Month: January 2019

Reacting to word that the U.S. Supreme Court has approved the Trump administration’s ban on new transgender military recruits, CNN correspondent Jessica Dean ran a piece which deceptively edited a clip of Donald Trump from the 2016 campaign to make it appear he had made a general promise to support “LGBTQ” rights which he is now allegedly breaking.

In fact, the clip of Trump in question was responding to the Pulse night club mass shooting as then-candidate Trump promised to prevent more such attacks on LGBTQ Americans by Muslim terrorists — a specification which was carefully cut out for the CNN piece.

 

 

Nearing the end of The Lead on Tuesday afternoon, host Jake Tapper recalled the Supreme Court decision and then added: “You mght recall that during the 2016 presidential campaign, LGBTQ allies of then-candidate Donald Trump pledged that Trump would be great for their community.”

He then recalled that transgender activist Caitlyn Jenner had praised Trump for allowing him to use the women’s restroom during a trip to Trump Tower.

Tapper continued: “So, two years into the Trump presidency, with measure after measure suggesting administration hostility to LGBTQ equality, how are those allies explaining today what the President is doing?”

After bringing aboard Dean, Tapper further recalled: “The President even used the term ‘LGBTQ’ at the Republican Convention — the first time a nominee ever did that — but I guess actions speak louder than those five letters.”

Introducing the pre-recorded portion, Dean claimed that “it is hard to find evidence that he (Trump) is making good on some really big promises.”

The piece began with Dean: “Promises made, promises kept? Candidate Donald Trump was quick to promise his advocacy for the LGBTQ community.”

Then came a clip of Trump from his acceptance speech at the 2016 Republican National Convention: “As your President, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens.”

After an obvious jump, Trump was then seen adding: “Believe me.”

The quote makes it sound as if candidate Trump made a general suggestion that he would side with gay rights activists on such issues, but an unedited clip of that portion of Trump’s speech demonstrates that he was merely promising to protect homosexuals from terrorist attacks rather than imply anything beyond that for other gay rights issues.

The full quote was: “As your President, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful, foreign ideology. Believe me.”

Trump was reacting to the attack on the Pulse night club attack in Orlando from 10 days earlier that left 50 dead and more than another 50 injured.

Suggesting that this abridged quote meant that Trump was making a more expansive promise about supporting gay rights, Dean continued: “A handful of high-profile members of that community tried to assure peers that Trump would be in their corner.” She then recalled that Ambassador Richard Grenell and Caitlyn Jenner were LGBTQ activists who spoke in favor of Trump at the time.

After noting that Jenner praised Trump for siding with allowing transgenders to use the public restroom of their choice, Dean spent the rest of the report fretting over Trump’s decision on transgenders in the military without presenting any evidence that he had ever promised to side with liberals on that issue.

In October, when the policy change was first announced, several CNN shows similarly utilized the same quote while slicing off the part showing that Trump was referring to protecting gays from violence by terrorists.

 

 

By contrast, when MSNBC covered the issue in October, even while they made essentially the same argument using the same quote, at least they did not edit the quote and deceive viewers about the context.

 

 

Change can occur from within.

Via NBC News:

President Donald Trump officially recognized opposition leader Juan Guaidó as Interim President of Venezuela after Guaidó declared himself the country’s leader amid cheers from thousands who were protesting in the streets.

“In its role as the only legitimate branch of government duly elected by the Venezuelan people, the National Assembly invoked the country’s constitution to declare Nicolás Maduro illegitimate, and the office of the presidency therefore vacant,” said Trump in a statement. “The people of Venezuela have courageously spoken out against Maduro and his regime and demanded freedom and the rule of law.”

Guaidó made the declaration as hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans marched in Caracas demanding an end to the government of President Nicolás Maduro.

At the rally, people held Venezuelan flags, and shouted “Who are we? Venezuela! What do we want? Freedom!”

Edwin González, 24, a university student studying engineering, came out to march because he says it is their last chance to “get rid of the regime.” He has participated in almost every anti-government protest in the past.

“We have no other choice but to protest,” said González. ” They have taken everything away from us, even fear.”

The protests were called to coincide with the anniversary of the 1958 coup that overthrew military dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez – a historic date for Venezuelans.

Maduro was inaugurated two weeks ago to a second, six-year term, which the U.S. and dozens of other countries have called illegitimate.

Keep reading…

The anti-Second Amendment crowd has made no secret about their intentions to whittle away at and ultimately do away with legal gun ownership through the implementation of increasingly strict gun control laws.

Many of the gun control proposals offered up by the left make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to purchase and possess various firearms, often by mandating “universal background checks,” imposing strict limits on the purchase of guns and ammunition and by closing the alleged “gun show loophole.”

Sen. Feinstein talks about assault weapons ban as she points an assault weapon at crowd with her finger on the trigger. pic.twitter.com/U9xS4uhn

— Kyle (@Kyle_TheBeard) January 25, 2013

None of those proposals or other gun control restrictions would do much, if anything, to stop or even reduce violent gun crime — the majority of which is committed by criminals who have no regard for the laws and don’t obtain their firearms through the same normal means as law-abiding citizens.

TRENDING: Nathan Phillips’ Story Changing in ‘Sudden and Unwanted’ Fame After Narrative Quickly Crumbles

Fox News reported on a recent study released by the Department of Justice that dug into data compiled from an extensive survey of prison inmates. That study found that roughly 20 percent of all inmates, or about 287,400 prisoners total, were incarcerated for crimes in which they used a firearm.

The study, titled “Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes,” was derived from the data obtained in a 2016 survey of inmates.

What that survey found is that the anti-gun crowd is looking in the least efficient place to stop gun crime with their gun control laws — licensed retail sales and gun shows. Only a tiny percentage of gun-toting criminals obtained their illicit firearms through those legal means.

Instead, about 43 percent of firearms used in crimes were purchased on the street or black market, with about 6 percent of those firearms being obtained through some sort of theft. Another 17 percent were found at a separate crime scene or as the result of a straw purchase, where somebody else purchased it legally on their behalf.

Similarly, about 25 percent of guns used by criminals were borrowed, gifted or traded to them by a friend or family member.

In the end, only about 10 percent of firearms used by criminals were obtained from a legal retail source — about 7.5 percent from licensed gun dealers, 1.6 percent from pawn shops, 0.4 percent from flea markets and 0.8 percent from gun shows.

In reality, fewer than that 10 percent of legally purchased crime guns would be impacted by the anti-gun crowd’s gun control schemes that seek to close the imaginary “gun show loophole” or add more flaming hoops to jump through in the legal purchasing process, as the vast majority of guns obtained by criminals are garnered through other, often already illegal means.

In other words, about 90 percent of the firearms used by criminals would still be available to them through those other means, meaning most criminals will still be easily able to get a gun. Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens will be faced with increasingly strict rules and regulations that make it even tougher for them to legally purchase firearms.

Separately, the DOJ study also severely undercut the anti-gun crowd’s obsession with banning so-called “assault weapons” like semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, as the survey revealed that such firearms are rarely used to commit crimes.

RELATED: Sick: Lib Says Woman Should Have Just ‘Let Him’ Rob Her When Armed Mugger Approached

Of the roughly 20 percent of all crimes committed with a firearm, more than 18 percent of those crimes were committed with a handgun. Only about 1.5 percent of all crimes committed involved the use of a rifle, and only about 1.6 percent of all crimes committed involved the use of a shotgun, whether of the “assault weapon” semi-automatic versions or the pump-action version.

Thus, we see from this survey just how pointless and unproductive gun control laws targeting licensed dealers and gun shows are at preventing criminals from getting their hands on a firearm.

Furthermore, we also see just how worthless proposed “assault weapons bans” are at reducing gun crime, given how little crime is committed using such weapons already.

Gun control laws don’t work. They don’t reduce crime. The real purpose of discouraging and limiting legal gun ownership is to undermine the Second Amendment of the Constitution and therefore must be resisted.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

On Tuesday, the Department of Justice announced that three naturalized U.S. citizens in Lansing, Michigan were arrested and charged with planning to aid Islamic State. The DOJ press release reads:

Members of the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) arrested Muse Abdikadir Muse (Muse Muse) at the Gerald R. Ford Airport in Grand Rapids, Michigan, after checking in for a flight to the first of a series of destinations on his way to Mogadishu, Somalia. Shortly thereafter, law enforcement arrested alleged coconspirators Mohamud Abdikadir Muse (Mohamud Muse), and Mohamed Salat Haji (Haji). All three defendants are naturalized U.S. citizens who were born in Kenya.

According to the complaint affidavit, Muse Muse purchased airline tickets earlier this month to travel from Grand Rapids to Mogadishu, departing on Monday, January 21, 2019. Among other support, the complaint alleged Haji and Mohamud Muse aided in the purchase of the ticket and drove Muse Muse to the Grand Rapids airport, each knowing the true purpose of the travel was for Muse Muse to join and fight for ISIS.

ABC News reports that Muse Muse and Mohamud Muse are brothers, and that Haji is their brother-in-law. The threesome initially came on the FBI’s radar due to Mohamud Muse’s pro-Islamic State social media postings. The government’s complaint against the trio, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, states that Mohamud Muse’s postings “revealed frequent posts of photos, videos, and statements and commentary that were pro-ISIS in nature and what can be described as violent, extremist propaganda.” All three had openly pledged their allegiance to the Islamic State. Numerous undercover FBI agents ultimately helped foil the threesome’s plot.

The criminal complaint charges all three men with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339(b). The formal description of the charge reads: “Conspiring to provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization; to wit: ISIS.” All three men face up to 20 years in federal prison.

The Washington Times reports that, at the time the FBI arrested Muse Muse, he was at Gerald R. Ford Airport in Grand Rapids, Michigan in order to board a flight to Somalia.

DOJ has been no stranger to charging naturalized American citizens with conpiring to support Islamic State. In October, a naturalized citizen of Iraqi descent was arrested in Chicago for allegedly violating the exact same statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2339(b).

Naturalized — and even natural-born — citizens have invariably caused headaches for U.S. counterterrorism interests for some time now. In September 2011, President Obama assassinated Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen via drone strike. Al-Awlaki, a New Mexico native whose frequent online jihadist propaganda videos had dubbed him the nickname of “bin Laden of the Internet,” was a natural-born U.S. citizen. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has subsequently been at the forefront of advancing legislation to revoke the citizenship any U.S. citizen who so much as tries to join the Islamic State or related jihadist groups. In 2017, the Washington Examiner reported:

Hundreds of Americans have tried to join the Islamic State in recent years, according to Cruz. He said another 124 U.S. citizens or green card holders have traveled overseas to join other jihadist groups in the years since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. “This should be an idea that even Senate Democrats can support given that Hillary Clinton, when she was in the Senate, supported very similar legislation,” he said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s first actions at the start of the new session of Congress was to invite President Donald Trump to deliver the State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress on Jan. 29.

However, in what can only be described as a petty display of partisanship, she sent Trump a letter on Jan. 16 which sought to cancel and postpone that scheduled address until the partial government shutdown had concluded.

Pelosi cited “security” concerns which were immediately debunked by the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Secret Service, in conjunction with the Capitol Police.

The president never offered up any direct response to that “power play” by Pelosi, until today. He sent a letter to Pelosi accepting her initial invitation and letting her know that he intends to deliver his State of the Union address as previously scheduled on Jan. 29 in the House chamber.

That letter from Trump addressed to “Madame Speaker” — shared to Twitter by White House press secretary Sarah Sanders — was absolutely classic Trump,  dripping with saccharine sweetness while directly countering the supposed security concerns cited by Pelosi.

TRENDING: Nathan Phillips’ Story Changing in ‘Sudden and Unwanted’ Fame After Narrative Quickly Crumbles

President Trump’s letter to Speaker Pelosi on the State of the Union pic.twitter.com/B4QN9hDJnv

— Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) January 23, 2019

“Thank you for your letter of January 3, 2019, sent to me long after the Shutdown began, inviting me to address the Nation on January 29th as to the State of the Union,” Trump wrote. “As you know, I had already accepted your kind invitation, however, I then received another letter from you dated January 16, 2019, wherein you expressed concerns regarding security during the State of the Union Address due to the Shutdown.”

“Even prior to asking, I was contacted by the Department of Homeland Security and the United States Secret Service to explain that there would be absolutely no problem regarding security with respect to the event. They have since confirmed this publicly,” he continued, undercutting Pelosi’s reasoning for a cancellation or delay to the annual address.

“Accordingly, there are no security concerns regarding the State of the Union Address,” he went on. “Therefore, I will be honoring your invitation, and fulfilling my Constitutional duty, to deliver important information to the people and Congress of the United States of America regarding the State of our Union.”

“I look forward to seeing you on the evening on January 29th in the Chamber of the House of Representatives,” he wrote in conclusion. “It would be so very sad for our Country if the State of the Union were not delivered on time, on schedule, and very importantly, on location!”

Trump seized the upper hand in the power struggle with Pelosi by a sort of “kill them with kindness” approach that was no doubt quite unexpected by the Speaker and her Democratic supporters, who have been impatiently waiting for some sort of “temper tantrum” from the White House in response to her petty actions.

Instead, he used a kind tone to gently debunk her proffered excuse for why the State of the Union address should be rescheduled and confirmed that he intended to follow through on the originally agreed upon date of Jan. 29.

Of course, Pelosi was quick to respond to Trump’s letter with one of her own, though her attempt to match his sincerity and sweetness fell short.

RELATED: Angry Dems Take Attacks on Pelosi to New Level: ‘Get in the Damn Room’ with Trump, ‘Give Him the Money!’

In Pelosi’s letter to Trump, she wrote of how she expected the shutdown to have already ended when she initially invited him to deliver his speech on Jan. 29, and clung to her insistence that the address needed to be rescheduled for an as-yet-undetermined date in the future … after the government had been re-opened.

Then she went further than she had gone before and officially informed Trump that the scheduled State of the Union address was canceled.

“I am writing to inform you that the House of Representatives will not consider a concurrent resolution authorizing the President’s State of the Union address in the House Chamber until government has opened,” she wrote.

“Again, I look forward to welcoming you to the House on a mutually agreeable date for this address when government has been opened.”

It remains to be seen what Trump will do now that Pelosi has officially rescinded her prior invitation to him, but regardless of what he ultimately decides to do, Pelosi looks like the bad guy in all of this for having offered and then pettily withdrawn a customary invitation for the constitutionally-mandated address to Congress and the nation.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

The smirk heard around the world might just have the last laugh.

That smile, of course, was on the face of a high school student named Nick Sandmann who was confronted by a Native American protester in Washington, D.C.

“It’s weird to see your face on television…I’ve also been getting a lot of messages from people – both support and a lot of hateful things.” -Nick Sandmann pic.twitter.com/HbnIVx1YHd

— TODAY (@TODAYshow) January 23, 2019

As a chaotic scene played out with other groups hurling racial and homophobic slurs, Sandmann tried to keep his cool while protester Nathan Phillips uncomfortably pushed into his personal space.

TRENDING: Nathan Phillips’ Story Changing in ‘Sudden and Unwanted’ Fame After Narrative Quickly Crumbles

But that’s not how the establishment media reported it. In what is becoming one of the most infamous journalistic blunders of the last few years, countless outlets smeared Sandmann and the rest of his group from Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky as bigots and racists, despite having no evidence to back this up.

That, in turn, led to countless online attacks and even death threats made against the Catholic boys from verified personalities on Twitter, which became so bad that the entire school had to shut down due to security concerns.

Now, a powerful attorney says he’s representing some Covington families, and he’s putting not just complicit journalists but even a Democratic member of Congress on notice.

Robert Barnes, a trial lawyer based in Los Angeles, said Wednesday on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” that he has spoken to Covington families and is working on their behalf.

“I represent families in three different groups,” he said. “I represent families of kids who were at the Lincoln Memorial who have been libeled. I represent families of kids who have been in some of the photos where people like the New York Daily News have libeled them and made false statements about what the nature of those photos were from the school. And I represent alumni who feel that their entire school and everything associated with them has been libeled, and they too want to seek legal remedy for these people who refuse to correct, retract or make any apology for their false statements.”

On Sunday, Barnes issued a warning to The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman about her report on the Covington students.

I will represent the kids for free if they want to sue @maggieNYT for obvious libel. https://t.co/VmqVqIVNoe

— Robert Barnes (@Barnes_Law) January 20, 2019

The specific tweet Haberman referenced was one of many that jumped to staggering conclusions and called on kids to be expelled from their school based on scant — or nonexistent — evidence.

RELATED: Here’s CNN’s Jake Tapper Backpeddling as Fast as He Can from Fake Hate Story His Network Stoked

Barnes also has called out numerous other verified Twitter accounts, ranging from Kathy Griffin to USA Today, for spreading demonstrably false claims about the incident.

Here’s one example:

“The crowd of students, some of whom wore MAGA caps, mocked Native Americans while chanting ‘Build the Wall’ and using derogatory language,” USA Today tweeted.

This is libel, @USATODAY https://t.co/f2DMPfBtip

— Robert Barnes (@Barnes_Law) January 20, 2019

There’s absolutely no evidence that this is true. In fact, numerous videos show that the “wall” chant never occurred, and the hateful language was being directed at the Catholic students, not coming from them.

But Barnes didn’t stop there. He also singled out U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., who recently made headlines as one of two new Muslim lawmakers, for spreading lies about the boys.

“The boys were protesting a woman’s right to choose & yelled ‘it’s not rape if you enjoy it.’ They were taunting 5 Black men before they surrounded Phillips and led racist chants,” Omar said in a tweet that she later deleted without an explanation or apology.

Almost everything in her post was false.

“This is libel. Retract, or get sued,” Barnes warned.

The unraveling of the Convington story is also the unraveling of the establishment media. As the fallout from the media’s eagerness to ruin lives over politics continues, pay close attention to who apologizes and who doubles-down on dishonesty. It matters, now more than ever.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.