New Law Allows Govt to Seize Children If Parents Oppose Their ‘Gender Identity’

Legislation passed by the Canadian province of Ontario has granted authorities the right to take children away from parents who refuse to accept their children’s “gender identity.” Critics of the new measure launched a petition aiming for a repeal of the “totalitarian” child abuse bill.

Out of Ontario’s 86 legislators, 63 voted in favor of Bill 89 or “The Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act of 2017” on June 1.

The legislation replaces the Child and Family Services Act which used to govern child protection, foster care and adoption services in the province.

The new law includes “gender identity” and “gender expression” as factors to be considered by child protection services “in the best interests of the child.”

It deprives parents of their earlier right to “direct the child’s education and religious upbringing.” (Read more from “New Law Allows Govt to Seize Children If Parents Oppose Their ‘Gender Identity'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Comey Testimony Confirms Trump Is Still His Own Worst Enemy

For those who hoped that former FBI Director James Comey was going to provide some bombshell evidence — or any evidence at all — that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the 2016 election, Thursday’s Senate testimony had to be a major letdown. Of course, that was a foolish hope in the first place, since even if such evidence existed, Comey was never going to divulge it in an open Senate hearing.

For Trump’s most ardent supporters, Comey’s testimony exonerated the president. Trump’s lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, responded to Comey’s written testimony: “The president feels completely and totally vindicated.” And in a sense he should.

Comey confirmed what Trump had said when he fired the FBI director last month: Comey had told the president on three different occasions that he wasn’t the target of a criminal investigation. What drove Trump nuts was that Comey wouldn’t say that publicly. Now he has.

But there’s a problem. After the hearing, Kasowitz denied all the damning parts of Comey’s testimony. The president never told Comey “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty,” Kasowitz insisted, and Trump never asked Comey to drop any investigation into Flynn. In short: Comey’s a liar and Trump isn’t.

Given the pains to which Comey went to write down his version of the meeting with Trump, not to mention Comey’s immediate conversations with colleagues and the utter plausibility of his account, Trump’s denials seem thoroughly unconvincing to me. But more to the point, if Comey were inclined to lie, he would have — and certainly could have — invented a far, far more damning story. If your defense is that Comey is a liar, you can’t cherry-pick the helpful bits and shout, “Vindication!” (Read more from “Comey Testimony Confirms Trump Is Still His Own Worst Enemy” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘God Restores’: Olympic Gold Medalist Who Grieves After an Abortion Wants to Help Other Post-Abortive Women

Four-time Olympic gold medalist in track and field Sanya Richards-Ross recently penned a memoir. In it she revealed that she had an abortion right before the 2008 Olympics. The experience left her feeling loss and grief. But after a moment when she experienced God for herself in Bejing, she began the healing process. Now she says God restores, and through her book hopes to help other women who’ve suffered loss because of abortion.

‘The Toughest Time of My Life’

Just before the 2008 Olympics in Bejing, Sanya Richards-Ross found out that she was pregnant. She was at the top of her game and was favored to win gold that year. She didn’t see a way to have a baby during the height of her career and chose to have an abortion. In her new book, Chasing Grace: What the Quarter Mile Has Taught Me About God and Life, Sanya opens up about what she called the toughest time of her life.

In an interview with Newsworthy with Norsworthy, Sanya said she wasn’t sure she wanted to include the abortion in her book at first. “I literally prayed about that for almost two years because it’s something that is really private. A lot of women don’t talk about it.” Sanya felt like she’d been chasing something her entire life, whether that was gold medals or the best version of herself.

God’s Grace

“Ultimately what I learned was, while I was chasing all these things, what really kept me going was God’s grace.” She decided to add the story of her abortion because “I felt like if I didn’t share the moment of my life where I did feel God’s grace the most I felt like it would’ve been disingenuous to my journey.” If it wasn’t for God’s grace, she wouldn’t have been able to recognize that the decision of her abortion didn’t define her. “I am the person I’m striving to be,” she said, “I have to work on it every single day.”

Sanya felt that if she won her race in the 2008 Bejing Olympics it would take her shame away. She’d just had the abortion and was on the brink of a breakdown. “But then,” she said, “there was another part of me that was like, ‘I don’t deserve this victory.’”

God’s Presence

Her experience with God’s presence came as she was getting off of a bus in Bejing just before the race. “I felt literally, emotionally, physically lost. God wrapped His arms around me … He just hugged me and told me He loved me and I was going to be okay.” It was then that she said she felt a peace that passes all understanding. “All of a sudden, I just felt like, Oh my God — God has already forgiven me. Now I’ve got to forgive myself.” It didn’t happen overnight for Sanya, but “it was the beginning of recovery for me.”

She spent time between the Bejing races with her family, talking to her parents and praying. She returned to the last race revived and energized. “I had an amazing experience running from behind and beating Team Russia, so I’m grateful for that.” She received a bronze medal for her individual race but won gold in her team’s relay. She went on to win Olympic gold in 2012 in the 400-meter race.

‘To Glorify God’

While she worried about how people would receive her story, “Ultimately, I did it to glorify God. To tell people that ‘You can come back from any decision no matter how hard it is to make or no matter what you thought about it in the past. You can still have God along with you along the journey.’”

‘God Restores!’

Sanya is continuing to heal from her abortion. She is now looking forward to the birth of her second child. Although she still tears up about her experience, she has a message for other post-abortive women: “God restores!” Every time she tells her story she heals a little bit more, she said. “Healing means ultimately understanding that God has forgiven you. I think when you do that, then it really helps you to process that, ‘Look, God doesn’t love the way I love, you know, He loves me unconditionally and we all make mistakes.’” (For more from the author of “‘God Restores’: Olympic Gold Medalist Who Grieves After an Abortion Wants to Help Other Post-Abortive Women” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s 11th-Hour Education Regulations Worrying Experts

New education regulations initiated by former President Obama will go into effect this summer. This worries education experts. The regulations will make colleges and universities financially and legally vulnerable — and some colleges could shut down.

Borrower Defense to Repayment Regulation

The revised Borrower Defense to Repayment (BDR) rule takes effect on July 1. The new BDR makes it much easier for borrowers of student loans to walk away from their debt. The new regulation also puts an already flawed system of measuring colleges’ success on steroids, said Jeff Andrade. Andrade is the former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education. He was also the Director of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education under George W. Bush.

To qualify for debt forgiveness, students must provide documentation supporting their claim. They must prove 1) substantial misrepresentation; 2) breach of contract or 3) fraud. Under the new BDR, the Education Department decides whether a student will repay their debt. In the past, local judges or arbitrators ruled on the issue.

This change could create immediate financial repercussions for the schools. Andrade said the real kicker is that the bar for qualifying a student is very low. Merely an accusation of misrepresentation or breach of contract could trigger immediate financial sanctions on the institution. And colleges are concerned about frivolous claims. It “takes it out of the normal venues for deciding these disputes … and puts it into a venue where nobody knows how they will rule on claims. Colleges don’t know the risks.”

Closing Small Private and Faith-Based Schools

But small private or faith-based colleges face the greatest risk because they don’t have large endowments. The new regulation makes it easier to put those colleges in financial jeopardy before they could defend themselves.

Congress agreed in a July 14, 2016 letter to the U.S. Department of Education. They warned that the proposed rule “could increase tuition (by increasing schools’ legal liability) [and] bankrupt proprietary schools.” Many nonprofit schools could close as a result. This would also limit education options for students. A misrepresentation could result in the Secretary ruling for a group of thousands of borrowers. The cost to taxpayers would be great, even by the Department of Education’s admission. It would be “anywhere from $646 million to $41.3 billion over 10 years.”

Current Financial Responsibility Regulation

The current financial responsibility regulation measures key aspects of schools’ financial strengths. Schools are rated on a scale of 0 to 3.0. Schools rated 1.5 or lower must secure a letter of credit to assure the government they aren’t going under. This is a problem because of many “false positives” triggered by the analyses. In 2014, for example, Georgetown University had an almost perfect score. Then the value of the stocks in its endowment funds dropped. As a result, the university almost had to post a letter of credit of over $25 million. This while the university had endowments of almost $1.3 billion. The current system, said Andrade, “can put even a college with a strong cash flow in financial jeopardy.”

Sometimes a university has to wait for reimbursement of student loans. This can cause the school to be rated financially unstable, said Andrade. “Creditors are less willing to extend to colleges subjected to these sanctions, and some institutions have gone under.” Once again, the greatest risk is to those smaller private or faith-based institutions.

Gainful Employment Regulation

The Obama administration also put in place the Gainful Employment regulation. This regulation stigmatized private career-based programs. As a result, it became harder for borrowers to get financial aid for schools offering those programs.

“Most colleges, … could be doing a better job in preparing students for the workforce and seeing to it that they graduate,” said Andrade. The career-based schools often do a better job at preparing students for the workforce. The Gainful Employment regulation knocks out programs that are producing good results. But it protects programs at public institutions with worse outcomes. Andrade believes that the Left wants to push students out of independent schools. He thinks they want students in directly-subsidized institutions. The Left is making it look like our “K-12 system — which has been a disaster for decades, particularly for the working class and the poor.”

The Threat of the Culmination of These Actions

Right now, the higher education system offers students a lot of options. There are many choices from career-based schools to universities offering almost any program imaginable. Currently, financial aid follows students to their school of choice. But that could change as the new regulations take effect. Some of these policies are threatening opportunities particularly for poor and working class students, said Andrade. “It can destroy the private and faith-based components of our current system of higher education.” (For more from the author of “Obama’s 11th-Hour Education Regulations Worrying Experts” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why We Kill Disabled Kids: For the Same Reason Cain Killed Abel

Like many non-fiction writers, I’m a frustrated novelist. I’ve written a total of three. Each one stinks up a very old box in storage. But why? I’ve had to admit that characters don’t interest me very much except as hand puppets for arguing over what really grabs me: abstract ideas. A master of psychology like Dostoevsky could afford to work philosophical arguments into his stories. When I try it, the outcome reads, as one writing teacher told me, “like Maoist propaganda.” He was a leftist, but I don’t think he meant that as a compliment.

The Science Fiction Novel I’ll Never Write

But if I could write convincing characters, there’s one story I’d like to tell. What if we came across a group of humans who’d never endured the Fall? Or let’s go sci-fi: What if some scientist took DNA from the Shroud of Turin and cloned some? Sin passes through the blood, as St. Paul tells us. And Jesus’ blood didn’t have any. So right there you’ve got a sci-fi basis for how this could happen. Imagine some unhinged biologist in Italy opened up his lab and revealed that he’d created a thousand biological copies of Jesus Christ. (They’re purely human. No scientist can reenact the Incarnation.) Even better, this doctor did some tinkering and made a thousand females whom they could marry.

What would such people be like? That’s what I’d find interesting to picture. We’d get to meet Adam and Eve again, before the Fall. We’d be able to see mankind as God intended him originally — not hag-ridden by temptation. Not cut off from God by an infinite gap that only divine Grace could possibly bridge, at the cost of the Cross. No, man as he was meant to be. Doing what he was meant to do, as easily as dogs do. No struggle against the constant pull of a tainted will and darkened intellect. Virtue coming naturally. Kindness welling up easily. Good sportsmanship all round.

Catholics believe that Mary, too, was spared Original Sin (through the grace of Christ, which vaccinated her at conception. Don’t ask, I don’t want to argue about it, and I promise not to read any comments contesting it). So we RCs can look at the Gospel accounts of her actions for hints of this. But there isn’t that much there, really. Just a few lovely, tantalizing anecdotes. So even Catholics should find this question interesting. In fact we do; large swathes of our traditional theology are devoted to distinguishing firmly between what belongs to Grace, and what to created nature.

What Would Unfilled People Really Be Like?

That would be the fun part of the book: Laying out in fine detail just what people are like when they’re just what God meant us to be. Not the patched-up, battered creatures that even Christians redeemed by Grace still are throughout this life: full of scars from our sins, old nagging temptations, gross imperfections and regrets. Not what we’ll become at the Resurrection, when even our wounds will be transfigured, and every fall will seem to us happy. No, the simple, plain creatures that Milton tried to envision in Paradise Lost. That Lewis imagined on Malacandra in Out of the Silent Planet. You have to admit that this is an exciting challenge for a gifted novelist. (Too bad I’m not one.)

Then the book would turn very sad, very quickly. Because it’s obvious what the rest of us would do to these unfallen creatures as soon as we got bored of studying them.

Why We Target the Innocent

We would kill them. All of them. Quickly. Not even a breeding pair would survive in captivity, anywhere on earth. They would disappear like the Dodos, flightless birds that had known no predators till the white man landed, found them and ate them. Every last one.

How do I know this? There’s a long, long list of incidents that point to this melancholy conclusion: Sinful man envies innocence (even relative innocence), and because he cannot attain it, he often decides to destroy it. That’s why Cain killed Abel. Why Joseph’s brothers attacked him. Why the Egyptians targeted the Hebrews. It’s why the mighty Roman Empire over and over again wielded its legions against little Judea. It’s why so many in Jesus’ time and place agreed that He needed to die. It’s why the most helpless minorities, like Jews and Gypsies and the handicapped, attracted Hitler’s most savage hatred.

The great Christian thinker Rene Girard developed a philosophy of history based on this insight. He said that “scapegoating” the innocent lies at the heart of fallen human civilization: that every city is built with the lime of human blood. It was only the coming of Jesus that unmasked and began to unmake this.

But I don’t need elaborate theories or historical lists of victim groups to prove my point. To know that this book would be too sad to write, even had I the talent.

Hunting Down the Handicapped

We only need look at the fate of Down’s Syndrome children today. It’s not enough that unborn children per se are as innocent as it is possible to be, after the Fall. We destroy one in three of those. In our rights-obsessed, virtue-signaling West that will turn reality upside down lest some drag queen be banned from the restroom of his choice … more than 90 percent of children detected with this disorder are killed in the womb.

Even when allowed to live, few of these will ever reach the mental age where they can commit a serious sin. Parents report that Downs Syndrome kids are usually happy, loving, guileless and kind.

And Satan hates that more than anything on this earth. He hates it as he hated Adam and Eve. So he goads us, their luckless descendants, to feel that very same hatred. He casts it as fear. Of the inconvenience, the burden. He dresses it up as “compassion.” We are too kind, too generous to let such hapless creatures draw a breath, or walk the earth. It’s for their “own good” we tell ourselves. But we know better.

We bury that knowledge. Whole countries like France censor videos depicting how happy, how good, how innocent and lovable these hunted children can be. If only someone would love them, would offer them the care and protection that we pretend we offer the innocent and the helpless. We good, good tolerant humanitarian people, who don’t need the blood of Christ to wash us clean. No, we don’t need that, and we don’t need those kids to remind us how tainted we really are. And so we kill them.

So that’s why I won’t write that novel. I couldn’t bear it. (For more from the author of “Why We Kill Disabled Kids: For the Same Reason Cain Killed Abel” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Latest: Trump Claims ‘Total and Complete Vindication’

President Donald Trump is asserting that fired FBI Director James Comey’s testimony to Congress represents “total and complete vindication.”

Trump, who did not post on his Twitter account as Comey appeared before the Senate intelligence committee Thursday, sent a tweet at daybreak Friday. In the post, the president said: “Despite so many false statements and lies, total and complete vindication… and WOW, Comey is a leaker.”

Trump was referring to Comey’s revelation that he had passed on to a friend a written memo he’d made detailing a meeting with Trump at the White House — and had asked a friend to give it to a reporter for the New York Times. (Read more from “The Latest: Trump Claims ‘Total and Complete Vindication'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

After Election Upset, Britain Will Keep Calm and Carry On

In a huge political upset, Britain’s Conservative Party has failed to secure an overall majority, falling just short of the 326 seats needed in the 350-seat House of Commons.

Prime Minister Theresa May will now lead a minority government.

The Conservatives will rely on the support of Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party to remain in power, who won 10 seats. It is conceivable that another general election could be held in the coming months if the Conservatives are unable to drive legislation forward.

While the Conservatives lost seats, British voters did however reject the idea of a far-left Labour government, with the socialist emphasis on big spending, increased taxes, and heavy state intervention.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, an admirer of Karl Marx whose shadow Cabinet includes former communists, was viewed as too extreme by the British electorate, who were not prepared to bring to power a socialist government that could not be relied upon to grow the economy and deliver Brexit in an effective manner.

Ultimately, Corbyn’s Marxist-influenced outlook was perceived as a throwback to the 1970s, when a left-wing Labour government brought Britain to its knees, on the verge of bankruptcy.

The Conservative administration faces significant challenges ahead, from negotiating with a largely hostile European Union to securing a series of free trade deals with countries across the world.

It must also deal with a rising Islamist terror threat, one that will require significantly tougher counterterror measures, and a willingness to do what is necessary to decisively defeat the Islamic State and other Islamist terror groups, both at home and abroad.

But Britain has tremendous capacity to ensure that it thrives and prospers outside the EU, and remain at the heart of the transatlantic alliance.

A clear majority of British voters still wish to see their country move forward outside the EU as an outward-looking, truly sovereign Britain, while leading on the world stage.

Even the Labour Party pledged to implement Brexit in its manifesto, a reflection of the fact that at least a third of its supporters voted to leave the EU in the 2016 referendum.

As the world’s fifth-largest economy, with the globe’s biggest financial center, and as one of the strongest military powers in the world, Brexit Britain will be a force to be reckoned with, despite the upheaval generated by last night’s election.

Brexit will not be derailed by a climate of political uncertainty. The will of the British people is clear: Britain’s future lies in sovereignty and self-determination. (For more from the author of “After Election Upset, Britain Will Keep Calm and Carry On” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Kellyanne Conway Reveals the ‘Biggest Misconception’ About the Trump White House

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway was ready to bust some myths about the Trump White House in remarks Friday at the Road to Majority Conference.

“What is [President Donald Trump] like in private?” asked Ralph Reed, founder and chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, addressing Conway.

“Does he listen to advice?” he added.

“The biggest misconception … is that Donald Trump doesn’t have anyone around him that will tell him ‘no,’” responded Conway.

Rather, she added, Trump listens so intently that “he remembers everything,“ even to the point that “it always comes back” to get you. She commented on how, just as many within Trump Tower have reported, Trump is a “fully aware, gracious, [and] understanding boss.”

Conway mentioned that Trump would, during both the campaign and now in the White House, remain focused on issues relevant to “forgotten men and women.” She cited illegal immigration as one such issue, saying, “For so long the previous administration asked, ‘What is fair to the illegal immigrant?’”

“What is fair to the American worker competing with the illegal immigrant?” asked Conway.

Conway, who also served as Trump’s campaign manager, talked about the challenges of running against “feminist icon” Hillary Clinton, dubbing it a “double or triple challenge.”

Conway said that Clinton’s campaign did what she believes was a “great disservice” by emphasizing women’s health by focusing only on abortion, and not the other aspects of women’s health.

Conway said she took a different approach, focusing on what women cared about most, what they do on a day-by-day basis, instead of concentrating on one aspect. One theme she saw as important to women was fairness. “Fairness is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome,” she said.

She also spoke about her personal faith, saying, “I believe that all things come from God.”

Being a mother to four children was “the blessing of my life,” she said. Conway also recalled her own childhood, where she grew up with four Catholic women and was raised “with faith as our center, as our gravity, as our anchor.”

“I don’t recall a single political conversation in my entire childhood … but I was raised to be conservative based on principles and faith.”

“We were taught that family comes first—God, country, family, and faith,” she added. And for Conway, the first female campaign manager to lead a winning presidential campaign, this perspective played a major role in the success of the Trump campaign.

“We pray for you too, and it is not lost on me the sacrifice you have made,” she said to attendees.

Conway also encouraged those in attendance to “go tell your faith journey” when opportunities arise. “Whether you are asked or not … have a seven second, 70 second, and a seven minute version” about your faith journey, of why you are a conservative, why you are involved.

The Road to Majority Conference is hosted by the Faith and Freedom Coalition in Washington, D.C. (For more from the author of “Kellyanne Conway Reveals the ‘Biggest Misconception’ About the Trump White House” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

House Conservatives Ready to ‘Go Big’ on Tax Reform That Includes Welfare Reform

The House Freedom Caucus wants to “go big” on a tax reform package to include welfare reforms, but likely wouldn’t include a tax on imports, or a border adjustment tax.

“There is not consensus for the border adjustment tax,” Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., said Friday during a panel of four House Freedom Caucus members at The Heritage Foundation. “The sooner we acknowledge that and get on with a plan that actually works and actually can build consensus, the better off we will be.”

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Texas, has proposed the border adjustment tax as part of a broader tax proposal. The border adjustment tax would slap a levy on imported goods into the United States, but make exported goods tax-free, a move viewed in part by supporters of the tax as a means to keep American jobs.

“It is not anything where we’ve taken a formal position against the border adjustment, even though I have one of my colleagues on the panel who will argue we are divided in the Freedom Caucus,” Meadows said. “We have some who believe it’s a great idea, some who believe it is not a great idea.”

Meadows said the House Freedom Caucus could support much of the Brady plan, and believes Congress should move forward on common principles to pass a major package. But, he added, a corporate tax cut should help smaller businesses.

Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, said of tax reform, “We need to not tweak around the edges, we need to go big.” Davidson also said he could back the import tax, but thinks it’s a complicated sell.

“I’m the one guy up here that can live with a border adjustable tax,” Davidson said, but added, “How do you pull it off? I think it’s lost a lot of momentum.”

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, was most adamantly opposed to a border adjustment tax, also known as BAT.

“Two principles should guide our tax policy. One, let families keep more of their money. Two, design a code that is conducive to producing economic growth,” Jordan said. “What is not conducive to those principles is a whole new tax on the American economy, the BAT.”

Brady has argued the tax would “restores America as the best place on the planet to do business.”

Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., noted strong supply-side policies will create economic growth, which is the only way the country can dig out of a fiscal hole.

“You’ve got $20 trillion in debt and then $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities for … young people,” Brat said. “Medicare and Social Security are insolvent in 2034. And [the Congressional Budget Office] … [said] in about 15 or 20 years, all federal revenues will go only to mandatory and entitlement programs—all federal revenues. So, that means there is nothing left for the military, education, transportation, etc. … ”

Jordan proposed a welfare reform bill for able-bodied Americans. He said House Freedom Caucus members might be willing to live with a higher budget number if Congress will agree to real welfare reform. He noted the conversation with his employer constituents.

“‘Hey Jordan, in spite of all the stupid things going on in Washington the last eight years, we are still creating jobs. We can’t find people to work,’” Jordan said, paraphrasing the conversations. “So this is where welfare reform is just good public policy. But I don’t think you achieve sustained growth if you don’t have a labor force to get you to the productivity number.”

Davidson also proposed a bill for a commission to consolidate the number of welfare programs, similar to the base realignment commission for the U.S. Defense Department. He said some Democrats could support the goal, since the 92 federal welfare programs are often duplicative.

“Some are more effective than others at promoting healthy families and some are more effective than others at actual education attainment that leads to employment,” Davidson said. “So you create a commission, sort of like the base realignment commission that’s called Welfare BRAC, four Republicans, four Democrats, they pick their own chair, they get a year to work … We could be talking about a reform that would take us from 92 means-tested programs, I don’t know if we can get to 12, but maybe we can get to 40 or 50 programs.” (For more from the author of “House Conservatives Ready to ‘Go Big’ on Tax Reform That Includes Welfare Reform” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Altercation in Texas Exposes the Heart of Fake News

“Fake news” has become a widespread accusation, but what does it actually mean?

Is it something that’s been invented out of whole cloth, like H.G. Wells’ planetary invaders?

Different definitions abound, but I submit that fake news, at its core, is reporting in which the journalist selectively chooses and ignores facts, and interprets or paraphrases those facts to reach an unwarranted conclusion that conveniently validates his own views.

It goes to the heart of how many reporters see their job these days.

Readers may have seen the recent “news” about a physical fracas on the floor of the Texas House of Representatives, which reported that Republican Rep. Matt Rinaldi confronted a Democrat and engaged in aggressive verbal back-and-forth.

The report said the altercation came to a climax when Rinaldi said, “I’ll put a bullet in your head” to the “the Democrat he alleged was menacing,” in the words of the Dallas Morning News account.

For context, this was the last day of the legislative session, and a large and boisterous group of self-described illegal immigrants were holding signs that read, “Illegal and Here to Stay.”

It was in response to this protest that Rinaldi, according to the original report, said to the protesters he was calling Immigration and Customs Enforcement—prompting a physical tussle between Rinaldi and Rep. Poncho Nevarez and then the “bullet in your head” threat.

Media outlets around the country carried this report.

But what actually happened here, and which part was “fake”?

We now know that the demonstration, which was indeed loud and noisy, took place inside the Capitol building and spilled onto the floor of the Legislature, which is highly unusual and not allowed.

The “demonstrators”—or more accurately, the provocateurs—quickly outnumbered and overpowered the legislative security forces. That’s what caused Rinaldi to say, “I’m calling ICE.” (For the record, they never showed up.)

Next, the alleged altercation.

Cellphone video, which appears to have been taken by multiple people and released in the aftermath of the fracas, shows the demonstrators pushing and shoving Rinaldi, who kept his arms to his chest or at his side.

The audio only reveals grunting and the typical sounds of a physical engagement, punctuated by semi-coherent cries of “stop that.”

In the immediate aftermath, Nevarez came up to Rinaldi, got in his face, and said, “When you leave, I’ll get you.” Within minutes, he again came up and said, “You have to leave sometime, and I know where your car is parked and I’ll get you.”

At that point, Rinaldi said something like, “I’m armed and I’ll defend myself.”

Rep. Jonathan Strickland, R-Bedford, was one of two representatives who personally witnessed this and confirmed it by email. Neither is a personal acquaintance, but it wouldn’t have been very difficult to confirm Rinaldi’s version of the story.

But what did the Dallas Morning News report?

Initially, it noted that Rinaldi did tell it that Nevarez did say he would “come get” him, with just “come get” in quotation marks.

It left out the much more provocative and threatening phrases, “You’ll have to leave sometime,” and “I know where your car is,” plus the fact that Nevarez approached him twice.

Moreover, this sentence was buried in the body of the text.

The allegation that Rinaldi said, “I’ll put a bullet in your head,” came from another Democratic representative, Justin Rodriguez, who admittedly “didn’t witness the initial altercation” and only later said he heard Rinaldi make the comment.

This allegation was also disputed by a number of representatives who were present.

Despite these discrepancies, the Dallas Morning News ran a bold headline quoting the inflammatory words: “’I’ll put a bullet in your head’: Fistfight nearly erupts on final day of contentious legislative session.”

It should be noted that “nearly” is not the same as “did,” and the word “fistfight” overshadows the qualifier “nearly” enough to obliterate it.

Later, Rinaldi issued a statement noting that Nevarez had approached and threatened him, and that he had responded to Nevarez saying he would “shoot him in self-defense.” That’s not exactly what Rinaldi remembers saying, but he let his public statement stand.

Several of Rinaldi’s staff members contacted the Dallas Morning News after the initial story was posted and asked it to change the headline, which they felt was incorrect and misleading.

According to sources with knowledge of the situation, the reporter replied, “There’s no proof he didn’t say it,” adding that because Rodriguez claimed Rinaldi had said it, this was sufficient to justify the headline. The headline remains online today.

Media Aftermath

In the hours and days that followed, dozens of media outlets picked up the “bullet in your head” quote. When the cellphone video came out, several publications did amend their stories to remove allegations that Rinaldi had assaulted Rodriguez or other representatives.

The conservative media, most notably Fox News’ Neil Cavuto, allotted six minutes to report the entire story, complete with video and images of the red-shirted demonstrators swarming the legislators on the floor. Cavuto carefully reviewed the timeline of who said what, and when.

Yet even this past weekend, the Dallas Morning News was still parsing the event and reporting that “Rinaldi acknowledged on his Facebook page that he told Democratic State Rep. Poncho Nevarez of Eagle Pass that he ‘would shoot him in self-defense.’”

There was no mention of Nevarez’s repeated threats (“You have to leave sometime.”).

In addition, the Dallas Morning News was still collecting expert quotes responding to its own description of what happened, rather than what really happened.

One quote was from Southern Methodist University professor Cal Jillson, who said, “In Asia, in places like South Korea and Taiwan, you do have lawmakers with their hands around each other’s throats and fisticuffs. But you don’t usually see that in American politics.”

But as noted above, there was no actual fighting.

Calling Out What’s Fake

This story is tainted by a number of errors.

First and foremost, the quotation, “I’ll put a bullet in your head,” which came from a clearly partisan source, should have been verified and immediately corrected upon learning that it didn’t come from the mouth of Rinaldi.

Next, the original story downplayed or omitted a key part of the story—the initial threats from Nevarez. The comments from Rinaldi were provoked and came in response to aggression from Nevarez. While the Dallas Morning News did include a tweet from Rinaldi mentioning Nevarez’s behavior, there was no mention in the body of the piece about it.

Additionally, the report painted a far more benign picture of the scene on the floor of the Legislature that was accurate. The participants were clearly organized and aiming to provoke a physical response.

Finally, and most “fake” of all, the reporter defended the “bullet in your head” quote of Rinaldi by saying, “There’s no proof he didn’t say it.”

If that’s the standard for journalism today—saying something happened because there’s no proof it didn’t happen—we’ve truly entered the land of the news novella.

What’s the lesson here for ordinary citizens?

Years ago, Erwin Knoll, editor of The Progressive magazine, penned an article titled, “Knoll’s Law of Accuracy in Media.” In that piece, Knoll said: “Everything you read in the press is absolutely true. Except the rare event of which you have personal knowledge.”

That statement proved especially salient in this case, where diving deeper into the evidence makes all the difference.

The lesson for American news consumers is to be skeptical of what you read in all media and take the time to give the facts a second look.

And there’s an additional lesson: Urge journalists to employ a little more self-examination to make sure they don’t cherry-pick the “facts,” quotes, and experts that simply ratify their predetermined conclusions.

And when they do, we should call them on it. (For more from the author of “This Altercation in Texas Exposes the Heart of Fake News” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.