Mogg Mogged Tucker (And What the Commentariat Are Still Missing)

 

On October 2^nd, 2026, Tucker Carlson released his hostile interview with former United Kingdom Conservative MP Jacon Rees-Mogg. That was a bad move for the fired Fox News host.

A wide array of opinions has celebrated Mogg for holding his own against the abusive detours, the unwelcome interventions, and unjustified non sequiturs that Tucker Carlson has become famous for throwing out.

Views tired of Tucker’s pro-Islam, anti-Zionist schtick have praised Mogg for keeping his cool and turning the tables on the former MSNBC-CNN host throughout the entire.

The wide bevy of commentators declared that Carlson finally met his match. Most of the public should have expected as much. The posh UK conservative was one of the few who expertly rebuffed Sasha Baron Cohen’s obnoxious alter ego Ali G nearly thirty years ago. He mocked the liberal comedian without batting an eyelash or breaking a sweat. Remarking on the mockery, Mogg undermined Cohen’s subversive credibility by sharing that he enjoyed the interview. Calm, cool, and collected is the approach, and Mogg took the time to develop clarity of speech under duress.

His excellent takedown of a fake news propagandist masquerading as a journalist is not a first, either, but he capitalized on prior wins to deflate the most obnoxious of the bunch.

Canadian psychologist and intellectual Jordan Peterson’s revealed (and reveled in) his own masterclass on dealing with hostile interviews when he took down Cathy Newman of Channel 4 News in 2018. She repeatedly tried to put words in Peterson’s mouth (as Tucker did with Mogg), but he would gently correct her and set the record straight. At one point, he even laughed at her silly questions.

Elon Musk has also shut down arrogant liberals pushing their agenda under the guise of journalism.  At Twitter's San Francisco headquarters on April 11, 2023, Musk slammed a BBC reporter outright for lying about a supposed increase in hate speech or racist commentary on Twitter (now X) shortly after Musk took over. On July 23, 2026, in Musk’s long and contentious interview with the Economist, he rebuked the reporter’s suggestion that people loathe him for taking on more conservative political views. He retorted (correctly) that more people loathe corporate media talking heads like herself for mischaracterizing people and not reporting the truth. He also pushed back on the empty smear that he was supporting “extreme right” or “far right” policies when he provided a solid list of Democratic politicians in America who had supported secure borders, protection of children, and a rejection of amnesty for illegal immigrants.

It’s worth building on Musk and Peterson to appreciate Mogg’s approach to biased interviewers who insist on putting words in their guests’ mouths all while contorting their remarks and undermining their arguments.

These aggressive, liberal interviews want to enrage their guests, cause them to lose their cool, then take advantage of their flustered state as if to say: “See! You’re wrong about your stance! You are getting angry with me because all I’m doing is just asking questions.”

As if!

Like Peterson and Musk, Jacob Rees-Mogg was prepared, and the audience recognizes that he was comfortable with his views and his answers because he had pondered them for a long time. He spoke cogently, responded calmly without sudden alarm, and he had no problem correcting Tucker’s misunderstanding—or disregard—of history.

How have the pundits responded, and what are they missing?

Triggernometry podcaster Konstantin Kisin rebuffed these celebrations, lamenting that Tucker’s take was not particularly dark or disconcerting. He found Tucker to be unintelligent, and the whole discussion disappointing.

I could not disagree more.

Mogg’s masterful class on mogging (urban slang meaning to outshine, outclass, or dominate someone else—most commonly in physical appearance, physique, height, or presence, making them look inferior or smaller by comparison, cf. Merriam-Webster) Tucker and his insufferable post-liberal arrogance are a clinic for dealing with these fake news propagandists masquerading as journalists.

British conservative Peter Hitchens remarked that Tucker shouldn’t be treated seriously. He faulted Tucker’s lack of knowledge of history, his broad folly about Russia’s GDP vs. the UK, but he didn’t go after Trump’s deprecating self-contradictions. More conservatives need to point out this disturbing habit, then rest on that point to dismiss further discussions with him.

Andrew Klavan sounded off on Mogg mogging Tucker, too. He pointed out that war is justified when an aggressive power attacks, murders, and slaughters innocent civilians. He dismissed their influence because they may have many followers and views, but so what?

Klavan focuses on Tucker’s repartee that the UK should not have entered World War II. He slams the litany of falsehoods that flooded out of Tucker’s mouth. He criticizes the notion that WWII caused the decline of the UK. Klavan correctly points out that European allied nations are collapsing because they have lost the will and the interest in keeping their culture alive.

I would go one step further, though, and this analysis is still missing from the Carlson-Mogg reactions. Why has the West stopped fighting for its values? Because Christian faith has fallen into decline as universities have embraced secular leftist and globalist ideas. I also welcomed his attack on the false dichotomy of having to choose between Nazi rule and Islamic rule. He put Nazi and Islam together vs. Western glory based on Judeo-Christian values, Greek reason, and Roman courage.

Klavan also jumped on Tucker’s naïve argument that the UK is arresting more people for speech than Russia. Mogg mocked Tucker’s brazen ignorance (his confident dumbness), reminding Tucker that Putin routinely jails dissidents, or they suddenly find themselves falling from windows or getting poisoned.

I would add that since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian citizens have never enjoyed a culture of robust freedom of speech. While that natural right is under attack in the United Kingdom because of a hostile Labour government and local bureaucrats, Russian citizens have learned to keep their mouths shut, knowing all too well the consequences if they speak out and criticize the regime.

Furthermore, Russia does not respect freedom of religion either. The general public is unaware of this, but as far back as 2016, Russia has heavily restricted proselytizing. Individuals cannot share their faith publicly, yet not a whimper from the Pro-Putin crowd. Mogg should have capitalized on that.

Last of all, many of the chatterati have ignored one of the best parts of the Tucker-Mogg moggery, which occurred when Mogg intimated that Tucker was defending Hitler, and the former MP advised his interviewer that he probably didn’t want to give that impression. Most people commenting on the exchange are not giving Rees-Mogg enough credit: he didn’t resort to direct character assassination, but slyly suggested it, just as Tucker makes snide assumptions about his guests under the guise of “just asking questions.”

Trying to defend himself, Tucker said, “OK, I’m a secret Nazi. Actually, I’m not …”

From Mogg’s reflection on his debate/discussion to the latest comments on the exchange, it’s frustrating that no one has seized on this grating, fundamental problem with Tucker, especially in connection with that Nazi-Not a Nazi remark: Tucker says unserious things, then disavows saying them. If he doesn’t take his own words seriously, why should anyone else?

Jubilee Discussion: Should Minors Transition? (One Year Later)

                      

Last year, Jubilee Media invited me and five others to discuss the contentious topic: "Should minors medically transition?"

Our society is in such immoral disarray, that such a question has to be asked!

Nevertheless, I participated and made the case at length that it is always wrong to mutilate children.

There were two other conservatives with me. Well, one of them was more of a libertarian, and HE was a confused man who had mutilated his body to pretend to be a woman.

That was a bit unsettling, but I let that go so that the conversation would continue.

On the Liberal side, there was a total Trans-hausen by proxy Karen from Canada, a black woman pretending to be a man, and a confused thin white man pretending to be a woman.

The delusion was very strong in the room.

We had the added distinction of trying to convince three undecided youth whether it was right or wrong to transition children. Jubilee was trying out this new set-up to see how things would play out.

Clearly, one of the undecided members was NOT undecided. She had announced near the beginning that she was "queer," and that one of her relatives was trans. This was not as well-planned as one would have hoped.

Still, I am glad that I particpated in this discussion. And now, it has been one year since that discussion, and I would have to say that our side is winning the war against the mutilation of children. I just hope that we can ban this horrific practice for all people, not just children.

And then we can take a firm stance against the corruption of marriage and sex itself afterwards.

Rep. Steve King, Nationalism, and The New York Times Controversy

Republicans have been playing defense on the race card for far too long. Their instinctive need to make nice with the trigger-happy race-baiting media has forced so many conservatives into a corner, preventing many of them from engaging in serious discussions about race--how it should matter less, but still matters only because of Democrats who exploit color differences to push their extreme, socialist policy goals.

The last controversy to blow open this genuflective self-loathing among conservatives has emerged around Congressman Steve King and remarks that he made to the New York Times a few days ago.

Here's what Congressman King said:

“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” Mr. King said. “Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”

I submit that the one remark "white supremacist" is totally wrong. Putting nationalism and white supremacy in the same sentence is wrong. Supremacy based on skin color is patently ridiculous. Let's be clear, however: Congressman Steve King of Iowa did not advocate for White Supremacy. Congressman King was merely initiating a conversation to put an end to empty epithets from the left which have been routinely conjured up to silence conservatives.

He then went to further lengths to clarify his remarks:

After this article was published Thursday, Mr. King issued a public statement calling himself a “nationalist” and defending his support of “western civilization’s values,” and said he was not an advocate for “white nationalism and white supremacy.” “I want to make one thing abundantly clear: I reject those labels and the evil ideology they define,” he wrote.

There. Congressman King cleaned up his statements. Many people have uttered misstatements on a range of issues before, and they have corrected myself. So did Congressman King.

Then the real problem arises. What has caused this conflagration of fiery issues and misunderstandings to break out? If one looks closer at the article published by the New York Times, it is evident that they are pushing a substantially offensive bias of their own and right in the title of the article:

Before Trump, Steve King Set the Agenda for the Wall and Anti-Immigrant Politics

Congressman King has never opposed immigration per se. He has been a vocal, consistent critics of  illegal immigration, and he has demanded the removal of illegal aliens from the United States. Here's some more context: Mexico enforces some of the most draconian immigration laws in the world. Along the Mexico--Guatemala border, Mexican national guardsmen are instructed to "shoot to kill" illegal alien invaders attempt to break into Mexico. Colombia has a wall with Venezuela, and Israel has two walls. Compared to these countries, the United States is extensively compassionate when it comes to illegal aliens.

As for the New York Times article, their bias toward call King, to call him "anti-immigrant" in the title, is unmistakable. It's worse to lump law-abiding men and women who came into the United States legally with those who break into the United States illegally. Besides that, within the article one finds the following passage:

At the same time, he said, he supports immigrants who enter the country legally and fully assimilate because what matters more than race is “the culture of America” based on values brought to the United States by whites from Europe.

Did King talk about "whites from Europe"? He talked about culture, not skin color. The same Western Culture which taught mankind to value every person as equally precious in the eyes of God, that same Western Tradition animated Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's expectation for that promise to hold true for all Americans, especially black Americans who had endured 100 plus years of segregationist misery following the American Civil War.

The biggest problem time and again that emerges is this dangerous linking of skin color and culture. This discussion must focus on culture, not color. I am a nationalist, but I would not call myself a white nationalist, even if I am white, and even though I am an American nationalist.

Here's why:

First reason: I do not see skin color as immediately or essentially relevant. There was a time when Europeans were called "black" because they had dark hair and a dark beard. I learned this from an Armenian born in Soviet Russia who had heard that term used during her upbringing. She would later study to be a teacher in Long Beach, by the way.

Second reason: the term "white nationalist" has too often become synonymous with those who want a country filled with white people only. The term reflects on nationalism rather than the skin color of that specific nationalist every time. There are terms whose usage becomes so shaped and charged over time, that to use the term invites too much confusion. With all of this declared, let's recall that there is nothing to suggest that Representative King is a racist of any kind.

Then another problem presents itself: this burden for individuals to prove that they are "not racist". This challenge is necessarily frustrating and seemingly without end. How does one prove a negative? People on the Left will still play the race card against any opponent, even if that person had a black wife, Hispanic kids, Asian parents, a long pedigree of non-white, non-European ancesters, etc.

And this was the larger point that Congressman King was trying to make. The "Race Card" has turned into a perennial distraction from the more substantive concerns of our nation. Calling one's opponent racist has remained the number one tactic of the left to delegitimize and silence opponents as well as stifle meaning debate. Case in point? The Southern Poverty Law Center once labeled a Muslim as "anti-Muslim extremist" because of his political views. It did not matter what he thought of Islam or Muslims. His views did not suit the SPLC narrative on Sharia Law, so they smeared him. Thankfully, that individual, Maajid Nawaz, sued the SPLC for defamation, and he collected a $4 million settlement and a formal apologize from that corporate-financed online hate machine.

Today, Congressman King is being pilloried by a political establishment tso desperate to prove that they is "not racist". Worse yet, the GOP-Democratic Establishment is seeking to silence one of its most vocal opponents, an effective champion of border security and national sovereignty of amnesty and open border policies. Congressman King did indeed demand repeatedly for the securing of our borders. He modeled different types of border barriers a decade before Donald Trump even appeared on the horizon.

If these remarks are not persuasive, consider this logical defense of Representative Steve King from Keith Hardine, a black American, self-defense trainer and teacher of constitutionalism based in South Los Angeles:

Let me begin by saying that: I SUPPORT CONGRESSMAN STEVE KING 100%.

Steve King, an Iowa Republican Congressman, delivered on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, an explanation of the comments he made during an interview with the New York Times that was published a day earlier.

Congressman King read into the record the following two questions from the Times story that he  asked:

“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive? Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”

King did not dispute the quote, although he said it was taken out of context.  ” he said. “One phrase in that long article has created an unnecessary controversy.”

The context of the comment, King said, was obscured in the article. He was not complaining that those terms were no longer admissible in polite society; instead, he was asking how “that offensive language got injected into our political dialogue?”

“The New York Times is suggesting that I am an advocate for white nationalism and white supremacy,” King went on. “I want to make one thing abundantly clear: I reject those labels and the evil ideology that they define. Further, I condemn anyone who supports this evil and bigoted ideology which saw in its ultimate expression the systematic murder of 6 million innocent Jewish lives.”

* Source—Rep. Steve King rejects the 'label' and 'evil ideology' of white supremacy

https://news.yahoo.com/rep-steve-king-rejects-label-evil-ideology-white-supremacy-210418488.html

Moreover King emphasized:

"It's true that like the Founding Fathers I am an advocate for Western Civilization's values, and that I profoundly believe that America is the greatest tangible expression of these ideals the World has ever seen. Under any fair political definition, I am simply a Nationalist."

But King also acknowledged this sad truth. That words and phrases such as “racist,” “fascist,” “Nazi,” and “white supremacist” have been “used almost always unjustly labeling otherwise innocent people.”

[H]ow does one come to the conclusion—based on the context provided of what he said—that Republican Congressman Steve King is a racist?

My answer to Keith Hardine (who should have been a Congressman, but would have not had the time to educate young charges in LA United Schools), is that there is no drawing that conclusion whatsoever.

What is happening here?

1. Kevin McCarthy, the new GOP House minority leader, is consolidating power against conservative insurgents in the House Conference. Four years ago, McCaerthy had a chance to be Speaker of the House but for his own flippant remarks about the Benghazi investigations. He had suggested that those hearings were meant to hurt Hillary Clinton's Presidential election bid. How ironic that McCarthy wants to tar and feather Steve King for an inartful phrase, when he was publicly pilloried for the same failing.

Let's also not forget the festering allegations that McCarthy was having a long-term affair with Chamber of Commerice Republican Congresswoman Renee Ellmers. All of that scuttled interest in McCarthy as the next Speaker of the House after John Boehner.

2. The Main Street, K Street, Big Business, Cheap Labor Lobby has been looking for any chance to get rid of vocal opponents of illegal immigration. Congressman King has not just be a long-standing champion of securing our borders and protecting our culture. He has demonstrated practical means for making this goal come true. He is a thorn in the side to every Chamber of Commerce donor and Congressional puppet in the House of Representatives and in the United States Senate. He was Trump before Trump appeared on the scene. If the press can't sink the President, they will take down King.

3. This hasty damage-control action from Minority Leader McCarthy is proof positive that the  knee-jerk reaction of mea cupla in the face of the false claims of racism has still not left establishment-leaning Republicans. President Trump fights back against the Fake News Fraud of the liberal legacy media. They keep chanting "Racism! Racism! Racism!" about border security and retention of American culture. McCarthy launches into castigating King for inartful statements. Desperate to be liked by the legacy media, failed Presidential candidate and now carpetbagger US Senator Mitt Romney hostilely attacks Trump's manners and demeanor. Sad!

4. Rhetoric, especially when improperly understood, has triumphed over reality yet again. Left-wing critics are still carping about Donald Trump's uncouth comments in private and his rigorous insults in public. At the same time, his policy achievements have been nothing short of remarkable. Since when did so many Americans get hung up about what people say off-hand while ignoring the great works they accomplish on-hand? Substance should matter, but style still gets all the attention.

Even the NeverTrumper conservative mag National Review has jumped into the anti-King mosh pit. The Weekly Standard would have done the same thing if they hadn't folded a month ago. Honestly, when even the former Buckley flagship rag wants to toss you overboard, you should prepare for smooth sailing. After all, their "Never Trump" issue didn't make a damn difference in stopping his election, and Trump has accomplished more conservative goals in two years than all the Republican Presidents elected during William F. Buckley's lifetime, including Reagan.

Final Reflection

Congressman Steve King is not a racist. The liberal media is going out of its way to paint him as a racist, and all the other Republicans in Congress are scrambling to denounce him right away so that they don't get tarred with the race card for saying "nothing."

This is so sad, so sickening, especially because they are targeting one of the most ardent, much-needed champions of the very "America First" policies which President Trump campaigned on.

WINNING! Even National Review Hates Me

National Review is taking a dive, sadly, in much of its commentary.

Trump Derangement Syndrome has taken over this publication's editorial board, even though I don't see how William F. Buckley, if he were still alive, would have found anything to be upset about with this guy.

One of their latest articles showcased a series of disruptions on college campuses, which they list as clear examples that freedom of speech is under assault throughout the university system.

Check out how the author characterizes my presence at the event, too:

October 10: A talk by Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Los Angeles chapter of the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR), is disrupted by non-student audience members who repeatedly interrupt the speaker with questions and accusations.

I think the bigger question should be: why weren't the students questioning and confronting Ayloush with substantive questions about Islam?

Notice that the writer doesn't discuss or report on what Ayloush was talking about.

Here is the entire talk which I had uploaded:

Hecklers refuse to stop when repeatedly asked to do so by Professor Hao Huang, director of the Scripps Humanities Institute. Police are called to escort the speaker out. A video of the event was uploaded by Arthur C. Schaper, who appears to have been one of the leading hecklers at both the Becerra shout-down and this one. 

This is perhaps the golden mean or the golden line where I get upset. The prim and proper country club conservatives insist on civility at every level of discourse. But Islam is a dangerous, political cult, not a benign religion. The infiltration of Islam into our daily lives and society needs to be confronted, not accommodated.

Ayloush (Left) and me 

Notice once again that the writer does not mention that Ayloush was repeatedly lying about President Trump, specifically when he kept calling the travel ban or the travel restrictions a "Muslim Ban". That is a slanderous lie.

People in the audience called him out on that. He also shamed the United States, claiming that this country was founded on "supremacy." Most importantly, though, we as conservatives should not just sit back and allow radical Muslims to lie to us. This taqqiyah agenda is destroying our country. Look at what is happening in Great Britain, for example, and in other Western nations where elected leaders refuse to take a stand against creeping Islam.

The Scripps disruption is notable as a second shout-down from the right. Many of the hecklers’ questions were substantive and would have been fine if they’d been asked in proper turn, with the speaker permitted to answer. Instead, hecklers peppered Ayloush with a continual stream of shouted questions and accusations, leading to angry exchanges among audience members and legitimate concern for the speaker’s safety. 

"Legitimate concerns"? Really? No one in the audience threatened the speaker in any way. The Scripps event host called the police to intimidate members in the audience. The truth is that political correctness has taught conservatives that they have to be polite and permit speakers to lie to us. Islam is a dangerous cult--and it must be confronted.

I do not apologize for raising my voice and asking questions without hesitation. I would like to also remind everyone that Ayloush interrupted me when I was asking my question, specifically when I outlined key verses in the Koran which teach violence and death. His answer about treating one life as if they are all lives was taken out of context, as which often happens--and I called him out on that, too.

Yet National Reviews says that I'm interrupting? Really?

Why this craven double standard? Why this unwillingness to fight for the truth? Perhaps William F. Buckley is rolling in his grave after hearing all of this/

Afterwards, Scripps College put out a statement condemning the hecklers’ comments and offering “support and resources” to students forced to listen to critiques of Islam. Instead, Scripps should have considered having security eject the hecklers, not for the content of their questions and comments, but for their disruptive behavior. 

WHAT?

Wow. Now who is the fascist?

Final Reflection

I don't understand where some of these conservatives are coming from on these issues. Do they really think that we are going to ensure the survival and renewal of our culture and our country by sitting patiently and letting subversive elements seep into our society unchecked?

I think not. There is nothing wrong with calling out and challenging the lies of elected officials, radical speakers, and Muslims militantly pushing their religion, their ideology, their agenda, all of which endanger Western civilization and a free nation.

Then again, perhaps we should not be surprised. The elitist veneer that permeates the current National Review editorial board led them to denounce Trump at every level. Would they really have preferred Hillary Clinton to win the election last year? How would that electoral travesty have furthered the cause of conservatism in the United States?

What did William F. Buckley himself counsel to fellow purists? "Support the most conservative candidate who is electable." That candidate in Election 2016 was Donald Trump, and his policies and procedures have been considerable for our cause.

What is the problem here, then? They give me a hard time for confronting the cultural collectivism on college campuses?

At least I am in good company ...

The Liberals' "Veterans" Card, and How to Fight It

Have you heard of the "veteran" card?

The Left and liberal SJW's will use this card to silence conservative critics.

They think it's effective, since conservatives care about the military and want what is best for veterans.

It is true. We care about veterans.

We also care about the rule of law.

And we care about the United States Constitution.

The liberal above started off the conversation with "I am a retired US army colonel."

Great. I thanked her for her service.

She then proceeded to outline how Norma Torres is helping veterans.

Really? With the VA in total shambles, with secret wait lists killing off our veterans--in their own country?!

She then challenged me with "Have you served in the military."

Point of fact, I have never been drafted and I have not served in any branch of the military.

The next statement they make is that I have no business saying anything.

Wrong!

Do not mention whether you have or have not served in the military..

It does not matter.

The fact that you and I are citizens of this great country--that's all we need to speak our minds and make our case against elected officials.

Never answer such  questions from a raging liberal. They just want a flabby excuse to silence you.

If you like, mention any relative that has fought in the military.

Then state that you are exercising your rights--which the liberal veteran and your family fought for!

This time, though, I added a new line.

"Why do you support a representative who undermines the very Constitution you fought for?!"

She was caught off guard with that one!

Final Reflection

Whether you fought for this country in the military or not--you have a right to challenge elected officials.

You do not have to earn that right--and our fighting men and women put their lives on the line for you to exercise that right!

Reject the shame.

Also, being a veteran is not a "Get Out of Challenges/Criticisms Free" card. Yes, we can respect the work and efforts that our military have done for us.

But that does not excuse them committing crimes or trying to limit our rights.

PERIOD!

The True Resistance: LA for Trump Stands up to Anti-Breitbart Hate

March 12, 2017.

The liberal lunacy has hit a fevered pitch which I never though possible.

Now they want to shut down Freedom of the Press, because any reporting which does not fall in line with the lock-stop liberal lunacy of the Big Three and Cable TV like CNN must be deemed Fake News.

They attack Breitbart because they news site is pro-Trump, or at least is open about its center-right values. The problem really comes down to the other news organizations claiming to be fully objective, when they really are not. They have been too busy promoting liberal agendas while covering up for the crimes and failures of Democratic lawmakers.

Only now have conservatives started to realize that they need to fight the major institutions and redefine them rather than winning elections from time to time.

Here is the event page for the Anti-Breitbart protest:

We were not afraid to stand up to these liberals who would not know fake news if they read it.

We received their flyers, and we had our posters:

When the anti-Breitbart protesters started setting up shop, they told us that they had a permit to be there, and that meant we had to go somewhere else.

Uh ... no. We have free concourse of all sidewalks in the city of Los Angeles as well as anywhere else. No one can tell us where we can and cannot protest--as well as counter-protest!

Here is the first video I recorded:

Los Angeles for Trump held this group accountable on many fronts.

I tried to get some answers from people many times - but nothing was forthcoming.

Some of the protesters simply ran away from me or ignored me:

Others would raise their voices and enter into very heated exchanges with me:

There were some people who were willing to talk to me, even if we did not agree on everything:

Matthew Woods set up his stereo set and speaker on the other side of the street.

We sang patriotic songs.

We also invited men and women from the anti-Breitbart side to speak with us and talk about isues that they cared about.

We were interested in a healthy and respectful dialogue, but the Anti-Breitbart, Anti-Trump Left were more interested in shouting and shaming people who did not agree with them.

We had a great time!

On the other side, though, there was nothing but hate and fear:

There was so much misinformation with the Anti-Breitbart team. They should have been protesting themselves. After all, they were spouting off so much fake news!

I tried to talk to a few more from the group, young and old, but they spent more time embarrassing themselves:

For a few seconds, I took a panoramic view of what the two sides looked like from across Saltair Ave. Can you see the difference between the Pro-Trump and the Anti-Breitbart sides?