Sunday, May 25, 2025

Gun-Rights Advocates Sue to Challenge Trump’s Bump-Stock Ban

0

‘If the bump stock converts an AR-15 into a machinegun, then AR-15s could be next on the chopping block…’

Joe Songer demonstrates the bump technique./IMAGE: AL.com via Youtube

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Liberals have long been lambasted for using the court system to dodge and undermine the executive authority of President Donald Trump.

But after a controversial decree banning bump stocks that gun advocates said violated both the Constitution and all legal precedent, the Trump administration now faces friendly fire from conservatives seeking injunctive relief.

“[I]f anyone thought the election of Donald Trump would put the Second Amendment community on ‘Easy Street,’ this apparently will not be the case,” said Erich Pratt, executive director for Gun Owners of America, in an e-mail to supporters. “But we have fought gun-grabbers in dire circumstances before.”

GOA and several other pro-firearm stakeholders filed suit Wednesday in the Western Michigan District court challenging the recent policy change in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that would reclassify bump stocks as fully-automatic weaponry.

“ATF’s re-classification of bump stocks as machineguns is a political decision designed to circumvent the legislative process, not a legal one based on any technical evaluation,” said the complaint. “It ignores the plain text of the statute, and all prior ATF determinations and opinions.”

The plaintiffs contended that Trump’s decision was based solely on political pressure following incidents such as last year’s Las Vegas shooting at the Mandalay Bay hotel, where murderer Stephen Paddock was believed to have used guns that included bump-stock attachments to massacre 58 concert-goers in a barrage of rapid fire.

However, the plaintiffs said, “The classification of bump stocks as machine guns is arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, obfuscates the way bump stocks operate, and reaches an irrational decision, unsupportable in either law or fact.”

While bump-stocks do, in the hands of trained users, permit a quicker firing technique, they do not change the guns mechanically into fully automatic weapons since the trigger mechanism still functions the same, requiring a separate push for each shot.

“Bump stocks are nothing more than a type of firearm stock (usually plastic) that fits loosely over the firearm, allowing the firearm to reciprocate back-and-forth freely,” said the suit.

Pratt warned in his email that the ATF ban, if it were allowed to take effect, would set in motion what might be an alarming precedent.

“If the bump stock converts an AR-15 into a machine gun, then AR-15s could be next on the chopping block,” he said. “After all, there are other items which can help bump fire an AR-15: rubber bands, belt loops, etc.”

The suit seeking the injunction was filed the same day as the new policy was published in the Federal Registry, giving bump-stock owners until March 26—without further court intervention—to destroy their devices or turn them in to a local ATF bureau.

“Unless you destroy or surrender your bump stock within 90 days (with no compensation whatsoever) and sign a form saying you waive all your constitutional rights, the ATF is claiming that you are a felon—subject to 10 years in prison,” Pratt said.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., responded to the initial policy change and GOA lawsuit by saying in a Washington Post opinion piece that legislation was also needed to reinforce the executive order.

“[L]et’s not celebrate too quickly,” wrote Feinstein. “Presidents can rescind regulations just as easily as they create them, and in this case, the bump stock ban will likely be tied up in court for years.”

Pratt said filing the suit in Michigan ensured that it could move through the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has proven itself to be supportive of gun rights, perhaps en route to a Supreme Court challenge.

In the meantime, plaintiffs hoped the injunction would be enough to block gun-confiscation efforts and allow due process to take its course.

“You may or may not own a bump stock,” said Pratt. “You may or may not like bump stocks. But you can bet that the goal of gun grabbers is, ultimately, not just banning bump stocks, but, rather, putting ‘points on the board’ toward its goal of banning civilian ownership of all firearms.”

DHS Secretary Blames Immigration Activists for Children’s Deaths at Border

‘Our system has been pushed to a breaking point by those who seek open borders…’

Homeland Security Nominee: No Full Wall at the Border
Kirstjen Nielsen/PHOTO: World Economic Forum via Creative Commons

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Following the second illness-related death recently of a Guatemalan immigrant child in Border Patrol custody Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen condemned activist judges and other illegal immigration advocates for incentivizing the dangerous journey.

“Our system has been pushed to a breaking point by those who seek open borders,” Nielsen said in a statement.

Although only one in 10 asylum-seekers is granted it, Nielsen said there had been an 86 percent surge in illegal border crossings compared with last year due to “a system that encourages bad actors to coach aliens into making frivolous claims.”

The uptick in unaccompanied minors and families is the result of former President Barack Obama’s decision not to enforce deportation through his Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals policy.

Despite President Donald Trump’s efforts to end the program, liberal judges in the 9th District court, notorious for issuing injunctions against him, have refused to allow him to undo his predecessor’s executive fiat.

In addition, the courts helped to block Trump’s child-separation policy for families arriving at the border.

Since the children can only be detained for a period of around three weeks when there is a guardian to release them to, this means the entire family is released into the U.S.

“To those in Congress who continue to refuse to take action to address the loopholes that cause a flood of humanity to travel north and place children at risk, I once again call on you to do your job,” said Nielsen.

Although she was highly critical of the politics behind it, Nielsen said DHS will continue to do everything within its means to ensure the well-being of the children taken into custody, including an in-depth look at the medical screenings process with help from the Centers for Disease Control, Coast Guard and Department of Defense to provide additional expertise and manpower to the Border Patrol.

Due to the increased numbers of children suffering respiratory illnesses, dehydration and other conditions that may be exacerbated by the journey, Nielsen said all children apprehended now will receive a thorough medical assessment, even if the accompanying adult does not ask for one.

However, she warned that there would continue to be limit on Border Patrol’s ability to provide medical services.

“Given the remote locations of their illegal crossing and the lack of resources, it is even more difficult for our personnel to be first responders.”

Chaotic Week Tests Trump Allies’ Resolve, Coaxes Swamp-Dwellers from Hiding

0

‘I think the nation’s fourth graders know this is no way to run a lemonade stand…’

Trump says Democrats Can’t Impeach Him because He’s Doing a ‘Great Job’
Donald Trump/photo by Gage Skidmore (CC)

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) As the 2018 legislative term careens to a halt, President Donald Trump has customarily dominated the news cycle this week with blockbuster policy moves that have felt sometimes off-the-cuff.

He’s laid the groundwork for some potential legacy items, with a successful district court challenge to the constitutionality of Obamacare, and successful passage of a House bill funding his border wall. Moreover, the successful passage of a major farm bill package and criminal justice reform have given Congress something to crow about as they return to their districts for the holidays.

On the other side of the coin, Trump has rattled his base somewhat, announcing a Justice Department-imposed ban on bump-stocks, a proposed withdrawal of Middle Eastern forces and the departure of trusted members of his Cabinet.

A less robust economy, courtesy of Federal Reserve interest hikes, might also weaken his hand as he approaches the new challenges of an actively hostile chamber of Congress and countless other partisan forces aligned against him.

The chaos surrounding these events has left some Trump allies—and NeverTrumpers alike—clamoring for method in the madness.

On Thursday, RealClearPolitics columnist A.B. Stoddard gave voice to the tensions in a discussion with Fox News anchor Bret Baier.

“I think the nation’s fourth graders know this is no way to run a lemonade stand,” fretted Stoddard, referencing Thursday’s passage of a House funding bill driven by the pro-Trump Freedom Caucus that faces grim prospects in the narrowly-split Senate.

“This is completely irresponsible,” she said.  “The markets are rattling on the prospect of a shutdown that’s turning on Ann Coulter’s tweets.”

A.B. Stoddard/IMAGE: Fox News via Mediaite

Stoddard took particular issue with the perceived unpredictability of the process, as Friday marked the final deadline for the current legislative body to approve funding for several crucial areas of the federal bureaucracy.

“The president time and again is contemptuous of process and of compromise,” said Stoddard. “… It requires presidential leadership—he refuses to do the hard work.”

Although Congress had earlier passed a stop-gap funding measure to push the appropriations debate into January, Trump threatened to veto it and has continued to insist on a full $5 billion to fund the U.S.–Mexico border wall as part of its Homeland Security spending, or else force a shut down to parts of the government over the Christmas holiday.

The shutdown mainly would affect nonessential services, such as national parks and monuments, certain State Department functions and the furloughs at the IRS (since tax season has not yet begun).

Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., has given no indication that he will flinch on the wall funding.

Stoddard did not limit her rebuke to the Oval Office, calling to task the Freedom Caucus members of the House of Representatives—including Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Mark Meadows, R-N.C.—who were pushing for the political showdown in Congress.

“They don’t know what they’re talking about,” Stoddard said. “This is political malpractice. They’re wrong.”

Other frequent Trump allies also broke ranks on some of the president’s recent policy moves, notably Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who condemned the surprise decision to withdraw troops from Syria and Afghanistan. Although Trump has touted the eradication of ISIS, Graham warned that the lack of a U.S. presence there will lead to a resurgence of terrorist activity.

Meanwhile, a gaggle of NeverTrumpers—among them Sen. Marco Rubio, R.-Fla.; Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb.; and Bill Kristol, co-founder of the erstwhile Weekly Standard—all weighed in on the departure announcement of Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis.

Although the liberal Huffington Post gleefully painted it as a panic among conservatives, the alarmism did not mark a major departure from past anti-Trump commentary. Kristol has even floated the possibility of a Trump primary challenge that would include Mattis on the ticket.

But despite the perceptions of dire doom and gloom, Trump has often proved his pragmatic leadership style thrives under such conditions and that he is at his best when being underestimated.

One thing Americans can count on is that there will be plenty of surprises yet to come this holiday season—and not just under the Christmas tree.

Schiff Pushes Phony Innuendo About Trump Finances on Colbert

0

‘People are hoping for someone, be it Schiff or Robert Mueller, to just deus ex machina Trump away…’

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) One of President Donald Trump’s most bombastic critics, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., used an appearance on Stephen Colbert’s late-night talk show to spread innuendo, without evidence, about Trump’s business dealings.

The liberal love-fest with partisan hack Colbert also offered a tease of the mudslinging to come when Schiff—a candidate heavily invested in by far-left operatives like the Soros family—replaces Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., as chair of the House Intelligence Committee in January.

Although Schiff offered little in the way of facts, he used the opportunity, framed by Colbert’s asking what he most hoped to investigate, to implicate Trump in a money-laundering scheme by claiming a tenuous connection through the world’s 15th largest bank, Germany’s Deutsche Bank.

Kooky conspiracy theorist Schiff said both Trump’s and Russia’s status as clients of the international lender was evidence enough to merit a taxpayer-funded inquiry by the U.S. legislature into whether there was a secret link.

“For many years, legitimate U.S. banks wouldn’t do business with Trump Organization. The only bank that would was Deutsche Bank,” Schiff told Colbert.

“Now, Deutsche Bank was fined hundreds of millions of dollars by the state of New York for laundering Russian money. Real estate is an attractive venue to launder money. If the Russians were—and we don’t know that they were—but  if they were, it would be very powerful leverage…. that might explain his often otherwise inexplicable fondness for Putin and Russia.”

A review by Deutsche Bank offered no evidence of a link between the Trump family’s business dealings and the bank’s Moscow clients.

Moreover, many have disputed the Left’s efforts craft a narrative that Trump has a special affinity for Putin, pointing to the cordiality other presidents have shown on diplomatic missions and also the strong policy-based examples of Trump standing up to the Russian president when Russia’s actions conflicted with U.S. interests.

Schiff also directed his attack at questions of whether Trump continued to work with Russians on a business deal to build a sky-rise building—similar to New York City’s Trump Tower—while he was in the process of campaigning for the presidency.

The project ultimately was scrapped, and no link to Trump’s campaign nor evidence of wrongdoing has been presented publicly. Nonetheless, Schiff used it in his effort to cudgel the president by insinuating that he lied to the public about his “malfeasance.”

“We expect the Russians to lie. We expect a president of the United States to be telling the truth—and therein lies the problem,” Schiff said. “For two years we’ve had this deeply unethical man running the country, and for two years the Republican Congress has done nothing to oversee any of the allegations of malfeasance—and that stops now.”

Ironically, Schiff has been a leading voice in calling for the suppression of confidential materials, such as the FBI’s warrant applications to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) court, that would potentially have exposed the dishonesty and corruption in the Hillary Clinton campaign.

In February, Trump issued one of several tweets blasting Schiff, calling him one of the “biggest liars and leakers in Washington” for undermining the committee’s closed-door hearings into the FBI’s FISA abuse, which included basing their surveillance warrants against the Trump campaign on now-debunked rumors presented in the Clinton/DNC-funded “Steele Dossier.”

Schiff recently made headlines for claiming Trump could face jail time over hush-money payments he allegedly directed his disgraced former lawyer to make in an extortion scheme by Playboy bunny Karen McDougal and porn star Stormy Daniels. However, those allegations, too, prove troublesome when stacked against similar investigations of prominent Democrats.

Notably, during the Colbert visit, Schiff made no mention of the “hush-money” scandal, nor of any direct evidence of Russian collusion—the two areas where Democrats have most sought an avenue to pursue impeachment of Trump.

Instead, Schiff continued to suggest that Trump’s financial dealings were a crucial focus, adding Saudi Arabia into the mix as well.

“You have the president of the United States rejecting the conclusions of our intelligence agencies about the murder of Khashoggi, and naturally we ask the question why. Is foreign funding influencing U.S. policy in a way that is not in our national interest?”

A recent hearing by the House Oversight committee asked the same of Hillary Clinton and whether she may have used her supposedly nonprofit Clinton Foundation as a pay-to-play operation allowing foreign dignitaries like the Saudi crown prince to gain access to the State Department. The Oversight hearing also explored Clinton’s dealings with Russia through a Canadian intermediary, Uranium One.

No such direct allegations of abuse of office have been levied against Trump, despite Schiff’s calls for scrutiny of his finances while a private citizen.

Schiff said that Nunes had previously blocked Democratic efforts for a partisan fishing expedition into Trump’s businesses.

“One of the most basic rules of doing an investigation is you follow the money,” he said. “We were not allowed to follow the money.”

And Schiff menacingly rejected the notion, raised by Colbert, that Trump considered his personal finances a “red line” in what he would cooperate with Congressional probes on.

“He is not in a position to draw red lines—that’s not his job,” Schiff said. ” … He can give pardons, but even the pardon power is not absolute. You cannot use the pardon power if your intention is to obstruct justice.”

Thus far, despite calling investigations into his campaign a “witch hunt” Trump has issued no pardons to those associated with his campaign who have been indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office on largely unrelated charges.

Schiff said he hopes to press Congress to “pass a bill that says if you pardon anyone during an investigation in which you or your family is a subject, witness or target, the entire investigative files will be provided to Congress.”

But even the liberal media seemed to agree that Schiff’s tough talk on the Colbert show amounted to little more than “feel-good theater.”

GQ magazine said of the appearance that Schiff’s “remarkable popularity” (presumably based on leftist media attention) showed just how desperately liberals wish to find dirt on Trump.

“People are hoping for someone, be it Schiff or Robert Mueller, to just deus ex machina Trump away. They’re hoping for a huge plot twist that will send Trump to jail, or at least out of the White House, and bring back some feeling of normalcy,” GQ said.

Justice Department Announces Ban on Bump Stocks

0

Owners will have 90 days after rule takes effect to ‘divest themselves of the devices’…

Bump stock/IMAGE: JerryRigEverything via Youtube

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) With Democrats already challenging his legitimacy in courtroom battles, acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker may soon face challenges from gun enthusiasts on the Right over a controversial policy change banning “bump stock” enhancements on semiautomatic rifles.

The Justice Department announced today that it would now classify bump stocks as fully automatic “machine guns” due to the rapid-fire ability that they permit with a single squeeze of the trigger.

The new amendment stipulates that bump-stock owners will have 90 days after the rule’s publication in the Federal Register to “divest themselves of the devices,” either by destroying them or turning them in to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The ATF recommended making an appointment first.

Additional information is available on the ATF website. It is unclear for now what future challenges, if any, the rule may face before being implemented as official policy or when the final implementation would take effect.

Some court rulings in the past have blocked legislative attempts to ban bump-stocks.

Whitaker said the move came at the direction of President Donald Trump, emphasizing the president’s support for “law and order” and school safety as the primary considerations.

“We are faithfully following President Trump’s leadership by making clear that bump stocks, which turn semiautomatics into machine guns, are illegal, and we will continue to take illegal guns off of our streets,” Whitaker said.

In previous statements, the National Rifle Association also has expressed support for tighter restrictions on bump stocks.

However, some may worry about the precedent it sets, which could pave the way for other efforts to erode Second Amendment protections by executive fiat or otherwise unconstitutional policy changes.

Democrats—some of whom made bump-stock bans a central part of their platform—have promised additional efforts to restrict gun rights, including universal background checks, when they take control of the House majority in January.

Georgia state Sen. Michael Williams, who last year held a bump-stock raffle in defiance of “Hollywood elites” as part of a primary bid to win the gubernatorial nomination, said that even though mass shooter Stephen Paddock used them in committing a massacre of 58 concert-goers in Las Vegas, the bump stock addition did little to help.

Ultimately, Williams said, proposals to ban them were a canard that ran the risk of luring people into a false sense of complacency.

“In reality, the bump stock is the new, shiny object politicians are using to deceive voters into believing they are taking action against gun violence,” Williams said. “Many firearms experts determined the Las Vegas shooter’s use of a bump stock actually prevented more casualties and injuries due to its inconsistency, inaccuracy, and lack of control. There is zero evidence that banning bump stocks would prevent any gun violence deaths.”

Comey Blasted for Dishonesty and Corruption after House Testimony

0

‘Comey just thinks he’s always right, and … it doesn’t matter if everyone else concludes he did wrong…’

Comey Blasts FISA Memo After Release: ‘That’s It?’
James Comey/IMAGE: YouTube

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) A preponderance of evidence, including the report of the Justice Department’s own inspector general, points to a culture of systemic bias, bordering on corruption, under former FBI Director James Comey’s watch.

But after his recent appearances before a joint Congressional committee examining the FBI’s role ignoring Hillary Clinton’s potential criminal activity while setting up the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, a defiant Comey continued his series of withering attacks on Republicans for turning the investigative lens on him.

Comey whined that it was the executive and legislative branches that were, in fact, responsible for a loss of public faith in the intelligence community.

Since President Donald Trump fired Comey in 2017, triggering the continuing investigation by special counsel—and Comey pal—Robert Mueller into potential Trump violations, evidence has come to light implicating the FBI in a litany of cover-ups, entrapment schemes and other various conspiracy and collusion to influence the outcome of the 2016 election.

It is a web so tangled—and enmeshed with bad hombres—that two years of inquiries and hearings by the House joint Oversight and Judiciary committees seem only to have scratched the surface. But as the Republican leadership of those Congressional committees prepares for a turnover of power, their last-ditch efforts to seek the truth appear to have moved the chains very little.

Despite two full days and hundreds of pages of transcribed testimony from Comey’s recent appearances, the disgraced ex-spook continued to stonewall, prompting criticism from both the Congressional committees and the White House.

Oversight Chair Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., called Comey an “amnesiac with incredible hubris” in a Fox News interview, as reported by The Daily Caller.

“Comey just thinks he’s always right, and … it doesn’t matter if everyone else concludes he did wrong,” Gowdy said.

Trump tweeted that Comey’s selective memory was a clear indicator of his dishonesty.

He also criticized Comey, who once claimed to be a Republican, for his bias during and after the recent midterms. (Comey gave considerable amounts to Democratic candidates in Virginia while publicly advocating that voters boot Republicans out of office.)

Comey, for his part, fired back at Trump for questioning the FBI’s raid of his former attorney, Michael Cohen.

Despite the dubious pretenses of the raid, which Trump has criticized as a fishing expedition and part of a broader “witch hunt” to impugn him and undermine the executive office, Cohen’s subsequent plea arrangement has yielded the Mueller investigation’s only publicly reported link so far between Trump and any sort of alleged wrongdoing.

Although unrelated to the Russian collusion Mueller is tasked with investigating, the special counsel’s office, along with federal prosecutors in New York, charged Cohen with providing hush-money payoffs to former Playboy bunny Karen McDougal and porn star Stormy Daniels in an extortion scheme over sexual trysts they claimed to have conducted with Trump 10 years prior to the election.

Trump and others have pointed to parallels in cases involving former presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, along with former vice presidential nominee John Edwards. None of the three Democrats were found guilty of criminal misconduct, despite major scandals, widely ignored by the media, involving hush-money payoffs and campaign-finance violations.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said on Twitter that Comey’s corrupt stewardship helped to explain the double-standard in the partisan investigations.

She followed up in a Fox News interview, criticizing the Comey-led FBI specifically for setting up former Trump adviser Michael Flynn as part of a perjury trap.

Flynn, who briefly served as national security adviser, was set to be sentenced on Tuesday for lying to the FBI about conversations with a Russian envoy during the transition of power.

“The FBI broke every standard protocol that they have, and we know that because of James Comey’s actual comments that they threw FBI protocol out the window,” Sanders told Fox News, “for one reason and one reason only: because it was the Trump administration and they thought they could and they thought they could get away with it.”

Sanders continued saying that the White House was “100 percent” sure Trump was right to fire Comey—a decision that has generated some claims on the Left of “obstruction of justice” although most argue it was the president’s prerogative to do so.

“Every single day we learn more and more all of the things that he [Comey] did that were so far out of bounds for what the FBI director should do,” Sanders said.

Anti-CNN Defamation Ruling May Set Up SCOTUS Showdown on Press Protections

0

‘It is all nothing less than unfair news coverage and Dem commercials. Should be tested in courts…’

CNN Suddenly Shows Concern About Classified Leaks
Photo by red, white, and black eyes forever (CC)

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) How far can an off-the-rails media go before it hits the limits of its First Amendment protections?

The question has been raised before, as the George W. Bush administration attempted to prosecute journalists and Obama’s Justice Department actively spied on them, as well as issuing subpoenas for records.

But the liberal press‘s animus toward President Donald Trump has thrust the debate even farther into the spotlight—and they may not like the answer.

Although CNN recently won a court-ordered injunction against the White House from barring disruptive correspondent Jim Acosta, the Georgia-based left-wing mouthpiece was dealt a blow on Friday when a defamation ruling in the 11th Circuit made it easier to sue the media in federal court, said the Hollywood Reporter.

The question at hand relates to the state-passed protections from Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP), meaning frivolous suits that people might pass to discourage or penalize media investigations.

On one hand, states like Georgia require that there be a “probability” of winning in order to pursue litigation in a defamation case. At the federal level, however, there need only be a “plausibility.”

In addition to protecting media companies, the protections can apply to anyone involved in a defamation suit, including President Trump, who had a frivolous suit from porn star Stormy Daniels recently dismissed under Texas anti-SLAPP laws.

However, 11th Circuit Judge William Pryor ruled against CNN’s efforts to have dismissed a suit stemming from a 2015 series about Florida’s St. Mary’s Medical Center. The series accused the hospital of having a mortality rate three times the national average for infant heart surgeries. Its then-chief executive, David Carbone, who was forced to resign as a result, sued saying it was a false comparison, including both open- and closed-heart statistics which carried different risks.

Pryor said the objective in the anti-SLAPP laws was the same regardless of the different wording, and that Georgia’s legislation did not necessarily support the First Amendment simply by discouraging and dismissing cases before going to trial.

“That the aim of the statute is to protect First Amendment rights is irrelevant, because the anti-SLAPP statute advances that end by imposing a requirement on a plaintiff’s entitlement to maintain a suit,” he wrote.

Because other courts have issued opinions upholding the state anti-SLAPP laws, the case could garner the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court, said the Hollywood Reporter.

However, doing so may be a gamble for the media companies, as recently-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh, now a crucial swing vote, had previously written an opinion that Pryor himself used to frame his argument.

CNN, MSNBC Have Given Stormy Daniels Lawyer Avenatti $175 Million in Free Media
Michael Avenatti (screen shot: Fox News/Youtube)

While that may frighten away media companies from pressing the issue, it could possibly lead to what would, no doubt, be a highly followed showdown involving Stormy Daniels and her attorney, Michael Avenatti, that could rival Hustler v. Falwell as the sleaziest defamation case ever to go before the bench.

But even the 1988 Hustler ruling—which upheld the media’s right to satire public figures and later was turned into a Hollywood movie—could be put to the test if Trump has any say.

The president issued an outraged tweet over the weekend charging NBC’s “Saturday Night Live” with defamatory statements and saying it ought to be tested in court, potentially setting up a definitive legal answer to the much wondered question, “Is ‘SNL’ still a comedy show?”

NeverTrump Movement Suffers Major Setback as Weekly Standard Shutters

0

‘Some of them may lose their jobs next week. But they should be applauded for holding on to their dignity…’

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) The NeverTrump resistance movement suffered another casualty on Friday as a once venerable conservative publication, The Weekly Standard, abruptly announced that its Dec. 17 issue would be its last.

Even for those who were not regular readers and subscribers, the magazine’s personalities—including Editor Stephen Hayes, co-founders Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol, and many of its contributing editors—have been familiar faces from the pundit circuit, often making regular panelist appearances on Fox News.

Hayes described the magazine in a tweet as an “unapologetically conservative and fiercely independent voice,” adding, “That voice is needed more now than at anytime in our previous 23 years.”

While some commended it for acting as a guardian of traditional conservatism, however, others saw in its steadfast refusal to adapt to the changing Trumpian political imperatives an archaic—if not altogether traitorous—worldview.

As leftist politics became increasingly radicalized, pushing both media and legislators to its fringe, The Weekly Standard remained firmly entrenched in the middle, straddling the former battle lines of Right and Left.

For Hayes, it was a point of pride. According to CNN, he wrote in an email to staff on Friday, “Many media outlets have responded to the challenges of the moment by prioritizing affirmation over information, giving into the pull of polarization and the lure of clickbait.”

Ryan McKibben, chairman of the magazine’s publisher, MediaDC, suggested it was the broader challenges of print media that ultimately led to The Weekly Standard‘s demise, among them “double-digit declines in its subscriber base,” according to CNN.

Those challenges, however, also included declines in online traffic that some attributed directly to Trump’s inauguration.

Speculation loomed recently that philosophical differences between the editorial staff and publishers may have played a role and that the magazine’s founding members had been shopping around potential buyers.

Among those lamenting the magazine’s loss was The Washington Post, which noted in an opinion piece last week by columnist Megan McArdle that it was facing grim financial prospects.

Offering an array of backhanded compliments to the magazine for opposing the president—while also acknowledging a tinge of Schadenfreude and delight in its failure—McArdle said, “The past two years have given the lie to many of the nastiest accusations the left levels against conservative intellectuals … selling self-justification to the richest bidder. If that were true, there would be no civil war shattering the movement, and there would certainly be no #NeverTrump conservatives holding firm.”

Ironically, as elements of the conservative old-guard may have faltered financially (along with many left-wing publications), the Democrats have gleefully assumed their place as the party of elitism and billionaire special interests.

With the support of plutocrats like George Soros, Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg and Washington Post publisher Jeff Bezos leading the charge, Democrats outspent Republicans by more than $300 million in the record-shattering $5.2 billion 2018 midterm, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

And as long as institutions like The Weekly Standard do not threaten the liberal dogma, leftists are more than happy to toast their ‘principled’ anti-Trump stance.

“Some of them may lose their jobs next week,” said McArdle. “But they should be applauded for holding on to their dignity.”

‘Fact-Checkers’ Turn Against Facebook After Negative Soros Stance

0

‘Working with Facebook makes us look bad…’

State Dept., USAID Sued for Docs on Funding to Soros’s Foreign Campaigns
George Soros/Photo by boellstiftung (CC)

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) After reports surfaced that Facebook hired a firm that discredited critics by linking them to extreme leftist billionaire George Soros, many of the so-called journalists hired to help it with fact-checking following the 2016 election are now thumbing their noses.

The irony? They, themselves, may have Soros financial ties, or at least strong sympathies in his favor.

When Facebook first unveiled its consortium of “fact-checkers,” an effort driven largely by the Poynter Institute’s International Fact Checking Network that currently includes around 50 partner outlets worldwide and five in the United States, conservatives scoffed.

One of the chief concerns was that outlets such as Snopes.com demonstrated bias in the selection process and in the way they qualified false claims on the Right versus Left.

In fact, the social-media giant’s sole conservative token for U.S. news, The Weekly Standard (which recently said it would be shutting down) was hardly a representative of contemporary conservative thought, having early on assumed a strong NeverTrump stance.

To make matters worse, it was revealed that the IFCN had accepted considerable amounts of funding from extreme leftist groups, some of which were tied to billionaire George Soros.

Many, as a result, borrowed from the Roman poet Juvenal in asking, “Who’s checking the fact-checkers?

But despite one disclosure after another revealing the serious questions about bias and doubts about the efficacy of its fact-checking operation, it wasn’t until November 2018 that the story gained steam.

That was when The New York Times published a highly critical report that linked Facebook to a PR firm that used Soros ties to bludgeon criticism and that Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg had encouraged employees to research Soros’s finances.

Now, the embattled company has faced everything from charges of anti-Semitism (a familiar trope for those critical of the Soros family) to complaints from its fact-checkers that they don’t value facts enough.

“They’ve essentially used us for crisis PR,” whined Brooke Binkowski, a former managing editor at Snopes, to The Guardian. “They’re not taking anything seriously. They are more interested in making themselves look good and passing the buck … They clearly don’t care.”

Another journalist, whom The Guardian allowed to speak anonymously—although standard journalistic conventions on transparency would frown upon it—said the unfavorable position on Soros had created a mistrust of Facebook.

“Why should we trust Facebook when it’s pushing the same rumors that its own factcheckers are calling fake news? It’s worth asking how do they treat stories about George Soros on the platform knowing they specifically pay people to try to link political enemies to him?”

Conservative charges against Soros have long been dismissed as conspiratorial, despite a preponderance of evidence that links him to dark-money campaigns and shell organizations that are designed to sway American politics toward his globalist, open-borders agenda.

During the lead-up to the 2018 midterm, including the highly contentious Brett Kavanaugh confirmation, many protest groups—some advocating incivility and violence—were linked back to his Open Society Foundations.

However, a review of Snopes’s fact-checking claims against him show a consistently sympathetic approach, often using the debunking of outlandish claims to gloss over the realities of Soros’s efforts by painting him as a mythical boogeyman for the Right.

The fervor with which the journalists dismissed negative Soros stories suggests, however, that they themselves may have a conflict of interest, more concerned with their own prestige than with the journalist’s primary goal of pursuing truth.

Simply questioning the leftist dogma was, in their minds, an attack on journalism.

As the anonymous fact-checker complained to The Guardian, “Working with Facebook makes us look bad.”

The Scouts Formerly Known as ‘Boy Scouts’ Now Face Bankruptcy

0

‘We’re trying to find the right way to say we’re here for both young men and young women…’

Photo by postal67

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Rocked by abuse scandals and a controversy over their decision to allow girls to join, the Boy Scouts of America now face dwindling membership and may be seeking to declare bankruptcy.

The BSA currently is defending several lawsuits over abuse allegations, some dating back to the 1960s, according to a Wall Street Journal article.

But if claims of pedophilia weren’t damaging enough for the once revered civic institution, the group has done little to help its case, seeming to embrace politicization and sexual deviancy as the latest informal additions to the Scout code.

It first raised eyebrows in 2013 with a decision to take a formal position supporting homosexuality in its ranks. In 2015, it also lifted a ban on gay men and lesbians serving in leadership roles, said the Wall Street Journal.

Despite the objections of some religious groups—including a longtime partner, the Church of Latter-Day Saints, which announced the withdrawal of teen members this year with plans to develop its own program—that controversy alone, prompted by legal challenges, may have been surmountable for the Scouts.

But as the Left pressed on with its cultural warfare against middle-American values, the BSA seemed all too willing to follow suit. After widely criticized announcements recently that it would allow first transgender Scouts, then females, and then that it would provide condoms at BSA events, the transformation seemed a bridge too far for many.

In May, the organization announced that effective in February 2019, it would cease to call itself the Boy Scouts, removing the “Boy” part in favor of the more gender-ambiguous “Scouts BSA.”

“We wanted to land on something that evokes the past but also conveys the inclusive nature of the program going forward,” Chief Scout Executive Mike Surbaugh told The Telegraph. “We’re trying to find the right way to say we’re here for both young men and young women.”

The BSA currently includes about 2.3 million youth members, but the withdrawal of its Mormon members alone, set to be formalized in 2020, could account for an 18.5 percent membership drop, according to the Associated Press.

In addition to its legal bills, costing millions of dollars to defend against both the liberals’ gender-neutrality warfare and the sexual-abuse cases, the BSA also now faces a lawsuit from the Girl Scouts of the USA, which says its marketing to new female members constitutes a trademark infringement, according to the Journal.