Thursday, January 30, 2025

CNN Creates Anxiety Promoting Fake News, Then Blames Trump for Anxiety Stemming from Their Fake News


Jake Tapper is chasing Jim Acosta’s career path.

CNN and most corporate media spent the prior 36 hours creating fake news stories about a widespread pause in federal spending.  According to CNN and others, all federal spending was being stopped. Fake News.

With the Fake News they created in hand, the media and CNN then begin questioning politicians about something that doesn’t exist.  The politicians are confused.  The media then promote the confusion of the politicians as evidence of damage within the fake news they created.  More media then begins reporting on the confusion and widespread panic ensues.

Those individuals, people and organizations who are dependent on federal spending rushed head-first into a state of apoplexy.  CNN’s Jake Tapper then climbs the highest horse, grabs the flag of righteousness to defend the apoplectic, and pretends not to know that CNN Fake News created the panic that CNN Fake News now blames on Trump.  WATCH:



X22, And we Know, and more- Jan 30

 



🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


Why Congress Needs To Swiftly Pass Concealed-Carry Reciprocity


Unlike other parts of the Constitution, the Second Amendment has been politicized to the point it is often treated as a second-class right.



Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate have introduced the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which President Donald Trump has vowed to sign.

Congress faces a crucial opportunity to reaffirm a cornerstone of our constitutional freedoms: the right to bear arms. National concealed-carry reciprocity legislation would ensure that state borders do not restrict or invalidate this fundamental right, guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

At its heart, this is about acknowledging that constitutional rights are universal, not dependent on geography. The Constitution does not stop at state lines.

A Natural Right, Not a State Privilege

Imagine if a woman lost her right to vote, protected by the 19th Amendment, simply because she crossed into a state with different historical views on sex roles. Or consider if a journalist’s First Amendment protections were recognized in one state but ignored in another. Such infringements are unthinkable — and rightly so.

Yet this is precisely the reality facing law-abiding gun owners who travel with concealed-carry permits. Their constitutional right to self-defense, which has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, is undermined by a patchwork of state laws.

Like other rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment exists to protect individuals from government overreach. Allowing states to restrict concealed-carry permits undermines the universality of these protections.

In states with left-leaning legislatures, such as New York and Illinois, gun rights are subjected to restrictions that would never be tolerated if applied to other constitutional rights. This double standard is deliberate. Unlike other amendments, the Second Amendment has been politicized to the point it is often treated as a second-class right.

Opponents of gun rights often cite public safety concerns, but these arguments fail to justify selective infringements on constitutional freedoms. Law-abiding concealed-carry permit holders are among the most thoroughly vetted individuals in the nation. They’ve undergone extensive background checks, training, and permitting processes.

Denying them the ability to exercise their rights simply because they cross into a different state does not enhance public safety. It merely creates an unjust system that penalizes responsible citizens.

The Practical Case for Reciprocity

Beyond the constitutional arguments, there is a compelling practical case for national concealed-carry reciprocity. The current mΓ©lange of state laws creates confusion and exposes travelers to potential legal jeopardy. For example, a concealed-carry permit holder driving from Pennsylvania to Florida could unwittingly become a felon upon entering New Jersey, where his permit is not recognized.

National reciprocity streamlines these inconsistencies by requiring states to honor permits other states have issued, similar to how driver’s licenses are universally recognized. Importantly, this legislation would not force states to change their permitting standards. It would simply ensure that permits granted in one state are respected in another, preserving the rights of permit holders while respecting state sovereignty.

Concealed-carry permit holders are statistically among the most law-abiding groups in the country. They commit crimes at rates significantly lower than the general population, including police officers. Allowing them to carry across state lines would not lead to chaos or increased crime. Instead, it would affirm their right to protect themselves and their families wherever they go.

A Matter of Equality and Justice

At its core, national concealed-carry reciprocity is about equality under the law. The current system effectively creates a two-tiered structure of Second Amendment rights, where citizens in some states enjoy full protections while others are without. This disparity is fundamentally at odds with the principles of equality before the law enshrined in the Constitution.

Leftists argue that national reciprocity would infringe on states’ rights. However, states’ rights cannot justify violating individual constitutional freedoms. Just as states cannot override the First or 14th Amendments, they should not be allowed to undermine the Second. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and its protections must apply equally to all Americans.

Passing national concealed-carry reciprocity is not merely a policy decision, it reaffirms the durability of our Constitution. It ensures that the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are not negotiable or subject to arbitrary geographic limitations.

Congress has a duty to uphold the Constitution and protect the rights of law-abiding citizens. The Second Amendment is no less fundamental than the freedoms of speech, religion, or due process. So if Congress is to fulfill its solemn obligation to the American people, it must end the unjust treatment of gun owners and ensure their rights are respected nationwide.

National concealed-carry reciprocity is not a radical proposal; it is a necessary step to preserve the principles of freedom and equality that define America. Congress must act now to make it the law of the land.



Nicole Shanahan Vows to Fund Challengers to Senators Who Do Not Support RFK Jr Nomination


Former vice-presidential running mate to Robert F Kennedy Jr, Nicole Shanahan, has released a video threatening to personally fund primary challengers for those Senators who do not support the nomination of Robert F Kennedy Jr.

Saying, “Bobby may play nice, I won’t” Ms. Shanahan is vowing to target Senators, many of them she funded, if they cower to Big Pharma and Big Agriculture. Additionally, Shanahan provided a list of key Senators and their contact details for a public pressure campaign. 



Senator Mitch McConnell (R) Call: 202-224-2541
Senator Lindsey Graham (R) Call: 202-224-5972
Senator Lisa Murkowski (R) Call: 202-224-6665
Senator Susan Collins (R) Call: 202-224-2523
Senator Bill Cassidy (R) Call: 202-224-5824
Senator Thom Tillis (R) Call: 202-224-6342
Senator James Lankford (R) Call: 202-224-5754
Senator Cory Booker (D) Call: 202-224-3224
Senator John Fetterman (D) Call: 202-224-4254
Senator Bernie Sanders (D) Call: 202-224-5141
Senator Cortez-Masto (D) Call: 202-224-3542
Senator Raphael Warnock (D) Call: 202-224-3643
Senator Jon Ossoff (D) Call: 202-224-3521


Trump Gets Big Payday Settlement From Meta in Suit Over Shutting Down His Social Media Accts. After J6


Ward Clark reporting for RedState 

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump settled a lawsuit with Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram. Part of the settlement involves Meta paying Trump about $25 million, most of which will go into funding a presidential library.

President Trump on Wednesday settled a lawsuit that will require Meta to pay about $25 million, most of which will fund a presidential library, multiple outlets reported and a source familiar confirmed to Axios.

Why it matters: Meta shut down Trump's Facebook and Instagram accounts for about two years after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. However, since Trump's reelection, CEO Mark Zuckerberg has cozied up to the new administration.


  • $22 million will go toward a fund for Trump's presidential library, according to the Wall Street Journal, which first reported the deal. The rest will go toward legal fees and individual plaintiffs. 
  • Boris Epshteyn, Trump's attorney, did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment.

While details of the settlement were not released, the lawsuit has to do with the aforementioned shutdowns of President Trump's social media accounts. Following his reelection, Meta's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, has suddenly grown to like President Trump:.

Flashback: Trump's Facebook and Instagram profiles were reinstated in early 2023 and subsequently subject to stricter penalties than other users for more than a year. 

State of play: Zuckerberg attended Trump's inauguration and donated $1 million to the inaugural fund

And a million bucks to the inaugural fund. Mark Zuckerberg may not be going full-tilt MAGA, but he seems to know which way the wind is blowing - and it's blowing towards Mar-a-Lago.

It's interesting to note that, while Pres. Trump has stalled a possible ban on the social media company TikTok, if such a ban goes through, it may well prove advantageous to the boss of the company that owns social media competitors Facebook and Instagram. At present, Trump isn't showing any indication to do that, though, although the purchase of TikTok by an American company may be on the table. An earlier piece from Axios points out that Zuckerberg may have much to gain by staying in Trump's good graces:

The big picture: Zuckerberg has spent the post-election months cozying up to Trump, including through a Mar-a-Lago visit and $1 million inauguration donation.

  • That could pay off for Meta when it comes to future regulation, particularly given the fact that Trump's antitrust regime sued the company in late 2020. The case was later dismissed.
  • It's also given Zuckerberg a way to loudly hit back at a Biden administration that revived the lawsuit — and the confidence to scrap content moderation and workplace culture policies that appear to have privately chafed him for years.

The idea that "content moderation and workplace culture policies" privately chafing Zuckerberg is a remarkable notion, as he hasn't been overly vocal about that. But he's certainly not alone in harboring some resentment towards the new-defunct Biden administration.

In any case, Pres. Trump has been posting content on both Facebook and Instagram, with his reinstated accounts.



Trump Confirms a New Use for GITMO

Katie Pavlich reporting for Townhall 

Speaking ahead of a bill signing event for the Laken Riley Act in the East Room of the White House Wednesday, President Donald Trump confirmed plans to send violent criminal aliens to Guantanamo Bay Prison, Cuba. 

During his remarks Trump expressed concern home countries of a number of criminal aliens aren't capable of keeping them in prisons or from returning to the United States, which is why the move to GITMO is necessary. He urged Congress to quickly approve funding for the security measure. 

Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security is working overtime to deport criminal aliens from big cities across the country.

"We will be the first line of defense for anybody that's in the American homeland. We will do everything that we can to protect the American people. We have jurisdiction over people who live here, people who leave here, and people who come here. We have jurisdiction over products that come into this country and which ones leave. We have jurisdiction over our internet, what comes in, what goes out, what kind of business. I tell people we have jurisdiction over everything," Homeland Security Secretary Kristie Noem said during remarks to the agency. "We will exercise all legal authorities that we have to protect this country because it is the only last light of freedom left."


♦️𝐖³π πƒπšπ’π₯𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 π“π‘π«πžπšπ

 


W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

Welcome to the W³P Daily News Open Thread. 

Post whatever you got in the comments section below.

This feature will post every day at 6:30am Mountain time. 

 

Here’s How The Media Are Lying Right Now: Fake ‘Chaos’ Edition



After having already lived through a Trump presidency, Americans who aren’t hopelessly insane should recall a pattern: Donald Trump does something of little or no discernible consequence to your day-to-day life and the media react by screaming about the “chaos.” Yeah, that hasn’t changed.

Headlines spanning from Tuesday to Wednesday this week include:

“Trump Freezes Trillions. Chaos Ensues.” — New York Times

“Federal judge blocks Trump federal spending freeze after a day of chaos” — Washington Post

“Trump aid freeze stirs chaos before it is blocked in court” — Reuters

“Trump’s spending freeze spreads chaos across US” — Politico

I’m confident that precisely zero people reading this right now lost a moment’s sleep as a result of Trump directing federal agencies to pause spending and produce reports detailing the projects and services they’re paying for. A few of you might have never slept better.

To the extent there was any disturbance from the orders at all, it arose because the news media apparently didn’t read the memo summarizing them. Reporters in Washington asked over and over again on cable news and at the White House press briefing on Tuesday whether programs like Social Security, Medicare, and food assistance would be affected. The directive in fact stated, “Nothing in this memo should be construed to impact Medicare or Social Security benefits.” It also said more broadly that the temporary pause on “Federal financial assistance” excludes “assistance provided directly to individuals.”

There are of course many people leading federal agencies who are either unwilling or incapable of doing anything that deviates from simply green-lighting the flow of taxpayer dollars no matter where it’s going, so there were reports of agencies left unsure of how the guidance applied to them. But that’s not chaos. That’s called change.

It turns out that this new administration is doing the unusual and taking an interest in what exactly the infinite number of federal agencies are doing all day. What are they spending money on and is any of it unnecessary? Duh, that’s why they were told to account for it so that some of it — hopefully a lot of it — can be targeted for cuts.

In any event, a federal judge in Washington put a pause on the pause, ruling that more time was needed to determine whether the spending freeze might inflict “irreparable harm.” (We could only hope.) And on Wednesday, the administration rescinded the memo altogether, perhaps to simply reissue a more detailed version that can be understood thoroughly by the ever-useful government workers. Either way, the fake panic over the fake chaos is sure to continue.

A bureaucrat being instructed to do something — a concept known outside of government as “work” — may make Washington and the media a little uncomfortable. That’s nice for a change, but it isn’t chaos for anyone else.



JD Vance Has Appropriate Reply After 'Journalist' Equates Milley's Portrait Removal to 'Erasing' History


Sister Toldjah reporting for RedState 

On the day of his inauguration, President Donald Trump wasted no time in doing many things that upset his perpetually outraged critics, and among them was having the official portrait of retired Gen. Mark Milley removed from the Pentagon hallway it had been unveiled in not even two weeks prior.

Milley, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Trump's first term in office, had been preemptively pardoned just hours earlier by then-President Joe Biden in what many viewed as a disturbing abuse of his presidential power.

Trump, of course, has many reasons to despise Milley, as outlined by my colleague Rusty Weiss here, including committing what some have alleged was treason in the last months of Trump's first term in office.

Milley, as RedState readers will recall, reportedly assured “his Chinese counterpart, Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army, that the United States would not strike,” according to a Washington Post recounting of claims made in a 2021 book written by their associate editor, Bob Woodward, and one of their reporters, Robert Costa.

Per that same report, Milley took it to a disturbing new level on one phone call by informing the Chinese general, “If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise.”

Milley later admitted to the communications during a tense September 2021 House Armed Services Committee hearing after Joe Biden's deadly Afghanistan debacle but claimed in so many words that the comments were taken out of context.

Fast forward to the present day, and between the portrait removal (another of which apparently happened Wednesday) and Sec. of Defense Pete Hegseth pulling Milley's security detail and security clearance, so-called "journalists" are pouncing with their hot takes on What It All Means, including the New Yorker's Susan Glasser:

Vice President JD Vance responded accordingly:

I should point out for the record that Glasser was a staunch proponent of erasing history by force just a few short years ago:

Democrats and mainstream mediots not practicing what they preach. Shocking, right?



Speaker Johnson and Secretaries Bessent and Hegseth Targeted in Bizarre Assassination Attempt


streiff reporting for RedState 

A Massachusetts man was arrested on the grounds of the US Capitol Monday in a bizarre attempt on the lives of Speaker Mike Johnson, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Ryan English, 24, approached Capitol Police officers at the Capitol's South Front at 3 p.m. and told them he wished to turn himself in and confessed to having traveled to DC to kill the three men. 

Peter Campopiano, a U.S. Capitol Police special agent, wrote in the affidavit that English walked up to an officer near the Capitol’s South Front shortly after 3 p.m. Monday and said, “I’d like to turn myself in.” He told the officer that he was carrying several knives and two molotov cocktails, according to the affidavit.

When officers searched English, they found a folding knife and two bottles of Absolut Vodka, each with a “grey piece of cloth affixed to its top,” the affidavit says. It says English told officers that he had traveled to Washington initially intending to kill House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth but that he changed his target to the newly confirmed treasury secretary, Scott Bessent.

His planned mode of attack was novel, to say the least.

“English’s thoughts were to use the small bottles of vodka to start fires and later to wrap them in rags soaked in alcohol, light them and throw them at Bessent’s feet,” the affidavit said, adding that Mr. English had also considered stabbing Mr. Bessent if he got close enough.

If convicted, Mr. English would face a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison on the unlawful possession charge and up to five years for the possession count.

A note he carried said he planned on killing at least three cops to get close enough to give his targets the hotfoot.

I can't help but note that English's potential sentence for plotting to kill three senior US government officials is about what a January 6 defendant got for scrapping with a police officer.

It would be a shame if federal law enforcement treated this as a one-off event. This is a pattern of behavior among people who have been radicalized and incited by leftist rhetoric. English wanted to kill Hegseth because he was a "Nazi." He wanted to kill Bessent because he was a billionaire. This is not the first time that Republican politicians have been targets for political assassination. Steve Scalise and the GOP Congressional caucus was targeted for a decapitation strike; Why Is the FBI Whitewashing the Steve Scalise Shooting Into "Workplace Violence" – RedState. The summer of 2020 was a bacchanalia of politically inspired violence. During the 2024 campaign, President Trump was the target of assassins twice. For a fraction of the money paid by the FBI to informers creating bizarre kidnap plots and investigating traditional Catholics as extremists, they might have been able to do some real good if they were watching the violent, politically protected leftists.