Month: February 2019

During President Donald Trump’s summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Hanoi, Vietnam, the media tried its hardest to make Trump look like a stooge.

If you wanted to pick someone to act as a symbol of this attitude, you could certainly do worse than The Washington Post’s David Nakamura.

Nakamura, one of the WaPo’s White House reporters, apparently thought that Trump was going to get humiliated by Kim Jong Un during the summit, insinuating that he would kowtow to the diplomatic corps from Pyongyang.

Instead it was Nakamura who got humiliated.

It all stemmed from a comment Nakamura tweeted regarding a video put out by Trump’s official account. Nakamura implied there was weakness on the president’s part.

TRENDING: Disgraceful Daily Show Host Used African Language To Hide Sick, Racist Joke at Oscars

Great meeting and dinner with Kim Jong Un in Hanoi, Vietnam tonight. Looking forward to continuing our discussions tomorrow! #HanoiSummit pic.twitter.com/J3x6lUGzjS

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 27, 2019

Here was Nakamura’s take:

This does not look like the product of someone in the midst of trying to drive a hard bargain on an existential threat to U.S. national security and willing to walk away if the deal isn’t good enough. https://t.co/QVRFnpuUd1

— David Nakamura (@DavidNakamura) February 27, 2019

“This does not look like the product of someone in the midst of trying to drive a hard bargain on an existential threat to U.S. national security and willing to walk away if the deal isn’t good enough,” Nakamura said.

And so, what did Trump do — more or less right after Nakamura told the world he didn’t think Trump was ready to walk away if the deal wasn’t good enough?

He walked away when the deal wasn’t good enough.

“President Trump and Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s leader, abruptly ended their second summit meeting on Thursday after talks collapsed with the two leaders failing to agree on any steps toward nuclear disarmament or measures to ease tensions on the Korean Peninsula,” The New York Times reported.

RELATED: Trump Abruptly Cancels North Korea Trip, Ratchets Up the Pressure on Kim

“Sometimes you have to walk,” Trump said at a post-summit news conference.

The sticking point, according to The Times, was that Kim wanted all of the U.N. sanctions lifted off of his country “in exchange for dismantling its most important nuclear facility but not other elements of its weapons program.”

“It was about the sanctions,” the president said.

“Basically they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety, but we couldn’t do that.”

Oh, well, I’m sure that Nakamura promptly apologized for getting the situation so wrong.

Or perhaps not. Here are some Nakamura tweets that followed the summit’s abrupt ending (the ending he essentially predicted could not happen).

At post-summit presser Trump leads off by suggesting his administration helped get peace … between Pakistan and India.

— David Nakamura (@DavidNakamura) February 28, 2019

I asked Trump if he confronted Kim Jong Un about Otto Warmbier’s death. He said Kim knew about the case but denied knowing about how Otto was put in coma and he takes Kim at his word.

— David Nakamura (@DavidNakamura) February 28, 2019

As for Trump, he apparently didn’t walk away in a huff, if you believe his statements.

“This wasn’t a walkaway like you get up and walk out,” he said. “No, this was very friendly. We shook hands.”

In other words, this is what Stephen Covey might have called “win-win or no deal,” although one imagines it was a bit more complex than that.

This is what Reagan did with Gorbachev at Rekyavik, Iceland, in 1986. Critics at the time called the summit a failure, but it was only three years later that the Berlin Wall opened. Five years later, the Soviet Union dissolved.

The sanctions Trump is keeping in place make it impossible for for Kim Jong Un to initiate any sort of economic growth. He’s gotten a taste of what could happen if he denuclearizes. He just had to look at Hanoi.

Nevertheless, Nakamura first stated Trump wasn’t going to walk away without a deal if it wasn’t good enough because he put out a video to promote the summit.

Then he mocked Trump’s post-summit news conference, then implied Trump wasn’t being hard enough on the North Korean leader.

Heading home after quite a day. pic.twitter.com/3etNx5Eks0

— David Nakamura (@DavidNakamura) February 28, 2019

“Heading home after quite a day,” Nakamura tweeted as he was on board Air Force One.

Yes, yes it was. Quite humiliating, too. Even if he didn’t admit it.

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

In a vote that has genuinely stunned many Americans, Senate Democrats shot down a bill Monday brought by Republican Ben Sasse protecting born-alive babies who survive botched abortions.

The bill, the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,” would have amended the criminal code to “prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.” While all present Senate Republicans voted for it, all but three Democratic senators voted against the bill, causing it to fail, 53-44.

“If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws,” reads the bill. “Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.”

In response, President Trump predicted that the Democrats’ actions will go down as “one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress.” He also characterized the failure of doctors to save the born-alive babies as “executing” them.

“Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children. The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth,” he wrote in a pair of tweets after the vote Monday evening. “This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.”

In response, the New York Times published its version of a “fact-check” on Trump’s “misleading” tweet on Wednesday and provided the following summary of its central arguments: “Babies are rarely born alive after abortion procedures, and if they are, doctors do not kill them. These are the facts behind President Trump’s misleading tweet in the latest abortion battle.”

That the Times would believe that the fact that babies are “rarely born alive” is a legitimate argument against voting for the bill, and its attempt to parse the concept of a doctor allowing a baby to die on the table as different from actually killing the child, didn’t go over well online; in fact, response to the tweet of the article was overwhelmingly negative.

“First off, what does it matter if babies are ‘rarely’ born alive after abortion procedures?” noted Twitchy. “Mass shootings ‘rarely’ occur and yet we have an entire party trying to ban semi-automatic weapons. Transgender students ‘rarely’ are conflicted about which restroom to use. And for what it’s worth, Sen. Sasse’s bill was about those rare occurrences.”

“So why vote against a bill protecting them?” one Twitter follower asked the Times in reference to the paper’s “rarely” argument.

“Do you even hear yourself? ‘Babies are rarely born alive…’ BABIES! Yes, babies that were not allowed to be born alive. And if they somehow are alive, doctors do not have to provide them care and may let them die. May God have mercy on us!” one followerer wrote.

“How can you work for the NYTimes and not know what Northam said, which kicked all this off? He specifically talked about newborns being born and then a discussion on what to do with them. This is why you’re fake news,” wrote another, citing the infamous defense of infanticide by “moderate” Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam.

“8th paragraph of article. ‘The bill would force doctors to resuscitate such an infant, even if the parents did not want those measures.’ Sounds like u admit Trump was right and buried it as far down as u could,” another pointed out. “If you stopped acting like #FakeNews , we’d stop calling you it.”

“I could hardly believe this article was referring to a human being,” wrote another.

Related: WATCH: Sen. Tim Scott’s Powerful Speech On Senate Floor After Democrats Refuse To Protect Born-Alive Babies

Connecticut high schooler Selina Soule appeared on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle” on Tuesday night to discuss transgender athletes in women’s sports. Soule recently competed in a high-stakes competition where two biologically male transgender sprinters beat the field, taking first and second place by significant margins. Soule finished in 8th place, missing an opportunity to compete in front of college coaches by two places.

“I am very happy for these athletes and I fully support them for being true to themselves and having the courage to do what they believe in,” Soule told host Laura Ingraham. “But, in athletics, it’s an entirely different situation. It’s scientifically proven that males are built to be physically stronger than females. It’s unfair to put someone who is biologically a male, who has not undergone anything in terms of hormone therapy, against cis-gender girls.”

Ingraham, a former athlete at the same high school, jumped in to rhetorically ask what happens when transgender athletes start infiltrating other sports, too. What happens to girl’s sports, she wondered aloud.

The Fox host mentioned recent comments made by gay advocate and tennis star Martina Navratilova, who warned that women’s sports are headed down a dangerous path if biological males, who have a clear advantage over women physically, are allowed to compete in women and girl’s sports. Ingraham noted that Navratilova has been “trashed” for making such an obvious, data-proven point.

“What are other members of your team saying about this?” asked Ingraham.

“My teammates and my fellow competitors — we are happy for these athletes, of course — but we do think it’s unfair, and for us it is upsetting when we work hard all season and put in a lot of effort, only to turn up at the state meets and get beat by someone who is biologically a male and lose state championships over this,” said the high schooler.

Soule said student-athletes applying for colleges are already running into “major issues” because there is no specified way in Connecticut to differentiate between transgender girls and biological girls. So when college coaches review stats, they are looking at major discrepancies in times without any explanation, she explained.

The student-athlete has previously made similar comments about the issue. “We all know the outcome of the race before it even starts; it’s demoralizing,” she said, according to Fox News. “I fully support and am happy for these athletes for being true to themselves. They should have the right to express themselves in school, but athletics have always had extra rules to keep the competition fair.”

Andraya Yearwood, one of the transgender athletes who bested Soule, will likely attempt to qualify for this year’s National Scholastic Athletics Foundation (NSAF) national championships held in March, reported The Daily Wire.

“The group recently adopted new rules allowing pre-pubescent girls to participate with their affirmed gender, though no ages are specified. Post-pubescent transgender girls must have completed sex-reassignment surgery and ‘a sufficient amount of time must have passed’ after the operation or hormone therapy ‘to minimize gender-related competitive advantages,'” The Washington Times noted.

According to the NSAF website: “Freshman and Junior High School miles are limited to first 30 entries per gender that both meet the entry standard and pay for the entry … Junior High Mile is limited to the first 30 entries per gender that both meet the entry standard and pay for the entry.”

WATCH:

Earlier this week, an 81-year-old man was assaulted at a grocery store in New Jersey for wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat.

Even though the story was yet another example of President Donald Trump supporters getting attacked for supporting the president, it didn’t get national attention. To be fair, it had to compete with three other stories of people being attacked for supporting Trump just this week alone.

The elderly victim in this case was leaving a ShopRite grocery store in Franklin Township when a 19-year-old, identified as Ryan M. Salvagno, lashed out over the MAGA hat, prosecutors told NJ.com. The two went back and forth over the hat, briefly, before the victim turned to leave.

“As the victim turned to walk away, defendant Salvagno was able to grab the victim’s hat and the two struggled for sole possession of the hat,” Prosecutor Michael H. Robertson said in a statement to NJ.com. “Salvagno then took the victim by the arm and threw him to the ground, tipping over the victim’s cart of groceries and ultimately throwing the hat to the side.”

Salvagno was charged with disorderly persons offenses of assault and harassment, NJ.com reported.

The elderly victim received minor injuries but declined medical treatment.

NJ.com’s reporting of the assault has been factual and accurate, but their headlines have oddly downplayed the assault. They likely were not written by the author, since they differ from the reporting in the article.

The original article reporting the assault did include the phrase “physically assaulted,” but referred to the incident as a “dust-up over his MAGA hat.” Hard to say a physical assault resulted from a “dust-up,” but here we are.

In the follow-up article announcing Salvagno’s arrest, NJ.com went a step further. The words “physical assault” no longer appear in the headline, and the incident is now referred to as a “tug-of-war over MAGA hat that left 81-year-old injured, grocery cart toppled.”

Really? “Tug-of-war,” is what we’re calling it now? There’s no way this language would be used if a right-leaning person attacked a left-leaning person.

This NJ.com article was written the same day the Washington Post wrote about an assault on a right-leaning campus activist from the angle that conservatives were “enraged” about the response, making sure we all know only the Right cares that Leftists are physically assaulting right-leaning people. The Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax was the story of the month until it was shown to be a hoax, but actual crimes against conservatives are completely acceptable to the Left.