53percenter's Blog

To hear most liberals talk, there is no need at all for the average citizen to own a gun, much less carry one in public and certainly not around young children.

But a young father of six in Georgia with a concealed carry permit just proved how very wrong that assumption by the left truly is, as he used his handgun to protect his children, along with the children of others, from a potentially threatening naked man at a park, according to The Daily Caller.

The incident occurred Sunday at an Atlanta-area park in Newton County, Georgia, where Tae Lovelace and his family were helping feed the hungry homeless people.

A man wearing only underwear soon arrived and began to behave strangely, then later shed even that minimal article of clothing to become completely naked while making moves toward the children.

“It was a life-changing experience to be put in a situation like that. I don’t wish no one to be put in a situation like that,” stated Lovelace in an interview with WAGA.

TRENDING: Tucker Skewers Illegal Alien Attorney Over Basic Constitutional Privileges

It was the first time that Lovelace had ever felt the need to draw his licensed and permitted handgun in public, and it is likely a good thing he didn’t hesitate.

Lovelace explained to WAGA that he and his family were feeding the homeless at the Covington Park basketball courts around 5 p.m. Sunday when the flasher, later identified as Josten Meeler, arrived in only his underwear.

The armed father recalled that Meeler had arrived “… in his underwear and he proceeds to not act normal and it seemed like he was under the influence of something.”

That man then exposed himself to the children on the playground and was quickly chased away by adults, only to return again a short time later, this time entirely naked.

“He runs up on my kids and the mother of my child and at that point in time I go and get my firearm,” stated Lovelace.

“He was already touching people before he was naked so when he came up running directly toward the kids, that’s a problem,” the protective father continued.

“It could’ve went sour if I didn’t have anything to defend myself. I didn’t know what he was capable of doing,” he added.

According to a report from the Covington Police, Lovelace proceeded to hold Meeler at gunpoint until officers arrived on the scene and took the naked man into custody.

RELATED: Surveillance Video Shows Groped Waitress Take Matters into Her Own Hands

“I’m a family man,” Lovelace said. “I had to protect my family by all means. Having my firearm and being licensed to carry definitely came in handy that day.”

Indeed it did. Thankfully, the armed family man didn’t have to actually fire his gun, as its mere presence was enough to stop the situation from escalating, and it is worth pointing out that no harm came to anyone at the park … because of the father’s firearm, not in spite of it.

Let this story be an object lesson for the anti-gun liberals about why so many American citizens cherish and staunchly defend their God-given, Second Amendment-protected right to keep and bear arms.

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.

An independent congressional candidate in Oregon recently issued a disgusting and disparaging remark about first lady Melania Trump on Twitter, and the first lady’s office just let that candidate know how “pathetic” he truly was for doing so.

According to The Daily Caller, Mark Roberts — who is running independently for Oregon’s 2nd Congressional District seat, and has labelled himself a “conservative” — issued the jaw-dropping comment in response to a post from conservative Turning Point USA President Charlie Kirk.

Kirk’s post was in regard to the dramatic difference in staff size of the current first lady as compared to her predecessor, former first lady Michelle Obama — Trump’s staff is reportedly less than half of Obama’s — and Roberts responded with an incredibly misogynistic attack on the wife of the president.

Roberts tweeted, “Did you know the First Lady works by the hour?” and included the hashtags “#thinkdirty” and “#hoebag” in his reply to Kirk, the obvious implication being that Melania Trump is some sort of prostitute.

Needless to say, the “despicable” tweet received heavy fire in the replies for the utterly classless manner in which Roberts maligned the first lady, and now even the first lady’s office has weighed in on the matter with a statement that should leave him sufficiently shamed … if he is even capable of feeling shame.

TRENDING: Tucker Skewers Illegal Alien Attorney Over Basic Constitutional Privileges

“This is just more hypocritical intolerance from those who oppose her husband’s administration,” said Stephanie Grisham, spokeswoman for the first lady, in a statement provided to CNN reporter Kate Bennett.

“To say such ugly words about a mother, wife and our First Lady is not just a pathetic attempt at getting himself in the news, it is disturbing and despicable,” the statement added.

From @StephGrisham45
“This is just more hypocritical intolerance from those who oppose her husband’s administration. To say such ugly words about a mother, wife and our First Lady is not just a pathetic attempt at getting himself in the news, it is disturbing and despicable.” https://t.co/eEEFU7VCru

— Kate Bennett (@KateBennett_DC) August 1, 2018

Perhaps in light of the shockingly low nature of the attack launched at the first lady, even a number of self-proclaimed Democrats in the replies to the statement sided with Melania.

One commenter, in response to the few who didn’t seem to care about the character assault on the first lady, asked the obvious question: “Would you be okay if this was said about Michelle Obama?”

Of course, we all know the answer to that question — had Roberts issued the same statement about Obama, he would already have been forced to withdraw from the congressional race and likely would have gone into hiding from outraged liberal mobs intent on extracting blood as retribution. But since it’s an attack on Melania Trump, #TheResistance is strangely quiet.

Yet, he remains in the race at this point, and despite the outcry against him — even including a demand from House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy that Roberts be banned from Twitter — the account remains active and the offending tweet has yet to be deleted, according to The Oregonian.

That article noted that Roberts has a history of posting odd, and at times misogynistic, tweets about a number of female politicians on both sides of the political aisle.

In truth, Roberts is little more than a “fringe” candidate with literally no hope of defeating long-time incumbent Republican Rep. Greg Walden, as he has made minimal effort to raise campaign funds or conduct voter outreach.

RELATED: Always Remember: ‘Down to Earth’ Michelle Had WH Staff Twice as Big as ‘Spoiled’ Melania’s

His attack on the first lady, as well as the others in the months preceding, were most likely intended solely to draw attention to himself, which he most certainly has done.

Roberts may claim to be a “conservative,” but his trashy remark disparaging the character of the first lady proves he is anything. Hopefully, he will quickly fade away into obscurity now that everyone of all ideological stripes realizes what a “pathetic” woman-hating loser this guy truly is.

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.

President Donald Trump’s administration proposed a new rule on Thursday to rescind onerous Obama-era gas mileage requirements.

Trump’s Environmental Protect Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a proposed rulemaking to adjust the automobile fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards to give Americans access to safer, cleaner, and ultimately, more affordable cars. The rulemaking will set the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) and light-duty vehicle greenhouse emissions standards for light trucks and will set the greenhouse gas and mileage standards for 2021-2026.

Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement on Thursday:

We are delivering on President Trump’s promise to the American public that his administration would address and fix the current fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards. Our proposal aims to strike the right regulatory balance based on the most recent information and create a 50-state solution that will enable more Americans to afford newer, safer vehicles that pollute less. More realistic standards can save lives while continuing to improve the environment. We value the public’s input as we engage in this process in an open, transparent manner.

“There are compelling reasons for a new rulemaking on fuel economy standards for 2021-2026,” said DOT Secretary Elaine Chao in a press release on Thursday. “More realistic standards will promote a healthy economy by bringing newer, safer, cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles to U.S. roads and we look forward to receiving input from the public.”

The EPA contended in a press release on Thursday that the current Obama-era gas mileage standards have been a factor in the rising cost of cars to an average of $35,000, which makes purchasing a new vehicle unaffordable for many Americans. The Obama-era standard mandated that automobiles sold by car companies have to reach 50 miles per gallon (MPG) by 2025.

Under the Trump’s administration’s new proposal, cars and light-trucks would only have to average 37 MPG by 2026.

The Trump administration also said on Thursday that it will propose to rescind California’s unique authority to set its own fuel economy standards and that the EPA and DOT hope to set one national gas mileage and emissions standard for the entire nation. After the EPA announced in April that it intends to remove the Obama-era mileage standard, California and 16 other states sued the EPA to fight the Trump rule change. The federal government has issued a waiver for years so that California can set higher mileage standards than the rest of the country.

Mitch Bailwol, the president and chief executive of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said in April that he remains committed to one national mileage and emissions standard.

“We can’t comment on a determination we haven’t seen, but remain absolutely convinced that one national program is the preferred policy path,” Bainwol contended.

Myron Ebell, a senior energy scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Trump EPA transition chair, cheered the Trump administration’s proposed rule change on Thursday.

Ebell said:

The administration’s announcement that it will relax future fuel economy (CAFE) standards is good news for consumers.  It means that the federal government will have slightly less control over the kinds of cars and trucks people can buy.  It might even cause car prices to stop increasing so rapidly.  Even better news is the decision to take California out of the driver’s seat for setting CAFE standards for the entire country.  Letting one state make decisions for people in other states makes a bad program even worse, especially since the state is California, which has been pursuing an anti-car agenda for decades.

Thomas Pyle, the president of the American Energy Alliance, said in a statement on Thursday:

What started as a mandate in the mid-1970’s to reduce foreign imports of oil morphed into a costly and unworkable environmental regulation thanks to bureaucrats in the previous Administration and in Sacramento. President Trump should be commended for standing up for American consumers by reducing the regulatory burden placed unnecessarily on automakers.

The fundamental question associated with this mandate is clear: who should decide what types of cars consumers should buy, consumers themselves or bureaucrats in Sacramento or Washington?

“We think that answer is clear, and, consequently, welcome the Administration’s action,” Pyle added.

President Donald Trump signaled his support Thursday for work requirements for food stamps.

“When the House and Senate meet on the very important Farm Bill – we love our farmers – hopefully, they will be able to leave the WORK REQUIREMENTS FOR FOOD STAMPS PROVISION that the House approved,” Trump wrote on Twitter.

The House version of the farm bill barely passed with a vote of 213-211 and included work requirements for single food stamp recipients. Democrats voted unanimously against the bill.

The House and the Senate have to take the bill to conference, however, which will likely strip the provision from the final bill to get past the 60 vote threshold.

Trump urged the Senate to end the filibuster and move the legislation forward.

“Senate should go to 51 votes!” he wrote.

The current Farm Bill expires September 30.

When the House and Senate meet on the very important Farm Bill – we love our farmers – hopefully they will be able to leave the WORK REQUIREMENTS FOR FOOD STAMPS PROVISION that the House approved. Senate should go to 51 votes!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 2, 2018

WASHINGTON, DC – Wednesday marked the first day in 30 years of a Supreme Court without Justice Anthony Kennedy, with no noteworthy events from the Court’s final days aside from Monday’s order allowing a shockingly broad climate change lawsuit to proceed.

Kennedy joined the Supreme Court when the Senate confirmed his nomination on February 3, 1988, following 13 years as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. By 1992 he was clearly understood to be a moderate justice rather than a conservative, and lawyers would craft arguments to target his vote throughout most of his tenure. With very few exceptions, he became the quintessential swing vote once Justice Sandra Day O’Connor left the Court in 2006, occupying that role alone for the next 12 years. He retired on July 31, 2018, at the age of 81, after precisely three decades on the nation’s highest court.

The Court’s only significant action during his final month came this week, when the Court on Monday allowed a climate-change lawsuit to proceed.

Twenty-one children – represented by an organization with the consent of their parents –  filed a federal lawsuit in Oregon, claiming a constitutional right to a sustainable environment, and suing the federal government – including President Trump directly – for violating that right by allowing regulations and policies that the plaintiffs claim leads to man-made global warming.

A left-wing federal trial judge in Oregon refused to dismiss the lawsuit, and also refused to certify his order as immediately appealable. The U.S. Department of Justice then filed a writ of mandamus – an extremely rare legal move – to the Ninth Circuit (Kennedy’s former court), asking for the court to order the district judge to dismiss the case.

The Ninth Circuit refused, but noted in its decision that it fully expected the federal district court to narrow the scope of the case quickly, and not allow any outlandish discovery orders or legal demands. But when the district court instead signaled that it could allow sweeping orders for testimony and documents, Solicitor General Noel Francisco applied for a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court, or alternatively for the Supreme Court to issue the writ of mandamus.

The Supreme Court denied both forms of relief, but signaled to the lower courts that they had better rein in this case quickly:

The Government’s request for relief is premature and is denied without prejudice. The breadth of respondents’ claims is striking, however, and the justiciability of those claims presents substantial grounds for difference of opinion. The District Court should take these concerns into account in assessing the burdens of discovery and trial, as well as the desirability of a prompt ruling on the Government’s pending dispositive motions.

“I am grateful that the justices put a shot across the bow of this out-of-control federal judge in Oregon not to let this crazy lawsuit turn into an all-out circus,” said former Trump Presidential Transition Team domestic policy adviser Ken Blackwell in an exclusive reaction to Breitbart News. “While we all want a clean and sustainable environment, nothing in the Constitution confers an individual right to launch a court challenge in what is essentially a political and policy debate attacking all the energy we get from fossil fuels.”

By calling the Justice Department’s filing “premature,” the Supreme Court reminded the parties that it can always step in later in the litigation if the trial judge permits things to continue on their present course.

Ken Klukowski is senior legal editor for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.

Top officials from five American intelligence and defense agencies surprised White House reporters Thursday assuring Americans in an afternoon briefing that their agencies are working together and with state and local governments and private partners to minimize the threat of foreign election meddling.

National Security Adviser John Bolton pointed to President Donald Trump’s “decisive action” since January 2017 to combat foreign interference in U.S. elections including reinforcing a strong sanctions regime. He added that often what the federal government is doing to protect elections involves highly classified information that prevents some level of sharing with the public. He said that U.S. intelligence and law enforcement continue to provide briefings for members of Congress on the issue.

Bolton, Nielsen, Wray, Coates, several admin officials surprise reporters for White House briefing … purpose of the briefing on section integrity pic.twitter.com/PB90iKifWb

— Michelle Moons (@MichelleDiana) August 2, 2018

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said President Trump has directed these leaders and their agencies to make the matter of election meddling and securing the election process a “top priority.” He affirmed that they have been doing that.

Russia is not the only country with the capability to influence American elections according to Coats. He said that the intelligence community is working together and seeking greater transparency with the public.

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen reminded reporters of the first national cybersecurity summit that occurred earlier this week. 

Nielsen said, “A single attack can have widespread and cascading consequences,” and that it is not just an attack on American privacy, prosperity, and infrastructure, but U.S. democracy itself. “Election infrastructure is not a destination,” Nielsen said as she emphasized the importance of continued vigilance.

FBI Director Christopher Wray drew attention to the work of the Foreign Influence Task Force. He said that interference from adversaries encompasses a “wide range of activities.” He called the threat “threat is multi-disciplinary.” Those threats include criminal efforts to suppress voting, cyber attacks against cyber infrastructure, manipulating news stories, and escalating divisive issues.

Wray pointed out that the threat is “not just an election cycle threat” and that enemies are trying to undermine the U.S. He said there is a broader threat of operations designed to influence America’s voters and that the scope is both broad and deep.

Wray listed three ways these agencies are working to combat this inference: Investigations and operations, Information sharing and intelligence sharing — including with state, local, and international partners, and working with the private sector including tech and social media companies so they can better monitor their own platforms.

He said the threat is not going away, that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and they haven’t stopped to this day.

Wray expressed confidence that with their partners they can protect the integrity of American elections.

NSA Director General Paul Nakasone said the Department of Defense (DOD) is providing intelligence,  information support and technical expertise to DHS to protect U.S. elections.

“Our support has been ongoing and will continue through the midterm election,” he assured. The DOD has provided the FBI with information on foreign adversaries and “alert them of malicious cyber actors.”

“These type of operations are sensitive and require confidentiality for success,” said Nakasone who described their forces as well trained, ready, and very capable.

During a question and answer with reporters, Director Coats affirmed to a reporter that Russia’s Kremlin as well as rogue agents and others were involved in interfering in U.S. elections, “both and even add to that.” He qualified that by stating that interference in the 2018 midterm elections has not been as “robust” as it was in the 2016 presidential election thus far.

Michelle Moons is a White House Correspondent for Breitbart News — follow on Twitter @MichelleDiana and Facebook

A report claims that members of the intelligence community privately support revoking the security clearances of former CIA Director John Brennan and ex-DNI Head James Clapper, who they accuse of weaponizing access to classified information against the Trump administration.

Lee Smith of RealClearInvestigations writes:

President Trump has been criticized for politicizing the intelligence community by threatening to strip the security clearances of former top officials including John Brennan and James Clapper. But numerous past and present senior intelligence officials say that the Obama administration started the politicization — and that revoking the clearances of those who abuse the privilege for partisan purposes may help right the ship.

“As is often the case with the Trump administration, the rollout of the policy is bad, but the idea driving the policy is sound,” said one senior intelligence official who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke to RealClearInvestigations only on condition of anonymity. “Under some Obama-era intelligence chiefs, intelligence was used as a political weapon. We need to root that out, not reward it.”

It is not clear if the White House is moving forward on Trump’s threats last month to revoke those clearances. After Brennan’s continued media attacks on Trump following the Helsinki summit with President Vladimir Putin of Russia, Sen. Rand Paul advised the president to strip him of his clearance. The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Some sources say former CIA director Brennan, ex-director of national intelligence Clapper and others with security clearances were emboldened to pursue political agendas through the anti-Trump media, in a climate of impunity created by the Justice Department’s failure to prosecute leaks attending Donald Trump’s election. Notable among the leaks, they said, was a top unnamed official’s “unmasking” of Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn in a January 2017 Washington Post column by David Ignatius, sourced to classified intercepts of Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador. Leaking such classified information is a felony.

“The very people who are now talking the most know the details of how the Flynn intercept was leaked,” a senior U.S. official told RealClearInvestigations. “They wouldn’t be out talking like that if they’d been interviewed by the FBI.”

Read the rest of the article here.

China’s state-run newspaper Global Times derided critics in the West Thursday for condemning a new initiative forcing all religious buildings to fly China’s red flag as a means to “enhance the concept of nation.”

The newspaper claimed the move was necessary because, without imposing the government’s wishes on individual religions, the nation could “lurch toward war.”

Requiring religious institutions to fly the national flag, a symbol of the nation’s embrace of communism in 1949, is necessary because “religions are exclusive” and the government has a responsibility to work on “strengthening people’s national and civic consciousness,” the Global Times argued.

According to the state newspaper, the proposal to make all buildings fly the flag came from “the country’s major religious associations.” China recognizes only five religions legally—Protestantism, Christianity, Islam, Taoism, and Buddhism—and has established government-recognized “patriotic” institutions that govern each. Chinese citizens who wish to worship outside of government institutions are considered criminals. Beijing has increased its persecution of unofficial “house” churches and home worship under Communist Party leader Xi Jinping.

“The country’s major religious associations on Tuesday proposed an initiative demanding that all religious venues raise China’s national flag to strengthen awareness of respect for the flag and preserve the flag’s dignity,” the Times noted, adding that “some Western media outlets” condemned the move as stifling religious expression.

“A national flag is a symbol of the country that should be respected by all citizens,” the Global Times insisted. “The display of national flags is not only recognition of national sovereignty, but also a manifestation of love for the country.”

The propaganda outlet argued that, without “national identity,” allowing religious freedom leads to war.

The Global Times announced the initiative on Tuesday, citing Chinese “experts” who applauded the move “for seeking to assimilate religion into a socialist society and as progress for religious development.” At the time, the newspaper once again expressed the belief that Beijing has a responsibility to teach religious people to “better practice socialist core values.”

The move follows orders from the government leaders of the five religions to local churches, temples, and mosques, to “Sinicize” the religion fully—to make each religion more “Chinese.” To do so, according to a white paper the government released titled “China’s Policies and Practices on Protecting Freedom of Religious Belief,” religious leaders “must conduct religious activities in the Chinese context, practice core socialist values, carry forward the fine traditions of the Chinese nation, and actively explore religious thought which conforms to the reality in China.

The Chinese Communist Party has expressed particular concern regarding the activities of Christians around the country who do not attend government-organized services, Uighur Muslims in western Xinjiang province, and Tibetan Buddhists following the Dalai Lama in Tibet. Part of the campaign to “Sinicize” religion involved banning children from religious services. Most recently, the government decreed that children in Tibet are not allowed to participate in any religious activities during the summer. Parents of children in the province were forced to sign documents promising not to expose their children to religion. A similar decree was passed in Xinjiang months earlier.

According to the U.S. State Department’s annual International Religious Freedom Report, Xinjiang is experiencing some of the most brutal religious repression in the world. The Chinese government is forcing hundreds of thousands of Muslims into “political re-education camps,” where they are often tortured and forced to violate their beliefs, sometimes by being forced to eat pork. The Chinese government does not deny that it is “re-educating” Muslims in the region—the Global Times boasted of the program promoting “the correct political stance and excellent moral traits” this month. It has nonetheless dismissed criticism from the rest of the world, particularly the United States.

“We call on the United States to respect the facts, mind its own business, and stop using the religion issue to intervene in other countries’ internal affairs,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told reporters following the publication of the 2017 State Department International Religious Freedom Report.

Follow Frances Martel on Facebook and Twitter.