Nothing to See Here: Public Radio, TV Networks Ignore Adam Schiff’s Fake Quotes From Trump Transcript

/0 Comments/in , /by

On Thursday, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) fabricated quotes from the transcript of President Donald Trump’s July 25 call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, the call at the center of Democrats’ impeachment inquiry. His quotes misrepresented the transcript, making it seem more damaging for Trump. When called out on it, he hilariously claimed that his remarks were just a parody. It seems the big three broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) thought these fake quotes weren’t a story, and when NPR and PBS interviewed Schiff, they didn’t ask one question about it.

Schiff started his “parody” by saying “this is the essence of what the president communicates: We’ve been very good to your country, very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don’t see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want, I have a favor I want from you, though. And I’m going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good.”

“I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand, lots of it, on this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I’m going to put you in touch the attorney general of the United States, my attorney general, Bill Barr,” Schiff continued, supposedly not acting as if he were quoting the president. “And I’m going to put you in touch with Rudy, you’re going to love him, trust me. … And by the way, don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked.” . . .

As NewsBusters’ Nicholas Fondacaro reported, ABC, CBS, and NBC ignored the story, but Fox News’ The Story with Martha MacCallum covered it. MacCallum began the segment by noting that Schiff had taken “creative liberty” with the transcript: “Rather than reading from the transcript as it exists, and we all now have in the open of the president’s phone call with the Ukrainian President Zelensky, he parried it in a sort of free-verse improv.” (Read more from “Nothing to See Here: Public Radio, TV Networks Ignore Adam Schiff’s Fake Quotes From Trump Transcript” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Study: Transgender Athletes Have Advantages in Women’s Sports

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A recent study has shown that biological males identifying as transgender women, still retained considerable advantages over biological females in strength and muscle mass, even after a full year of hormone therapy.

The study, conducted by the the Karolinska Institute — a medical university in Sweden — and Linkoping University, a university in Sweden, showed that the biological males (transgender women) who took a full year of hormone therapy, still had muscle mass and strength advantages.

The researchers posted their conclusion: “Despite the robust increases in muscle mass and strength in TM, the TW were still stronger and had more muscle mass following 12months of treatment. These findings add new knowledge that could be relevant when evaluating transwomen’s eligibility to compete in the women’s category of athletic competitions.” . . .

The results of the study, which are still undergoing the peer review process, will prove crucial for the burgeoning movement to protect the rights of biological females in women’s sports. It also will pose new problems for the NCAA, who currently requires biological males to undergo a full year of hormone therapy prior to competing in women’s sports.

However, since the study shows that those biological males will retain considerable strength advantages over women despite the full year of hormone therapy, female athletes will have grounds to file a Title IX discrimination complaint to protest the inclusion of transgender women in their sports. (Read more from “Study: Transgender Athletes Have Advantages in Women’s Sports” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

WALL STREET WARNS DEMS: No Donations If You Nominate Warren

/0 Comments/in , /by

Wall Street and the DNC have been in bed together like a couple of newlyweds for years now, but the honeymoon might finally end if Senator Elizabeth Warren takes the presidential nomination next year.

CNBC’s Brian Schwartz reports that “several high-dollar Democratic donors and fundraisers in the business community” plan to “sit out the presidential campaign fundraising cycle” should Warren sit — must… resist… urge… to… make… sit Indian-style joke — at the top of the ticket. A private equity executive who wishes to remain anonymous told the network, “You’re in a box because you’re a Democrat and you’re thinking, ‘I want to help the party, but she’s going to hurt me, so I’m going to help President Trump’.”

Warren’s proposed “wealth tax,” while of dubious constitutionality, threatens to place a 2% tax on the wealth — not earnings — of households worth $50 million or more. That’s a lot of Wall Street people, it’s safe to say.

“Democratic” socialist candidate Bernie Sanders promises an even bigger wealth tax, with a 1% levy on households worth more than $32 million, going all the way up to 8% for fortunes over $10 billion. So far Wall Street doesn’t feel as threatened by the prospect of a Bernie candidacy, but with frontrunner Joe Biden sinking in poll after poll, who knows what might happen as the voting starts in Iowa next February. . .

The bind for Democrats is: Nominate the next strongest candidate to Flailin’ Joe, or risk defections in the wealthiest segment of their donor and fundraising base. It would also be more difficult than ever to paint Trump as reckless/evil/stupid/insert-the-daily-pejorative-here, if after four years in office he were to suddenly gain the support of some big-name, big-money Dems. (Read more from “Wall Street Warns Dems: No Donations If You Nominate Warren” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Federal Judge Sides With Christians in LGBT Adoption Case

/0 Comments/in , /by

A Catholic adoption agency will not have to abandon its beliefs on marriage and the family in order to continue working with the state of Michigan for the time being, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

“This case is not about whether same-sex couples can be great parents,” District Judge Robert Jonker wrote in his ruling granting an injunction against new state rules. “What this case is about is whether St. Vincent [Catholic Charities] may continue to do this work and still profess and promote the traditional Catholic belief that marriage as ordained by God is for one man and one woman.”

The ruling bars Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel from acting on the terms of a legal settlement with the ACLU reached back in March that would have forced faith-based organizations that work with the state to place children in same-sex households, regardless of any deeply held religious beliefs. Michigan, like many other states, contracts with private adoption agencies to place foster children in new homes, and the ACLU sued in 2017 saying that prospective LGBT parents had been turned away by christian organizations.

In April, religious liberty legal nonprofit Becket responded to the settlement with a lawsuit on behalf of St. Vincent Catholic Charities, adoptive parents Chad and Melissa Buck, and a former foster child.

Jonker, a George W. Bush appointee, also wrote, “Under the Attorney General’s current interpretation of Michigan law and the parties’ contracts, St. Vincent must choose between its traditional religious belief, and the privilege of continuing to place children with foster and adoptive parents of all types.” The ruling also stated that the state’s position “strongly suggests the State’s real goal is not to promote non-discriminatory child placements, but to stamp out St. Vincent’s religious belief and replace it with the State’s own.” (Read more from “Federal Judge Sides With Christians in LGBT Adoption Case” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Judge Blocks State Law That Bans Abortions on Babies With Down Syndrome

/0 Comments/in , /by

A federal judge reversed his ruling about a Missouri pro-life law Friday by blocking a provision that prohibits discriminatory abortions on unborn babies with Down syndrome.

Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the state law, which includes multiple pro-life provisions including a ban on abortions after 8 weeks when an unborn baby’s heartbeat is detectable.

In August, U.S. District Judge Howard Sachs blocked the state from enforcing most parts of the law, but he allowed the non-discrimination measures to be enforced.

On Friday, however, Sachs issued a revised ruling blocking enforcement of the Down syndrome abortion ban as well.

“Sad news,” Samuel H. Lee of Campaign Life Missouri told LifeNews. “At the moment, Missouri will not be able to prevent the discriminatory abortions of unborn children with Down syndrome. In a society which in recent decades has advanced the rights of the most vulnerable, disabled individuals who are already born, this ruling perpetuates the cruel myth that some children are better off never being born.” (Read more from “Judge Blocks State Law That Bans Abortions on Babies With Down Syndrome” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Clinton Wins Abortion ‘Achievement’, Calls Killing Babies a Human Right

/0 Comments/in , /by

The pro-abortion group NARAL celebrated its 50th anniversary Thursday by giving failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton its Lifetime Achievement Award.

In between criticisms of President Donald Trump, leaders of the radical pro-abortion group called Clinton “our president” and touted her pro-abortion record. NARAL held its 50th anniversary celebration Thursday in Washington, D.C.

“Women’s rights are human rights, and for 50 years NARAL has taken on the toughest fights to protect our most fundamental freedoms. Happy anniversary. Let’s keep going,” Clinton wrote on Twitter after accepting the award.

During her acceptance speech, Clinton spent a lot of time criticizing Trump, who has taken strong steps to protect human rights for both the born and unborn. Among his many actions, the president cut taxpayer funding to abortion providers, urged countries to stand together against the United Nation’s abortion agenda, and defended the conscience protection rights of pro-life medical workers. . .

NARAL is a radical pro-abortion group that boasts 2.5 million supporters. It lobbies against moderate, common-sense abortion regulations, including bans on discriminatory sex-selection abortions, parental consent laws for minors and protections for newborns who survive abortions. (Read more from “Clinton Wins Abortion ‘Achievement’, Calls Killing Babies a Human Right” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Once Again, Progressive Anti-Christian Bigotry Carries a Steep Legal Cost

/0 Comments/in , /by

Last summer, in the days after the Supreme Court decided Masterpiece Cakeshop on the narrow grounds that Colorado had violated Jack Phillips’s religious-liberty rights by specifically disparaging his religious beliefs, a bit of a skirmish broke out among conservative lawyers. How important was the ruling? Did it have any lasting precedential effect?

For those who don’t recall, the Supreme Court ruled for Phillips in large part because a commissioner of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission called Phillips’s claim that he enjoyed a religious-freedom right not to be forced to design a custom cake for a gay wedding a “despicable piece of rhetoric.” The commissioner also denigrated religious-liberty arguments as being used to justify slavery and the Holocaust.

While all agreed that it would have been preferable had the court simply ruled that creative professionals could not be required to produce art that conflicted with their sincerely held beliefs, the question was whether Justice Anthony Kennedy’s strong condemnation of anti-religious bigotry would resonate beyond the specific facts of the case. For example, what would happen if, in a different case, state officials called faithful Christians who seek to protect the religious freedom of Catholic adoption agencies “hate-mongers”?

In the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, it turns out that such rhetoric has cost the state a crucial court ruling, granted a Catholic adoption agency a vital victory, and demonstrated — once again — that anti-religious bigotry can (and should) carry substantial legal costs.

The case is called Buck v. Gordon. My friends at Becket represent St. Vincent Catholic Charities, a former foster child, and the adoptive parents of five special-needs kids. The facts are relatively complicated, but here’s the short version: St. Vincent upholds Catholic teaching by referring same-sex and unmarried families who seek foster and adoption recommendations and endorsements to agencies that have no objection to providing those services. There is no evidence that St. Vincent has prevented any legally qualified family from adopting or fostering a child. In fact, same-sex couples “certified through different agencies” have been able to adopt children in St. Vincent’s care. (Read more from “Once Again, Progressive Anti-Christian Bigotry Carries a Steep Legal Cost” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Three-Dozen ISIS Fighters Killed in Series of U.S. Strikes

/0 Comments/in , /by

The U.S. military killed 36 ISIS militants in a series of three airstrikes in Libya over the past eight days, U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) announced Friday.

“This ongoing campaign against ISIS-Libya demonstrates that U.S. Africa Command persistently targets terrorist networks that seek to harm innocent Libyans,” read a statement from AFRICOM’s director of intelligence, Navy Rear Admiral Heidi Berg. “We will continue to pursue ISIS-Libya and other terrorists in the region, denying them safe haven to coordinate and plan operations in Libya.”

Seventeen ISIS members were killed in an airstrike on Thursday in southwest Libya. That strike followed a strike Tuesday near Murzuq that killed eleven jihadis, and a previous strike in the same area late last week that killed eight alleged fighters, AFRICOM said. (Read more from “Three-Dozen ISIS Fighters Killed in Series of U.S. Strikes” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Intelligence Community Secretly Removed the First-Hand Knowledge of Wrongdoing Requirement for Whistleblower Reports

/0 Comments/in , /by

I know we’ve repeated this line, but let’s recap again. House Democrats decided to get the impeachment circus going based on an anonymous whistleblower complaint that alleged President Trump shook down the Ukrainian political leadership by withholding military aid unless they opened a corruption probe into Hunter Biden, son of former Vice President Joe Biden. The quid pro quo allegations spread like Ebola and the Democrats are now moving forward with their three-year-long project: impeaching President Trump for…winning the 2016 election. Did the person, who is reportedly a CIA agent, listen in on the July call where this mob-like shakedown occurred? No. He heard it from second and third-hand sources, hence why it’s loaded with errors. The media reporting drummed it up as Watergate 5.0. It was another nothing burger. There was no quid pro quo. There was nothing illegal.

Well, you’d think that actual witnesses to activities that deem unethical would be the benchmark for reports like this, especially ones that will be used to impeach a president, right? A first-hand account is one thing, but this complaint is certainly not that. And it seems like the intelligence community secretly removed the direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing requirement. Sean Davis of The Federalist has more:

Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community’s behavior regarding the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are reporting.

The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump’s July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only “heard about [wrongdoing] from others.”

(Read more from “The Intelligence Community Secretly Removed the First-Hand Knowledge of Wrongdoing Requirement for Whistleblower Reports” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Uh, Beto, That’s Not the Best Venue to Declare Who Should Only Be Trusted With Guns in America

/0 Comments/in , /by

Former Democratic Congressman Robert Francis O’Rourke is making history, I guess. He wants to take private property from millions of law-abiding Americans. Bob is anti-gun. And he proudly said “hell yes” to confiscating so-called assault weapons. He’s the liberal who thinks the AR-15 is a scary gun. Americans own millions of these rifles. There is no way compliance for confiscation will be honored. It’s illegal. It’s unconstitutional. And if Democrats want to follow the playbooks of never winning another presidential race for the foreseeable future, follow this guy’s lead. Liberals have short memories. Gun control already cost them the 2000 election, with Gore losing West Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas over his stance on gun control. Those states, even with Bush winning Florida, would have been enough to push Gore past 270 and succeed Bill Clinton in January of 2001.

So, whom does Bob (aka Beto) think should be trusted to own firearms in America? You guessed it; only the police, military, and other agents of the state should be allowed to own guns. And did I mention that he made this pitch at Kent State University, where the National Guard shot and killed four students in 1970 during a Vietnam War protest (via Reason):

Of all the places to argue that only the government should be trusted with guns, Beto O’Rourke picked…Kent State University.

[…]

Invoking armed agents of the state gunning down unarmed civilians is an interesting way to argue that Americans would be better off if the government forcefully disarmed private citizens. But hey, I guess that’s why we keep being told Beto’s an “unconventional” candidate.

[…]

As J.D. Tuccille pointed out last month, there’s scant evidence to suggest that such a policy could be implemented effectively, and it’s pretty unclear how O’Rourke would get gun owners to comply with the law.

(Read more from “Uh, Beto, That’s Not the Best Venue to Declare Who Should Only Be Trusted With Guns in America” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE