Arizona Woman Shoots Hatchet-Wielding Man Outside Store

Good girl with a gun…

Via Tucson News Now:

Police said a woman shot a man who allegedly threatened her with a hatchet outside of a store on Tucson’s south side Friday night.

The Tucson Police Department said officers responded to the area of south 6th Avenue and east Pennsylvania Drive around 8:40 p.m. for a report of a shooting. Police arrived at the scene and located a man on the ground with an obvious gunshot wound, TPD said.

Officers provided aid to the man before paramedics arrived. He was transported to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, TPD said.

Police said the woman who shot the man stayed on scene and complied with police.

Investigators said the woman was leaving a store in the 4400 block of south 6th Avenue. She entered her vehicle and as she attempted to close the door the man approached her and demanded her car keys while holding a hatchet.

TPD said the woman retrieved a handgun and told the man to leave. As the man raised the hatchet, she shot him, police said. She was able to keep the man from leaving the scene until officers arrived.

The man remains in the hospital and charges are pending his release, TPD said.

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us

World View: Iran, Hezbollah, and Syria Threaten Retaliation Against Israel

This morning’s key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

  • American, British, French attack on Syria signals sharp change in Western policy
  • Britain publishes its legal justification for military action
  • Iran, Hezbollah, and Syria threaten retaliation against Israel

American, British, French attack on Syria signals sharp change in Western policy

Audience for Saturday's speech by Hezbollah leader Nasrallah (Reuters)
Audience for Saturday’s speech by Hezbollah leader Nasrallah (Reuters)

As we reported on Friday evening, the joint attack on Syrian targets by American, British, and French forces ended as quickly as it started. The attack was in retaliation for the attack on April 7 by Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad on civilians in Douma, using chemical weapons.

The attack occurred at 4 a.m. Syrian time and was over in minutes. 105 missiles were launched, striking three Syrian chemical weapons targets. The military said that all missiles reached their target, and denied Syrian claims that most (or any) were shot down.

The attack was “one and done,” according to Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis. However, Mattis and other U.S. officials have stated clearly that another attack will follow if al-Assad uses chemical weapons again.

So America’s message to Bashar al-Assad is pretty clear: “You may use barrel bombs, missiles, gunfire, and any other conventional weapons on neighborhoods, markets, schools, and hospitals, and you may massacre and kill as many women and children as you want, with no retribution. Just don’t use chemical weapons.”

The targets and time of day of Saturday morning’s attack were carefully chosen so as to avoid civilian casualties, particularly Russian casualties. The Russian military did not respond, and it was clear that both the U.S. and Russian side did everything possible to avoid confronting each other.

However, the language used by Russia on Saturday was extremely bitter and angry. And according to Pentagon spokesman Dana White,

The Russian disinformation campaign has already begun. There has been a 2000 per cent increase in Russian trolls in the last 24 hours.

As someone who is attacked constantly by Russian trolls, this is disheartening news.

At Saturday’s UN Security Council meeting by Russia’s ambassador, Vasily Nebenzya expressed deep anger:

The U.S. and its allies continue to demonstrate blatant disregard for international law. You are constantly tempted by neocolonialism. You have nothing but disdain for the UN charter, and the Security Council. As a pretext for aggression, you mention the alleged use of chemical weapons in Douma, but after an investigation by Russian experts, it was proven unequivocally that no such attacks took place.

The invocation of international law by Russia is really laughable, as Russia has done everything from invading and annexing Crimea to support the worst genocidal monster so far this century, Bashar al-Assad, without getting approval for anything from the UN Security Council, yet Russian officials become apoplectic when the U.S. or the West does anything to avoid their UNSC veto.

As I’ve been writing starting in 2011, Russia’s president Vladimir Putin adopted a policy of using the UN Security Council to take control of U.S., NATO, and Western foreign policy. Russia took any military action it pleased without getting UNSC approval but demanded that any other country got UNSC approval for everything. By using its UNSC veto, Russia could effectively control American foreign policy.

This Russian policy has been extremely successful for years, crippling not only Western foreign policy, but the UN Security Council itself. I believe that success reached its peak with the March 4 poisoning of former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, using a Russia-developed nerve agent Novichok. The British public was incensed that Russia put ordinary British citizens at risk by using Novichok in public, where anyone could be affected, but Russia made matters worse when Russia’s president Vladimir Putin smirked and gave a sarcastic answer when a BBC reporter asked about it.

This was followed by a series of claims by Russia, including accusing Britain of poisoning the Skripals in order to embarrass Russia. Britain’s foreign secretary Boris Johnson gave a furious response to these claims: “There is something in the kind of smug, sarcastic response that we’ve heard that indicates their fundamental guilt. They want to simultaneously deny it, yet at the same time to glory in it.”

The Skripal poisoning was an international tipping point, uniting Britain and other nations to no longer tolerate Russia’s strategy to use the UNSC to cripple Western foreign policy.

That is why Russian ambassador Vasily Nebenzya and other Russian officials are so bitterly angry. The policy they had successfully used for years is now collapsing in front of them.

Further remarks by the Russians have the appearance of hysterical desperation. There have been horrifying videos of al-Assad’s April 7 chemical attack on Douma, but Nebenzya and other Russian officials are claiming that the chemical attack did not even occur. They claim that the British government paid the “White Helmet” humanitarian workers in Douma to stage the horrifying videos as a Hollywood production. One gets the impression that the Russians as a nation are becoming completely delusional.

Meanwhile, Syrians in Damascus were dancing in the streets on Saturday, because the military strikes were not as bad as feared. Guardian (Australia) and The Hill

Related Articles:

Britain publishes its legal justification for military action

I have always believed that there was plenty of legal justification for American and Western military intervention in Syria. After al-Assad began targeting peaceful protesters in 2011, and particularly after he massacred thousands of innocent women and children in a Palestinian refugee camp in Latakia in August 2011, millions of Syrian citizens began fleeing into neighboring countries, including over a million reaching Europe. Any country has a responsibility to control its own population, but al-Assad had essentially weaponized refugees. If al-Assad cannot control its own population, but instead uses them as a weapon, then any target is justified in intervening in the country.

In addition, al-Assad’s attack on the Palestinian camp caused tens of thousands of Sunni jihadists to travel from around the world to fight al-Assad. These foreign jihadists formed the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or ISIL or Daesh), which has launched terror attacks on other countries. Once again, if al-Assad cannot control ISIS, then any country threatened by ISIS is justified in intervening. In fact, the U.S. military intervention in Syria has succeeded in recapturing all territory formerly occupied by ISIS, although ISIS is far from completely defeated.

So the West certainly has plenty of justifications for military intervention in Syria, but al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons doubles down on those justifications.

But in the end, the justification for this kind of military action has less to do with international law, and more to do with domestic politics. For that reason, the British government has published a humanitarian justification policy paper for Saturday’s military action. Here is a brief summary:

The Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons is a war crime and a crime against humanity.

Under international law, the UK may use force for humanitarian intervention, provided that three conditions are met:

  • Convincing evidence of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief;
  • There is no practicable alternative to use of force, if lives are to be saved;
  • The proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian suffering.

The policy paper goes on to explain why all three conditions have been met. BBC and UK Government

Iran, Hezbollah, and Syria threaten retaliation against Israel

Although the debate over Saturday’s airstrikes has dominated news coverage since the April 7 chemical attack, there is a completely different parallel issue in play, which may be even more dangerous.

On Monday last week, Israel is believed to have attacked Syria’s T4 airbase (Tayfur airport), because the airbase is considered a threat to Israel. Apparently, seven Iranians were killed in the attack.

Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah says that the attack put Israel into direct combat with Iran:

You made a historic mistake and a great folly which brings you into direct confrontation with Iran.

This is the first time in 7 years that the Israelis have deliberately killed Iranian revolutionary guards. Attacking T-4 airport is a pivotal incident in the history of the region that can’t be ignored.

Iran is not a weak or a cowardly state, and you know that well. The Israeli have false calculation. You will have to face the Islamic Republic of Iran.

All those thousands of terrorists in Syria do not concern the Israeli while they have every kind of weapons, however, they are afraid of just few revolutionary guards there.

According to the BBC, Syria, Iran, and Russia are all expressing quiet relief that Saturday’s missile attack was considerably more limited than was expected. But it did evoke a sense of greater defiance, with the three entities calling themselves the “Axis of Resistance,” and referring to Western powers as “paper tigers,” a phrase used by China’s Mao Zedong in the 1960s to describe the United States.

It is generally believed that Iran must retaliate for Israel’s airstrike, killing several Iranian revolutionary guards. This could be a far more dangerous confrontation than even Saturday’s missile strikes.

Longtime readers are aware that Generational Dynamics predicts that the Mideast is headed for a major regional war, pitting Jews against Arabs, Sunnis against Shias, and various ethnic groups against each other. Events appear to be moving very quickly now. Al Manar (Hezbollah) and Reuters and Al-Jazeera

Related Articles:

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Syria, Bashar al-Assad, Russia, Iran, France, Britain, Syria, Damascus, Homs, Vasily Nebenzya, James Mattis, Nikki Haley, Dana White, Vladimir Putin, Boris Johnson, Sergei Skripal, Yulia Skripal, Novichok, Islamic State / of Iraq and Syria/Sham/the Levant, IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh, Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah
Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com

Hundreds of millions impacted by new Yahoo, AOL, privacy policies that collect emails, texts, photos

Oath, a media division of Verizon that runs AOL and Yahoo, has unified and updated its privacy terms, a move that impacts hundreds of millions of users, CNET reported.

Despite concerns raised by Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica scandal, Oath policies allow for extensive data-collecting tactics, CNET noted.

Specifically, the terms state that Oath can read your emails, instant messages, posts, photos and message attachments. That includes information about banking and other financial transactions. Additionally, Oath can share information it collects with Verizon, its parent company.

All of this is done under the guise of improving services and delivering better advertising content to users.

Am I tracked when I’m logged out?

People may be surprised to learn the company can capture data and trace users even when they are not signed into Oath-related accounts.

Privacy terms explain that Oath can “recognize you or your devices even if you are not signed in to our Services.Oath may use device IDs, cookies, and other signals, including information obtained from third parties, to associate accounts and/or devices with you.”

“This allows us to deliver, personalize and develop relevant features, content, advertising and Services,” Oath’s privacy terms state.

Every piece of data sent through their services is stored and analyzed, including outgoing and income emails, the terms state.

Yahoo’s previous privacy policy shows that it “analyzes and stores all communications content, including email content.” But AOL’s legacy privacy policy had not listed that disclosure, CNET reported. Google previously had policies allowing it to scan Gmail messages “for better ad targeting,” although the company claims it stopped the practice in June of 2017.

Oath uses automated systems that supposedly remove personally-identifying information “before any humans” see your data. But that’s not a guarantee, the report states. Often, just using an app or service means you agree to the terms.

What if I don’t like how my data is used?

Oath’s terms also include updates to its mutual arbitration clause and class-action waiver. That means that if users don’t like what Oath does with their data, it’s more difficult to sue the company.

CNET reported it sent attempted to ask questions about the new privacy policy and received an email from a company spokesperson that read: “The launch of a unified Oath privacy policy and terms of service is a key stepping stone toward creating what’s next for our consumers while empowering them with transparency and controls over how and when their data is used.”

via TheBlaze.com – Stories

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.theblaze.com

DISGUSTING. Madeleine Albright Compares Trump Admin to Nazis and Soviet Communists (VIDEO)

DISGUSTING. Madeleine Albright Compares Trump Admin to Nazis and Soviet Communists (VIDEO)

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is famous for supporting the genocide of Iraqi children.

Here is a much forgotten exchange between Lesley Stahl and Madeleine Albright on “60 Minutes” back on May 12, 1996 that is not getting much play lately:

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.

In case you missed that episode, here is the video:

Albright also famously said there was a “special place in hell” for women who did not vote for Crooked Hillary.

This weekend Albright was out comparing President Donald Trump to the Nazi regime, the Soviet communists, the Marxist regime in Venezuela, and other “fascist” leaders like Orban in Hungary and Duterte in The Philippines.

What an awful person.

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning. Guest posting is disabled for security reasons.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com

BOMBSHELL: Comey Says Hillary Email Probe Reopened To Legitimize Her Presidency When She Won

In a pre-recorded interview set to air on Sunday night on ABC News, former FBI Director James Comey revealed that he announced that he was reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server in October 2017 because he assumed she would win the election and he did not want her to be viewed as an illegitimate president.

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml

New Study Finds Red States Have Best Economic Outlook In 2018

As long as the blue state locust stay away.

Via Washington Examiner:

Go somewhere with low tax burdens, light regulation, and limited government, young man. Grow up with your country in a red state.

That’s the conclusion of the annual “Rich States, Poor States” report from the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, set to be released Tuesday.

Nine of the ten states with the best economic outlook for 2018 are red, mirrored inversely by nine of the ten states with the worst economic outlooks that are blue. Local politics and the fiscal policy they produce, the analysis suggests, determine whether or not a state economy will thrive.

It’s a large part of the reason why Utah is No. 1 on the list and New York, No. 50, explains ALEC Chief Economist Jonathan Williams.

“You do see a focus on a limited government philosophy, lower taxes, and many of the things Republicans generally run on in those states,” says Williams. “Look at those states, and they’re very fiscally conservative guided states, and they have been for a very long time.”

In its eleventh edition, the annual report looks at 15 different factors from tax burdens, regulations, and labor policy. Along with Williams, the analysis was authored by Art Laffer and Stephen Moore of the Heritage Foundation, both economists and both, at one time or another, advisers to President Trump.

The breakout star of this edition is Idaho, which rose eight spots to come in second this year — a direct result of their reaction to the president’s federal tax reform.

The tax cuts led to an unexpected windfall of cash due to the elimination or reduction of many deductions, allowing more income to be taxed, a development that Williams likens to the post-Ronald Reagan tax cuts of 1986 where a number of states used that unexpected revenue to cut local taxes even further.

Keep reading…

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us

Starbucks Forced to Apologize Over ‘Ridiculous’ Treatment of Two Black Men

There’s always something inherently enjoyable about watching a liberal individual or entity getting eaten alive by its own constituency.

Take, for instance, when the folks at Facebook were improbably being grilled for throwing the election to Donald Trump by not catching a small group of Russians with a rather modest budget sowing discord during the 2016 election.

Or consider actress Lena Dunham’s rather forceful ejection from the sisterhood of the traveling social media when she decided to defend a white male colleague accused of sexually assaulting an African-American woman.

These are all serious issues, but the point is that each of these assiduously liberal entities ended up getting torn apart by the very people and principles they’ve supported, all invoking at least some level of schadenfreude from conservatives.

And to this list — which is much longer than just the two examples listed above, mind you — one can now add Starbucks.

Yes, the conspicuously liberal coffee chain famous for its anti-conservative politicking and wading into the culture wars more than once is now in a world of viral hurt after a video emerged online of two black men apparently being arrested in a Starbucks in Philadelphia while they were waiting for a friend.

According to Fox News, the two men were taken into custody Thursday after they asked to use the bathroom and were denied access by the manager. They then refused to leave when he told them to.

The manager proceeded to call 911, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross said. The manager reported the two men for “trespassing.”

Do you think this arrest was warranted?

When police showed up, the two men were taken into custody, but not without a video of the incident being taken. The video quickly spread on social media, bringing plenty of invective with it.

Ross said the men were asked by police three times to leave before they were arrested but refused. A man who says he was coming there to meet them arrived and backed up their story, but police took them away nonetheless.

The police commissioner, who is black himself, made it clear early on that whatever blame there was lay with the coffee shop.

“As an African-American male, I am very aware of implicit bias; we are committed to fair and unbiased policing,” Ross said.

“If a business calls and they say that ‘someone is here that I no longer wish to be in my business,’” Ross said, officers have “a legal obligation to carry out their duties and they did just that.”

RELATED: Mother Weeps in Court After Allegedly Recording Herself Giving 16-Month-Old Child Drugs

Things began getting worse for Starbucks. According to The Washington Post, the individual the two men were there to meet, Andrew Yaffe, is the head of a real estate development firm and was there to meet with the two men about investment opportunities.

So, thanks to Starbucks, the two men went for a meeting about investments and wound up spending the night in jail. They were eventually released without charges being pressed.

Starbucks had a public relations nightmare on its hands, and it wasn’t long before it was groveling before the public.

“We apologize to the two individuals and our customers and are disappointed this led to an arrest,” the statement read. “We take these matters seriously and clearly have more work to do when it comes to how we handle incidents in our stores. We are reviewing our policies and will continue to engage with the community and the police department to ensure these types of situations never happen in any of our stores.”

Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson also issued a statement that was critical of the store’s actions.

“Regretfully, our practices and training led to a bad outcome — the basis for the call to the Philadelphia police department was wrong,” Johnson said. “Our store manager never intended for these men to be arrested and this should never have escalated as it did.”

So basically, the police are blaming Starbucks, Starbucks is taking some responsibility but saying that when the manager called 911 to get the police involved, he never thought they would be, like, arrested — because clearly that never happens when you call 911 on someone.

Johnson also said he hopes “to meet personally with the two men who were arrested to offer a face-to-face apology.” That might be a start, but Johnson’s company will also have to deal with a whole lot of invective heaped on them, especially by their liberal clientele.

What do you think? Scroll down to comment below!

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://conservativetribune.com