episode, Merriam-Webster declares “feminism” the word of the year, the “10 Things Every Intersectional Feminist Should Ask On a First Date,” and another massive study shows adverse side effects of hormonal birth control.

Watch in the video above, or listen in the podcast below.

The post Problematic Women: Reporter Asks Sarah Huckabee Sanders This Extremely Inappropriate Question appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Podcast: If Paul Ryan Does Step Down, What’s Next?

Is House Speaker Paul Ryan soon to retire? One report says so. We discuss who could be next in line, and what that could mean for conservative priorities in Congress. Plus: why the left is being ridiculous about the repeal of net neutrality today, and what a new poll shows about whether Americans think of Christmas as a religious or cultural holiday.

The post Podcast: If Paul Ryan Does Step Down, What’s Next? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Numbers That Prove How Much the Mainstream Media Hate Trump

There may be fake news, but there’s no making up the media’s loathing of President Donald Trump.

The press has been unrelenting toward this president since Day One—and the Media Research Center’s data proves it. Even the 89 percent negativity from his early months almost seem benevolent now, with numbers in the 91-93 percent range (the latter according to Harvard).

“Our latest numbers show that coverage of Trump on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts in September, October and November was more than 90 percent negative (our methodology counts only explicitly evaluative statements from reporters or non-partisan sources),” the Media Research Center explains. “In September, there were just 31 pro-Trump statements on the Big Three vs. 359 negative. In October, the number of positive statements grew to 41, while the negative statements swelled to 435.”

The hostility is tough to ignore, spilling over into fiery White House press briefings and a line of questioning more combative than most Hill hearings. “Add it all up,” the Media Research Center reports, “and coverage of Trump has been 91 percent negative during the past three months. Our study of news in June, July and August found an identical rate of 91 percent negative, which means TV news is unchanged in its hostility toward the president.”

And the bias isn’t just in conservatives’ heads. Former President (and Democrat) Jimmy Carter knows a little something about dealing with the press as the leader of the free world. Even he agrees: “I think the media have been harder on Trump than any other president certainly that I’ve known about,” he told The New York Times. “I think they feel free to claim that Trump is mentally deranged and everything else without hesitation.”

The reality is that to date the president has systematically gone about fulfilling his campaign promises—and that’s what’s driving people opposed to a conservative, pro-American agenda crazy.

This was originally published in Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.

The post The Numbers That Prove How Much the Mainstream Media Hate Trump appeared first on The Daily Signal.

What the Founders Understood About Religious Freedom That We Must Recover

Friday, Dec. 15 marks the anniversary of the day our young nation ratified the Bill of Rights in 1791.

Given the national discussion in recent days over whether the government may compel speech from an ordinary baker, now is an especially good time to consider the very first words of our charter document: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Many today mistakenly interpret these religion clauses to mean something like, “Americans are tolerant of private religious conduct.” But mere “toleration” of “private” religious conduct was precisely what James Madison, a primary author of the Bill of Rights, was careful to avoid. He favored the protection of robust freedom.

Madison’s commitment to religious freedom in public may have begun when he reviewed the proposed Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776. That document suggested “all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion.”

Yet years earlier, he had personally witnessed the supposedly tolerant Colony of Virginia imprison Baptist ministers because their beliefs were out of step with the predominantly Anglican colony. Such religious “tolerance” sent minority ministers to jail.

More fundamentally, Madison recoiled at the notion that exercise of religion was a gift from government to be merely “tolerated.” He saw it rather than a hallmark of a free society—an unalienable right endowed by a creator—that exists independent of government.

Many years after witnessing religious persecution in Virginia, Madison chaired the House conference committee on the Bill of Rights. In that role, he seized the opportunity to reject the language of toleration, instead grounding his proposal for the First Amendment in the language of individual liberty: “the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship … nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.”

The states ratified a revised version of Madison’s text as the First Amendment to our Constitution, and the first of our Bill of Rights. His gift to the fledgling republic was to reject the notion that individual rights—and preeminently religious liberty—were mere tokens bestowed by a beneficent state, replacing that view with the remarkable notion that these rights are inseparable from our humanity.

In other words, the right of every person to enjoy religious liberty doesn’t exist just because the government says it does—and any government that attempts to dictate otherwise risks illegitimacy.

That robust view of religious liberty served as a foundation for the remainder of what would become our Bill of Rights.

On Sept. 25, 1789, Congress sent the proposed Bill of Rights to the states for ratification. Two hundred and twenty-eight years ago this month, the states ratified these guarantees of natural rights, embedding them into the DNA of our nation.

America’s unique understanding of individual liberty is captured in the first three words of the Constitution, to which the Bill of Rights was appended: “We the people.”

From the preamble to the end of Article VII, the Constitution outlines how these people would form “a more perfect union” without abdicating their individual liberty to a monarch or a tyrant.

The governed gave their consent to lend some, but not all, of their individual authority as human beings to a central government. For instance, while they would remain free to defend themselves individually, they would vest the authority for the collective defense of the new nation to a government that could raise an army.

Thus, it is significant that after outlining the positive rights of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government on matters ranging from taxation to foreign relations, the Bill of Rights begins by negating the power of Congress—“Congress shall make no law …”—and recognizing the inherent rights of the people.

The reason for this is simple, revolutionary, and profound: Congress shall make no law because the people retain those rights articulated in the Bill of Rights by virtue of their humanity.

While it was, and is, necessary to lend government a limited amount of individual authority “to provide for the common defense” and “to promote the general welfare,” we the people have never ceded the rights of the free exercise of religion, speech, press, assembly, bearing of arms, due process, and those rights preserved within the Bill of Rights.

This was, and is, revolutionary. No nation had ever successfully undertaken to recognize, much less resolve, the tension between individual liberty and government as America did with its Bill of Rights.

Yet, this tension is a delicate one whose safeguarding demands vigilance and care. Madison was right to be wary of a government that treats civil rights as government-issued. And, as the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of Jack Phillips makes clear, so must we.

The legacy of the Bill of Rights is this: What government did not create, it can neither bestow nor confiscate.

The post What the Founders Understood About Religious Freedom That We Must Recover appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Nikki Haley Slams Iran’s Role In Yemen War, Neglects To Mention U.S. Part In Humanitarian Crisis

Nikki Haley Slams Iran’s Role In Yemen War, Neglects To Mention U.S. Part In Humanitarian CrisisThe U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, stood before missile remnants that she claimed were covered in Iranian “fingerprints” on Thursday while laying out what she called “irrefutable evidence” that Tehran has violated its international obligations by militarily supporting rebels in Yemen.

North Korea's envoy, Tillerson to attend UN meeting

North Korea's envoy, Tillerson to attend UN meetingNorth Korea's UN ambassador will attend a Security Council meeting on Friday where US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will address how to confront the North Korea crisis, diplomats said. The White House and State Department however stressed that the US stance had not changed and insisted North Korea must first show a willingness to halt its nuclear and missile tests.