WOW! James O’Keefe Reveals to POTUS Trump That He Has Undercover Tapes of the NYT

Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe took to Twitter last Wednesday to tease a ‘groundbreaking video’ from an undercover operation that exposes the ‘holy grail’ of the mainstream media — slated for release this week. The video is part of Project Veritas’ “#AmericanPravda” series.

“NEXT WEEK: Our next groundbreaking  video targets the holy grail of the MSM. Undercover ops still in the field…Stay tuned,” teased O’Keefe.

In a video announcement released recently, Project Veritas founder and guerrilla journalist James O’Keefe warned his organization is currently operating one of the biggest ever investigations into the mainstream media’s ‘holy grail,’ promising media people will likely lose their jobs over the imminent exposé.

JAMES O’KEEFE: “In the coming weeks, you’re gonna see one of the biggest investigations this organization has ever done. It’s a continuation of American Pravda series. It’s aimed at the media. We’re going after their holy grail. We have tripled our journalists in the field. They are not even here, they are out there everyday. It’s gonna be big, it’s gonna be massive. If they think they can shut us down with this crap [lawsuit] they’re sorely mistaken. Because not only are people in the media probably going to lose their jobs and be exposed for what they are, but this [lawsuit] is going to be exposed for what it is. So stay tuned ladies and gentleman. Fireworks are coming,” 

O’Keefe, recently exposed numerous CNN staffers admitting they don’t believe the ‘Russian interference’ narrative the network has pushed since Donald Trump became President.

Many have been wondering which mainstream media outlet will be next on O’Keefe’s hit list. In a recent tweet, the Project Veritas head teased the New York Times is next!

President Trump asked his followers today “How much longer will the failing NY Times, with its big losses and massive unfunded liability (and non-existent sources), remain in business?”

O’Keefe replied “Stay tuned..”

Now this…

In a stunning admission on Tuesday, Project Veritas head James O’Keefe tweeted to President Trump that he recorded the New York Times.

“The Failing @nytimes set Liddle’ Bob Corker up by recording his conversation. Was made to sound a fool, and that’s what I am dealing with!,” Tweeted President Trump.

“Don’t worry, @realDonaldTrump, we recorded the @nytimes…,” replied O’Keefe.

The post WOW! James O’Keefe Reveals to POTUS Trump That He Has Undercover Tapes of the NYT appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/SIPp5X

Illegal Aliens Sue Trump Administration For Detaining Them

Break the law, suffer the consequences. Via LifeZette: A group of illegal aliens filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration last week, claiming Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has retaliated against them for filing asylum claims by keeping them in detention for months in “prison-like” conditions. The suit was filed on behalf of five people […]

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/2s3tLUa

Watch: Marine Grabs Mic, Leaves Pelosi Stammering

Advertisement – story continues below

In the aftermath of the horrific Las Vegas massacre last week, Democrats have steadily begun the beat the drums of gun control once again, claiming that any number of pieces of legislation could have stopped this tragedy from occurring.

During a town hall debate hosted by CNN on Wednesday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi fielded questions on gun control. During the program, a former Marine stepped up and asked a question that appeared to simply break Pelosi.

“My question is … what new law can we put out there that would stop something like this?” asked retired Marine Capt. Dan Hinkson, who now owns a gun store in Virginia.

Advertisement – story continues below

“That is to have background checks, gun violence prevention, background checks, and to have them be effective,” Pelosi stated, apparently unaware that background checks are already being conducted.

Hinkson noted from the audience that “they all get checked,” after Pelosi stated that she was “sure” the people he sold guns to wouldn’t mind having a background check conducted.

“They all get checked. They all get checked. They all get checked. But there are loopholes,” she said, repeating herself like a broken record.

Advertisement – story continues below

VIDEO

Pelosi then began stammering on about closing gun show loopholes and expanding background checks — the usual liberal talking points that have no basis in reality.

Probably recognizing just how nonsensical Pelosi’s answer sounded, CNN host Chris Coumo decided to answer for her, introducing bump stocks into the conversation. It didn’t help Pelosi sound any more sensible.

“Well, that is something that we should do right away,” she said about passing legislation to ban bump stocks, which can make a semi-automatic weapon fire like an automatic weapon. Pelosi even tried adding the word “bipartisan” to try to make her answer seem more appealing.

Advertisement – story continues below

“People were not aware of the bump stock or the bump fire stock, whatever, people call it one thing or another,” she said, vomiting out a jumble of words.

Why is it that Democrats can never seem to actually understand the things they want to ban? If you’re planning to make an argument about banning something, you really should know what you are talking about.

Pelosi really is well past her prime. She can’t even hold a town hall on gun control, an issue she has been crowing about for years, without sounding like a machine that is broken.

Maybe it is time for her to step aside and let people who are capable of forming complete sentences continue this debate.

H/T Informed Folks

Share this on Facebook and Twitter and let us know if you think any sort of gun legislation should be passed in the aftermath of Las Vegas.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/2gEOIzE

MSM: Christian Prayers Along Polish Border a ‘Problematic Expression of Islamophobia’

MSM: Christian Prayers Along Polish Border a ‘Problematic Expression of Islamophobia’

10 Oct, 2017
10 Oct, 2017

Reporting on the extraordinary turnout for the “Rosary on the Borders” prayer campaign in Poland, the Associated Press (AP) suggested that the event smacked of “a problematic expression of Islamophobia.”

On-the-ground sources said that over a million Poles turned out Saturday to pray the rosary along the country’s 2,000-mile border for the salvation of their country.

According to the spokesman for the Polish Bishops’ Conference, Father Pawel Rytel-Andrianik, the event drew “millions of people” to pray the rosary together and was the second-largest prayer event ever held in Europe, after the 2016 World Youth Day.

“This exceeded the boldest expectations of the organizers,” he said.

Organizers scheduled the event for Oct.7, the Feast of the Holy Rosary, which commemorates the anniversary of the Battle of Lepanto, where “the Christian fleet overcame the Muslim armada, saving Europe from Islamization.”

The feast day, originally called “Our Lady of Victory,” was established by Pope Pius V in 1571 after the so-called Holy League won a landmark victory over the invading Ottoman Turks at the Battle of Lepanto. At the time, much of Europe was under siege from the Islamic forces, which sought to win the entire continent for Allah.

The AP warned that Saturday’s national event, which was endorsed by Polish church authorities, had “anti-Muslim overtones.”

Citing an “expert on xenophobia,” the AP said that the border prayer event “reinforces the ethno-religious, xenophobic model of national identity,” and represents a “problematic expression of Islamophobia” in the country.

The AP wasn’t the only mainstream media outlet to take issue with the overtly Christian commemoration, which was openly supported by Poland’s prime minister, Beata Szydło.

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) called the rosary prayer “controversial,” suggesting that the event could be seen “as support for the government’s refusal to accept Muslim migrants.”

Drawing together these expressions, Newsweek magazine proclaimed that the border prayer was a “controversial event seen as anti-Muslim,” and repeated the AP story that “the prayers seemed like a way to express Islamophobia.”

The AP reported that one of the participants, 45-year-old Krzysztof Januszewski, expressed concerns that Europe is being threatened by Islamic extremists and a loss of faith in once Christian societies.

“In the past, there were raids by sultans and Turks and people of other faiths against us Christians,” said Januszewski.

“Today Islam is flooding us and we are afraid of this too,” he added. “We are afraid of terrorist threats and we are afraid of people departing from the faith.”

Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/uktKj3

California Law: Calling Transgenders the Wrong Gender Pronoun Can Send You to Jail

California Law: Calling Transgenders the Wrong Gender Pronoun Can Send You to Jail

10 Oct, 2017
10 Oct, 2017

A newly signed law signed by California Gov. Jerry Brown last week states that health care workers who choose not to address transgender patients by their preferred pronouns could face fines or jail time.

The bill, which was signed into law Wednesday, is designed to protect transgender and LGBT individuals in hospitals, assisted living facilities, long-term care facilities, and retirement homes from discrimination and ensure their needs are met, such as letting them use the bathroom of their preferred gender.

“It shall be unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff to take any of the following actions wholly or partially on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status,” the bill reads.

The law states that health care workers who “willfully and repeatedly” fail to address transgender people by their “preferred name or pronouns” if they were “clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns” would be in violation of the law.

According to the newly-signed law, violators could be punished with a fine “not to exceed one thousand dollars,” sent to prison “in the county jail for a period not to exceed one year,” or both.

State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who introduced the bill to the California Senate in August, argued that people would not be criminally prosecuted despite the law’s wording.

“It’s just more scare tactics by people who oppose all LGBT civil rights and protections,” he said in a statement last month.

Wiener’s office claimed that the law “does not create any new criminal provisions,” but instead creates “new rights within an existing structure.”

Those who opposed the law, including Greg Burt of the California Family Council, criticized the measure when it was in its early stages for being a violation of free speech.

“How can you believe in free speech, but think the government can compel people to use certain pronouns when talking to others?” Burt told the California Assembly Judiciary Committee in August,  according to CBN News.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/uktKj3

Anti-Gun Nut Chelsea Handler to Shooting Victim Rep. Scalise: ‘F**k You, A**Hole’

The October 6 episode of Netflix’s Chelsea, titled “Hart of the Matter,” included a segment devoted to the extreme liberal rhetoric associated with the anti-gun crowd. The guests were Igor Volsky, Director of Guns Down and co-host of a podcast, and Kris Brown, co-president of The Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence. As expected, the scapegoats were Republicans and the gun lobby, specifically the NRA.

Beginning the segment with the newly popular response from the left – “thoughts and prayers are not enough” – Igor Volsky praised the knee-jerk responses of Hillary Clinton and Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) in the media. Republicans and the NRA are “really complicit in the murder that happened in Vegas, in the everyday gun violence we see in this country, that we can no longer kind of put away into some box, we’ll return to this later. We have to act now, and we have to act in a way to make sure we have fewer guns in America.” There it is. Just take away guns and life is perfect, right?

Kris Brown jumped in with, “We shouldn’t live in a country where people can’t go to concerts or church or baseball fields, or elementary schools without the fear of being shot.” Where does this woman live? Sounds like she’s describing Chicago, which has the highest number of gun deaths, even though the city has the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Funny, none of these three lefties brought up Chicago.

“So, our main problem here is Republicans getting money from the NRA. They care more about money than human lives. That’s what it is.” How ironic coming from a pro-abortion Planned Parenthood supporter. Continuing on her anti-Republican, anti-Second Amendment narrative, Chelsea Handler questioned the compassion Republicans felt for the shooting victims in Vegas as she said congressmen take money from the NRA so “they don’t give a shit about those people. I mean, Scalise, the congressman that was shot, still says it enforced his belief in guns even more. It’s like, “Fuck you, asshole.”

She noted that Scalise received $25,000 in NRA donations – seriously? She thinks the NRA bought off a Congressman for a measly $25,000? “These people don’t value human life at all,” claims the woman who has had 3 abortions.

Proving utterly clueless that Americans hunt, Chelsea asks, “Does anyone still make a living as hunters in this country?” Handler doesn’t seem to understand the definition of a military state, either. She claims if Americans have guns, “that’s a military state.” Bless her heart.

Kris Brown cites the old Brady Campaign statistic that Americans with a gun in the home are “22% more likely to be harmed by that gun than to have it be used in self-defense,” but, considering there are millions of instances of defensive gun use per year, that is demonstrably false.

Handler ended the show with a rolling list of congress members who have taken money from the NRA. She instructed her viewers to get out and make their opinions on guns known. “It’s time for us to start voting for politicians who do not live in the pockets of the NRA, so we can start with the 2018 midterm elections. You can get off your asses, register to vote and show up at the polls, because that’s how we make change happen.”

VIDEO

Maybe before her audience does any of those things, they should read a copy of The Constitution, specifically The Bill of Rights. Chelsea Handler could use a refresher course, too.

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/2v7eUfC

Why We Cannot Trust the FBI

The FBI is discounting ISIS’ claim that the Las Vegas attack was jihad. But is the FBI really trustworthy?

The Islamic State says Steven Paddock converted six months ago. He filmed himself killing; jihadis do that and post it online. The attack was meticulously planned, as jihad attacks are, and Paddock likely had an accomplice. Paddock made numerous trips to the Middle East. Over 200 of his foreign financial transactions were flagged for possible “covert terrorism financing.”

Contrary to the ignorant, misinformed and delusional talking heads in the media, ISIS does not take responsibility for events that are not theirs. This has led even the New York Times’ terrorism expert to give credence to ISIS’ claims. The Philippines attack at Resorts World Casino was theirs. And there again, ISIS’ initial claims of responsibility were dismissed.

The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday that “the FBI investigated the Orlando mass shooter for 10 months — and found nothing.”

The Orlando jihadi who opened fire on gay nightclub revelers at the Pulse Nightclub called 911 during the attack and pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State. The FBI investigated the Orlando mass shooter for 10 months and found nothing.

The FBI was warned of the Muslim Boston bombers — multiple times — and did nothing. Their inaction led to the Boston Marathon bombings.

And in another case, an FBI translator married the ISIS fighter that she was supposed to be investigating.

The FBI was in on the planning of the jihad attack against the Garland Muhammad art expo in Garland, Texas. They did nothing to stop it, not even giving us a warning that my event was targeted by devout Muslims who meant to kill us Charlie Hebdo-style. We killed those jihadis. It was the security team I hired to protect my event that saved numerous lives, nothing the FBI did. We survived despite the FBI.

The FBI was in on the planning of a Boston plot to behead me. They did not warn me or alert my security team. It was a Boston cop who killed one of the Muslims who had attacked the cop on his way to New York.

The ISIS plot to carry out mass shootings in Times Square, the NYC subway, and at music concerts reported yesterday actually took place this past June. All three were arrested months ago, but the FBI had it sealed. What else are they not telling us?

In 2015, ISIS recruiter Mohamed Abdullahi Hassan, also known as Mujahid Miski, was communicating with the Garland jihadis in the lead up to the Texas attack. Hassan allegedly traded more than 550 messages with attacker Elton Simpson, from November 2014 up until the day of the May 3, 2015, terror attack. Miski was also in contact with the Boston Muslims plotting to behead me. It has also been alleged that Miski influenced the San Bernardino Muslim mass murderers. Where was the FBI?

While I do believe that undercover FBI agents have to play along with the jihadis they’re dealing with — because in order to be in an informant you have to have credibility — it’s a whole other thing if you’re encouraging and cheering on the proposed murder of Americans who are standing in defense of freedom of speech, and then not doing anything about it. Why did the FBI only have one agent there? And not a team waiting for them to shoot back?

The FBI knew about the attack before it happened, but did not alert law enforcement or my security apparatus. When I first heard that the FBI had prior notice of the attack, I thought that it was very short-term notice. It was assumed by many people that the FBI had had some sketchy prior knowledge of the attack, but nothing particularly specific.

But we know now they were in on the planning of the jihad attack, and did nothing about it. If you recall, the FBI only got around to a general alert just three hours before our event. It was Garland police, not the FBI, that coordinated all the super security efforts with our own security team.

The FBI knew about the impending attack — one of their agents told Simpson to “tear up Texas,” and an accomplice of Simpson was even communicating with the undercover agent at the time of the attack.

The Daily Beast reported that this accomplice “asked the undercover officer about the Draw Muhammad event’s security, size, and police presence, during the event, according to an affidavit filed in court. The affidavit does not specify what the undercover responded to questions about size and security.” Why not? Why weren’t the agent’s answers released?

They knew about the attack, yet they didn’t have a team there in case the jihadis started shooting?

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the Obama FBI wanted me and the other speakers at the event dead. Dutch freedom fighter Geert Wilders was the keynote speaker; he has been living with armed guards for years for supposedly “insulting Islam.” My colleague Robert Spencer has received numerous death threats from Muslims. Cartoon contest winner Bosch Fawstin drew Muhammad. Did Obama’s pro-Islam FBI want us all dead?

What other conclusion can be reached?

So I ask you, do you trust anything the FBI is telling us?

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of the Geller Report and author of the already bestselling book, FATWA: Hunted in America. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.

The FBI is discounting ISIS’ claim that the Las Vegas attack was jihad. But is the FBI really trustworthy?

The Islamic State says Steven Paddock converted six months ago. He filmed himself killing; jihadis do that and post it online. The attack was meticulously planned, as jihad attacks are, and Paddock likely had an accomplice. Paddock made numerous trips to the Middle East. Over 200 of his foreign financial transactions were flagged for possible “covert terrorism financing.”

Contrary to the ignorant, misinformed and delusional talking heads in the media, ISIS does not take responsibility for events that are not theirs. This has led even the New York Times’ terrorism expert to give credence to ISIS’ claims. The Philippines attack at Resorts World Casino was theirs. And there again, ISIS’ initial claims of responsibility were dismissed.

The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday that “the FBI investigated the Orlando mass shooter for 10 months — and found nothing.”

The Orlando jihadi who opened fire on gay nightclub revelers at the Pulse Nightclub called 911 during the attack and pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State. The FBI investigated the Orlando mass shooter for 10 months and found nothing.

The FBI was warned of the Muslim Boston bombers — multiple times — and did nothing. Their inaction led to the Boston Marathon bombings.

And in another case, an FBI translator married the ISIS fighter that she was supposed to be investigating.

The FBI was in on the planning of the jihad attack against the Garland Muhammad art expo in Garland, Texas. They did nothing to stop it, not even giving us a warning that my event was targeted by devout Muslims who meant to kill us Charlie Hebdo-style. We killed those jihadis. It was the security team I hired to protect my event that saved numerous lives, nothing the FBI did. We survived despite the FBI.

The FBI was in on the planning of a Boston plot to behead me. They did not warn me or alert my security team. It was a Boston cop who killed one of the Muslims who had attacked the cop on his way to New York.

The ISIS plot to carry out mass shootings in Times Square, the NYC subway, and at music concerts reported yesterday actually took place this past June. All three were arrested months ago, but the FBI had it sealed. What else are they not telling us?

In 2015, ISIS recruiter Mohamed Abdullahi Hassan, also known as Mujahid Miski, was communicating with the Garland jihadis in the lead up to the Texas attack. Hassan allegedly traded more than 550 messages with attacker Elton Simpson, from November 2014 up until the day of the May 3, 2015, terror attack. Miski was also in contact with the Boston Muslims plotting to behead me. It has also been alleged that Miski influenced the San Bernardino Muslim mass murderers. Where was the FBI?

While I do believe that undercover FBI agents have to play along with the jihadis they’re dealing with — because in order to be in an informant you have to have credibility — it’s a whole other thing if you’re encouraging and cheering on the proposed murder of Americans who are standing in defense of freedom of speech, and then not doing anything about it. Why did the FBI only have one agent there? And not a team waiting for them to shoot back?

The FBI knew about the attack before it happened, but did not alert law enforcement or my security apparatus. When I first heard that the FBI had prior notice of the attack, I thought that it was very short-term notice. It was assumed by many people that the FBI had had some sketchy prior knowledge of the attack, but nothing particularly specific.

But we know now they were in on the planning of the jihad attack, and did nothing about it. If you recall, the FBI only got around to a general alert just three hours before our event. It was Garland police, not the FBI, that coordinated all the super security efforts with our own security team.

The FBI knew about the impending attack — one of their agents told Simpson to “tear up Texas,” and an accomplice of Simpson was even communicating with the undercover agent at the time of the attack.

The Daily Beast reported that this accomplice “asked the undercover officer about the Draw Muhammad event’s security, size, and police presence, during the event, according to an affidavit filed in court. The affidavit does not specify what the undercover responded to questions about size and security.” Why not? Why weren’t the agent’s answers released?

They knew about the attack, yet they didn’t have a team there in case the jihadis started shooting?

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the Obama FBI wanted me and the other speakers at the event dead. Dutch freedom fighter Geert Wilders was the keynote speaker; he has been living with armed guards for years for supposedly “insulting Islam.” My colleague Robert Spencer has received numerous death threats from Muslims. Cartoon contest winner Bosch Fawstin drew Muhammad. Did Obama’s pro-Islam FBI want us all dead?

What other conclusion can be reached?

So I ask you, do you trust anything the FBI is telling us?

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of the Geller Report and author of the already bestselling book, FATWA: Hunted in America. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.

via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/TYiPDP

Obama’s $1.5 billion ego project

There’s a time when excesses build to reach Nero and Caligula levels, and as presidential libraries go, the Obama Library on the South Side of Chicago seems to have hit that tipping point.

The Obama Library is on track to cost $1.5 billion, three times the $500 million it was projected to cost, and quite a bit of that will be borne by taxpayers. Yet it won’t contain … any library materials. It won’t even be hooked up to the National Archives system – on account of it being too cheap to want to pay the six-figure costs of that purpose.

All it will have is online document access, which can be reached from any computer anywhere. There will be nothing special about coming to the Obama library to do any kind of presidential research. What’s more, it’s a great way to cherry-pick which documents can be seen among the Obama papers and which cannot. Is this library really about what libraries are about, which is to say scholarship of the historical record? Not in Obama’s case. He’s probably rather no one remember the details of his many failures in office, which those records could show.

What the $1.5 billion boondoggle will be about is blocking community roads, putting public park space off limits, fundraising for Obama causes, community organizing, shoveling pork for South Side denizens such as basketball courts, and … satisfying President Obama’s gargantuan ego.

Where did anyone get the idea that taxpayers owed ex-presidents this kind of golden parachute? This is Ozymandias-style excess. Or if you want to be much less charitible: Mobuto stuff. Much of the complex itself will be privately funded of course, but taxpayers are certainly going to be paying for millions of it, and there doesn’t seem to be a cap on how much.

Even the private-sector funding is a bit eyebrow-raising. The kind of money this project requires is the kind of money a presidential campaign to the finish requires. That takes fundraising, and small-dollar donors aren’t going to cut it. Big dollar donors might be. But those kind of donors – from Goldman Sachs-style investment banks, Hollywood heavies like Harvey Weinstein, foundation fatcats like George Soros – are going to be asking something in return. And what’s more, if they have already given the money, it’s worth looking at what they got in return. Post presidencies are notorious for bribe cash to flow in in exchange for favors already delivered. And as the Clintons demonstrated so ably, leftist presidencies are historically for sale.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There’s a time when excesses build to reach Nero and Caligula levels, and as presidential libraries go, the Obama Library on the South Side of Chicago seems to have hit that tipping point.

The Obama Library is on track to cost $1.5 billion, three times the $500 million it was projected to cost, and quite a bit of that will be borne by taxpayers. Yet it won’t contain … any library materials. It won’t even be hooked up to the National Archives system – on account of it being too cheap to want to pay the six-figure costs of that purpose.

All it will have is online document access, which can be reached from any computer anywhere. There will be nothing special about coming to the Obama library to do any kind of presidential research. What’s more, it’s a great way to cherry-pick which documents can be seen among the Obama papers and which cannot. Is this library really about what libraries are about, which is to say scholarship of the historical record? Not in Obama’s case. He’s probably rather no one remember the details of his many failures in office, which those records could show.

What the $1.5 billion boondoggle will be about is blocking community roads, putting public park space off limits, fundraising for Obama causes, community organizing, shoveling pork for South Side denizens such as basketball courts, and … satisfying President Obama’s gargantuan ego.

Where did anyone get the idea that taxpayers owed ex-presidents this kind of golden parachute? This is Ozymandias-style excess. Or if you want to be much less charitible: Mobuto stuff. Much of the complex itself will be privately funded of course, but taxpayers are certainly going to be paying for millions of it, and there doesn’t seem to be a cap on how much.

Even the private-sector funding is a bit eyebrow-raising. The kind of money this project requires is the kind of money a presidential campaign to the finish requires. That takes fundraising, and small-dollar donors aren’t going to cut it. Big dollar donors might be. But those kind of donors – from Goldman Sachs-style investment banks, Hollywood heavies like Harvey Weinstein, foundation fatcats like George Soros – are going to be asking something in return. And what’s more, if they have already given the money, it’s worth looking at what they got in return. Post presidencies are notorious for bribe cash to flow in in exchange for favors already delivered. And as the Clintons demonstrated so ably, leftist presidencies are historically for sale.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/1c2jbfc

Democratic Senator: No Law Could’ve Stopped Vegas Gunman

In an interview with CBS’ Face the Nation on Sunday, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA) told host John Dickerson that there was no law that could have prevented Stephen Paddock from carrying out his horrific act in Las Vegas last Sunday.

Feinstein came on in part to discuss the “bump stock” legislation she has proposed which would ban the device Paddock attached to twelve of the guns found in his hotel room. Bump stocks, or bump fire stocks, allow a semi-automatic weapon to fire more rapidly. Asked if any Republicans had come out in support of the bill, Feinstein said no but that a few have expressed “interest.”

“We have Republican interest,” said Feinstein. “I have nobody lined up, we have 38 co-sponsors, they’re all Democratic. We’ve had individuals that have indicated an interest and particularly for a hearing.”

When asked about the NRA saying on Thursday that they supported “additional regulations” on bump fire stocks, Feinstein called it “a step forward” and “appreciated,” but she wanted more than just regulations; she wanted a law passed by Congress that cannot be overridden by the next president.

“Regulations aren’t going to do it. We need a law,” she said. “It can’t be changed by another president. Right now we’re seeing one president change actions … of a president that came before him, and that would happen in this area. And I hope that Americans will step up and say, ‘Enough is enough. Congress, do something.'”

Dickerson then noted the surge in sales of bump stocks, presumably in anticipation of a ban or heightened restrictions, but Feinstein turned the conversation to the enigma of Paddock.

“This is a well-to-do man,” she said. “He wasn’t mentally ill. He wasn’t a criminal. He wasn’t a juvenile. He wasn’t a gang banger. And he was able to buy 40 weapons over a period of time, have 12 bump stocks, line them up, break through two windows in his hotel suite, and take aim at … over a thousand people at a concert. And this was such a cross-section of America that it really struck at every one of us that this could happen to you. And we want to stop it.”

However, when asked if there is any law that could have stopped it, Feinstein admitted that there isn’t.

“Could there have been any law passed that would’ve stopped it?” asked Dickerson.

“No, he passed background checks registering for handguns and other weapons on multiple occasions,” said Feinstein.

Dickerson said that some pro-Second Amendment advocates believe that the Democrats are calling for a ban on semi-automatic weapons, which Feinstein shot down, saying, “Well, that’s just plain wrong. This is written in clean English, you can take a look at it. I’ll send a copy of it. It’s a two page bill. I’ll send a copy of it to anyone who calls our office, and you can look at it yourself. It does not take anyone’s gun.”

The host then offered “the other side” of the discussion, those calling for a ban on semi-automatic weapons, which Feinstein admitted she agreed with “to a great extent.” She also condemned the “terrible” concealed carry reciprocity bill that some Republicans are pushing. Here’s the exchange (transcript via CBS News):

DICKERSON: From the other side, those who would like to restrict guns in America, who hear a bill targeted as you’ve described it narrowly at this idea – at bump fire stocks – and say, “The only way to stop this kind of situation in America is to ban these kinds of semi-automatic weapons, and weapons that can fire with rapidity, and anything short of that is insufficient.” What do you say to those people?

DIANNE FEINSTEIN: I agree with them to a great extent. What I don’t – because, as you know, I did the assault weapons legislation in 1993, which was law of the land for 10 years. So I believe, I mean I’ve watched this thing from the Texas bell tower to today, in schools, in businesses, in workplaces. No one appears to be safe anywhere.

JOHN DICKERSON: Let me ask your – get your thoughts on another piece of legislation. The NRA has mentioned, in response to this shooting, they’ve talked about passing the concealed carry reciprocity, which essentially allows somebody who has a concealed carry permit in one state to carry it throughout all other states the way, say, a driver’s license would work. What’s your opinion of that bill which is in the Senate?

DIANNE FEINSTEIN: Well, my opinion of that bill is it’s terrible. We want every American to feel comfortable packing a concealed weapon around the country? I represent 40 million Californians, and I can say without hesitation Californians do not want concealed carry.

On Thursday, the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox surprised gun control advocates by issuing a statement in support of “additional regulations” on bump stocks.

“In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved,” they continued. “Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.”

On Sunday, Cox clarified that while the NRA supports more regulations on bump stocks, it does not support an outright ban.

“We don’t believe that bans have ever worked on anything. What we have said has been very clear — that if something transfers a semiautomatic to function like a fully automatic, then it ought to be regulated differently,” Cox told Fox News Sunday.

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/1TJbF1r