Jul 22

Disappointed Fact-Checker: Trump’s Crime Stats ‘Mostly Accurate’ | The Federalist Papers

donald-trumpAfter Ivanka and Donald Trump’s speech Thursday night at the Republican National Convention, the left are in disarray.Trump kicked off his speech accepting the GOP presidential citing crime statistics and explaining how much more dangerous the United States has become because of the Obama’ administration’s failing policies, arguing that Americans are in peril because of the failing policies of the Obama administration.“I will present the facts plainly and honestly. We cannot afford to be so politically correct anymore,” Trump said. “Homicides last year increased by 17% in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. In our nation’s capital, killings have risen by 50 percent. They are up nearly 60% in nearby Baltimore.”“In the President’s hometown of Chicago, more than 2,000 have been the victims of shootings this year alone. And more than 3,600 have been killed in the Chicago area since he took office,” he said. “The number of police officers killed in the line of duty has risen by almost 50% compared to this point last year. Nearly 180,000 illegal immigrants with criminal records, ordered deported from our country, are tonight roaming free to threaten peaceful citizens.”The brutal facts prompted petty whining from the left. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and Chuck Todd agreed that Trump mentioning the names of big cities is racist “coded language.” CNN contributor Van Jones slammed Trump’s speech as a “schizophrenic” and “psychopathic.”Los Angeles Times correspondent Seema Mehta fact-checked Trump’s speech and reported that his crime statistics are “mostly accurate.” Unable to dismantle his argument, Mehta resorted to claiming that Trump’s policy proposals are implausible in the Times blog entitled “Donald Trump’s crime stats are mostly accurate but his conclusions are a stretch.”

Source: Disappointed Fact-Checker: Trump’s Crime Stats ‘Mostly Accurate’ | The Federalist Papers

Jul 20

BREAKING: U.S. court ruling could have MASSIVE impact on election… – Allen B. West – AllenBWest.com

Voter-IdA federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that Texas’ strict voter ID law violates the Voting Rights Act and ordered changes before the November election. The ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals instructs a lower court to make changes that fix the “discriminatory effect” of the 2011 law, but to do so in a way that disrupts this year’s election season as little as possible. President Barack Obama’s administration took the unusual step of deploying the weight of the U.S. Justice Department into the case when it challenged the law, which requires Texas residents to show one of seven forms of approved identification. The state and other supporters say the Texas law prevents fraud. Opponents say it discriminates by requiring forms of ID that are more difficult to obtain for low-income, African-American and Latino voters.  Lawyers for Texas have argued that the state makes free IDs easy to obtain. They said any inconveniences or costs involved in getting one do not substantially burden the right to vote, and that the Justice Department and other plaintiffs had failed to prove that the law resulted in denying anyone the right to vote. Opponents countered in briefs that trial testimony indicated various bureaucratic and economic burdens associated with the law — for instance, the difficulty in finding and purchasing a proper birth certificate to obtain an ID. A brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union cited testimony in other voter ID states indicating numerous difficulties faced by people, including burdensome travel and expenses to get required documentation to obtain IDs. Texas doesn’t recognize university IDs from college students, but it does accept

Source: BREAKING: U.S. court ruling could have MASSIVE impact on election… – Allen B. West – AllenBWest.com

Jul 20

Coincidence? Full List of People Who Have Turned UP Dead After Working With The Clintons | EndingFed News Network

hillary_clintonIt seems that anyone who happens to be close to the Clintons when a scandal breaks out then mysteriously disappears.Here is a list of all the mysterious deaths involved with the Clintons:

1 – James McDougal – Clinton’s convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr’s investigation.

2 – Mary Mahoney – A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown. The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House.

3 – Vince Foster – Former white House councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock’s Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.

4 – Ron Brown – Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown’s skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors.

5 – C. Victor Raiser II and Montgomery Raiser, Major players in the Clinton fund raising organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992.

6 – Paul Tulley – Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock, September 1992… Described by Clinton as a “Dear friend and trusted advisor.”

7- Ed Willey – Clinton fund raiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the

“Click on the source link below to read the entire article”

Source: Coincidence? Full List of People Who Have Turned UP Dead After Working With The Clintons | EndingFed News Network

Jul 19

Mexico Deports THIS Many Immigrants | The Federalist Papers

illegal_alien_border_aMexico seems to hold a rather shocking double standard on deporting illegal immigrants. While they denounce Donald Trump for saying he will build a wall along the American southern border, and say that they will not be funding this wall, Mexico deports about 90% of its own illegal immigrants. Hypocrisy much?The Daily Caller reports:While many Mexican politicians including President Enrique Peña Nieto decry GOP presumptive nominee Donald Trump’s proposal for a border wall, the country reportedly deports nine in 10 Central American illegal migrants south of its own border. Univision reports that Mexico strictly enforces its own immigration laws through strong border security which has led to deportation of 87 percent, 92, percent, and 97 percent of illegal Salvadoran, Honduran and Guatemalan migrants respectively.Over 43,000 Central American migrants were deported during the first four months of 2016. Of these, over 9,000 of them were minors, and 85 percent of them were deported.Why should we be concerned with all of this? For two reasons.First, most of the immigrants who were caught trying to enter Mexico this year were trying to get through the country so they could cross the Mexican-US border. Ultimately, their goal was to get into America illegally.Secondly, while it ultimately benefits us that Mexico is deporting the majority of their immigrants, there is a blatant double standard here from the Mexican government and politicians, as multiple politicians have stated that the Mexican government will not be financially supporting Trump’s border wall.So it’s okay for Mexicans to migrate illegally to the US, and when we try to deport them it’s “racist”; yet it’s perfectly fine for Mexico to deport 90% of their illegal immigrants, and that’s not racist at all. “Peña Nieto has stated that there is ‘no way,’ his country will foot the bill for a U.S.-Mexico border wall.”The former Mexican President, Vincente Fox made a similar statement in his interview with Univision’s Jorge Ramos, but in much stronger language.This is not to say that I think Trump’s border wall is a good idea, or that I don’t think Mexico should be deporting their illegal immigrants, or that it’s “racist” if they do. But a double standard is a double standard whether I agree with it or not. Also, the Mexican government should be held to the same standards they are holding us to in the areas of illegal immigration and deportation.Despite the fact that their deportation of illegals ultimately benefits us, it must be called out as a hypocritical double standard, otherwise we will be the hypocrites, losing our credibility when calling out other forms of hypocrisy in future

Source: Mexico Deports THIS Many Immigrants | The Federalist Papers

Jul 15

The Unbelievable Reason One Illinois Couple is Being Denied Their Second Amendment Rights – Bearing Arms

gun“After the number of times we’ve had to take legal action in Illinois, including our landmark U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago six years ago, one would think the state would have wised up by now,” said Alan M. Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation and legal representative for the Shults’.“But here we are again,” said Gottlieb, “fighting for the rights of law-abiding citizens in that state.”It all started a few months ago when Colleen Shults, who works as an LPN at Danville Correctional Center under the Illinois Department of Corrections, received a letter from their Central Intelligence Unit warning “prisoners in the IDOC system were using people locator websites on the Internet to learn the home addresses of IDOC staff, including correctional officers and nurses.”Although the letter advised Colleen and those like her to “be careful and diligent for their safety”, the Shults’ are unable to protect themselves or their family with a firearm for one reason.They’re foster parents.Their lawsuit says that because the Shults’ are foster care providers, which they have been for many years, the policy of the Illinois Department of Children and

Source: The Unbelievable Reason One Illinois Couple is Being Denied Their Second Amendment Rights – Bearing Arms

Jul 15

New Study: Electronic Cigarettes Vapor Has NO Toxic Effect | Vapeform

E-Cigarettes-1In a recent study, scientists have found electronic cigarette vapor has NO toxic effect on the cells found in human lungs. Fresh research, funded by British American Tobacco (BAT), suggested inhaling nicotine vapor could be as safe as breathing air.To perform these experiments, the tobacco giant teamed up with the MatTek Corporation, maker of human cell models used in “in vitro” laboratory experiments. Scientists then used a “smoking robot” to expose these lung cell replicas to tobacco smoke, two different brands of e-cig vapor, and plain old air. After being exposed to old-fashioned smoke for six (6) hours, the cells died. However, after subjecting the cells to an “aggressive and continuous” dose of e-cig vapor, researchers claimed the damage to the airway tissue was “similar to that of air”. BAT spokesperson, Dr Marina Murphy, stated “by employing a combination of a smoking robot and a lab-based test using respiratory tissue, it was possible to demonstrate…. the e-cigarette aerosols used in this study have no [toxic] effect on human airway tissue.”There are plans to tests a wider variety of e-cigs, to prove its results. “Currently there are no standards concerning the ‘in vitro’ testing of electronic cigarette aerosols,” said Marina Trani, ‎Group Head Scientific Product Stewardship at British American Tobacco. “Our protocol could prove very useful in helping the process by which these guidelines might progress.”The debate about e-cigarette safety has been raging for several years. Study after study have highlighted health risks, although most experts agree vaping is much safer than smoking cigarettes. Dr Michael Siegel, professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences at Boston University’s School of Public Health, welcomed the latest study as evidence of the safety of electronic cigarettes; stating “Despite the limitations of the research, it adds additional evidence to support the contention that vaping is a lot safer than smoking.”

Source: New Study: Electronic Cigarettes Vapor Has NO Toxic Effect | Vapeform

Jul 14


guns-lots-of-guns-matrix-keanu-reeves-6001Around 1,000 gun owners rallied at the state capitol in Olympia, WA, openly armed, this past Saturday in defiance of the newly passed gun control law, I-594.“This isn’t just a protest. We are here to openly violate the law,” stated Gavin Seim, organizer of the event, named ‘I Will Not Comply’.At the end of the rally, gun owners burned their concealed weapons permits and signed a petition vowing to refuse to follow the new gun control law. The petition ended with the text, “We pledge our blood. We will not comply.”This certainly isn’t the first large scale act of civil disobedience by gun owners in defiance of gun laws. Earlier this year in Connecticut hundreds of thousands of gun owners refused to send in their gun registration forms, also becoming felons. Similar numbers of gun owners in New York have also refused to send in their registration paperwork and some even video taped themselves burning the forms. Fed up with the passage of an 18½-page incoherent, rambling, unconstitutional gun control initiative that was bankrolled by billionaires, gun owners across Washington state held the largest felony civil disobedience rally in the nation’s history, brazenly titled “I Will Not Comply.” No one was hurt and no stores were looted. Between 1,000 and 3,000 lawful gun owners showed up openly armed at the state capitol in Olympia, Wash., on Saturday to defy the newly passed gun control law, I-594.Organizer Gavin Seim made the extraordinary nature of the rally very clear, “This isn’t just a protest. We are here to openly violate the law.” Attendees publicly transferred their guns to each other in violation of I-591’s background check provisions, and some even bought and sold guns just a few feet away from law enforcement. A fire pit blazed throughout the rally, and at the conclusion, gun owners lined up to burn their concealed weapons permits. A petitionwas circulated affirming gun owners’ refusal to follow I-594, which ended with, “We pledge our blood. We will not comply.”As the RSVPs in advance of the rally grew to over 6,000, the police – most who probably detest I-594 – decided not to enforce the law. The Washington State Patrol announced there would be no arrests for exchanging guns – not even for selling guns. Seim refused to obtain a permit to hold the rally, citing the right of people to peaceably assemble. The rally could not be dismissed as fringe elements. Several lawmakers and lawmen spoke, including former Graham County Sheriff Richard Mack of Arizona, Washington State Rep. Elizabeth Scott (R-Monroe) and Rep. Graham Hunt (R-Orting), who sported an AR-15 during his speech. Mack advised gun owners engaging in civil disobedience to “put your sheriff next to you to keep it peaceful.” Scott defiantly explained in her speech, “I will not comply with I-594 because it is unconstitutional, unenforceable and unjust. It is impossible to enforce this law unless there is a police officer on every back porch and in every living room. So it will be enforced selectively.” She noted that Founding Father Alexander Hamilton said any law that violates the Constitution is not valid, and there is a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws.


Jul 14

Houston Official Calls for Form of Segregation: Only Blacks Can Police Black Communities

Plato_250HOUSTON, Texas – A Houston city councilman has called for segregation in policing. In the wake of the officer-involved shootings of black men across the country and the assassination of Dallas police officers, the councilman said police should reflect the ethnicity of the particular community where they patrol.Speaking to Fox 26 in Houston, City Councilman Dwight Boykins (District D), “I think at this point, because of the crisis situation, not in Houston but throughout the country, we need to have officers patrolling areas that reflect the ethnicity [of that community].”The councilman continued, “Because that will eliminate second-guessing. People know their community; they know their culture; and I think that can make a difference.”

Source: Houston Official Calls for Form of Segregation: Only Blacks Can Police Black Communities

Jul 13

Tenth Amendment Center | No Federal Power over Guns, Even if the 2nd Amendment Never Existed

constitution_250Proponent of federal gun control have seized upon the most recent shooting to advance their agenda, predictably trotting out the same worn narratives.Chief among these we find the argument that the Second Amendment was only intended to protect a “corporate” right of the “people” to keep and bear arms, and that it was meant to apply only to militia service.I’ve covered the relationship between the Second Amendment and the militia in my Constitution 101 series, explaining the militia was not an exclusive body of people, and it certainly wasn’t the National Guard, which was not established until 1903. As George Mason explained it, the people were essentially the militia.I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”But for the sake of argument, let’s accept a narrow interpretation of the Second Amendment. Let’s assume it only relates to service in the militia.The federal government still has no authority to regulate firearms.As I explained in my Constitution 101 article on the Second Amendment, the Constitution only delegates specific powers to the federal government. The enumeration of certain powers logically excludes all powers not listed. Designato unius est exclusio alterius is a legal maxim meaning, “the designation of one is the exclusion of the other.” You will find no authority to regulate firearms or ban certain types of weapons in the Constitution. The supporters of the Constitution consistently argued that the federal government would not possess the authority to exercise any power not explicitly given.As a condition of ratification many states insisted on a Bill of Rights, including amendments to make this rule of construction explicit. The result was the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.So, even if the Second Amendment was never ratified, or if we accept the very narrow application preferred by progressives, the federal government still cannot infringe on the individual right to self-defense.The Ninth Amendment was ratified to ensure that listing certain rights in the Bill of Rights would not be construed as

Source: Tenth Amendment Center | No Federal Power over Guns, Even if the 2nd Amendment Never Existed

Jul 12

Hillary Clinton Blames Whites, Cops for Deaths of Young Black Men – Breitbart

hillary_clintonHillary Clinton used a CNN interview on Friday to completely embrace the Democrats’ claim that white people and cops must change to help reduce the number of African-Americans killed in tense exchanges with cops.“I will call for white people, like myself, to put ourselves in the shoes of those African-American  families who fear every time their children go somewhere, who have to have ‘The Talk,’ about, you now, how to really protect themselves [from police], when they’re the ones who should be expecting protection from encounters with police,” Clinton told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.“I’m going to be talking to white people, we’re the ones who have to start listening to the legitimate cries coming from our African-American fellow citizens,” she said.“We’ve got to figure out what is happening when routine traffic stops, when routine arrests, escalate into killings … Clearly, there seems to be a terrible disconnect between many police departments and officers and the people they have sworn to protect,” she said.Federal policing guidelines are needed because “we have 18,000 police departments… [some of which need more training to] go after systemic racism, which is a reality, and to go after systemic bias,” she said. “We’ve got to start once again respecting and treating each other with the dignity that every person deserves,” she said.The statement echoed a tweet from Friday morning.

Source: Hillary Clinton Blames Whites, Cops for Deaths of Young Black Men – Breitbart

Older posts «