Conservatives welcome. Libs & RINOs go away. It's all of you destroying the society and conservatives must no longer appease you!
Over the weekend, the Trump Administration further pushed its threat to fully close the U.S.-Mexico border amid the unprecedented migrant crisis transpiring there.
via Daily Wire
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml
On Monday, the hosts of MSNBC worked themselves into an absolute panic over President Trump threatening to shut down the U.S. southern border in response to a recent spike in illegal immigration. Beyond concerns over the ongoing humanitarian crisis, anchors saw another devastating impact on the horizon – a possible avocado shortage.
via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/
via Weasel Zippers
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us
Guest post by Joe Hoft
It’s been more than two years since the 2016 election and Americans still don’t really know the sources for the phony Steele dossier used by the FBI and DOJ to obtain FISA warrants to spy on candidate and then President Trump.
This nightmare for President Trump all started in June, 2016. After news broke that the Democratic National Committee had been hacked, a group of prominent computer scientists went on alert. The group of individuals, led by a Hillary supporter, started snooping around the Trump Tower computers to allegedly see if these servers had also been hacked.
This group was led by Indiana University professor and staunch Hillary supporter, Jean Camp. Professor Camp, according to Circa was a staunch Hillary supporter:
A respected computer scientist who raised concerns about a possible connection between President Trump and a Russian bank is an unabashed Hillary Clinton supporter who made multiple small donations to the Democrat’s presidential campaign around the time she and her colleagues surfaced the allegations.
Some techies uncovered that the the Trump Tower servers began to be bombarded with the same exact invalid look-up requests that use the words “trump” and “alfa” together, which were automatically placed in the servers’ log file by the server. According to the New York Times, computer logs showed that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 “look-up” messages to the Trump servers.
At about the same time, the FBI received a complaint from “cyberexperts” about a possible Trump-Alfa Bank connection, which led the FBI to investigate into a Trump-Alfa Bank connection. According to the New York Times:
In classified sessions in August and September of 2016, intelligence officials also briefed congressional leaders on the possibility of financial ties between Russians and people connected to Mr. Trump. They focused particular attention on what cyber experts said appeared to be a mysterious computer back channel between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank, which is one of Russia’s biggest banks and whose owners have longstanding ties to Mr. Putin.
At about the same time that the FBI began its investigation, Christopher Steele began pushing the now debunked claim that Trump was connected to Alfa Bank. In mid-September Steele submitted his memos, and at least one of these included the Trump-Alfa Bank connection. Steele submitted these memos to the press and to the FBI.
And now we know that Fusion GPS was pushing this bogus story to far left Slate Magazine.
Fusion GPS was behind this now discredited Slate story about a “special email server existing between Trump Tower and Moscow’s Alfa bank.” Here’s Hillary Clinton tweeting out the story the day it appeared.. https://t.co/f7GRwPgGQx
— Nick Short (@PoliticalShort) December 12, 2017
And Hillary Clinton pushed the conspiracy knowing HER TEAM was behind the bogus accusations!
Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016
We know that the FBI received a copy because at this time the FBI sought and received a FISA warrant related to Russia-linked bank, using the Steele dossier as evidence. This is the only plausible piece of evidence that the FBI could have used. Before this time, the FBI was turned down by the FISA court but on this occasion, a warrant was granted. (As McCabe said: The FISA warrants would not have been granted without the Steele dossier.)
The FBI had no other evidence on the Trump – Russia bank connection and as time went by they had no additional evidence. The far-left New York Times then reported:
Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.”
The reason the FBI wasn’t able to find anything was because the claims were based entirely on “DNS logs,” digital records of when one server looks up how to contact another across the internet. A forensic examination conducted by Alfa Bank of the Alfa Bank computer revealed that the only communications that took place regarding “trump” were those logged requests coming from outside its servers noted by the New York Times above. No other communications were found as indicated in the forensic report related to this subject.
In May of this year [2017], the bank tapped Kirkland & Ellis LLP, a white-shoe American law firm, to write a letter to L. Jean Camp, an esteemed Indiana University computer scientist and researcher — and a vocal supporter of the claims made by Tea Leaves. This initial letter, first reported by CNN, claimed that the Camp investigation into the covert server chatter had “encouraged inquiries into supposed links to the Trump organization” and that her “activities continue to this day to promote an unwarranted investigation into Alfa Bank’s ‘communication’ with the Trump Organization.” The letter added that “Alfa Bank is exploring all available options to protect itself … [including] litigation and causes of action under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,” further demanding that Camp “preserve all records” pertaining to the Tea Leaves research. Such a preservation request is often the precursor to a lawsuit. There would be more letters.
Alfa Bank contacted Professor Camp and demanded she hand over her emails related to the Trump – Alfa bank connection, but she would not. The bank’s position is that the professor is an employee of a public entity (Indiana University) but still Camp’s attorney’s have refused to comply. Alfa would like to know who all was involved in her sending requests to the bank’s and Trump’s servers and with reporting the incident as a fact that Trump and Alfa bank had a secret back channel to each other.
Hat tip D. Manny and Friends
The post CONFIRMED: Bogus Trump-Russia Alfa Bank Connections Were Created By Hillary Supporter, Working with Fusion GPS — And Pushed BY CROOKED HILLARY! appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
via The Gateway Pundit
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com
Last Monday, a Catholic mother of four sons wrote a letter to The Observer, a student-run, daily print and online newspaper serving Notre Dame University, Saint Mary’s and Holy Cross, asking for women to consider not wearing leggings because they cling to the body and leave little to the imagination.
via Daily Wire
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) on Monday told attendees at the We the People Summit in Washington, D.C. that she would take on the pharmaceutical industry, despite the fact that she has taken hundreds of thousands from the industry during her career in politics.
"What I have said is on day one there’s some stuff you can do without even passing it, right. So on day one I’d sign us back into that climate change agreement. I can just do that, right," Klobuchar said, referring to the Paris Climate Accord. "In the first a hundred days, we have to put comprehensive immigration reform on the table. We’ve gotta get it done. We’ve gotta get it introduced. And the bill we have a great model from 2013 of a bill that had broad support of everything from the AFL-CIO to the migrant workers groups to the farm groups, and we have to bring back a strong immigration bill, and get that done."
Klobuchar then turned to the pharmaceutical industry.
"We have to take on big pharma. We just can’t wait, you gotta get it done now. People are literally dying from rationing their insulin," Klobuchar said.
Klobuchar has accepted over $400,000 from the pharmaceutical industry over the course of her career, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Earlier this month, the Washington Examiner reported that Klobuchar has taken money from Medtronic, which is the sole manufacturer of an expensive insulin delivery product:
Medtronic, the world’s largest medical device company, which runs most of its operations out of Fridley, Minn., became the biggest maker of insulin pumps after its 2011 purchase of MiniMed.
Currently, the MiniMed 670G Insulin Pump System contains the only FDA-approved sensor to control insulin dosing. Online medical stores priced the device at over $7,200.
Medtronic was Klobuchar’s third-largest contributor to her reelection bid from 2011 to 2016, donating nearly $45,000. Between 2005 and 2010, before its acquisition of MiniMed, Medtronic donated $46,300.
Klobuchar is currently in 8th place in the RealClearPolitics polling average, behind South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg, but narrowly ahead of entrepreneur Andrew Yang.
The post Klobuchar Claims She Will Take on Pharma, Has Taken $400,000 From the Industry appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.
via Washington Free Beacon
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://freebeacon.com
A federal judge struck down California’s ban on the possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. On Friday Judge Roger T. Benitez of the District Court for the Southern District of California ruled the confiscation effort is unconstitutional.
"California Penal Code Section 32310, as amended by Proposition 63, burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state," he wrote. "The regulation is neither presumptively legal nor longstanding. The statute hits at the center of the Second Amendment and its burden is severe. When the simple test of Heller is applied, a test that persons of common intelligence can understand, the statute fails and is an unconstitutional abridgment. It criminalizes the otherwise lawful acquisition and possession of common magazines holding more than 10 rounds—magazines that law-abiding responsible citizens would choose for self-defense at home."
In his order, Judge Benitez argued the debate over whether Californians should trade freedom for security was settled at the time of the founding and through the protections afforded by the Constitution.
"This decision is a freedom calculus decided long ago by Colonists who cherished individual freedom more than the subservient security of a British ruler," he said. "The freedom they fought for was not free of cost then, and it is not free now."
Gun rights groups celebrated the decision on Monday.
The California Rifle & Pistol Association, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said it was happy the court recognized the importance of ammunition magazines in lawful self-defense.
"This comprehensive and detailed ruling recognizes that these magazines have great value as self-defense tools and confirms that the government bears a very high burden to justify a law that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms," the group said in a statement on its website.
The National Rifle Association, which filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, called the ruling a "huge win for gun owners" and "landmark recognition of what courts have too often treated as a disfavored right."
"Judge Benitez took the Second Amendment seriously and came to the conclusion required by the Constitution," Chris W. Cox, executive director of the group’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. "The same should be true of any court analyzing a ban on a class of arms law-abiding Americans commonly possess for self-defense or other lawful purposes."
The office of California attorney general Xavier Becerra (D.) did not immediately respond to a request for comment. After Judge Benitez issued a preliminary injunction against the confiscation law in 2017, however, the attorney general appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit. It is likely Becerra will also appeal this decision to the Ninth Circuit.
The post Federal Judge Rules Calif. Magazine Confiscation Law Unconstitutional appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.
via Washington Free Beacon
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://freebeacon.com
Another airport has just banned Chick-Fil-A from setting up shop on account of the fast food chain’s financial ties with Christian groups. Buffalo, New York’s regional airport just followed a San Antonio airport’s lead in being delusional enough to trust the judgment of crazy lefty outlet ThinkProgress and banned Chick-Fil-A on account of their supposed anti-LGBTQ discrimination.
via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/
By Wayne Allyn Root
How do you define evil?
Eric Holder, Obama’s former Attorney General, just days ago asked Trump voters (like me), “Exactly when did you think America was great?”
My definition of “great” is economic freedom. Allowing citizens to earn more money, enjoy a high quality of life, protect their families, without massive government interference, or confiscation of their hard-earned money. That’s what makes us the greatest nation in world history. Economic freedom.
We’ve tried it Holder’s way, without economic freedom. Obama tried to tax and regulate us to death. It didn’t work. The GDP (economic growth) for President Obama’s entire eight years was equal to the Great Depression decade of the 1930’s. Worse, Obama was the only president in history to never achieve even one year of GDP over 3%. Worse yet, welfare, food stamps and disability were all at the highest levels in history. Worst of all, Obama covered up all this economic misery with insane spending- he increased the national debt more than all the presidents in history COMBINED.
Compare all of that to President Trump’s economic record. For the second year in a row, Trump broke the record for the greatest increase in GDP in history! In Trump’s first year 2017, GDP increased by the all-time record of $853 billion. Then in Trump’s second year 2018, our GDP went up by $1 trillion- the first time that’s ever happened in world history.
Add in the lowest black unemployment and Latino unemployment in history. Female and youth unemployment are the lowest in over half a century. Manufacturing jobs are booming.
That could be why on Friday, Trump’s approval rating hit 49% at Rasmussen. That’s six points higher than Obama’s approval rating at the same time of his presidency. Yes, Trump crushed Obama- even while 92% of the mainstream media coverage was negative.
How is this even possible? It’s the economy, stupid. What people care about is green. Not green energy. Green in their pockets. Yes, THAT is what makes America great, Eric Holder. Mobility, opportunity and prosperity. Trump produced it, Obama didn’t.
The left wants to fundamentally change us. They want to tear us down. Make us “equal and fair” by bankrupting the middle class, taking away our jobs, assets, cars, planes, homes, even our steaks and cheeseburgers. Yes, they want to kill the cows! See “The Green New Deal,” if you don’t believe me.
But it’s not working. The American people aren’t buying it.
So, the left is turning to “Cloward-Piven,” the radical Socialist plan I was taught at Columbia University: Overwhelm the system to create massive crisis and collapse and foment a revolution.
But how do you overwhelm the system? The Democrat’s tool is clear: Open Borders. If your brainwashing is failing, if you can’t convince enough Americans to pick Obama’s miserable economy over Trump’s booming economy, then change the makeup of the electorate. Make America Foreign Again.
Leave the borders open and overwhelm the system with millions of foreigners and illegal aliens who are dependent on welfare and big government; who are comfortable with Socialism; who want “free everything” from cradle to grave.
Then, make it your number one priority to prevent Voter ID. Because you need all of those foreigners and illegals to vote for Democrat candidates. Soon, you are out-voting the American-born citizens. And then you turn America into Venezuela. But who cares? You’re in control.
That’s the Democrat plan folks. Cloward Piven and Open Borders. And yes, it is pure evil.
So, President Trump, here’s my advice. The whole ballgame is the border. Build the wall. Secure the border. Stop chain migration. End birthright citizenship. To get Mexico’s cooperation, close the border and bring their economy to a standstill. Do that and we win. We save America, capitalism and the GOP.
Fail and it’s the end of America.
Wayne Allyn Root is the host of “The Wayne Allyn Root Show” on Newsmax TV, nightly at 8 PM ET, found on DirecTV Ch #349, or Dish TV Ch #216, at https://ift.tt/2zOf79k He is also a nationally syndicated radio host of “WAR Now: The Wayne Allyn Root Show” found at https://ift.tt/2g4uzmV
The post WAYNE ALLYN ROOT: The Democrats’ Plan is Pure Evil appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
via The Gateway Pundit
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com
When does pain in an execution become “cruel and unusual punishment”? According to a 5-4 Supreme Court decision authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, only when the state deliberately “superadds … terror, pain, or disgrace.” The conservative wing carried the day in Bucklew v Precythe, freeing Missouri to put the defendant to death via lethal injection despite a medical condition that could make the process more painful:
The Supreme Court made it clear on Monday that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a prisoner sentenced to capital punishment “a painless death,” paving the way for the execution of a convicted murderer who sought to die by lethal gas rather than lethal injection because of a rare medical condition. …
In a decision written by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court ruled 5-4 that Bucklew had failed to present enough evidence for them to let him ask a lower court to allow him to be executed by lethal gas. The court’s five conservatives were in the majority and its four liberals dissented.
Referencing the history of capital punishment, Gorsuch wrote that “the Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death – something that, of course, isn’t guaranteed to many people, including most victims of capital crimes.”
Monday’s ruling was in line with a decision from 2015 in which the court rejected a challenge to Oklahoma’s method of execution by lethal injection on a 5-4 vote. In that case, the court held that inmates challenging a method of execution had to come up with an alternative option that was less painful.
Gorsuch and the court’s conservatives relied on two precedents to reach this conclusion, plus the historical record of acceptable execution methods. The precedents, Baze and Glossip, hold that pain alone does not create cruel and unusual conditions. Most forms of execution involve physical pain of some sort, and earlier methods which remain constitutionally viable sometimes involve considerable amounts of pain. Gorsuch mentions hanging in particular, which could be significantly painful depending on its effectiveness on snapping the neck.
In order to qualify as cruel and unusual, a defendant has to show that the state has “a feasible and readily implemented alternative method that would significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain and that the State has refused to adopt without a legitimate penological reason,” Gorsuch writes in the summary. Russell Bucklew failed to demonstrate that his preferred method — nitrogen hypoxia — was either feasible or readily implemented, Gorsuch ruled, despite delaying his execution for five years through this challenge.
Besides, Gorsuch summarized, Bucklew never proved it would be less painful anyway:
Even if nitrogen hypoxia were a viable alternative, neither of Mr. Bucklew’s theories shows that nitrogen hypoxia would significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain. First, his contention that the State may use painful procedures to administer the lethal injection, including forcing him to lie flat on his back (which he claims could impair his breathing even before the pentobarbital is administered), rests on speculation unsupported, if not affirmatively contradicted, by the record. And to the extent the record is unclear, he had ample opportunity to conduct discovery and develop a factual record concerning the State’s planned procedures. Second, Mr. Bucklew contends that while either method will cause him to experience feelings of suffocation for some period of time before he is rendered fully unconscious, the duration of that period will be shorter with nitrogen than with pentobarbital. But nothing in the record suggests that he will be capable of experiencing pain for significantly more time after receiving pentobarbital than he would after receiving nitrogen. His claim to the contrary rested on his expert’s testimony regarding a study of euthanasia in horses that everyone now agrees the expert misunderstood or misremembered.
Sound compelling? Don’t make up your mind just yet. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the dissent for the liberal wing, objecting to every line of argument in Gorsuch’s governing opinion. Breyer takes special objection to the contention that Bucklew didn’t prove his pain would be unusual nor that he met the standard for finding a feasible and readily available alternative. The state of Missouri already allows nitrogen hypoxia as an alternative, Breyer argued:
Missouri law permits the use of this method of execution. See Mo. Rev. Stat. §546.720 (2002). Three other States—Alabama, Mississippi, and Oklahoma—have specifically authorized nitrogen hypoxia as a method of execution. See ante, at 22, n. 1. And Bucklew introduced into the record reports from Oklahoma and Louisiana indicating that nitrogen hypoxia would be simple and painless. These reports summarized the scientific literature as indicating that there is “no reported physical discom[fort] associated with inhaling pure nitrogen,” App. 742, that the “onset of hypoxia is typically so subtle that it is unnoticeable to the subject,” id., at 745, and that nitrogen hypoxia would take an estimated “seventeen-to-twenty seconds” to render a subject unconscious, id., at 746–747. The Oklahoma study concluded that nitrogen hypoxia is “the most humane method” of execution available. Id., at 736. And the Louisiana study stated that the “[u]se of nitrogen as a method of execution can assure a quick and painless death of the offender.” Id., at 746.
How then can the majority conclude that Bucklew has failed to identify an alternative method of execution? The majority finds Bucklew’s evidence inadequate in part because, in the majority’s view, it does not show that nitrogen hypoxia will “significantly reduce” Bucklew’s risk of pain as compared with lethal injection. Ante, at 23. But the majority does not dispute the evidence suggesting that nitrogen hypoxia would be “quick and painless” and would take effect in 20 to 30 seconds. The majority instead believes that “nothing in the record” suggests that lethal injection would take longer than nitrogen gas to take effect. Ante, at 26. As I have already explained, the majority reaches this conclusion by overlooking considerable evidence to the contrary—such as Dr. Zivot’s testimony that Bucklew’s pain would likely prove “prolonged,” App. 234, that lethal injection would not “result in ‘rapid unconsciousness,’” id., at 233, and that from the time of injection to “Mr. Bucklew’s death several minutes to as long as many minutes later, Mr. Bucklew would be highly likely to experience . . . the excruciating pain of prolonged suffocation,” id., at 222. In discounting this evidence, the majority simply fails “to adhere to the axiom that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Tolan, 572 U. S., at 651 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).
Breyer also argues that Glossip didn’t require Bucklew to explain all of this to the court in the first place. The burden should have been on the state to prove it had no other feasible and readily available option:
Perhaps Bucklew did not provide these details. But Glossip did not refer to any of these requirements; today’s majority invents them. And to insist upon them is to create what, in a case like this one, would amount to an insurmountable hurdle for prisoners like Bucklew. That hurdle, I fear, could permit States to execute even those who will endure the most serious pain and suffering, irrespective of how exceptional their case and irrespective of how thoroughly they prove it. I cannot reconcile the majority’s decision with a constitutional Amendment that forbids all “cruel and unusual punishments.”
If Missouri already allows for nitrogen hypoxia, why not allow the defendant to choose it? Surely over the course of this five-year challenge, Missouri could have spent less time and fewer resources by making the nitrogen-hypoxia option available to Bucklew. Their decision to defend lethal injection of pentobarbitol as the method may not be unconstitutional … but insisting on that method for Bucklew and fighting it to the Supreme Court is a mystifying decision nonetheless. Perhaps Bucklew would have objected to both methods had he been given the option, but once he’d made his legal play, Missouri could have easily short-circuited the challenge by giving Bucklew what he said he wanted. Wouldn’t that have provided justice to the families of Bucklew’s victims more promptly?
That’s a question for Missouri, though, not the Supreme Court. The basic premise of Gorsuch’s opinion is well grounded, even if Missouri’s judgment could be called into question. This decision will likely act as a disincentive to other such challenges as Breyer predicts, but only to the extent that those challenges would have failed anyway.
The post Supreme Court: Eighth Amendment doesn’t require a “painless” execution appeared first on Hot Air.
via Hot Air
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com