Abbas: We Will Thwart Trump’s Peace Plan, Continue Pay-for-Slay

TEL AVIV – Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas reiterated his vow Saturday to thwart President Donald Trump’s upcoming peace proposal and pledged to continue paying convicted terrorists and their families. 

“The occupation will end,” Abbas said in a speech marking 14 years since the death of PLO leader Yasser Arafat, according to Channel 10 news.

“We will remain on our land and continue to act. We adhere to our principles. Our flag will continue to be raised on the walls of Jerusalem,” he added.

He said that the Palestinians are in “one of the most dangerous stages” in their history, but would fight “all liquidationist schemes and conspiracies that are being concocted against their national cause.”

His comments came as President Donald Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, Jason Greenblatt, said that the U.S. is set to unveil its long awaited peace plan in the near future.

“Neither side will like everything written in the peace plan and there will be a need to compromise,” Greenblatt said during a trip to London.

“But we’re sure that if the two sides agree to enter negotiations they will understand why we reached the conclusions that will be presented in the peace plan,” he added.

Greenblatt stated that the so-called “deal of the century” seeks to bring a final status solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and is not another interim agreement that will “only extend the cycle of suffering and violence.”

“Judge our peace plan according to what it is supposed to be: a proposal for a comprehensive solution to the Israeli-Palestinian process,” Greenblatt cautioned the Palestinians, according to the Channel 10 report.

Abbas accused the Trump administration of attempting to create a wedge between Gaza and the West Bank but said it would not succeed.

“They won’t find one honorable Palestinian who will compromise on the right of our people to freedom, sovereignty and independence,” Abbas said.

The Palestinians have boycotted Washington since Trump formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and transferred the U.S. embassy there. The U.S. has also cut all funding to the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA.


via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

Georgia Democrats Tout Surprise Ballots In Their Attempt To Grab Governor’s Race From GOP

Florida 2.0. They’ll keep “finding” votes until they win.

Via Washington Examiner:

There may be hope yet for Stacey Abrams, the Democratic candidate for governor.

The Democratic Party of Georgia tweeted Saturday evening that a “handful” of Georgia counties reported thousands of “new” absentee, early, and Election Day votes not accounted for by Republican candidate Brian Kemp.

Kemp, who resigned as secretary of state on Thursday, has asserted victory even though the race has not been called and Abrams has yet to concede.

Keep reading…

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

STUNNING! California Republicans Face More Losses as Late Votes for Democrats Continue to Trickle In #StopTheSteal

STUNNING! California Republicans Face More Losses as Late Votes for Democrats Continue to Trickle In #StopTheSteal

Jim Hoft
by Jim Hoft
November 11, 2018

Republican candidates who led their races on election night continue to suffer losses as Democrats across the nation have been able to manufacture tens-of-thousands of new votes since election day.

Democrats stole races in Florida, New Mexico and California since election results were announced on Tuesday night.

Democrats have mysteriously found thousands of new votes in Georgia on Saturday after losing the governor’s seat on Tuesday.

And now several California Republican candidates who led their races by significant margins on election night days later are losing their seats as Democrats produce new votes several days later.

Dana Rohrabacher is the latest Republican to lose his race after Democrats discovered several thousand ballots after election day. reported:

Several California Republicans who appeared to have held onto their congressional seats on Election Day saw their leads narrowed — or reversed — as late ballots continued to be counted, almost uniformly helping Democrats.

In the 10th congressional district, Democrat Josh Harder had taken a lead of over 3,000 votes over Republican incumbent Jeff Denham by Saturday evening. Denham led by a slim margin on Election Day.

In the 48th district, incumbent Republican Dana Rohrabacher saw a small Election Day lead reversed decisively, and the race was called for Democrat challenger Harley Rouda.

In the 39th and 45th districts, Republicans Young Kim and Rep. Mimi Walters narrowly clung to leads that had diminished to just over 2,000 votes in both cases, with many more ballots still to be counted.

And in the 50th district, which the Associated Press called for incumbent Republican Duncan Hunter, Democrat challenger Ammar Campa-Najjar has refused to concede, citing the possibility of late counted ballots giving him a win.

Once again, the Republican party elites got suckered and had no idea Democrats would be this crooked.
The party leaders should immediately resign for not anticipating this lawlessness by Democrats.


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:

Pinkerton: Learning the Right Lesson of World War I on Its 100th Anniversary

Today is not only Veterans Day, it is also the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I, when the armistice went into effect exactly a century ago, on November 11, 1918. After more than four years of bloody fighting, the Great War was finally over.

The standard view of World War I is that it is a testament to the futility of war. Yet maybe the better way to think of the war, which lasted from 1914 to 1918—including American participation in 1917-1918—is that if war comes, it’s better to win than to lose.

So while any war is a cause for somber reflection—and world leaders, including President Trump, are gathered in France this weekend to reflect on World War I—it’s perhaps even more important to learn enduring lessons of preparedness and strength. 

Most of the chronicling of that war is heavy on mournfulness, along with the implication that war solves nothing.  Hence we see headlines such as  “The Tragic Futility of World War I” and “The Most Unnecessary War in History.”

Still, we are left to wonder: If the war was “futile” and “unnecessary,” does that mean it would have made no difference if, for instance, the U.S. had not fought in it? Would it have been okay if the Kaiser’s Germany had won?   

And for that matter, what about France? That was the country that the German Army invaded in 1914, and, following the notorious Schlieffen Plan, the Germans stormed through a neutral country, Belgium, as part of their drive toward Paris.  So what should the French have done, other than defend themselves?  If one says that the French could have done a better job of planning and preparing for the war, that’s certainly true. But pacifism, in the face of a conqueror, is not a good option.  

Back then, the Germans had their Schlieffen Plan, which was a cynical violation of international law; attacking neutral countries is a no-no.  For their part, the French had Plan XVII, which was the right idea, done the wrong way.  Plan XVII was unwise because it attempted to convert the glorious idea of military bravery—attaque à outrance (attack to excess)—into a formal military doctrine.  That is, the French war planners had convinced themselves that their brave soldiers could overcome the enemy through élan, and so that was all that was needed; the French would charge, bayonets fixed, and win with cold steel.

French troops advancing under fire during World War I, France, circa 1916. (General Photographic Agency/Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

Yes, French soldiers were plenty brave, but so, too—looking back to military history—were the American Confederates who launched Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg in 1863, and they, too, failed. By the mid-19th century, the evolution of the needle gun had given rise to rapid-fire riflery, which meant that infantry and cavalry charges were both more costly and less likely to succeed.  Moreover, advances in artillery were devastating, also, to mass formations.  Finally, by the early 20th century, the machine gun was being deployed.  

Gas-masked men of the British Machine Gun Corps with a Vickers machine gun during the first battle of the Somme. (General Photographic Agency/Getty Images)

Yet despite all these deadly technological innovations, generals were reluctant to give up on their old ways.  In other words, generals were no different from everyone else—we’re all creatures of habit.  So during the opening weeks of the war, in August and September 1914, generals ordered charges just as they had done in battles for thousands of years; only now, the results were disastrously different. 

In particular, French soldiers, obedient to their Plan XVII, and wearing easy-to-see bright blue tunics and red pantaloons, went charging at the Germans—and the result, of course, was disaster.  The overconfident French were decimated, and only a last-minute rally—the so-called Miracle of the Marne—stopped the Germans from capturing Paris.   

By now, mid-September 1914, all the combatants in the West—the French, British, and Belgians against the Germans—were beginning to comprehend that the nature of war had taken a decisive turn.  That is, the new ways of delivering firepower, combined with additional innovations such as barbed wire and echeloned entrenchment, made rapid offense difficult, if not impossible.  Yet not every military leader got the message; during the war, millions of lives were lost as armies persisted with lethally ineffective frontal assaults.

Still, in the years that followed, nations increasingly relied on their industrial power to supplement the blood-sacrifice of their soldiers.  It’s estimated, for example, that from 1914 to 1918, the warring countries fired between 900 million and 1.2 billion artillery shells at each other.  In the meantime, other technological advances were emerging from various nations’ military-industrial complexes, including the submarine, the flamethrower, and poison gas.  Once again, the impact of these new weapons was to make it all the more obvious that the old ways of warfare were obsolete.  

British soldiers lined up in a narrow trench during World War I, on October 28, 1914. (Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

Infantry of the 15th Brigade in a bomb-step close to the enemy line near Morlancourt, July 9, 1918. (Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

British soldiers enjoy a jaunt on a British Mark IV tank. (Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

A captured British tank advances through a bank of artificial fog, which shields a body of infantry. A low flying German aeroplane circles overhead. (Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

World War I dogfight (Getty Images)

German Anti-Aircraft Gun (Getty Images)

A German Zeppelin in World War I. (Getty Images)

Yet we can also observe that new killing machines did not make war “futile,” or “unnecessary,” for the simple reason that even if the technology of war had changed, the psychology of war had not.  That is, some leaders and peoples still wanted to fight, for reasons ranging from injured honor to outright avarice.  

We can pause to observe that warlike sentiments have been painfully visible throughout human history; the wise have always known this. For instance, in the New Testament, the Apostle Paul lamented: “None is righteous … Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” Two thousand years later, it’s hard to say that anything much has changed.    

So we can see: If the world contains many lions, it’s not a good idea to be a lamb.  The Roman military strategist Vegetius had it right in the fourth century: If you want peace, prepare for war. 

And so as we think about America’s role in World War I, we should rightly think of the heroes of that conflict, such as Alvin York, further immortalized in the 1941 film starring Gary Cooper.  We should also think of the 116,516 Americans who gave their lives, including a Marine private, Foster Stevens, recently remembered in The Washington Post.  Indeed, all those millions who served merit our attention and respect, including Oscar Rhoades of Wilkes County, North Carolina, who came home and lived another 70 years. 

Yet precisely because we remember past heroes, we should be thinking constantly about the safety of future heroes.  The first way to assure their safety, of course, is to avoid unnecessary wars, including wars of choice, but sometimes, inevitably, without any fault of our own, war will come. 

World War I was such a war. That conflict was so awful, in terms of carnage, that it’s tempting to conclude, as many have, that it was “futile” and “unnecessary.” According to this popular line of thinking, the fighting was all a tragic misunderstanding, and so as a solution for the future, the thinking goes, let’s all have better understanding—let’s communicate more.  

Alas, while such thinking might be tempting, it’s not correct: The truth is that Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany understood full well that he was plunging Europe into war in 1914; he had his eyes wide open, and he welcomed the conflict, because he thought he could win.  As we have seen, Germany happily trampled through neutral Belgium on its way to France; at least 123,000 Belgians died as a result.  Indeed, Germany’s “September Plan” proved that the Kaiser and his aides had high hopes for seizing control of all of Europe.  Thus he, more than anyone else, is responsible for 15 million deaths.  

Moreover, the Kaiser, personally, was a warmongering hothead, given to making bloodthirsty speeches to his soldiers, such as, “Should you encounter the enemy, he will be defeated! No quarter will be given! Prisoners will not be taken! Whoever falls into your hands is forfeited. Just as a thousand years ago the Huns under their King Attila made a name for themselves, one that even today makes them seem mighty in history and legend, may the name ‘German’ be affirmed by you.”

Kaiser Wilhelm II, Emperor of Germany and King of Prussia, in the field during army maneuvers with General Helmuth Johannes Ludwig von Moltke (right), circa 1914. (General Photographic Agency/Getty Images)

It’s also worth recalling that Germany’s imperial ambitions were not limited to Europe; Germany was interested, too, in fomenting war in North America—against the U.S.A. The so-called Zimmermann Telegram was sent by the German foreign secretary, Arthur Zimmermann, in January 1917 to the German ambassador to Mexico; the goal was to entice Mexico into declaring war on the United States.  

Of course, the idea of Mexico militarily attacking the U.S. might have been a crazy fantasy, and yet it speaks volumes about the mindset of the Kaiser’s regime. The British intercepted the telegram in February; Zimmermann truthfully, but idiotically, confirmed its contents in March—and President Woodrow Wilson asked for, and received, a Congressional declaration of war against Germany in April. (The vote in the Senate was 82:6; in the House, 373:50.) 

So we can see: America’s participation in what was then known as the Great War was inevitable. If we wished to remain a great and honorable power, we had no choice but to stand up to great and dishonorable threats. 

Yet not everything about the way we fought the war was great. Most obviously, we were militarily ill-prepared. When the first units of the American Expeditionary Force reached the front in October 1917, our doughboys were ready to fight, but they lacked the new essentials of military success. 

In March 1917, American troops train for WWI on a mock battlefield with leaders on horseback. (Topical Press Agency/Getty Images)

Yes, they had plenty of food and rifles, but they were not ready in terms of advanced equipment and military doctrine. Fighting had been raging for more than three years, and yet the American generals, from commander John J. Pershing on down, had not really absorbed the lessons of, yes, the machine gun and rapid-fire artillery.  So we went into battle just as the French had in 1914—overconfident and under-prepared. American casualties, as a result, were far heavier than they had to be.  

American soldier shakes hands with a boy as American troops parade through the streets of London on August 15, 1917. (A. R. Coster/Topical Press Agency/Getty Images)

A woman cheers on a troop of American soldiers as they parade through the streets of London on August 15, 1917. (A. R. Coster/Topical Press Agency/Getty Images)

Flag-bearing troops leading the U.S. 23rd Infantry, circa 1917. (Sgt. Mike Olive/Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

American infantry soldiers on the march towards the Rhine, circa 1918. (Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

U.S. forces in a first line position in Lorraine, circa 1918. (Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

And so we come to the two most important weapons to emerge from World War I: the tank and the airplane.  And thereby hangs a particularly disturbing tale of American unreadiness. 

Frustrated by the stalemate of trench warfare, the British had been experimenting with “land dreadnoughts” as early as 1915. Tanks were, in fact, a genius solution to the stalemate, and they ultimately helped make the breakthroughs that enabled the Allies to win the war. And yet here’s the thing: The Americans never produced a single tank that fought in the war. 

That is, even after the British started deploying them on the battlefield, American military planners just sat there, watching, from afar, with incomprehension. And this dithering is all the more remarkable since the U.S. was home to the Ford Motor Company, which had pioneered the assembly line. In fact, in 1916, the last peacetime year for the U.S., Henry Ford and his automotive rivals had built 1.3 million cars. So we had the productive capacity to make tanks, we just didn’t have the vision.  

To be sure, some Americans did grasp the importance of the tank, including Captain (later Major) George S. Patton. But during the war, Patton and his fellow tankers had to fight in French and British tanks.

An American soldier walks ahead of an MKIV British-made tank, circa 1918. (Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

A similarly infuriating tale can be told about American aviation in the war.  The airplane had, of course, been invented in the U.S., and the Army did use airplanes for its Signal Corps.  And yet once again, top commanders were obtuse about the need for American-made combat aircraft.  And so during the war, American fighter ace Eddie Rickenbacker flew the French-made Nieuport 28, while other Americans pilots flew another French make, the SPAD S.VII. 

America’s top World War I air-ace Eddie Rickenbacker in the cockpit of his French-built SPAD 13. Rickenbacker survived the war with 26 ‘kills’. (Sgt. Gideon J. Eikleberry/Getty Images)

So what went wrong?  How could the U.S., boasting the largest economy in the world, let itself be flummoxed on the basics of military production?  Well, that’s a good question; perhaps the biggest single reason is that the Wilson administration chose to run war production with a series of boards and administrations; the result was a bureaucratic mess. 

Of course, in the end, Uncle Sam prevailed. The Germans were exhausted, and our forces, despite their homefront handicaps, fought well.

In fact, it can even be said that there was a silver lining to U.S. underperformance in World War I. Two decades later, when World War II was brewing, American war leaders, military and civilian alike, were determined to do better.  Indeed, American war production in the Second World War was the envy of the world; most obviously, we built 108,000 tanks—a lot more than the zero of the previous war—which Patton and his fellow commanders used most effectively.

And oh yes, we built 324,000 airplanes—again, that’s a lot more than the previous zero. (In 2017, Breitbart News paid tribute to some of those homefront defense workers, the men and women who built the B-24 Liberator at Willow Run, Michigan, here, and here.)

So to what should we attribute this enormous success—in such sharp contrast to the dismal precedent of just two decades earlier?  One answer is detailed by the historian Arthur Herman in his 2012 book, Freedom’s Forge: How American Business Produced Victory in World War II.  In contrast to the Wilson administration’s emphasis on bureaucratic committees, the Roosevelt administration appointed a series of no-nonsense “czars” to oversee production.   

Of course, in contrast to World War I, nobody dares say that World War II was “futile” or “unnecessary.” By 1941, when the U.S. entered the war, it was obvious that Hitler and his ilk were so evil, and so threatening, that we had no choice other than to fight. Fortunately, once we did start fighting, we were ready.

Crowds celebrating the signing of the Armistice at the end of World War I on November 11, 1918. (Topical Press Agency/Getty Images)

So we can see: Once you’re in a war of national survival, there’s no point in thinking about whether it’s “futile” or “unnecessary.” Instead, the point is to win it, with as few casualties as possible—or, more precisely, with as few casualties on your side as possible. As George Patton—by then Lt. General Patton—said in 1943, “No dumb bastard ever won a war by going out and dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb bastard die for his country.” 

With that sort of mindset, backed up by the best technology, America will always have the military muscle it needs. The hope is that robust American armed forces will persuade potential foes that it is a bad idea to fight the U.S.  That is, we want everyone else thinking that war with the U.S. is, indeed, “futile.” 

But of course, hope is never enough in world affairs. So we must always be prepared for war. As the ancient Roman Vegetius knew, preparation for war is the best preparation for peace. We can pray that all wars we fight are necessary wars, but we must prepare, too, so that we can win them all.  

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

Illinois Woman Catches Democrat Voter Fraud in St. Clair County — Where They Have a History of Selling Votes for Crack

Illinois Woman Catches Democrat Voter Fraud in St. Clair County — Where They Have a History of Selling Votes for Crack

Jim Hoft
by Jim Hoft
November 11, 2018

St. Clair County in Illinois has a long history of confirmed cases of voter fraud.

One St. Clair official Kelvin Ellis was also sentenced for attempting to arrange the murder of a witness to the county’s rigged voting system.

In 2015 Belleville, Illinois resident Peggy Hubbard posted an epic rant on the police shooting of young black man in North St. Louis.

Peggy compared the black community’s reaction to the shooting of Mansur Ball-Bey in North St. Louis outside a crack house with the shooting death of 9 year-old Jamyla Bolden in Ferguson. Jamyla was shot dead while studying on her bed. Peggy was outraged the liberal media made more out of the crackhead’s murder than that of the little girl. Peggy was called an Uncle Tom, Aunt Jemima, the White Man’s Bed Wench, and the White Man’s Black B*tch for speaking her mind.

on Tuesday Peggy volunteered as a poll watcher in St. Clair County. Peggy later tweeted out that she caught drunks, dementia patients and voters who did not reside in the city attempting to vote on election day.

Peggy stopped it.


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:

Tucker in the Crosshairs of Alleged Assault, Flips the Script and Reveals What Accuser Did to His Daughter

In a response to an allegation that he assaulted a “gay Latino immigrant,” Fox News host Tucker Carlson says that the man actually accosted his teenage daughter at a Virginia country club and called her a “whore.”

The accusation comes from (of course) lawyer Michael Avenatti, who posted a video of Carlson telling someone to “get the f— out of here.”

Avenatti claimed that the video was the aftermath of an assault against the gay Latino man, and it didn’t take too much subtext to figure out why Avenatti would be claiming Carlson assaulted the man.

“We are investigating an alleged assault on a gay latino immigrant committed by T. Carlson and/or members of his inner circle at a club in VA in Oct. It likely includes underage drinking in violation of VA law,” Avenatti tweeted Saturday. WARNING: Bad language ahead. Viewer discretion advised.

TRENDING: Homeland Security Blows Huge Hole in Left’s Asylum Narrative with Eye Opening Numbers

“We are attempting to locate additional witnesses and to identify those depicted in the video,” he continued. “In particular, we need assistance identifying the balding man that grabs the man seated at the bar. We anticipate charges being filed. Anyone with knowledge, pls contact us.”

Do you believe Tucker Carlson’s version of these events?

Right, “we anticipate charges being filed,” just like Julie Swetnick. Avenatti, it must be noted, has clashed with Carlson before; the Fox News host has dubbed Stormy Daniels’ omnipresent counselor the “creepy porn lawyer.”

Perhaps not surprisingly, Carlson has a significantly different story regarding the video.

“On October 13, I had dinner with two of my children and some family friends at the Farmington Country Club in Charlottesville, Virginia,” Carlson said in a statement to The Hill.

RELATED: Avenatti Makes Tucker Carlson His New Target By Releasing Video of ‘Incident’ That Shows Nothing

“Toward the end of the meal, my 19-year-old daughter went to the bathroom with a friend. On their way back through the bar, a middle aged man stopped my daughter and asked if she was sitting with Tucker Carlson. My daughter had never seen the man before. She answered: ‘That’s my dad,’ and pointed to me. The man responded, ‘Are you Tucker’s whore?’ He then called her a ‘f— c—.’”

“My daughter returned to the table in tears,” the statement continues. “She soon left the table and the club. My son, who is also a student, went into the bar to confront the man. I followed. My son asked the man if he’d called his sister a ‘whore’ and a ‘c—.’ The man admitted he had, and again become profane. My son threw a glass of red wine in the man’s face and told him to leave the bar, which he soon did.

“Immediately after the incident, I described these events to the management of the Farmington Country Club,” Carlson continued. “The club spent more than three weeks investigating the incident. Last week, they revoked the man’s membership and threw him out of the club.

“I love my children,” he noted. “It took enormous self-control not to beat the man with a chair, which is what I wanted to do. I think any father can understand the overwhelming rage and shock that I felt seeing my teenage daughter attacked by a stranger.

“But I restrained myself. I did not assault this man, and neither did my son,” Carlson’s statement concludes. “That is a lie. Nor did I know the man was gay or Latino, not that it would have mattered. What happened on October 13 has nothing to do with identity politics. It was a grotesque violation of decency. I’ve never seen anything like it in my life.”

Avenatti, predictably, continued to go after Carlson on Twitter, claiming none of what Carlson said ever happened and that Carlson was intoxicated. (Carlson says he quit drinking over a decade and a half ago.)

At this point, I find it odd that anyone would believe a client of Michael Avenatti’s.

Between Stormy Daniels, Julie Swetnick and pretty much everyone he represents, it seems like the only kind of person who would choose Avenatti would be the sort of individual who knows they don’t have a case, but wants attention anyway.

After all, if the facts were really on one’s side, literally any lawyer would be better than Avenatti. We don’t know the facts here just yet, but what we do know is the creepy porn lawyer’s history.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

Republican Women Made History on Election Night, Even if the Media Ignored It

This week’s midterm elections have seen many women making history in their states. But some won’t be given any media recognition for their achievements, simply because they are Republicans.

The biased reporting from the establishment media shows how liberal feminism isn’t really about equality.  It’s about furthering leftist ideas under the guise of “women’s rights,” while tearing down or ignoring women with non-liberal views.

Here are some of the Republican women who scored wins in Tuesday’s election.

On Tuesday, voters put Californian Young Kim on the verge of became the first Korean-American woman elected to Congress, the Golden State’s 39th Congressional District. An immigrant from South Korea, Kim lived in Guam and Hawaii before moving to California to attend the University of Southern California, according to NBC News.

A self-made businesswoman, she managed a clothing manufacturing firm before starting her own business in the same line.

TRENDING: Homeland Security Blows Huge Hole in Left’s Asylum Narrative with Eye Opening Numbers

She spent 21 years working for GOP Rep. Ed Royce, starting when he was a state senator. Working in Royce’s office, she built up experience in the district as a director of community and Asian affairs and in 2014 she became the first Korean-American Republican woman to win a seat in the California House.

She is leading the race for Congress, but it hadn’t been called yet, according to Fox News.

Tennessee just elected its first female senator ever, despite the efforts of liberals and celebrities like Taylor Swift. Former Rep. Marsha Blackburn, who represented Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District, is known for her staunch conservative views, supporting traditional marriage and the pro-life movement.

According to her website, Blackburn has also focused on fighting human trafficking. She was at the forefront of the crusade to shut down, a website which was investigated and found to have facilitated human trafficking.

Do you think liberals downplay women in the GOP?

South Dakota also welcomed its first female governor on Tuesday.  Republican Kristi Noem served previously in the South Dakota House of Representatives before her gubernatorial run.

Before politics, she helped run her family’s farm while building up college credits, according to an interview with Human Events.

Her time as a state representative saw her opposing Medicaid expansion in her state, with a focus on cutting taxes. She also promoted legislation to fight sexual slavery and is strongly pro-life. According to The Wall Street Journal, she has promised to maintain a 100 percent pro-life voting record in Congress.

In Iowa, Republican Kim Reynolds, the first female governor of the state, won a full term, sending local Democrats into a tizzy.

According to the Des Moines Register, Iowa Democrats found her win against her male opponent “confusing” and “unbelievable.”

RELATED: News Anchor Releases Touching Pro-Life Message for Unborn, Terminal Baby – ‘God Has a Plan for Her’

Reynolds, the former lieutenant governor who became governor in 2017 when former Gov. Terry Branstaad was appointed U.S. ambassador to China, has helped bring to fruition one of the country’s most restrictive anti-abortion laws, according to the Des Moines Register. The law prohibits most abortions when a heartbeat can be detected.

While this election has been characterized by the media’s focus on demographics, little attention has been given to the wins these women achieved.

The same liberals who applaud the what they see as forward thinking by Democratic voters usefully ignore the trailblazing done by Republican women this election cycle.

But Republican women make history, too.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Has Transformed Into ‘Notorious RBG’

The newest savior for the left.

Via Circa:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg has held many titles over the years: professor, judge, Supreme Court justice. But in recent years, she’s taken on a new title — pop culture icon.

At the Skirball Cultural Center in Los Angeles, exhibition curators sought to celebrate that influence by creating a multisensory exhibit looking at the life, career, and cultural influence of the woman dubbed “Notorious RBG.”

Justice Ginsburg has transcended her role on the bench to affect America in even more ways — inspiring art, movies, fashion, and even internet memes.

This was thanks in large part to a popular Tumblr page titled “Notorious RBG,” which paid tribute to the justice’s fiery dissents behind the Supreme Court bench by comparing her to fellow Brooklyn native, the rapper Notorious B.I.G.

Keep reading…

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

Lone Gun Shop in Thousands Oaks Receives Unbelievable Response After Shooting, Owner Stunned

Commentary Politics

Lone Gun Shop in Thousands Oaks Receives Unbelievable Response After Shooting, Owner Stunned

thousand oaks crime sceneFrederic J. Brown / AFP / Getty ImagesPeople stand and watch as the scene unfurls from the intersection of US 101 freeway and the Moorpark Rad exit as police vehicles close off the area outside a country music bar and dance hall in Thousand Oaks, west of Los Angeles, where a gunman opened fire late November 7, 2018, killing at least 12 people, US police said. (Frederic J. Brown / AFP / Getty Images)

After every tragic crime, the left reliably plays the only tune they seem to know: Guns are to blame.

Yet more and more, people aren’t accepting that narrative. In the city of Thousand Oaks, California — the location of a recent mass shooting — many residents aren’t blaming firearms for crime. Instead, they’re buying one themselves.

On Wednesday, a shocking incident rocked Thousand Oaks and the nation. A 29-year-old man walked into a popular bar and opened fire with a handgun, leaving 12 people, including a sheriff’s deputy, dead.

California has some of the strictest gun laws in America, and the bar was already a “gun-free zone.” None of this, of course, stopped the madman, and it seems that even on the west coast people are embracing self defense over gun control.

According to USA Today, VC Defense — the only gun store in Thousand Oaks — has seen an influx of people who want to purchase firearms in the wake of the mass shooting.

TRENDING: Watch: Ignorant Joy Behar Doesn’t Know How Senate Elections Work, Humiliates Self on Nat’l TV

“(Brandon) Simone, 35, is a single father who previously vowed never to have a gun in the same home as his kid,” explained USA Today about one of those new customers. “But while his teenage son Ethan skateboarded outside, he asked the shop’s owner what he needed to do to buy a 9-millimeter pistol.”

The national newspaper also profiled a young woman named Molly, who expressed the same thing. The tragic shooting motivated her to understand guns, not reject them.

“For John Von Colln, VC Defense’s proprietor, the duo were among an unusually steady stream of customers that day,” USA Today explained. “Many of them expressed the same sentiment: they had come to the gun store because no place feels safe anymore, and they felt ill-equipped to confront the next mass shooter or armed home invader.”

A USA Today reporter named Gus Garcia-Roberts stayed inside VC Defense for several hours, noting the kinds of people who came in. What he saw won’t surprise most conservatives, but it does go against the frequent narrative. Gun owners don’t fit the liberal redneck stereotype.

Is the Second Amendment tide shifting in anti-gun California?

“Some were small business-owners suddenly feeling vulnerable. Many were first-time buyers suddenly seeking weapons for self-defense,” stated the national newspaper.

“A banker wearing business casual, designer glasses and a gold Rolex inquired about concealing a sidearm under a tucked-in dress shirt,” it continued.

A firearms trainer and former corrections officer named Mike Rowan confirmed that despite the image projected by the media, gun owners come in all types.

“Rowan described a discreet, and distinctly Californian, clientele,” wrote Garcia-Roberts. “They pull up to his range in Priuses and Teslas and never tell their friends they own a gun.”

“I get a lot of closet liberals, people who normally would never want anything to do with a firearm, and I train them and they secretly own firearms,” Rowan said.

RELATED: MSNBC Host Shows True Colors: Thoughts and Prayers ‘Should Be Outlawed’

As the reporter pointed out, VC Defense was busier than ever, and a lot of its new patrons kept bringing up the same topic: How California’s laws failed to stop the bar attack.

“As new customers cycled through the store, the constant chatter—besides general expressions of hatred for the shooter—was about the six unarmed, off-duty law enforcement officers who were reportedly at the bar during the shooting,” the reporter wrote. “Their lack of weapons was a presumed consequence of a California law barring firearms in bars.”

Every sane person is saddened and outraged when an incident like the Thousand Oaks shooting happens. But there are two ways to respond: Pretend that more laws in an already law-filled state will stop the next crime, or face reality and become responsible and prepared to face threats.

It’s refreshing that more people are deciding on the latter. Violent crime will never be eradicated, but it can be opposed and stopped when it happens.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

Migrant Family Apprehensions in October Up 378 Percent over Prior Year

Border Patrol agents witnessed a 378 percent increase in the number of migrants families in October compared to the same month in 2017.

The October Southwest Border Migration Report released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) revealed a 378 percent increase in the number of Family Unit Aliens (FMUA) apprehended by Border Patrol agents between ports of entry when compared to the same month in 2017. The number of FMUA apprehensions rose from 4,836 in October 2017 to 23,121 in October 2018.

The El Paso Sector witnessed the largest percentage increase in FMUA apprehensions — 2,236 percent. The number of apprehensions in the El Paso Sector jumped from 212 in October 2017 to 5,185 last month. The sector also reported a near 300 percent increase in the number of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) in October over the prior year’s report.

The Rio Grande Valley Sector saw the greatest number of increased FMUA apprehensions. In October 2017, agents arrested or apprehended 2,923 family units. That jumped to 11,528 in October 2018 — an increase of 294 percent. This sector also reported an increase of UAC apprehensions from 1,463 in October 2017 to 2,310 in the same month this year.

The Tucson and San Diego Sectors also witnessed increases of nearly 600 percent, the report states. The Tucson Sector jumped from 172 family units to 1,163 (584 percent) while the San Diego Sector jumped from 172 to 1,152 (570 percent).

With the exception of the Big Bend Sector, each of the remaining eight Border Patrol sectors reported increases in FMUA apprehensions of 198 percent or more. The Big Bend sector actually reported a decrease of 84 percent compared to October 2017.

Guatemala lead the nations sending family units to the U.S. with 11,376 reported in October. Honduras followed with 8,419, El Salvador with 2,632, and Mexico with 255. Nations sending unaccompanied minors followed a similar order — Guatemala (2,130), Honduras (1,222), Mexico (873), and El Salvador (636).

In total, Border Patrol agents apprehended 50,975 migrants who illegally crossed the border between ports of entry between Brownsville, Texas, and San Diego, California.

Bob Price serves as associate editor and senior political news contributor for Breitbart Border/Cartel Chronicles. He is a founding member of the Breitbart Texas team. Follow him on Twitter @BobPriceBBTX and Facebook.


via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: