Connect with us

Nation

CBS correspondent says he ‘felt safer reporting’ in North Korea than at the WH

Published

on

KimJongUn 1385497733

CBS News’ White House correspondent Ben Tracy said on Monday that he “felt safer reporting” in North Korea than does in the White House, earning him swift condemnation and mockery from across Twitter.

“I felt safer reporting in North Korea that I currently do reporting at the White House,” Tracy said in a tweet posted Monday. “This is just crazy.”

Twitter, especially conservative Twitter, immediately pounced on this statement. President Donald Trump‘s former political aide and contestant on ‘The Apprentice’, Omarosa, even chimed in, simply saying: “Crazy!”

SaraACarter.com’s own Sara Carter joined in, joking that “You need to find your safe space because yes, this statement is really crazy” attached with a GIF of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un waving.

Other commentators brought Tracy’s tweet up as evidence for why many people do not trust the press, such as Jon Nicosia, the President of News Cycle Media.

Harmeet K. Dillon, a Republican committeewoman and legal expert from California, pointed out the immense discrepancy between the White House and the authoritarian regime.

“Yes the White House is just like North Korea,” she tweeted, then saying, “other than the beatings, starvation, lack of electricity, organ harvesting, punishment of your parents, your children, your extended family on the basis of your network’s reporting.”

“You are a clown,” she added.

In 2018, Ben Tracy was the only American news correspondent to be invited to the destruction of one of North Korea’s nuclear testing sites. This trip saw him and other journalists follow strict guidelines by their North Korean hosts, including not being allowed to pull up the window shades on their train because their hosts did not want them to “see how people are living,” according to a Business Insider article from the time.

You can follow Douglas Braff on Twitter @Douglas_P_Braff.

Continue Reading

Nation

Minnesota farmer’s lawsuit prompts removal of race and sex-based grant program

Published

on

GettyImages 2059551148 scaled

Five months after Minnesota farmer Lance Nistler filed a federal lawsuit with the help of the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), the state has removed race- and sex-based preferences from its Down Payment Assistance Grant Program. This significant policy change followed Nistler’s legal challenge, which highlighted the discriminatory nature of the program’s selection process.

Pacific Legal Foundation writes involvement in Nistler’s case drew attention and criticism from Minnesota progressives. Writing in the Minnesota Reformer, Sigrid Jewett accused PLF of using Nistler “as a pawn in a larger culture war game.” She questioned why a California-based legal firm with numerous Supreme Court victories would be interested in representing a small Minnesota farmer pro bono.

PLF opposes all race- and sex-based preferences in the law, and that’s the real reason the firm chose to represent Nistler. The foundation stands against discrimination in various domains, including government board selections, school admissions, government contracts, and grant distributions, such as in Nistler’s case.

Here are the facts: Minnesota’s Down Payment Assistance Grant Program offers up to $15,000 toward the purchase of farmland. Recipients are chosen through a lottery system. However, before the policy change, even if a recipient was among the first picked through the lottery—as Nistler was, being selected ninth—they could be bumped to the back of the line if they were not a racial minority, female, LGBTQIA+, or otherwise designated as an “emerging” farmer by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.

Despite being chosen ninth in the lottery, which awarded grants to 68 applicants, Nistler did not receive a grant. He was moved from ninth to 102nd on the waitlist because he is a white male.

Nistler grew up on his family farm, milking cows. “They would lose money every year,” he says of the family operation. After he left for school, his family sold the cows and switched to farming soybeans, oats, and wheat. Lance’s father and uncle now run the farm, but they’re getting older. Lance, who has a degree in electronic engineering and worked in HVAC, is interested in buying a 40-acre chunk of the family farm, becoming the fourth-generation farmer in his family.

The land isn’t just going to be given to Lance. This is a working farm, and the Nistlers aren’t a wealthy family that can transfer land from one generation to the next without consideration. “My dad and uncle, they don’t have 401(k)s or anything,” Lance says. “I mean, the land and the equipment, that’s their retirement. This stuff isn’t given away. I’m not just going to get it handed down to me and inherited. It has to be purchased, and it is not cheap.”

Despite being from a farming family, Lance considers himself a new farmer—he has never owned farmland before, and he has an electronics background. Buying these 40 acres would be a huge step for Lance, planting him firmly in the farming world, which is what Minnesota’s grant program aimed to do. The idea that he would have qualified as an emerging farmer if only his skin were a different color struck Lance as wrong.

“The country we live in, the idea is it’s equal opportunity for everyone,” he says. “And if that’s what it is, then well, why shouldn’t I have the same chances?”

When Lance filed his lawsuit in January, the complaint argued that the discriminatory process violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. The complaint stated:

“Nistler brings this lawsuit to vindicate his constitutional right to equal protection of the law. He brings it to give all Minnesotans a fair chance at a difference-making grant program. He brings it in the hope that he will be able to own that small farm in the near future. He brings it because he is not giving up on his dream.”

In May, after Lance called attention to the unconstitutional policy, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed legislation removing the race and sex prioritization from the program. Now, Minnesota will treat farmers equally—as the Constitution promises.

Continue Reading

Trending