Fake News: blatant dishonesty at ABC

Meme credit: Dispropaganda.com

The corruption of the media is evident everywhere; turn on the TV news and it’s all propaganda. Kristine Marsh at Newsbusters has the latest ugly report:

ABC’s Tom Llamas reported on the “Slaughter in Syria” on Sunday’s World News Tonight, October 13:

“Weeks since President Trump ordered U.S. forces out of that region, effectively abandoning America’s allies in the fight against ISIS,” he gushed to open the segment. In the background, rapid gunfire and explosions across a night sky were shown, as Llamas described the scene:

This video right here appearing to be showing Turkey’s military bombing Kurdish civilians in a Syrian border town. The Kurds, who fought alongside the US against ISIS, now horrific reports of atrocities committed by Turkish-backed fighters on those very allies.

Again, on Good Morning America, October 14, correspondent Ian Pannell played this same video in a segment entitled "Crisis in Syria" and gushed, “This video obtained by ABC News appears to show the fury of the Turkish attack on the border town.”

Except, the video ABC played, appears to be from a nighttime machine gun event at the Knob Creek Gun Range in West Point, Kentucky. 

As verified by Becket Adams at The Washington Examiner:

The footage, which looks to be from 2017, shows American gun enthusiasts putting on a terrific pyrotechnic show for their audience in Kentucky. In fact, the Machine Gun Shoot and Military Gun Show, which involves the very popular night shoot, is an annual event at the Kentucky gun range. People love the show. They love it so much, in fact, that they record it and post footage of it to social media.

The video was caught by some Twitter users, who put the two videos side by side over the weekend. Finally, ABC was forced to apologize and take down the videos from their website:

CORRECTION: We’ve taken down video that aired on “World News Tonight" Sunday and “Good Morning America” this morning that appeared to be from the Syrian border immediately after questions were raised about its accuracy. ABC News regrets the error.

However, the damage has already been done. We will see if a correction comes on tonight’s World News Tonight broadcast.

The article and the videos are here. 

# # #

Pentagon awards contract to United Airlines

Michael Yon's FB page linked to this gem:

Pentagon awards contract to United Airlines to forcibly remove Assad

# # # 

There will be more out-of-control immigration

Art credit: thepoliticalforums.com

A meaningless bill to put some "safeguards" 

into immigration background checks

From cleveland.com:  

Northeast Ohio Democrats Tim Ryan and Marcy Kaptur were among 47 Democrats who joined with the majority of House Republicans on Thursday to pass a controversial bill that would increase government background checks done before Syrian or Iraqi refugees are admitted to the United States.

All Ohio's Republicans backed the bill, which passed by a veto-proof vote of 289 to 137.

But the bill is toothless. From Conservative Treehouse:

House Votes On Meaningless Refugee Bill – “SAFE Act” Passes With Veto Proof 289-137 Support….

Under the Paul Ryan approved bill -American Security Against Foreign Enemies (SAFE) Act of 2015– the FBI director would be required to certify the background investigation of each refugee from Iraq and Syria.  And only refugees from Iraq and Syria.  And if you are Syrian and you walk into Turkey to begin applying for refugee status, presto, the bill doesn’t cover you.

The SAFE ACT requires the FBI, along with the secretary of Homeland Security and the director of National Intelligence, to certify to Congress that each refugee is not a security threat. The legislation also requires the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General’s Office to independently assess the refugee approvals.

However, the bill is largely meaningless and well beyond toothless. Senator Sessions (R-AL) noted refugees and migrants from nine different countries have been implicated in terrorism incidents over the past year.  “Ignoring this reality, the American SAFE Act allows the president to continue to bring in as many refugees as he wants from anywhere in the world,” Sessions said previously. 

There is nothing in the bill to prevent refujihadis from crossing our borders. Just more Kabuki theater from Congress.

UPDATE Nov-20 4:30 pm: Cleveland.com reports that

Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson this week joined dozens of other mayors of major U.S. cities in affirming that Syrians seeking refuge from their war-torn homeland are welcome here.

"The City of Cleveland has always opened her arms to refugees, regardless of where they are from," Jackson wrote Wednesday in an emailed statement.

Jackson joins Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto, Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake and Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings -- who all said they would help resettle Syrian refugees in their cities, despite the recent wave of panic among politicians about the perceived connections between Syrians, the Islamic State and last week's terrorist attacks in Paris that killed 129 people.

Mayors of 18 other cities, including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago also signed a letter sent to President Barack Obama in September, pledging to work with the administration to help resettle Syrian refugees in their towns.

But like many of those mayors, Jackson's views on the issue depart from those of his state's governor.

# # #

Constitution Requires Obama to Accept Congress' Decision on Syria

From former Congressman Ernest Istook via Washington Times --

WASHINGTON, September 4, 2013 – By asking Congress to approve military action in Syria, President Obama is doing the right thing. But for the wrong reason, in the wrong way and based on a wrong understanding of our Constitution.

Obama mocks Congress and the nation by saying he will strike Syria even if Congress does not approve.

The President won’t admit it, but his transparent motive for seeking the vote is naked politics. Obama wants others to take the heat for his decision and he wants them to share the blame if anything goes wrong. In his usual way, even if things go as he plans, he wants to shift blame to others for the consequences and the expense. Guesstimates range from $100-million to a few billion dollars as the minimum cost.

 

But the entire debate rests on a false understanding about who should make the decision on striking Syria and how the decision should be made. 

From the White House and even on Capitol Hill, the debate ignores the plain language of how our Constitution allocates military authority between the executive and legislative branches. Usually the only two clauses mentioned are those making the President the commander-in-chief and giving Congress the power to declare war.

But in Article 1, Section 8, immediately before granting Congress that power to declare war, the Constitution also grants Congress the power “to define and punish … offenses against the law of nations.” This all-important provision routinely is ignored by Congress, by Presidents and by our media.

Not since World War II has a formal declaration of war been approved by Congress. Yet we’ve fought wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and the Middle East. Because formal declarations of war have become archaic — rightly or wrongly— we need to discuss and follow the Constitution’s provision that says Congress, not Presidents, should decide what offenses justify military force without formally declaring war (and when the President is not defending us from actual or imminent attacks).

There is no grant of power to the President to decide what international offenses justify punishment by the United States.

The President’s entire defense role is confined to Article 2, Section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.

But Article I, Section 8, enumerates six powers of Congress pertaining to national defense. These include raising and supporting armies and a navy, making the rules that govern the armed forces, and organizing, arming, and disciplining state-level militia as well as the army and navy.

And Congress is granted the authority to “define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.”

What are “offences against the law of nations?”

The term is vague, which is why our Founding Fathers also granted Congress the exclusive power to define the term. This can include passing laws and also crafting a response to a specific international situation such as Syria. America’s sovereignty is not surrendered to some overseas tribunal to dictate to us in the name of international law.

Nor does our Constitution let the President decide. Congress is to make this decision; Congress is given the power to define international offenses as well as to punish them.

Making tough decisions like this runs counter to the political skittishness of many Senators and Congressmen. It also would reverse the dangerous trends of Congress’ abdicating its authority and of giving too much power to the executive branch and bureaucrats. The Constitution’s standard is tough but is healthy for America.

If Syrian President Assad used chemical weapons against the United States or made some other direct attack upon us, President Obama properly could launch an immediate military response as commander-in-chief.

But if Assad’s offense is that he offended international requirements—the “law of nations”—then our Constitution says Congress must decide the punishment, which might include authorizing military actions. President Obama’s constitutional duty is to abide by what Congress might decide.

By turning to Congress, President Obama did the right thing. But unless he accepts Congress’ decision on Syria, Obama has done the right thing for the wrong reason and in the wrong way.