Month: November 2019

Texas Democratic state representative Alfonso "Poncho" Nevárez was caught on video surveillance dropping an envelope containing cocaine at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport.

The Texas Department of Public Safety filed an affidavit on Oct. 29 detailing surveillance footage that revealed Nevárez "dropping a white paper object" as he walked out of the airport on Sept. 6. Two Texas Department of Transportation employees found the white envelope, prompting an investigation. 

Inside the sealed envelope were four "small clear plastic baggies" containing cocaine. 

Nevárez, who is chairman of the state house Homeland Security & Public Safety Committee, told the Texas Tribune on Thursday "the news is true." 

Nevárez used an envelope with official state letterhead to carry his drugs. 

"I observed the white envelope had a letterhead that was from the ‘Office the State of Texas House of Representatives Member Poncho Nevarez,’" Special Agent Otto Cabrera wrote in the affidavit. 

The affidavit provides a warrant to test Nevárez’s DNA as his saliva is presumed to match the saliva on the envelope. The sample will be used as evidence against the representative. 

"I believe that there is probable cause to believe that the DNA profile obtained from Exhibit #S2.P1 could possibly belong to Rep. NEVAREZ," Cabrera said in the affidavit.

On Nov. 8, Nevárez announced he would not seek reelection but did not indicate at the time that drug abuse was his reason for leaving. On Thursday, Nevárez confirmed that the recent news prompted his decision and said he plans to seek treatment. 

"I do not have anyone to blame but myself," Nevárez said. "I accept this because it is true and it will help me get better."

The post Texas Democrat Caught Carrying Envelope of Cocaine appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

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

via Breitbart News

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

via Breitbart News

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

via Breitbart News

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

via Breitbart News

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

via Breitbart News

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

This week, the Supreme Court ruled it would refuse an appeal from the Remington Arms Company of a Connecticut Supreme Court ruling that permitted relatives of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims to sue Remington. The shooter in the Sandy Hook shooting used arms made by Remington.

The New York Times wrote, “The case has been seen as a test of the ability of plaintiffs to pierce the legal immunity of firearm manufacturers in the aftermath of shootings.”

Remington’s appeal was titled Remington Arms v. Soto; the Connecticut case was Soto v. Bushmaster. The Times noted, “The Sandy Hook families’ suit used one of six narrow exemptions to the 2005 law to argue that Remington violated Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act. The suit said the gun maker recklessly marketed the Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle to disturbed young men like the Sandy Hook gunman through product placement in violent video games and advertising pitches like ‘consider your man card reissued,’ and ‘the opposition will bow down.’”

In a brief filed by 22 members of the House of Representatives that supported Remington’s appeal, they wrote:

In enacting the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 … Congress expressly recognized that lawsuits seeking to hold manufacturers and sellers of firearms liable for the criminal conduct of third-parties were not only “without foundation in hundreds of years of the common law and jurisprudence of the United States,” … but also improperly sought “to use the judicial branch to circumvent the Legislative branch of government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce through judgments and judicial decrees” that “weaken[ ] and undermin[e] important principles of federalism, State sovereignty and comity between the sister States.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation stated in response to the SCOTUS decision:

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, as the firearms industry’s trade association, is disappointed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today not to review the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision in Remington v. Soto. Annually, more than 7,000 cases are petitioned to the high court. While the court only accepts a limited number of cases, we believed this case was worthy of review.  The case now returns to Connecticut state court for trial where the plaintiffs will need to prove that Remington’s lawful advertising of a legal product violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), the only claim remaining in the case, and that it somehow caused (the Sandy Hook shooter) to murder innocent victims.

We are confident that Remington will prevail at trial. Nothing in Remington’s advertising of these products connotes or encourages the illegal or negligent misuse of firearms, or that (the shooter’s mother), who lawfully purchased the firearm two years prior to the incident, or (the shooter) himself, saw or were influenced in any way by any advertisement.  As the Connecticut Supreme Court noted in its 4-3 decision allowing the case to proceed noted, “Proving such a causal link at trial may prove to be a Herculean task.” We continue to feel sympathy toward the Sandy Hook victims, as NSSF is headquartered in Newtown, but (the shooter) alone is responsible for his heinous actions.

Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal tweeted after the SCOTUS ruling, “Sandy Hook families have successfully surmounted a sweetheart federal statute favoring gun companies. I’ll continue the fight to repeal the federal law (PLCAA) that has closed courthouse doors to countless other victims & families.”

Sandy Hook families have successfully surmounted a sweetheart federal statute favoring gun companies. I’ll continue the fight to repeal the federal law (PLCAA) that has closed courthouse doors to countless other victims & families.

— Richard Blumenthal (@SenBlumenthal) November 12, 2019

Jason Ouimet, the executive director of the N.R.A.’s Institute for Legislative Action, stated that deflecting “attention away from mental illness and criminals in order to blame inanimate objects won’t reduce violent crime or make anyone safer.”

 

via The Daily Wire

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

It’s two weeks until Thanksgiving, but the NFL’s halftime singer is already calling time out.

Ellie Goulding, the musician who was scheduled to perform at the turkey day game, is threatening to pull out of the show if the Cowboys’ spotlighted charity—the Salvation Army—doesn’t fold on its Christian beliefs.

Either give a donation to an LGBT group, Goulding demanded of the nonprofit, or I’m out. In that case, some say, don’t let the arena door hit you on the way out.

For Goulding, who’d just posted a glowing endorsement of the Salvation Army on Instagram, the threat was a complete surprise.

A smiling Goulding, wearing a red apron at a homeless shelter, had nothing but good things to say about the organization two days earlier, insisting that the Salvation Army helps “Americans overcome poverty, addiction, and economic hardships through a range of social services.”

She says she sat and spoke to “several people who had come in from the bitter cold for some food (they serve to over 150 per day here), warmth, and perhaps a chat with one of the volunteers.”

All it took was one follower, replying with a ridiculous lie that the Salvation Army “let[s] queer homeless people die,” and Goulding snapped to attention, willing to throw millions of needy people under the bus to prove her LGBT loyalty.

“Upon researching this, I have reached out to The Salvation Army and said that I would have no choice but to pull out unless they very quickly make a solid, committed pledge or donation to the LGBTQ community,” she wrote. “[S]upporting an anti-LGBTQ charity is clearly not something I would ever intentionally do. Thank you for drawing my attention to this.”

No one is quite sure what “research” Goulding actually did, since even members of the gay community have insisted that the charity helps all people.

In fact, Madeline Fry points out in the Washington Examiner, one LGBT group (the Prairie Pride Coalition) decided to test the theory—encouraging people to rate the Salvation Army’s tolerance at local shelters. The response was so positive, the organization endorsed them.

“Given this information and the sincere, earnest efforts by the staff and leadership at our local Salvation Army, we feel comfortable recommending that members of our community support our local Salvation Army.” Too bad no one drew Goulding’s attention to that.

Meanwhile, David Hudson, the national commander of the Salvation Army, is used to the left’s harassment.

With an organization of our size and history, myths can perpetuate. An individual’s sexual or gender identity, religion, or lifestyle has no bearing on our willingness to provide service. We stand firmly behind our mission to meet human needs in His name without discrimination.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve never heard of a “hate group” feeding, housing, and treating 23 million people a year. What I have heard are plenty of liberals willing to let families starve in the name of a “fairness” they don’t practice.

“If you can’t handle the Salvation Army,” Tim Carney tweeted, “then you’re the totalitarians.” He’s right. It sounds like the Dallas Cowboys could use some change—on the schedule and in the kettle.

Editor’s note: Ellie Goulding is now reportedly singing at the Cowboys’ Thanksgiving game. In a statement to Fox News, David Hudson, national commander of the Salvation Army, says: 

We’d like to thank Ellie Goulding and her fans for shedding light on misconceptions and encouraging others to learn the truth about The Salvation Army’s mission to serve all, without discrimination. … We applaud her for taking the time to learn about the services we provide to the LGBTQ community. Regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity, we’re committed to serving anyone in need.

Originally published in Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.

The post Pop Star Spars With Salvation Army, Demands Donation to LGBT Group appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

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

We’re not hearing much about the “Green New Deal” these days, but it’s still a priority for some candidates, as anyone who’s attended a recent Bernie Sanders rally can attest.

Criticism of the Green New Deal tends to center on cost and rightly so. It would be extremely expensive. Researchers estimate it would take more than $5 trillion just to switch from coal, nuclear and natural gas to 100% renewables.

But even if you set economic concerns aside, an ironic fact remains: In the United States and around the world, the central-planning policies at the heart of the Green New Deal have a horrible track record for the environment.

Governments in countries such as Venezuela and China (or in the past like the Soviet Union and Cuba) either routinely mismanage and waste resources, or ramp up production with little to no accountability for environmental damage that comes with it. The absence of price signals reduces the incentive to be more efficient and do more with less.

In addition, the absence of property rights reduces the incentive to conserve and gives government-controlled industries a free pass to pollute without compensating or protecting its citizens.

The Green New Deal would massively expand the size and scope of the federal government’s control over activities best left to the private sector. It would empower the feds to change and control how people produce and consume energy, harvest crops, raise livestock, build homes, drive cars and manufacture goods.

Secondly, the Green New Deal would result in a number of unintended consequences. For instance, policies that limit coal, oil and natural gas production in the United States will not stop the global consumption of these natural resources. Production will merely shift to places where the environmental standards are not as rigorous, making the planet worse off.

Moreover, it’s not as if wind, solar and battery technologies magically appear. Companies still have to mine the resources, manufacture the product and deal with the waste streams. There are challenges to disposing potentially toxic lithium-ion batteries and solar panels, or even wind turbine blades that are difficult and expensive to transport and crush at landfills. While these are solvable problems, they’re seldom discussed by GND proponents.

There would also be massive land use changes required to expand renewable power. Ben Zycher at the American Enterprise Institute estimates that land use necessary to meet a 100% renewable target would require 115 million acres, which is 15% larger than the land area of California.

Two recent National Bureau of Economic Research papers underscore the unintended consequences of energy policy on human well-being. One found that cheaper home heating because of America’s fracking revolution is averting more than 10,000 winter deaths per year. The Green New Deal would wipe all of that away, and reverse course by mandating pricier energy on families.

Another paper found that the Japanese government’s decision to close safely operating nuclear power plants after Fukashima increased energy prices and reduced consumption, which consequently, increased mortalities from colder temperatures. In fact, the authors estimate that “the decision to cease nuclear production has contributed to more deaths than the accident itself.” Unintended consequences.

Another hallmark of bad environmental policy is focusing on outputs, not outcomes. According to the frequently asked questions sheet released along with the Green New Deal, it is “a massive investment in renewable energy production and would not include creating new nuclear plants.”

One would think that if we only have 11 or 12 years to act on climate change, we’d want to grab the largest source of emissions-free electricity we can get. But that’s not the case.

That’s typical for most big-government environmental policies: they’re so focused on prescriptive ways to control peoples’ behaviors that they crowd out or ignore opportunities for innovative solutions.

The reality is that environmental policies aren’t good for the environment if they’re so bad for people. The costs of the GND would be devastatingly high for households. Government policies that drive up energy bills are not only very regressive, but they would also harm consumers multiple times as they pay more for food, clothes and all of the other goods that require energy to make.

By shrinking our economy by potentially tens of trillions of dollars, the Green New Deal will cause lower levels of prosperity and fewer resources to deal with whatever environmental challenges come our way. That’s a bad deal for our economy and our environment.

(C) 2019 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

The post The Green New Deal Isn’t Just Expensive. It’s Also Bad Environmental Policy. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

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

We reported in June on a story that was first brought to our attention by  Neonrevolt. In November 2017, General Michael Flynn wrote an op-ed for the Hill.

In the piece Flynn wrote –

The primary bone of contention between the U.S. and Turkey is Fethullah Gülen, a shady Islamic mullah residing in Pennsylvania whom former President Clinton once called his “friend” in a well circulated video.

Flynn then shared a video of President Clinton claiming that the shady mullah is a friend of the US –

Flynn then shared –

Gülen portrays himself as a moderate, but he is in fact a radical Islamist. He has publicly boasted about his “soldiers” waiting for his orders to do whatever he directs them to do. If he were in reality a moderate, he would not be in exile, nor would he excite the animus of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his government.

Flynn then compared Gulen to leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood and “Turkey’s Osama Bin Laden”. He discussed how Gulen brought into the US numerous individuals to run his charter schools he set up –

To add insult to injury, American taxpayers are helping finance Gülen’s 160 charter schools in the United States. These schools have been granted more H1-B visas than Google. It is inconceivable that our visa officers have approved thousands of visas for English teachers whose English is incomprehensible. A CBS “60 Minutes” program documented a conversation with one such imported English teacher from Turkey. Several lawsuits, including some in Ohio and Texas, point to irregularities in the operation of these schools.

Flynn then dropped this bomb about the Clinton Foundation’s relationship with this terrorist –

However, funding seems to be no problem for Gülen’s network. Hired attorneys work to keep the lucrative government source of income for Gülen and his network going. Influential charities such as Cosmos Foundation continue their support for Gulen’s charter schools.

Incidentally, Cosmos Foundation is a major donor to Clinton Foundation. No wonder Bill Clinton calls Mullah Gülen “his friend.” It is now no secret that Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s close aide and confidante, worked for 12 years as the associate editor for a journal published by the London-based Institute of Minority Muslim Affairs. This institute has promoted the thoughts of radical Muslim thinkers such as Qutb, al Bana and others.

Neonrevolt noted a New York Times article that discusses the terrorist organization in the US led by Gulen. What is happening is this –

The taxpayers fund the school system

The school abuses the H1-B visa program to import “teachers.”

The “teachers” get paid by taxpayers.

The “teachers” then donate 40% of their paychecks BACK to the Gulen Movement.

And Gulen goes and donates a chunk of this change back to the Clinton Foundation… while also trying to subvert and overthrow the Turkish government.

Neonrevolt then noted some statistics on the corruption in the US related to the Gulen group.

Gulenists’ contributions to congressional campaigns have been known for some time, as Buzzfeed reported last year. Texas Reps. Sheila Jackson-Lee, and Henry Cuellar, both Democrats, are among the biggest benefactors of Gulen contributions.

USA Today reported last month that the House ethics committee has investigated more than 200 trips taken by members of Congress since 2008 that were secretly funded by Gulen groups.

…

Clinton has been the biggest recipient of Gulenist donations of any presidential candidate this cycle, federal election records show.

This all leads up to today –

General Flynn as we all know now was targeted by Obama and the Deep State. He knew too much and he was working with Trump, but maybe his oped was what scared them the most. He had to be taken down and so he was targeted shortly after the 2016 election and before the 2017 Inauguration.

He lost his job with the Trump team due to shady actions by the Deep State and then was targeted by the Mueller team. He is still waiting on his sentencing although most who follow his case now believe his case will be dismissed due to Deep State wrongdoing.

The post GENERAL FLYNN GETS JUSTICE: Turkey’s Erdogan Provided President Trump Documents on Terrorist General Flynn Wrote About Connected to Obama and the Clinton Foundation! 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