Published on Feb 17, 2019
15 Celebs Who Blamed Trump, Deplorables for Hoax Attack on Jussie Smollett Will They Admit Pushing Fake Noose?
By Justin Caruso
Left-wing Hollywood wasted no time in politicizing and blaming President Donald Trump and his supporters for an alleged hate crime attack on Empire actor Jussie Smollett — an encounter that police now reportedly believe to have been staged.
CNN’s Shimon Prokupecz reported Saturday, “Chicago Police believe Jussie Smollett paid two men to orchestrate the assault. The sources tell CNN that the two men are now cooperating fully with law enforcement.”
Smollett had previously claimed that at 2am in downtown Chicago, he was attacked by two men, had a rope wrapped around his neck, and chemicals thrown on him and claimed he was called racial and homophobic slurs. He also said that the attackers yelled “This is MAGA country!” at him.
Left-wing Hollywood, of course, used the alleged attack to cast blame on President Trump and the United States in general.
Empire co-creator Lee Daniels said, “We have to love each other regardless of what sexual orientation we are because it shows we are united on a united front and no racist fuck can come in and do the things that they did to you.”
“Hold your head up, Jussie. I’m with you. I’ll be there in a minute. It’s just another fucking day in America,” he said.
Singer Cher roared, “VILLAINY, RACISM,HOMOPHOBIA, PROMOTED BY MOST INFAMOUS [clown] IN [the world],IS THE POISON THAT KILLS [America].”
“[America] IS PPL OF COLOR,” she added. “GOP GOES DOWN WITH SHIP djt.”
“Standing with and sending love to @JussieSmollett today… this is a racist hate crime and is disgusting and shameful to our country,” pop star Katy Perry said.
Actress Olivia Munn claimed, without evidence, “Jussie Smollett was violently attacked by two white men who poured bleach on him and put a noose around his neck.”
“He was targeted for being black and for being gay. THIS is why we have to have zero tolerance against homophobia and racism. Jussie’s life matters.”
Actor Billy Eichner used the incident to cast blame on Trump and “all MAGA lunatics.”
“Heartbroken and furious reading about the attack on JussieSmollett. I want Trump and all MAGA lunatics to burn in Hell,” the Billy on the Street star said.
In a now-deleted tweet, Rosie O’Donnell cast blame on “maga assholes.”
Rob Reiner chimed in with his usual vitriol, “The horrific attack on Jussie Smollett has no place in a decent human loving society. Homophobia existed before Trump, but there is no question that since he has injected his hatred into the American bloodstream, we are less decent, less human,& less loving. No intolerance! No DT!”
Hollywood director Barry Jenkins also blamed Trump, saying, “Thinking of Jussie. Saddened. Heartbroken. Angry. ALL of it. Wouldn’t matter that he is the kindest soul. But he IS the kindest soul. And this is FUCKED. This is what all that hateful mongering has wrought. Are you PROUD???”
“for the love of god, how how how can people still be supporting the ‘president’ ? I beg of you . please can we put aside politics and fight together to overcome disgustingly vile hate ?” actress Beth Behrs said.
for the love of god, how how how can people still be supporting the “president” ? I beg of you . please can we put aside politics and fight together to overcome disgustingly vile hate ?https://t.co/nlZVlIK0Sl
— Beth Behrs (@BethBehrs) January 29, 2019
Indeed there was no shortage of leftist celebrities who blamed innocent Americans for an alleged attack they had no part in, all without evidence. Check out more celebrity reactions below.
I’m horrified by the vicious attack on @JussieSmollett Not surprised that the cowards in masks yelled “This is MAGA country.” Our country deserves better than the kind of morally bankrupt people who have taken our democracy hostage and condone hate crimes. Sending love to Jussie.
— Molly Ringwald (@MollyRingwald) January 29, 2019
Democratic Presidential hopeful @CoryBooker also called the alleged attack an “attempted modern day lynching.” He u… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…—
Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) February 15, 2019
The horrific story of Jussie Smollet makes this important point:
While some are whipping up tales of danger coming over the border, the real and documented danger to America is coming from home-grown right-wing racist, homophobic and antisemitic movements.
— Bill Prady (@billprady) January 29, 2019
ADAM SCHIFF REFUSES TO STAND DOWN IF MUELLER FINDS NO COLLUSION
‘We’re going to have to do our own investigation, and we are,’ he tells CNN
FEBRUARY 17, 2019
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., wouldn’t say Sunday if he would accept special counsel Robert Mueller being unable to find direction collusion between President Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia.
The House Intelligence Committee is embarking on a sweeping investigation into Trump’s financial transactions and Russia, and Schiff adamantly stressed that his panel will continue its work unimpeded regardless of what Mueller says.
During an interview on CNN, Schiff discussed at length all the “evidence in plain sight” of collusion he believes there is, but said “it will be up to Mueller to decide if that amounts to criminal conspiracy.”
However, when he was asked point blank if he would accept Mueller’s findings if no clear evidence of collusion is determined, Schiff demurred. Instead he focused his answer on how his committee will conduct its own inquiry and how he’ll fight to gain access to Mueller’s evidence should it be withheld from public view.
“We’re going to have to do our own investigation, and we are. We’ll certainly be very interested to learn what Bob Mueller finds. We may have to fight to get that information. Bill Barr has not been willing to commit to provide that report either to the Congress or to the American people. We’re going to need to see it,” Schiff said on “State of the Union,” referring to Trump’s newly confirmed attorney general.
“The American people need to see it. We may also need to see the evidence behind that report,” he added. “There may be, for example, evidence of collusion or conspiracy that is clear and convincing. But not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The American people are entitled to know if there is evidence of a conspiracy between either the president or the president’s campaign and a foreign adversary. At the end of the day, the most important thing for the American people to know is whether the president is somehow compromised, whether there’s a leverage the Russians could use over the president, and if the Russians are in a position to expose wrongdoing by the president or his campaign.”
Host Dana Bash pressed Schiff again, asking if he would accept Mueller’s findings separate from his own investigation. Schiff’s response focused on the integrity of Mueller’s operation.
“You know, I will certainly accept them in this way, Dana. I have great confidence in the special counsel. And if the special counsel represents that he has investigated and not been interfered with and not been able to make a criminal case, then I will believe that he is operating in good faith,” Schiff said.
Schiff and his Democratic majority are reopening the House Intelligence Committee’s inquiry into Russian interference after the GOP-led panel in the last term completed an investigation that found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. At the time, the Democrats said the GOP-led effort wrapped prematurely.
Schiff also dismissed a recent assertion made by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., that Schiff’s panel’s Russia investigation has yet to turn up evidence of collusion. He quipped “Chairman Burr must have a different word for” collusion, citing such controversies as the infamous 2016 Trump Tower meeting and Trump campaign staffer George Papadopoulos, who last year served 12 days for lying to FBI investigators about his contact with people linked to Russia during the 2016 campaign.
EXPOSED: Ilhan Omar Uses ISIS Recruitment Terminology In Interviews and Tirades
By Laura Loomer
Ilhan Omar can now add liar to her resume.
After a 2013 interview of Ilhan Omar recently surfaced on the internet in which she mocked Americans’ fears of Islamic terrorist organizations by citing a terrorism class she took in college, Big League Politics decided to investigate the merit of Omar’s claims.
Omar was being interviewed by Ahmed Tharwat when she stated that terrorist groups do not have scary names, laughed at people’s fear of terror cells, and blamed the United States for terrorism.
During the interview, Omar smiled and implied that if terrorist organizations were an elected group instead of individual people of a nation executing terrorist activities, then their actions would be accepted and justified under law. “All these groups like Al-Shabab and Al-Qaeda are not really legitimate and it is easier for you to say it is not ok because it’s not a legitimized action- by laws,” She said.
At one point of the interview, Tharwat said Al-Shabab, Hezbollah, and Al-Qaeda are Arabic words that are showcased as wrong or evil. Omar replied while laughing, “These words don’t really mean anything evil right?”
When the host said “Al-Shabab” means the “Youth”, Omar laughed, implying that the terrorist organization that often recruits child soldiers and is responsible for killing thousands of innocent people in East Africa is harmless. In 2012, Al-Shabab pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist organization founded in 1988 by Osama bin Laden.
Omar and the host continued with their pro-terror tirade in which she minimized counter-terrorism terminology. “Or Madrasa. No one wants to go to Madrasa anymore even though it means school” Tharwat said as Omar giggled and laughed.
One of the most alarming statements during the interview was when the host tried to justify a terrorist attack in Kenya by insinuating that the attack was warranted because “we never see Americans apologize when their troops, when their states destroy other countries, when their states’ empire misbehaves overseas.”
Tharawt and Omar continued to disrespect the United States by saying Americans are “polluting (Arabic) language!” and went as far as saying sensationalized media is to blame for purporting that groups like Al-Qaeda, Al-Shabab, and Hezbollah are evil.
Adding to the absurdity, Omar said, “We don’t need to go on a witch hunt”, when investigating acts of terrorism. Omar’s comments ought to be viewed with tremendous concern given that her Somali district in Minneapolis, Minnesota, is now the terrorist recruitment capital of the United States for ISIS.
“Terrorism is a reaction to a situation. We didn’t have terrorism before invasion or wall,” Tharawt said.
Omar and Tharawt agreed in their discussion together that the United States is to blame for terrorism. Alarmingly, Omar is now serving on the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, while holding pro-Islamic terror and anti-American sentiments.
“Usually most people want to not look into their actions that make another reaction,” Omar said as she continued to defend acts of Islamic terrorism. While discussing Al-Qaeda and Al-Shabab, Omar said its members are “normal citizens” and that the organizations “don’t mean anything evil”.
At the 16:45 mark in the interview, Omar said she took a course on terrorism in college. In one of the most disturbing sound bites, Tharawt asked Omar “if there was a lab (physical experiment)” for her terrorism class, to which she replied by laughing, “we learned the ideology. Every time the professor said Al-Qaeda, he sort of…his shoulders went up. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah”.
Tharawt asked Omar, “What is his name? Where does he live”?
Omar replied, “Oh we are not saying his name. You probably get to see him on CNN.”
Further investigation revealed Omar attended North Dakota State University. Big League Politics reached out to verify Omar and her “Brother husband’s” attendance.
The University cited FERPA, disallowing the media access to an elected member of Congress’s actual records at the University. However, NDSU confirmed that Omar and her husband both attended the univeristy. NDSU said Omar’s “brother husband” attended University for two years with her and that she obtained a degree in Political Science and International Studies. The professor she had for the terrorism class is Dr. Thomas Ambrosios.
According to his updated CV by NDSU nowhere does this professor indicate that he has been interviewed by CNN or featured on CNN. In fact, his CV indicates that he is a member of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) a neoconservative group with an obfuscated funding history as outlined in this write up by RightWeb .
Ilhan Omar lied about her professor working for CNN, and she mocked “Americans,” including her professor, for treating designated Islamic terrorist organizations as evil and stated she thinks their actions are justified. Her most recent line of questioning to Elliot Abrams, who currently serves as President Trump’s Special Envoy to Venezuela, is in tangent with the ISIS manifesto that outlines how the United States is observed with deep-seated hate. Omar was careful to refer to “genocide” or atrocious outcomes in El Salvador with nearly identical verbiage of the ISIS Manifesto.
While smiling and speaking to Abrams, who is Jewish, with utmost disgust and loathing for US actions during the Iran Contra Affair (actions of training and aiding El Salvadorians to regain their freedom from a communist dictatorship) Omar was condescending, rude and sarcastic. Watching Omar was like watching an ISIS recruitment video or reading a copy of Dabiq, which is the online magazine published in English and European languages by ISIS to recruit and radicalize Westerners all around the world. Dabiq serves as an instrument of propaganda for Islamic terrorists.According to the Council of Foreign Relations, Dabiq portrays jihadists as the voice of Islam, and states that the West is the sole enemy of Islam. Dabiq describes the end of time as the culmination of a centuries-long conflict between the Islam and the West.
In both her interview with Tharawt, as well as her questioning of Abrams, Omar blamed the United States for war casualties around the world. “Is this a fabulous achievement – Do you think the massacre was a fabulous achievement?” Omar asked Abrams.
Based on this conversation, Congresswoman Omar appears to see terrorism as a joking matter. But to the countless victims of global jihad, those who have been inspired by the murderous beliefs of Muhammad are nothing but nightmares.
Rep. Omar’s mocking spirit and recycling of ISIS recruitment terminology is no shock when paired with her decision to wear a hijab directly following the murderous Islamic attacks on 9/11, which she defended as an “open declaration of her identity” and told Americans to “just deal with it”.
A woman with such deep-seated hatred for the very country that afforded her freedoms, that afforded her the right to even run for office with the support of CAIR, an organization that is deemed a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates, should not be serving in the United States Congress. In fact, Omar shouldn’t even be allowed to continue residing in the United States as a “refugee”, given that she has expressed support for foreign Islamic terrorist organizations on multiple occasions.
Omar is suspected on lying about her basic demographic information like her “husband” who is believed to be her biological brother. She lied about her professor and showcases her sympathies with jihadists in the way she spoke about her professor and the way she questioned Elliott Abrams. Omar is also a vile jew hater who has on multiple occasions spouted off anti-Jewish statements and has promoted eradicating Israel. In similarity to her predecessor, Keith Ellison, who is also a Muslim, Omar’s campaign was funded by CAIR, which often headlines fundraisers with Siraj Wahhaj, a co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing whose son was arrested in 2018 for training children to be jihadists and planning a terrorist attack on a hospital in Atlanta.
What else is Ilhan Omar lying about? What else is she hiding…
CNN’s Brian Stelter: Conservative Media “Weaponized” Smollett Hate Hoax
By Richard Moorhead
The CNN host believes alternative media took advantage of the situation.
CNN’s Brian Stelter responded to the revelation of Jussie Smollett’s likely hate hoax in a predictable, although laughable, manner in a segment on his network Saturday.
Stelter claimed that the story had been thoroughly “weaponized” by conservative media. He made a distinction between “strong, high quality news organizations” and their competitors, apparently living in an alternate reality in which CNN is the former.
The CNN host revised history, trying to claim that the mainstream media had covered the story carefully with an appropriate amount of skepticism. In reality, outlets such as CNN treated Smollett’s account with credibility from the get-go, only questioning the story when it became clear police were investigating the possibility of a hoax. Stelter went on to say that the story had been effectively weaponized by “random websites all over the web.”
Stelter left it unclear exactly what was “weaponized-” it’s possible he’s simply uncomfortable having to admit that mainstream media were exposed as naive dupes once again by their alternative media competitors.
CNN’s coverage of the incident is somewhat reminiscent of their reaction to another hate hoax, the now-discredited smears against the boys of Covington Catholic High School. In both incidents, the fake news network treated a narrative invented by progressives as factual when there was more than enough evidence to suggest it was less than truthful.
CNN presenter Don Lemon spoke of texting and calling Smollett every day in the aftermath of the fake “attack.” His exchange with the likely hoaxer doesn’t seem to have led him to consider that the attack, which was clearly unlikely to have occurred in the manner Smollett described from the beginning, was fake.
ACLU Announces That It Will Challenge Trump’s National Emergency Declaration
By Josh Hammer
Friday morning, President Donald Trump declared a national emergency in order to unilaterally fund more miles of border fencing than this week’s omnibus compromise “deal” otherwise permits. The Daily Wire reported:
President Trump on Friday announced that he is declaring a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border, and he will redirect up to $8 billion in federal money to build a border barrier to keep foreigners from illegally entering the country.
While Democrats are expected to fight the move — and likely will seek to halt the plan via court or congressional action — Trump declared that, as president, he has unilateral authority to redirect federal funds in order to stem a crisis.
The National Emergencies Act of 1976 says the president “has available certain powers that may be exercised in the event that the nation is threatened by crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances (other than natural disasters, war, or near-war situations),” the Congressional Research Service says.
Following Trump’s Rose Garden announcement, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wasted little time in announcing its plan to sue the Trump Administration. The ACLU press release reads, in relevant part:
The ACLU will argue that President Trump’s use of emergency powers to evade Congressional funding restrictions is unprecedented and that 10 U.S.C. § 2808, the emergency power that Trump has invoked, cannot be used to build a border wall. Congress restricted the use of that power to military construction projects, like overseas military airfields in wartime, that “are necessary to support” the emergency use of armed forces.
Many conservative legal scholars disagree with the ACLU’s analysis. In particular, John Eastman of the Claremont Institute and John Yoo of Berkeley Law and the American Enterprise Institute, each of whom formerly clerked on the U.S. Supreme Court for Justice Clarence Thomas, have both expressed their belief that President Trump’s national emergency is being enacted declared pursuant to Congress’s delegated statutory authority. There is also the separate threshold question as to whether the ACLU would even have proper standing to sue, under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
The Washington Examiner reports that Trump’s national emergency declaration will allow him to potentially fund 234 more miles of border fencing. The declaration, per the Examiner, opens up an additional $6.6 billion in funding that may be used for the wall — far more than the $1.375 billion that the omnibus compromise “deal” provided.
The ACLU has recently come under fire for its opposition to S. 1, the pro-Israel piece of legislation that recently passed the U.S. Senate by a 77-23 margin. The bill allows for state and local governmental entities to refuse to contract with entities whose commercial conduct is intertwined with the anti-Semitic “boycott, divest, and sanctions” movement against Israel. Yesterday, Jonathan Tobin had the following to say about the ACLU, at Jewish News Syndicate:
The ACLU claims this is a defense of the First Amendment. The Constitution protects the right of those who advocate for Israel’s destructions or for boycotts of it to express their opinions. But there is no constitutional right to engage in commercial conduct that discriminates against a class of persons or those associated with the only Jewish state on the planet. To the contrary, the states and the federal government are on firm constitutional ground to deem such discrimination illegal, as is the case when it comes to similar actions directed at African-Americans or other ethnic or religious groups. …
That the ACLU would weigh in on behalf of BDS is deeply troubling. BDS is a movement steeped in anti-Semitism, as its supporters’ statements and actions have repeatedly proved. The struggle against it has nothing to do with free speech — and everything to do with anti-Semitism — since it is a concept based on the notion that Israel, alone of all countries in the world, deserves to be eliminated.
Report: NFL Paid Kaepernick $60 to $80 Million in Collusion Settlement
By Dylan Gwinn
No one knows for sure, just how much Colin Kaepernick received as part of his collusion settlement with the NFL. However, if the latest reports are accurate, Kaepernick won’t have to worry about working in the NFL or anywhere else anytime soon.
According to Bleacher Report’s Mike Freeman, the NFL paid the former 49er and original anthem protester somewhere in the range of $60 to $80 million.
Kaepernick Attorney Mark Geragos released a statement shortly after news of the settlement broke. However, a confidentiality agreement between the NFL and Kaepernick’s legal team, prevented the disclosure of exact details:
For the past several months, counsel for Mr. Kaepernick and Mr. Reid have engaged in an ongoing dialogue with representatives of the NFL. As a result of those discussions, the parties have decided to resolve the pending grievances. The resolution of this matter is subject to a confidentiality agreement so there will be no further comment by any party.
The NFL Players Association released a statement acknowledging the settlement:
Today, we were informed by the NFL of the settlement of the Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid collusion cases. We are not privy to the details of the settlement, but support the decision by the players and their counsel. We continuously supported Colin and Eric from the start of their protests, participated with their lawyers throughout their legal proceedings and were prepared to participate in the upcoming trial in pursuit of both truth and justice for what we believe the NFL and its clubs did to them. We are glad that Eric has earned a job and a new contract, and we continue to hope that Colin gets his opportunity as well.
If nothing else, the amount of the reported settlement with the NFL explains why Kaepernick refused to play in the Alliance of American Football, for anything less than $20 million.
WATCH: Jim Acosta Suggests Trump’s ‘Creating’ Fake Crisis At Border. Trump Directs Him To ‘Angel Moms’ In Crowd.
Jim Acosta, a reporter for CNN and a hero of the anti-Trump #Resistance, suggested Friday that President Donald Trump was manufacturing a fake crisis at our southern border in order to build an apparently unnecessary wall. President Trump redirected Mr. Acosta to the so-called “Angel Moms” — women whose children have been murdered at the hands of illegal immigrants — joining him at the press conference.
“What do you say to your critics who say you are creating a national emergency? That you’re concocting a national emergency here in order to get your wall?” asked Acosta.
“Ask the ‘Angel Moms,'” Trump shot back. “What do you think? You think I’m ‘creating’ something?” the president asked the mothers.
One ‘Angel Mom,’ according to USA Today reporter Christal Hayes, stood up and yelled to Acosta: “This is real!”
“Ask these incredible women who lost their daughters and their sons,” Trump continued. “Your question is a very political question, because you have an agenda. You’re CNN. You’re fake news. You have an agenda.”
“Take a look at our federal prison population,” the president told Acosta. “See how many of them, percentage-wise, are illegal aliens. Just see.”
“Angel Mom” Sabine Durben, whose 30-year-old son Dominic was tragically killed by an illegal immigrant who had two prior DUI charges, confronted Acosta to challenge his comments about a “manufactured” crisis, reported Jon Miller, a White House correspondent for The Blaze.
The Daily Wire reported Thursday evening that President Donald Trump was being shielded from “Angel Moms” requesting to meet with him by two of his own staffers, according to two White House sources speaking to One American News Network correspondent Ryan Girdusky.
“I don’t know exactly what is going on and why we can’t see our President,” Durben told The Daily Wire. “We’ve been scheduled to come here for over a week. Everything is just so strange. I don’t know who would shield him from us. I just know that if he sees pictures of our dead children, he wouldn’t sign that bill.”
Durbin added that she will not stop her activism until the border is secure. “I’m not going to stop,” she said. “I owe this to my son. He would do the same for me and more.”
Acosta, painted into a corner, reportedly had the “Angel Moms” on a CNN segment following the confrontation.
“Jim Acosta convinced by ‘Angel Moms’ to do a live shot with them behind him. They’re telling their story on [CNN] now. Finally the network airs [real news],” wrote Miller.
At the press conference, Trump further addressed the Angel Moms and others effected by illegal immigration.
“I have such respect for these people: ‘Angel Moms,’ ‘Angel Dads,’ ‘Angel Families,'” said the president. “These are brave people. They don’t have to be here, they don’t have to be doing this. They’re doing it for other people. So I just want to thank all of you for being here.”
Angel Moms have been vocal in the opposition to the Department of Homeland Security funding bill, begging the president not to sign it. As outlined by The Daily Wire’s Josh Hammer, the bill “is the exact boondoggle Trump ran against.”
WATCH:
Tulsi Gabbard presents bill to stop Trump from pulling out of INF treaty
Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has introduced a bill to Congress which would prevent President Donald Trump from withdrawing the US from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF).
Speaking at a press conference on Friday morning, Gabbard said that Trump’s decision to pull out of the 1988 treaty was“reckless,” was “exacerbating a new Cold War” with Russia, and could spark another arms race.
“Walking away from this agreement doesn’t solve our problems, it makes them worse. It doesn’t bring us closer to peace, it moves us closer to war,” she said.
Gabbard said she was introducing the bill, called the “INF Treaty Compliance Act,” not only to prevent the escalation of a new Cold War, but to “stop more American taxpayer dollars from being wasted on military adventurism that makes our people and our country less safe.”
She said that rather than scrapping the treaty, the US should be working to expand it and bring in other countries, including China.
Tom's Blog 