Report: Stanford Medical Student Reported to Title IX Office over Pro-Life Views


A Stanford medical student was allegedly reported to the university’s Title IX office over pro-life remarks he made on campus.

A medical student at Stanford University was allegedly reported to the school’s Title IX office over his pro-life views, according to a report from The College Fix.

In an email to the student, the Title IX office claimed that there was not an active investigation into his conduct. However, they admitted that they wanted to speak with him to ensure that he was meeting the “expectations” of all Stanford community members.

The email reads, “There is no investigation underway at this time, nor any complainant that has asked to have you investigated. The purpose of our conversation is to make sure that you have an understanding of the concerns and the expectations of all Stanford community members.”

Progressive Yale Professor Nicholas Christakis and conservative Princeton University Professor Robert George both defended the student on Twitter.

“Per @alejandrina_gr, a @stanford med student was against abortion & the Title IX office is making him meet for an “Educational Intervention.” I’ve heard such cases before. I’m pro-choice. It’s wrong to abuse Title IX process. Being called to meet is a sanction,” Christakis wrote.

“Thanks, Nick. Victims of these smiley-face Stalinist inquisitions should know that there are lawyers who will defend their rights in lawsuits against the Stalinist bureaucrats. They should feel free to DM me,” George wrote in a response tweet.

The student, Dylan Griswold, chimed in on the thread.

“I have been outspoken over this here at Stanford for the last three years. Each year there is more of an effort to silence me,” Griswold said. “There are women who aspire to be abortion doctors here who would castrate me if given the chance. I am unsurprised by my being summoned.”

A spokesperson for Stanford University claims that the Title IX meeting with Griswold was entirely unrelated to his hro-life views. The spokesperson claimed that the meetings were about Griswold’s alleged habit of grabbing people by the neck after meeting them.

“The student denied he engaged in the conduct,” the statement said. “The Title IX Office appreciates that the student himself apologized for the misinformation about the purpose of the meeting, and his willingness to disclose the actual purpose of the meeting.”

Stay tuned to Breitbart News for more updates on this story.

via Breitbart News

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

Alleged Islamist Terror Recruiter Allowed to Settle in England


An alleged Islamist terror recruiter and extremist preacher from Germany has been allowed to settle in Leicester, England, according to reports.

Brahim Belkaid, 41, was given leave to remain in the United Kingdom by the authorities after returning to Europe from Syria, according to The Times, and has been in preaching his brand of radical Islam on street stalls in the East Midlands city.

The German government accuses Belkaid of leading an oranisation called Die Wahre Religion — “the true religion” — which was proscribed in November 2016 after being linked to the radicalisation of as many as 140 people who volunteered to fight with terror groups linked to the Islamic State and al-Qaeda.

The Germans investigated him and another suspected extremist as recently as February 2018, accusing him of using Syrian aid convoys as a front to support Jabhat al-Nusra, a radical Islamic terror group which served as an al-Qaeda franchise until recently.

Reports suggest Belkaid’s visa was approved while Prime Minister Theresa May was head of the Home Office under David Cameron, around the same time as notorious hook-handed bomb-maker Abu Hamza was finally extradited after a series of exorbitantly expensive battles in the British and European courts.

The Times claims to have seen photographs of Belkaid handing out Qu’rans from his Leicester street stalls and proselytising an uncompromising Salafist strain of Sunni Islam.

The newspaper also describes a post on his Facebook page which shows bullets and a sword blade with the slogan “Jihad: the only solution”, alongside other posts which appear to promote American Islamist Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaeda leader said to have plotted a number of terror attacks.

“Extremism has no place in the UK. The Home Secretary has the power to exclude non-British nationals from the UK if he believes they represent a serious threat,” said a Home Office spokesman in response to the reports about Belkaid — a rather vague statement which does not actually say whether Belkaid qualifies as a “serious threat” or is being considered for exclusion.

Follow Jack Montgomery on Twitter: @JackBMontgomery
Follow Breitbart London on Facebook: Breitbart London

via Breitbart News

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

Nolte: Media Warn Democrats Not to Nominate White Guys in 2020


The establishment media are warning Democrats there will be a racial and gender test in 2020 and hell to pay if the Party nominates white males.

Democrats “can’t run two white guys,” MSNBC’s Joy Reid announced over the weekend.

“They can’t run two white guys. The idea that you have Joe Biden talking to Beto O’Rourke and saying maybe they could be a ticket. I personally find it hard to understand how you get the requisite turnout among voters of color if it’s a two-white-male ticket,” Reid told her guest. “I mean, women are going to be outraged if there’s not a woman on the ticket, and voters of color are going to say: well, then why are we participating?”

CNN’s Van Jones is upset that a poll shows three white guys topping the 2020 Democrat ticket: former Vice President Joe Biden, Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX), and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

Speaking with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Jones asked, “In a party as diverse as ours, does it worry you to see the top three being white guys?”

Gillibrand said, “Yes,” adding, “I aspire for our country to recognize the beauty of our diversity at some point in the future and I hope someday we have a woman president.”

“I hope more people of color not only aspire [but] win the presidency, because that’s what makes America so extraordinary, that we are all of that, we are everything, and I think a more inclusive America is a stronger America.”

CNN’s Harry Enten also warned Democrats that this is not “the time to nominate a white man.”

Instapundit’s Ed Driscoll, who first noticed the pattern, wrote, “I’m so old, I can remember the two major political parties simply ran the most electable candidate.”

Talk about a country going backwards. It has been something to watch the media and Democrats deliberately destroy 50 years of racial progress by returning us to the days of old where we are no longer color blind.

With segregation and Jim Crow, Democrats used racial division to consolidate power for decades in the Old South. This is no different and just as cynical.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

via Breitbart News

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

Gun Confiscation Begins in New Jersey


President Obama and President Trump were both right, Obama when he told us elections have consequences and Trump in his 2018 stump speech that a consequence of Democrat victories would be renewed attacks on the Second Amendment. New Jersey’s ban on high-capacity magazines has been upheld by a federal court, opening the door to door knock gun confiscation and making off-duty police officers subject to criminal prosecution. The inmates are officially running the asylum.


This law is one of those “sensible restrictions” on gun ownership that liberals like to talk about but that criminals will ignore as the judge who ruled the law constitutional says that despite the asterisk put next to the Second Amendment by the court assures us there is nothing to worry about:



The law, signed by Gov. Phil Murphy in June along with five other new gun laws, gave New Jersey gun owners who currently possess the magazines in question 180 days to either surrender them, permanently modify them to only accept up to 10 rounds, or transfer them to somebody who is allowed to legally own them. The deadline is set to expire on Monday.


A lawsuit brought by the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs and supported by the National Rifle Association failed on Thursday as the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals declared the confiscation law constitutional. Any civilian caught in possession of a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds may be arrested and prosecuted. Possession of such magazines after the deadline will be considered a crime of the fourth degree under state law and carry up to 18 months in prison and up to $10,000 in fines or both.


Nearly all modern full-size or compact handguns and rifles sold in the United States come standard with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition…


Judge Patty Shwartz, an Obama appointee, wrote for the majority that the law serves a legitimate public safety purpose…


“Today we address whether one of New Jersey’s responses to the rise in active and mass shooting incidents in the United States — a law that limits the amount of ammunition that may be held in a single firearm magazine to no more than ten rounds — violates the Second Amendment, the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause,” she wrote. “We conclude that it does not. New Jersey’s law reasonably fits the State’s interest in public safety and does not unconstitutionally burden the Second Amendment’s right to self-defense in the home. The law also does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause because it does not require gun owners to surrender their magazines but instead allows them to retain modified magazines or register firearms that have magazines that cannot be modified. Finally, because retired law enforcement officers have training and experience that makes them different from ordinary citizens, the law’s exemption that permits them to possess magazines that can hold more than ten rounds does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.”


That’s not the opinion of Bergen County Prosecutor Dennis Calo, who warns that even police officers have become instant felons under the new law:


The new law that limits gun magazines to 10 rounds went into effect on Dec. 10 without the legislature taking up the amendment to create an exception for law enforcement officers.


Modern firearms issued to patrol officers generally hold 12 or more rounds of ammunition.


That means that just about all law enforcement officers in New Jersey will be breaking the law if they carry their assigned duty weapons while off duty, including just being home with them, unless they live outside of the state or leave their magazines behind at work, rendering the weapons near-useless.


Bergen County Prosecutor Dennis Calo issued a memorandum to local police officials on Dec. 13 reminding everyone that the prohibition of the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines also applied to off-duty law enforcement officers.


“The statute now provides that law enforcement officers are not permitted to possess large capacity ammunition magazines, i.e. magazines capable of holding more than ten (10) rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously into semi-automatic firearms, unless while on duty or traveling to or from an authorized place of duty,” the memo read.


“This statute applies to all law enforcement officers, including those subject to on-call status. Violation of this statute constitutes a fourth degree crime,” the memo continued. “There is legislation pending to amend the statute to permit law enforcement officers possession of large capacity magazines. We will keep you informed if and when the statute is amended.”


It was former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik who leaked via a tweet the memo containing the warning to police while condemning the law and court ruling as “insane”:


Kerik tweeted a leaked memo to law enforcement signed by Acting Bergen County Prosecutor Dennis Calo, which said violating the law would result in a fourth-degree crime.


Kerik said Sunday on Fox & Friends that the law is not only “outrageous,” it also puts officers at risk.


“You’re taking the ability away from the cops to possess the rounds they may need in a gun battle… That’s insane,” he said.


The law applies to New Jersey residents as well as off-duty officers, and Kerik said Murphy has essentially taken guns “away from the people” of the state.


“It’s one thing if you violate a rule of a department,” Kerik added. “But this is a law. A criminal law, and it makes you, then, a criminal. So, this is just crazy.”


NJ State Police refuses to rule out house-to-house enforcement of the high capacity magazine ban, reports Breitbart.com:


The NJ State Police refused to rule out house-to-house checks. Rather, they responded: “We do not discuss enforcement strategies.”


Breitbart News also reached out to Gov. Phil Murphy’s (D) press secretary Daniel Bryan about enforcement of the ban. As of the publication of this article Bryan had not ruled out house-to-house enforcement of the ban either.


Which part of “shall not be infringed” does the Third Circuit not understand? Assault is a behavior and not a particular weapon or an ammo clip. Ever since Cain slew Abel with a rock, it has been the desire to kill which motivates evil. Buildings are blown up with fertilizer bombs. Marathons are blasted with pressure cooker bombs, trolls in southern France turn to tragedy through the use of, dare I say it, a high-capacity rental truck. Cars careen down New York parkways mowing down joggers and pedestrians.


Las Vegas concerts and Florida schools become free-fire zones not due to high capacity magazines but from the secular culture liberals have created absent a true moral compass. Gun-free zones, bullet bans, and other “sensible restrictions” merely create more potential victims. 


Yes, high capacity magazines have been used in mass shootings. But they have also been used to stop them. Take the AR-15, the poster weapon used by liberals to fight for gun control.   Former Navy SEAL Dean Raso is quoted in The Federalist as describing the AR-15 as in fact the ideal defensive weapon against heavily armed predators:


In the wake of the Orlando terrorist attack, the deadliest strike on U.S. soil since 9/11, Democratic lawmakers and progressive activists have responded by attempting to limit access to firearms — particularly the AR-15, which was incorrectly reported as the weapon the terrorist used to kill at least 49 people and injure another 53.


In a new video, former Navy SEAL Dom Raso explains why the AR-15, the most popular rifle in the country, gives Americans the best chance of surviving in an age of terror.


Choosing to defend one’s home with an AR-15 is a commonsense choice, as it is powerful, accurate, and easy to shoot, Raso said.


Gun control legislation doesn’t stop terror attacks, he explained, citing the two terrorists who weren’t deterred by California’s assault weapons ban when they killed 14 people in San Bernardino last year. Nor would any gun ban have stopped the Boston Bombers when they detonated a bomb at the Boston Marathon, killing three and wounding at least 260 others.


Ironically, both of those incidents of terror were brought to a stop by armed police officers responding to the scene with AR-15s — the same weapon legislators are trying to ban.


“Why would you want to ban the gun you pray for police to show up with?” Raso asked.


Critics of the Second Amendment say that they are not going after guns used for legitimate activities such as hunting. But when the Founders wrote the Second Amendment it was because the British were coming, not because it was the start of deer season. As Fox News contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano notes:


The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer,” wrote Judge Andrew Napolitano recently in the Washington Times. “It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.”


The AR-15, like other high-capacity weapons in the hands of the law-abuiding, is a defensive weapon, such as when it was used by a 15-year-old who grabbed his father’s AR-15 and used it to ward off home invaders:


Not only did this brave 15-year-old defend his home against 2 burglars, but also his 12-year-old sister who was in the house with him. He grabbed his father’s AR-15 and shot one of the burglars multiple times. They got away but had to go right to the hospital where the minor was arrested and the adult who was shot was flown to a different hospital.


 In the hands of British redcoats, the musket was an assault weapon. In the hands of a law-abiding American, an AR-15 is what the Second Amendment is all about. Praise the Lord and pass the high-capacity magazine.


Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               










President Obama and President Trump were both right, Obama when he told us elections have consequences and Trump in his 2018 stump speech that a consequence of Democrat victories would be renewed attacks on the Second Amendment. New Jersey’s ban on high-capacity magazines has been upheld by a federal court, opening the door to door knock gun confiscation and making off-duty police officers subject to criminal prosecution. The inmates are officially running the asylum.


This law is one of those “sensible restrictions” on gun ownership that liberals like to talk about but that criminals will ignore as the judge who ruled the law constitutional says that despite the asterisk put next to the Second Amendment by the court assures us there is nothing to worry about:


The law, signed by Gov. Phil Murphy in June along with five other new gun laws, gave New Jersey gun owners who currently possess the magazines in question 180 days to either surrender them, permanently modify them to only accept up to 10 rounds, or transfer them to somebody who is allowed to legally own them. The deadline is set to expire on Monday.


A lawsuit brought by the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs and supported by the National Rifle Association failed on Thursday as the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals declared the confiscation law constitutional. Any civilian caught in possession of a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds may be arrested and prosecuted. Possession of such magazines after the deadline will be considered a crime of the fourth degree under state law and carry up to 18 months in prison and up to $10,000 in fines or both.


Nearly all modern full-size or compact handguns and rifles sold in the United States come standard with magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition…


Judge Patty Shwartz, an Obama appointee, wrote for the majority that the law serves a legitimate public safety purpose…


“Today we address whether one of New Jersey’s responses to the rise in active and mass shooting incidents in the United States — a law that limits the amount of ammunition that may be held in a single firearm magazine to no more than ten rounds — violates the Second Amendment, the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause,” she wrote. “We conclude that it does not. New Jersey’s law reasonably fits the State’s interest in public safety and does not unconstitutionally burden the Second Amendment’s right to self-defense in the home. The law also does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause because it does not require gun owners to surrender their magazines but instead allows them to retain modified magazines or register firearms that have magazines that cannot be modified. Finally, because retired law enforcement officers have training and experience that makes them different from ordinary citizens, the law’s exemption that permits them to possess magazines that can hold more than ten rounds does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.”


That’s not the opinion of Bergen County Prosecutor Dennis Calo, who warns that even police officers have become instant felons under the new law:


The new law that limits gun magazines to 10 rounds went into effect on Dec. 10 without the legislature taking up the amendment to create an exception for law enforcement officers.


Modern firearms issued to patrol officers generally hold 12 or more rounds of ammunition.


That means that just about all law enforcement officers in New Jersey will be breaking the law if they carry their assigned duty weapons while off duty, including just being home with them, unless they live outside of the state or leave their magazines behind at work, rendering the weapons near-useless.


Bergen County Prosecutor Dennis Calo issued a memorandum to local police officials on Dec. 13 reminding everyone that the prohibition of the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines also applied to off-duty law enforcement officers.


“The statute now provides that law enforcement officers are not permitted to possess large capacity ammunition magazines, i.e. magazines capable of holding more than ten (10) rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously into semi-automatic firearms, unless while on duty or traveling to or from an authorized place of duty,” the memo read.


“This statute applies to all law enforcement officers, including those subject to on-call status. Violation of this statute constitutes a fourth degree crime,” the memo continued. “There is legislation pending to amend the statute to permit law enforcement officers possession of large capacity magazines. We will keep you informed if and when the statute is amended.”


It was former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik who leaked via a tweet the memo containing the warning to police while condemning the law and court ruling as “insane”:


Kerik tweeted a leaked memo to law enforcement signed by Acting Bergen County Prosecutor Dennis Calo, which said violating the law would result in a fourth-degree crime.


Kerik said Sunday on Fox & Friends that the law is not only “outrageous,” it also puts officers at risk.


“You’re taking the ability away from the cops to possess the rounds they may need in a gun battle… That’s insane,” he said.


The law applies to New Jersey residents as well as off-duty officers, and Kerik said Murphy has essentially taken guns “away from the people” of the state.


“It’s one thing if you violate a rule of a department,” Kerik added. “But this is a law. A criminal law, and it makes you, then, a criminal. So, this is just crazy.”


NJ State Police refuses to rule out house-to-house enforcement of the high capacity magazine ban, reports Breitbart.com:


The NJ State Police refused to rule out house-to-house checks. Rather, they responded: “We do not discuss enforcement strategies.”


Breitbart News also reached out to Gov. Phil Murphy’s (D) press secretary Daniel Bryan about enforcement of the ban. As of the publication of this article Bryan had not ruled out house-to-house enforcement of the ban either.


Which part of “shall not be infringed” does the Third Circuit not understand? Assault is a behavior and not a particular weapon or an ammo clip. Ever since Cain slew Abel with a rock, it has been the desire to kill which motivates evil. Buildings are blown up with fertilizer bombs. Marathons are blasted with pressure cooker bombs, trolls in southern France turn to tragedy through the use of, dare I say it, a high-capacity rental truck. Cars careen down New York parkways mowing down joggers and pedestrians.


Las Vegas concerts and Florida schools become free-fire zones not due to high capacity magazines but from the secular culture liberals have created absent a true moral compass. Gun-free zones, bullet bans, and other “sensible restrictions” merely create more potential victims. 


Yes, high capacity magazines have been used in mass shootings. But they have also been used to stop them. Take the AR-15, the poster weapon used by liberals to fight for gun control.   Former Navy SEAL Dean Raso is quoted in The Federalist as describing the AR-15 as in fact the ideal defensive weapon against heavily armed predators:


In the wake of the Orlando terrorist attack, the deadliest strike on U.S. soil since 9/11, Democratic lawmakers and progressive activists have responded by attempting to limit access to firearms — particularly the AR-15, which was incorrectly reported as the weapon the terrorist used to kill at least 49 people and injure another 53.


In a new video, former Navy SEAL Dom Raso explains why the AR-15, the most popular rifle in the country, gives Americans the best chance of surviving in an age of terror.


Choosing to defend one’s home with an AR-15 is a commonsense choice, as it is powerful, accurate, and easy to shoot, Raso said.


Gun control legislation doesn’t stop terror attacks, he explained, citing the two terrorists who weren’t deterred by California’s assault weapons ban when they killed 14 people in San Bernardino last year. Nor would any gun ban have stopped the Boston Bombers when they detonated a bomb at the Boston Marathon, killing three and wounding at least 260 others.


Ironically, both of those incidents of terror were brought to a stop by armed police officers responding to the scene with AR-15s — the same weapon legislators are trying to ban.


“Why would you want to ban the gun you pray for police to show up with?” Raso asked.


Critics of the Second Amendment say that they are not going after guns used for legitimate activities such as hunting. But when the Founders wrote the Second Amendment it was because the British were coming, not because it was the start of deer season. As Fox News contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano notes:


The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer,” wrote Judge Andrew Napolitano recently in the Washington Times. “It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.”


The AR-15, like other high-capacity weapons in the hands of the law-abuiding, is a defensive weapon, such as when it was used by a 15-year-old who grabbed his father’s AR-15 and used it to ward off home invaders:


Not only did this brave 15-year-old defend his home against 2 burglars, but also his 12-year-old sister who was in the house with him. He grabbed his father’s AR-15 and shot one of the burglars multiple times. They got away but had to go right to the hospital where the minor was arrested and the adult who was shot was flown to a different hospital.


 In the hands of British redcoats, the musket was an assault weapon. In the hands of a law-abiding American, an AR-15 is what the Second Amendment is all about. Praise the Lord and pass the high-capacity magazine.


Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               




via American Thinker

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

2020 Democrats: Will you vote for us if we promise to just give you some cash?


Three of the Democrats’ aspiring 2020 contenders, specifically Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Sherrod Brown, haven’t done all that well in the early polling. Even that last CNN poll of Iowa Democrats left all three of them in single digits, well behind two old white guys. So how do they start gaining some traction? Simple. If people don’t love you yet, just offer to deliver some bags of cash to their doorstep. (NBC News)

As Democrats gear up to challenge President Donald Trump in 2020, several possible contenders are testing out a simple pitch: Would you like some more money?

A suite of big ticket bills by Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Kamala Harris, D-Calif., would directly transfer upwards of trillions of dollars in cash directly to Americans. While low-income workers would be the biggest beneficiaries, the proposals would apply to large chunks of the middle class as well.

“It’s almost, on the face of it, obvious,” Brown told NBC News. “I want to reward work, but I also want to bring people out of poverty who don’t make enough money.”

It’s almost obvious,” says Sherrod Brown. Well… I should think so. There’s nothing to get people’s attention like the prospect of free money. But precisely what are these three talking about?

It’s not exactly some sort of socialist European universal basic income (UBC) scheme. (Or at least not yet.) Brown’s plan would “massively expand” the earned income tax credit (EITC) as well as the child tax credit. Harris is much closer to a UBC proposal, offering to just send $500 a month to families or $250 per month to single people who earn below a given income level. Booker’s plan is at least somewhat more interesting, proposing to give a $1,000 “baby bond” to every child at birth, adding up to another $2,000 per year until they reach age 18.

What do all of these plans have in common? They will cost trillions of dollars with no matching cuts in costs or increases in revenue. And I’ll give you one guess as to how they plan to pay for them. Wait… you don’t even need a guess. They all want to roll back the tax cuts everyone received under the Trump administration. (You know… the crumbs.)

We often make jokes about Democrats getting elected on the basis of giving away “free stuff.” But this takes it to a whole new level, doesn’t it? I mean, it might not technically be bribery under conventional legal definitions, but it’s still a deal which essentially says, “vote for us and we’ll just send you lots of money.”

Of course, such plans have to be paid for by the taxpayers. Those would be the ones who would lose their tax cuts to make such plans happen. Obviously, the current leadership in the Senate and the White House aren’t going to consider such a deal, so these aspiring presidential candidates don’t have to worry about actually implementing their plans and taking responsibility for the subsequent economic collapse. But as they gear up for the campaign trail, they can hold these plans out as “what you might get” if you vote for them.

via Hot Air

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

Christmas Gift: Couple Adopts Seven Siblings Out of Foster Care


Christmas came early for seven siblings after an Arkansas couple fought to adopt them out of the state’s foster care system.

An Arkansas court finalized the adoption this month for the couple, Terri and Michael Hawthorn, who fought for months to ensure all seven children had a place to call home.

The Hawthorns initially decided to become foster parents several years ago but did not think they were ready to adopt at the time.

“Our first words were, ‘Ok we’ll do it for a couple of years, but we will not adopt,’” said mother Terri Hawthorn.

The couple changed their minds in April when they welcomed two siblings, Korgen and Haizlee. But the Hawthorns overcame their biggest obstacle in the courts after a judge approved their request to adopt the five other siblings on December 3.

Before Terri and Michael welcomed the siblings into their family, the seven children spent three years in foster care shuffling between different homes and schools.

The kids would often say they did not always have access to food or a bed to sleep in.

“The only times we got to eat is when our neighbors would sneak us a bag of chips,” said Kyndal, one of the five siblings who joined the Hawthorn family in December. “We didn’t have a can opener, and they’d give us the cans that we didn’t know how to open. So sometimes we just didn’t eat.”

“When I got here I was like, ‘Oh my gosh, we get our own beds,’” said Layna, another one of the five siblings who joined the family.

Micah, the eldest sibling who is Terri and Michael’s daughter by birth, posted several pictures on Facebook welcoming her adopted siblings to the family.

Terri Hawthorn says she is grateful for the additional family members.

“They are a blessing,” she said. “Every day these kids wake up, and they are giggling, and they are happy, and you see the smiles on their faces, that’s what makes this worth it.”

The siblings are also thankful, saying it was “the best Christmas” for knowing they have a home.

“This has been the best Christmas I could ever have, actually knowing I have a mom and dad,” Kyndal said.

via Breitbart News

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

Empty Seats Galore: Thousands of Empty Seats Plague NFL in Week 15 of Season


Empty Seats Galore: Thousands of Empty Seats Plague NFL in Week 15 of Season

Cristina Laila
by Cristina Laila
December 16, 2018


Falcons fans dress up as empty seats after a rough season

Empty seats galore in week 15 of the NFL season.

Regular season of the NFL  is winding down and the stadiums were plagued with thousands of empty seats.

How about those Bengals, Cincinnati? OUCH!

Empty seats at Raiders vs Bengals at the Paul Brown stadium on Sunday:

Falcons fans must be fatigued too — they had a rough year…

Empty seats galore in Atlanta vs Arizona on Sunday:

Empty seats at a cold and rainy NY Giants vs Tennessee Titans game at MetLife stadium on Sunday:

Houston vs NY Jets later at MetLife stadium wasn’t looking so good either:

The NFL playoffs are right around the corner and there doesn’t seem to be the excitement for the sport like there was years ago.

The Super Bowl is even struggling to find performers for its half time show.

Variety ran an article last week titled, “Maroon 5 and How the Super Bowl Halftime Show Became Music’s Least Wanted Gig.”

“Who would have thought that the Super Bowl Halftime show, an American institution watched by more than 100 million people, would become the least wanted gig in music? ” Variety wrote.

Americans watch sports to escape the daily stresses of life and work; we don’t want to watch spoiled millionaire SJWs protesting the American flag and disrespecting our Veterans.

H/T Breitbart

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: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Trump Refuses To Stand By as Gov’t Accuses Soldier of ‘Killing a Terrorist Bomb Maker’


President Donald Trump may be up to his neck in political drama and legal concerns, but it looks like he hasn’t forgotten his role as commander in chief.

On Sunday morning, the president used Twitter to reveal that he intends to personally review the case of an Army officer who is facing serious jail time and possibly even the death penalty for an incident that happened in Afghanistan.

That man is Maj. Matt Golsteyn, a former U.S. Army Green Beret who is accused of murdering a Taliban bomb maker.

TRENDING: Trump Bulldozes Lisa Page and Peter Strozk After Establishment Media Ignores Damning New Evidence

“At the request of many, I will be reviewing the case of a ‘U.S. Military hero,’ Major Matt Golsteyn, who is charged with murder,” Trump posted.

“He could face the death penalty from our own government after he admitted to killing a Terrorist bomb maker while overseas.”

Golsteyn’s case is somewhat bizarre, and has ignited a firestorm of controversy. The former Silver Star recipient and Green Beret was previously investigated by the Pentagon for a 2010 incident, but prosecutors declined to bring charges. The Army did revoke Golstey’s Silver Star, however.

Then, an interview Golsteyn gave Fox News in 2016 brought the incident back into the light and pushed the military to re-open the case.

Was Trump right to step in and personally look at this case?

“The service is again scrutinizing former Maj. Mathew L. Golsteyn after he appeared in a Fox News television interview in October and acknowledged that he had killed a Taliban bombmaker who had been held as a detainee during the bloody battle of Marja in February 2010,” reported The Washington Post in December 2016.

“The suspected bombmaker was not on a list of targets that U.S. forces had been cleared to kill, according to Army documents; Golsteyn said that letting go of the insurgent meant the Taliban member could later target Afghans who are helping U.S. troops,” the newspaper reported.

Before Golsteyn killed the man, two young Marines whose unit was deployed under Golsteyn’s command were killed by an explosive booby trap.

“Army documents show that Golsteyn’s unit launched a search for bombmaking supplies in the area after the deaths of [Marines] Johnson and McQueary, and detained the man Golsteyn confessed to killing,” The Post stated.

“During Golsteyn’s interview with the CIA, according to Army investigators, he described taking the bombmaker off the base, shooting him and burying his remains in a shallow grave,” the newspaper added. However, the officer’s attorney has disputed that version of what happened.

RELATED: Trump’s Afghanistan Bombing Campaign Breaks Records, Still 2 Months Left to Go

Observers are now asking a key question: Was the chain of events all in the line of duty, or did the decorated Special Forces operative wrongfully execute an enemy combatant as revenge for his men?

Many veterans and public officials have rallied to Golsteyn’s defense, and insisted that the incident was a legitimate — if unpleasant — part of war, especially a war against a ruthless guerilla enemy like the Taliban.

“Matt Golsteyn is an American hero. Matt Golsteyn does for the American people what we ask him to do, and the Army is screwing him again,” U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, an outspoken California Republican, told the Post for the 2016 account. “I’m embarrassed for the U.S. Army — and they ought to be embarrassed.”

“I think he’s been betrayed,” the former soldier’s attorney, Phillip Stackhouse, told Fox News last week.

Trump’s involvement may muddy the waters, but could also provide the pressure to ensure that justice — one way or the other — is served.

At the very least, the announcement that he is looking at the matter shows that the commander in chief is taking the fate of America’s men and women in uniform seriously … And no matter the outcome of this case, that’s something to be applauded.

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: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

Jackpot: Democrats win the Justice Department lottery


It is amazing how so many government officials under investigation conveniently lose or destroy things that would be helpful to determine guilt.


Robert Mueller’s office wiped information off Lisa Page’s and Peter Strzok’s phones when they obviously knew that Congress and others would like to see the messages.  I am sure that Mueller would be congenial if his targets wiped off stuff he wanted to see and said, Don’t worry!  There was nothing important to see.



Lois Lerner’s computer conveniently crashed when she was being looked at for violating first amendment rights of Obama opponents.


Hillary’s computer was completely wiped clean, but she didn’t have to worry because she knew that Comey was there and would forgive Hillary’s violations of the law by saying essentially that she wasn’t smart enough to follow the law so she didn’t have to.


The DNC claimed that the Russians hacked its computers and wouldn’t allow the government to see them.  They didn’t even have to wipe their computers clean to hide the information.  Government agencies and the media just repeated over and over again, with no questions asked, that the Russians hacked.  I believe that the next time a bank is robbed, the staff should not give access to investigators or regulators and tell them they should just take their word.  That should work.


A big story that has just come out is that federal prosecutors are now investigating Trump’s inaugural to see if donors got access.


One source familiar with the matter says the investigation is in the early stages and investigators are generally focused on whether any inauguration money was misspent. …


Citing conversations with people familiar with the investigation, which is being handled by the US Attorney’s office in Manhattan, the [Wall Street] Journal reported that prosecutors are also looking into whether the committee accepted donations from individuals looking to gain influence in or access to the new administration.


I don’t recall any investigation into either Obama inaugural to see if he sold access.  He obviously did.


Top Inauguration Donors, Grouped by Organization

(See All Organizations Giving $10,000 or more)


 















Organization

Total

# of Donations

Microsoft Corp

$254,000

10

Soros Fund Management

$250,000

5

Baron & Budd

$235,324

10

Small Ventures USA

$200,000

3

Fletcher Asset Management

$165,000

4

Capital Group Companies

$151,000

4

Henry Crown & Co

$135,000

4

Skadden, Arps et al

$132,852

18

Google Inc

$128,517

9

Sidley Austin LLP

$126,585

19


Obama rewarded big bandwidth-users and donors Google and Netflix not only with access, but with net neutrality, which saved them huge amounts of money, and the Obamas got a potential $50-million kickback when they got out of office. (Of course, there was a time in Illinois when Michelle got a $200,000 raise after Obama got a $1-million grant for her employer.)


Not only did Obama give access, but he handed out taxpayer money as if it were his own.  So far, I haven’t seen prosecutors investigating. 


It is well known that Hillary handed out access for money, but almost six years after she left office, I still haven’t see any prosecution.


Not only did Obama sell access and jobs for donations, but his administration had multiple slush funds for political purposes and to reward supporters. Where are the prosecutors and investigative reporters?


Meanwhile, Trump is being continuously investigated while Obama continues to say there were no scandals or prosecutions while he was in.  It helps to have a complicit Justice Department and media.


Maybe Trump should have set up a war room with campaign staffers and campaign money and hired private eyes to destroy the women who accused Bill Clinton, as Hillary did, instead of paying them off quietly with private funds, as Trump did.  Then the media, Democrats, and the Justice Department would say it’s OK and support him, as they did the Clintons for decades.  Is my assumption correct?


The Justice Department, journalists, and Democrats along with entertainers have continued to show blind loyalty and support to the Obamas, the Clintons, and other Democrats, no matter what dirty deeds they have committed.


It is amazing how so many government officials under investigation conveniently lose or destroy things that would be helpful to determine guilt.


Robert Mueller’s office wiped information off Lisa Page’s and Peter Strzok’s phones when they obviously knew that Congress and others would like to see the messages.  I am sure that Mueller would be congenial if his targets wiped off stuff he wanted to see and said, Don’t worry!  There was nothing important to see.


Lois Lerner’s computer conveniently crashed when she was being looked at for violating first amendment rights of Obama opponents.


Hillary’s computer was completely wiped clean, but she didn’t have to worry because she knew that Comey was there and would forgive Hillary’s violations of the law by saying essentially that she wasn’t smart enough to follow the law so she didn’t have to.


The DNC claimed that the Russians hacked its computers and wouldn’t allow the government to see them.  They didn’t even have to wipe their computers clean to hide the information.  Government agencies and the media just repeated over and over again, with no questions asked, that the Russians hacked.  I believe that the next time a bank is robbed, the staff should not give access to investigators or regulators and tell them they should just take their word.  That should work.


A big story that has just come out is that federal prosecutors are now investigating Trump’s inaugural to see if donors got access.


One source familiar with the matter says the investigation is in the early stages and investigators are generally focused on whether any inauguration money was misspent. …


Citing conversations with people familiar with the investigation, which is being handled by the US Attorney’s office in Manhattan, the [Wall Street] Journal reported that prosecutors are also looking into whether the committee accepted donations from individuals looking to gain influence in or access to the new administration.


I don’t recall any investigation into either Obama inaugural to see if he sold access.  He obviously did.


Top Inauguration Donors, Grouped by Organization

(See All Organizations Giving $10,000 or more)


 















Organization

Total

# of Donations

Microsoft Corp

$254,000

10

Soros Fund Management

$250,000

5

Baron & Budd

$235,324

10

Small Ventures USA

$200,000

3

Fletcher Asset Management

$165,000

4

Capital Group Companies

$151,000

4

Henry Crown & Co

$135,000

4

Skadden, Arps et al

$132,852

18

Google Inc

$128,517

9

Sidley Austin LLP

$126,585

19


Obama rewarded big bandwidth-users and donors Google and Netflix not only with access, but with net neutrality, which saved them huge amounts of money, and the Obamas got a potential $50-million kickback when they got out of office. (Of course, there was a time in Illinois when Michelle got a $200,000 raise after Obama got a $1-million grant for her employer.)


Not only did Obama give access, but he handed out taxpayer money as if it were his own.  So far, I haven’t seen prosecutors investigating. 


It is well known that Hillary handed out access for money, but almost six years after she left office, I still haven’t see any prosecution.


Not only did Obama sell access and jobs for donations, but his administration had multiple slush funds for political purposes and to reward supporters. Where are the prosecutors and investigative reporters?


Meanwhile, Trump is being continuously investigated while Obama continues to say there were no scandals or prosecutions while he was in.  It helps to have a complicit Justice Department and media.


Maybe Trump should have set up a war room with campaign staffers and campaign money and hired private eyes to destroy the women who accused Bill Clinton, as Hillary did, instead of paying them off quietly with private funds, as Trump did.  Then the media, Democrats, and the Justice Department would say it’s OK and support him, as they did the Clintons for decades.  Is my assumption correct?


The Justice Department, journalists, and Democrats along with entertainers have continued to show blind loyalty and support to the Obamas, the Clintons, and other Democrats, no matter what dirty deeds they have committed.




via American Thinker Blog

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