By Charlie Spiering
“Go get them, Nick,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Fake News!”
Trump quoted the lawsuit which said the Post “ignored basic journalistic standards because it wanted to advance its well-known and easily documented biased agenda against President Donald J. Trump.”
The lawsuit is seeking $250 million in damages, accusing the Post of targeting and bullying Sandmann and his peers for wearing a Trump campaign Make America Great Again hats during a school trip for the March for Life.
The lawsuit claims that the Washington Post ignored the truth of the event between Sandmann and Native American activist Nathan Phillips on three different occasions.
On January 19, 20 and 21,the Post ignored the truth and falsely accused Nicholasof, among other things, “accost[ing]” Phillips by “suddenly swarm[ing]” him in a “threaten[ing]” and “physically intimidat[ing]” manner as Phillips “and other activists were wrapping up the march and preparing to leave,” “block[ing]” Phillips path, refusing to allow Phillips “to retreat,” “taunting the dispersing indigenous crowd,” chanting “build that wall,” “Trump2020,” or “go back to Africa,” and otherwise engaging in racist and improper conduct which ended only “when Phillips and other activists walked away.
The lawsuit was filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
By
Along with Markota, Proud Boys’ Chairman Enrique Tarrio, and Trump supporting Army veteran Joe Biggs have had their Chase Bank accounts shut down in recent weeks.
“They refused to tell me why,” Markota stated. “They said they have the right to end our relationship and not tell me why.”
She began to believe that her bank account shutdown was was politically motivated after reading Big League Politics‘ story on Tarrio. This suspicion is well warranted considering the fact that her outspoken support for President Trump has exposed her to a torrent of harassment in recent years.
Markota’s former co-workers from her burlesque days have been on a crusade to make her life miserable ever since she came out as a Trump supporter.
Their harassment got so bad that Markota is pursuing legal action against the most vicious tormentor.
As Markota told Pawl Bazile of Dangerous:
“I am currently pursuing criminal charges against a performer who has tried to solicit my information to antifa and other left-wing media groups to defame me and put me and my family’s life in danger. They refuse to leave me alone, every step of the way. These people are relentless and angry. I left their scene, I left NYC, I moved on to another career and they still follow my every step and try to sabotage my life. At this point I think they want me dead.”
It is unclear if Markota’s account shutdown is politically motivated, but considering the series of other shutdowns in recent weeks, it seems very likely.
FEBRUARY 19, 2019
Here are a few of the best Smollet Hoax memes from around the web:
Some memes pointed out the media’s double standard, while others highlighted the hypocrisy of Smollett’s virtue-signaling in light of new evidence indicating he staged the attack.
The media has been walking back their zealous reporting on the story, and placing blame on everybody but themselves for perpetuating the hoax.
With the left devastated over another fake hate crime hoax, it was only a matter of time until memes concerning the Jussie Smollett incident emerged.
Instagram reportedly censored commentator Mark Dice’s meme on Tuesday depicting Smollett as a Scooby Doo villain.
FEBRUARY 19, 2019
The footage allegedly takes place in the 1980s and shows Sanders answering a question about bread lines in Nicaragua due to the food shortages triggered by a local socialist party called Sandinistas.
“You know, it’s funny. Sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is when people are lining up for food,” he said. “That’s a good thing.”
“In other countries, people don’t line up for food. The rich get the food and the poor starve to death.”
The resurfaced footage of Sanders praising an iconic symptom of a failed state comes on the heels of President Trump pinning Venezuela’s collapse to its socialist policies.
“…But the American people will reject an agenda of sky-high rates, government-run health care and coddling dictators like those in Venezuela,” reads a Trump statement. “Only President Trump will keep America free, prosperous and safe.”
Interestingly, Sanders likend his 2020 campaign to a revolution in an email he sent to his supporters that also also called Trump the most dangerous president in modern American history.
“Together, you and I and our 2016 campaign began the political revolution,” said Sanders. “Now, it is time to complete that revolution and implement the vision that we fought for.”
By Molly Prince
CAIR is a notable pro-Palestinian organization with ties to Islamic terror groups. The U.S. Department of Justice listed CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator in funding millions of dollars to the terrorist organization Hamas. Additionally, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) named CAIR a terrorist organization along with al-Qaeda and the Islamic State in 2014.
Tlaib will be the guest speaker at CAIR-Michigan’s 19th annual “Faith-Led, Justice Driven” banquet on March 17, according to the organization’s invitation. Single tickets start at $50 per person and a table can cost upwards of $500. Tickets for Omar’s March 23 event start at a similar price point. (RELATED: Ilhan Omar To Fundraise For Hamas-Linked Muslim Organization)
Omar and Tlaib became America’s first Muslim congresswomen when sworn into office in January. Their time in office has been embroiled in allegations of anti-Semitism.
Tlaib invited a pro-Hezbollah, anti-Israel activist to her swearing-in ceremony and the following private dinner in January. Days later, an op-ed column she wrote in 2006 for Final Call, a Nation of Islam publication founded by Louis Farrakhan, surfaced. She also has come under scrutiny for having ties to other anti-Israel individuals and for questioning the loyalty of Republican lawmakers who support the Jewish nation-state.
Omar has defended anti-Israeli statements, such as ones invoking Allah to expose Israel’s “evil doings,” and she is on record implying Israel is not a democracy. She gave an interview to a host that referred to Israel as the “Jewish ISIS” and mocked how Americans speak about al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. (RELATED: Rashida Tlaib’s Ties To Anti-Semitism Run Deeper Than Previously Known)
Both congresswomen waited until after they won their congressional elections to reveal their support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to punish Israel by economically depriving the country for its alleged mistreatment of Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. The Anti-Defamation League describes the movement as “the most prominent effort to undermine Israel’s existence.”
BDS has been metastasizing through college campuses, initially promulgated by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), the movement’s most visible arm. SJP has been linked to the Islamic terror group Hamas, according to The Washington Free Beacon. Moreover, the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, the American umbrella group of the BDS movement, has reportedly given money to terrorist organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
by Ashe Schow
Sanders announced his presidential run Tuesday morning. He then appeared on “CBS This Morning” to discuss, according to Real Clear Politics. Sanders was asked about former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz’s third-party bid, a question that clearly irritated the Vermont senator. He claimed the media was only covering Schultz because “he’s a billionaire.”
“There are a lot of people I know personally who work hard for a living and make 40 or 50,000 dollars a year who know a lot more about politics, than with all due respect does Mr. Schultz. But because we have a corrupt system, anybody who is a billionaire and can throw a lot of TV ads around on television suddenly becomes very, very credible,” Sanders aid.
As if Sanders knows what Schultz knows about politics.
“So, Mr. Schultz, what is he blackmailing the Democratic Party? If you don’t nominate Bernie Sanders, he’s not going to run? Well, I don’t think we should succumb to that kind of blackmail,” Sanders added.
Logan Dobson, who will soon be the managing director for Targeted Victory and a political reporter for the Huffington Post, had a very poignant question for Sanders after his response to the Schultz questions.
“idk Bernie, were you blackmailing the Democratic Party when you ran as a third-party independent in 1972, 1974, 1975, 1981, 1986, 1988… ?” Dobson tweeted.
Indeed, Sanders has run as a third-party candidate for decades. He began his foray into elected politics by running as a member of the Liberty Union Party. He ran as a third-party candidate for U.S. senate and the Vermont governorship in 1972. He ran again as a Liberty Union candidate for the U.S. senate in 1974, and again for governor in 1976, according to Roll Call. Sanders ran against the incumbent Democrat mayor of Burlington, VT, and won, serving as mayor for eight years. In 1986, he ran as an Independent candidate for Vermont governor. In 1988, he ran as an Independent for the U.S. House of Representatives. He won in 1990 and served in the House until 2007. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006.
He only started running for the Democrat nomination during his 2016 presidential bid and now for his 2020 bid because he has a better chance of getting the nomination (unless the Democrat National Committee rigs the primaries again for their preferred candidate) and winning the presidency than he would if he ran as a third-party candidate.
Perhaps Sanders only thinks third-party candidates are bad when they run for president (a press inquiry to the Sanders campaign did not receive an immediate response). There is definitely a fear on the Left that Schultz could undermine an attempt to overthrow Trump as a third-party candidate that could become another Ross Perot or Ralph Nader.
As a reminder, President Donald Trump ran as a third-party candidate in 2000 as a member of the Reform Party.
By Joel B. Pollak
The lawsuit, as expected, was filed by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and was joined by attorneys general from “Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Virginia — all of which have Democratic attorneys general and all but one of which are led by Democratic governors,” the Wall Street Journal noted Monday.
However, ten of the 26 Democrat attorneys general have not joined the lawsuit — at least not yet, as of Tuesday.
The complaint, filed in federal court in the Northern District of California, decries what it calls “President Donald J. Trump’s flagrant disregard of fundamental separation of powers principles engrained in the United States Constitution.” It adds:
Contrary to the will of Congress, the President has used the pretext of a manufactured “crisis” of unlawful immigration to declare a national emergency and redirect federal dollars appropriated for drug interdiction, military construction, and law enforcement initiatives toward building a wall on the United States-Mexico border. This includes the diversion of funding that each of the Plaintiff States receive.
The complaint continues through several familiar talking points from the Democratic Party:
The federal government’s own data prove there is no national emergency at the southern border that warrants construction of a wall. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data show that unlawful entries are near 45-year lows. The State Department recognizes there is a lack of credible evidence that terrorists are using the southern border to enter the United States. Federal data confirm that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than are native-born Americans. CBP data demonstrate that dangerous drugs are much more likely to be smuggled through, not between, official ports of entry—rendering a border wall ineffectual at preventing their entry into this country.
Later in the complaint, the states claim that the border wall is not only unnecessary, but that it will also cause environmental damage. The complaint also claims a border barrier will not block “drug smuggling corridors.”
President Trump said Friday that, following earlier patterns, he expected a legal challenge in California, to lose there and in the liberal Ninth Circuit, and then to prevail at the Supreme Court, where conservatives hold a 5-4 majority.
Unlike President Barack Obama’s invocation of executive powers to declare the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) programs, Trump’s use of emergency powers is arguably within the powers assigned to him by the Constitution and delegated to him by Congress under the National Emergencies Act of 1976, according to analysis by Breitbart News legal editor Ken Klukowski.
Many experts agree. The Journal notes that “courts have been reluctant to second-guess the president on national-security matters,” and quotes liberal constitutional law professor Mark Tushnet of Harvard as saying that the case is “not a slam dunk” for the states, though he added he believes there is a “decent chance” that they could prevail.
The case is State of California et al v. Trump et al, number 3:19-cv-00872, Northern District of California.
Tom's Blog 