H/T Breitbart’s Big Government.
Little Chucky Schumer is not going to like these numbers.
Little Chucky Schumer will say “Damn the numbers we are going full bore with the DemocRat policy of obstruction of anything President Trump wants.”
Americans want the President to appoint, and the Senate to confirm, a new Supreme Court justice before the 2018 midterm elections — by a staggering 2-to-1 margin, according to a new poll released Tuesday.
According to a new NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll:
More than six in 10 Americans, or 62 percent, said Trump’s nominee, who will be announced on Monday, should be confirmed or rejected before the elections in which control of the House and Senate are at stake. About three in 10, or 33 percent, said the Senate should wait until after the elections, the poll found.
The vast majority of Republicans surveyed, 85 percent, said the Senate’s vote on the nominee should take place before the election. Roughly six in 10 Independents, or 61 percent, agreed. However, more than half of Democrats, 55 percent, believe the voting on a new justice should wait.
Many Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), have argued that President Donald Trump should not appoint a new Supreme Court justice in an election year, and should wait for a new Congress to be seated in January.
They have cited a bogus version of the rule Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) applied in 2016, when he said the Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice in a presidential election year.
McConnell, in fact, had cited a “rule” created by then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) in 1992, the last year of President George H.W. Bush’s first term. Schumer himself sought to block President George W. Bush from appointing a new Supreme Court justice in 2007 — though Bush had more than a year left in office.
The practical effect of the rule Democrats are seeking to apply would bar Supreme Court appointments in even-numbered years.
But the new poll suggests that the public is decidedly against them, and they barely have majority support among their own voters.
Democrats may be more astute than their leaders. Given that the party has 23 (or 25, including independents) Senate seats up for re-election, ten of which are in states Trump won, versus eight seats for Republicans, it is entirely possible that the new Congress could be more Republican, meaning Trump would feel greater freedom to choose a more conservative nominee in 2019.
The poll also notes that the Supreme Court battle could be at least a modest factor in the election results: “Sixty-six percent of Democrats and 60 percent of Republicans said Trump’s nominee would be an important factor in their vote in the midterms. However, less than half of independents, 46 percent, said it would be on their mind when casting their November ballot.
The poll also shows Trump’s approval rating improving to 48% approve / 50% disapprove, and Republicans climbing to within 3% of Democrats on the generic congressional ballot.
H/T The Washington Times.
Mark Zuckerberg is a leftist loon.
In the week of America’s Independence Day, the algorithms of Facebook decided that the Declaration of Independence was hate speech.
The Liberty County Vindicator, a community newspaper between Houston and Beaumont, had been posting the whole declaration in small daily chunks for nine days on its Facebook page in the run-up to July 4. But the 10th excerpt was not posted Monday as scheduled, and the paper said it received an automated notice saying the post “goes against our standards on hate speech.”
Part of the standard notice, Vindicator managing editor Casey Stinnett wrote, included a warning that the newspaper could lose its Facebook account, on which it depends for much of its reach, if there were more violations.
The offending passage?
It was part of the document’s “Bill of Particulars” against Britain’s King George III: “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”
Mr. Stinnett dryly replied in an article about the rejection, “Perhaps had Thomas Jefferson written it as ‘Native Americans at a challenging stage of cultural development’ that would have been better. Unfortunately, Jefferson, like most British colonists of his day, did not hold an entirely friendly view of Native Americans.
He noted that the newspaper wanted “a means of contacting Facebook for an explanation or a opportunity to appeal the post’s removal, but it does not appear the folks at Facebook want anyone contacting them. Or, at least, they do not make it easy.”
Within a day, Facebook had paid heed, allowing the posting and sending the Vindicator an apology.
“It looks like we made a mistake and removed something you posted on Facebook that didn’t go against our Community Standards. We want to apologize and let you know that we’ve restored your content and removed any blocks on your account related to this incorrect action,” Facebook wrote back, the Vindicator reported.
Reason magazine pointed out how Facebook’s actions were “silly” but also the inevitable logic of massive social-media sites trying to police millions of messages, a task that cannot be done by humans.
“They demonstrate a problem with automated enforcement of hate speech policies, which is that a robot trained to spot politically incorrect language isn’t smart enough to detect when that language is part of a historically significant document,” wrote Christian Britschgi, an assistant editor at the libertarian magazine.
Mr. Britschgi went on to note a perverse result of allowing the Vindicator’s first nine excerpts from the Declaration but not the tenth, exactly because of what he called “clearly racist” language.
The phrasing “serves as another example of the American Revolution’s mixed legacy; one that won crucial liberties for a certain segment of the population, while continuing to deny those same liberties to Native Americans and African slaves. But by allowing the less controversial parts of the declaration to be shared while deleting the reference to ‘Indian savages,’ Facebook succeeds only in whitewashing America’s founding just as we get ready to celebrate it,” he wrote.
H/T Bearing Arms.
The blogger Scary Mommy needs to change her name to a Scared Mommy that wets her panties over nothing.
One surprising fact about anti-gunners is how, despite having so many alleged comedians among their number, so many of them completely lack anything approaching a sense of humor. I’m not talking even about finding things funny, necessarily, but even lacking the ability to see how someone else might find something funny.
You see, Idaho Republican state Representative Priscilla Giddings shared a photograph of herself with some anti-gun activists. The caption she gave the photo, however, has some people worked up.
As a result, the mommy blog Scary Mommy is supporting the claim that Giddings made a threat.
Giddings’ caption on the photo sparked outrage from many on social media, some feeling that she was making fun of the protestors and others who felt it was a thinly veiled threat against the women.
On Saturday, even as Giddings’ comments were being blasted in the media, the Idaho Republican Party honored her at the convention for her military service, the Idaho State Journal reported. Giddings is a former active duty Air Force pilot, combat veteran, and a current member of the Idaho Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve.
Of course, they also included a number of comments from people who seemed to think of this as a threat.
Except, showing a spent shell is hardly “inciting violence” unless you’re completely and totally unhinged. But, if you’re an anti-gunner, you probably already are.
And you’re supposed to be an unbiased journalist. I mean, we all know the idea of an unbiased journalist is like an honest politician or a trustworthy used car salesman. They might exist, but no one believes it when they see it, and you’re the reason there, buddy.
Says the woman whose mother kept an unsecured server in their home and conducted official, classified business on it. Maybe, just maybe, you’re not the best judge of what a decent human being looks like. I’m just saying.
Then there were some comments on the post itself that Scary Mommy opted to highlight.
Um…that’s not a threat. In fact, showing someone an empty shell is about as non-threatening as you can get. I mean, it’s just a piece of metal at that point. I mean, sure, it can be reloaded in theory, though I don’t know a soul who reloads 30 mm.
Look, there are some who are upset at Giddings mocking these girls, though I suspect that has more to do with the ideologies involved more than anything else. Had these girls been pro-gun and the politician mocked them, I’d put money down that not a damn one of these people would have opened their cake-disposal to act all indignant and Scary Mommy, which should probably be retitled Scared Mommy, wouldn’t have run the damn story.
A threat, even a thinly-veiled one like the blog tried to claim, at least implies harm to people. Unless you’re afraid of these kids getting the vapors and passing out at the sight of a spent casing, there was no way they could be harmed. Frankly, if you think that was a potentiality, then you should probably spend more time toughening these kids up for the real world that isn’t about to be interested in their sensitive feelings.
If people think a casing equals violence, then they’re illustrating the absolute epitome of the term “first world problems.”
Violence is a real thing. It’s a thing that impacts our streets and streets around the world. However, showing someone a spent round is not now and never has been a threat, violence, or anything of the sort.
Frankly, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to try something different and act like serious people for a damn moment and not a bunch of terrified schoolmarms who are about to have a stroke over every little thing they dislike.
Since we all know that’s not going to happen, I’m just going to point and laugh at you instead.
H/T Town Hall.
If President Trump does not consider anyone else to nominate to be a Supreme Court Justice I hope he picks Chicago Circuit Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett instead of D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
As D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh screwed up the so-called Vince Foster investigation.
With the nomination of Chicago Circuit Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett, it will be fun watching Red State DemocRats explaining in a year why they opposed a woman to the for the Supreme Court when they are supposed to be so pro women.
Fix the bayonets! We’re about to enter what will certainly become one of the biggest fights since the tax reform package passed last December. Justice Anthony Kennedy is leaving the Supreme Court on July 31. He made his intentions known to the Trump White House on the final day of the current sessions, where the high court delivered a massive blow to public sector union, ruling that forced dues from non-union members were unconstitutional. It was a key First Amendment victory. Now, with Kennedy taking his much-deserved retirement, conservatives are primed to have a solid majority on the Supreme Court. With the composition of the court at stake, you can guess that the Democrats are going to dig in, they’re going to attack, and they might make complete fools of themselves.
No, correction; they already have made fools of themselves by trying to say no Supreme Court nominee should be considered because it’s an election year when it was VERY clear that the Biden rule applies in presidential years only. They’ve already started to back away from that idiotic talking point. After all, even The Washington Post called them dolts over that line of attack. Right now, it’s a case of Democrats opposing Trump’s nominee, who has yet to be announced, while others say it’s wrong to do so; Sen. Warren said that.
This morning CBS News reported that President Trump has narrowed his choices to D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Chicago Circuit Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Kavanaugh is 53 years old; Barrett is 46 years old:
CBS News has learned that D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Chicago Circuit Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett are currently Mr. Trump’s leading contenders for the appointment to the nation’s highest court.
Kavanaugh and Barrett both appear on Mr. Trump’s list of 25 possible nominees and he’s said he plans to interview about half a dozen potential candidates before announcing his selection.
Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate Republican from Maine, said that Mr. Trump told her during a private meeting that he would not question his potential nominees about Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision establishing abortion as a right for women.
The expected addition of another conservative justice to the Supreme Court has stirred speculation that the case could be overturned.
Those two—Murkowski and Collins—are the troublemakers. We’re already at 50 Republicans in the Senate with the absence of John McCain. If those two defect, that’s the ball game. The process is reportedly going to be as expeditious as possible, with possible hearings in August followed by a confirmation vote by the fall. Just in time for the 2018 midterms, which could drive up GOP voter turnout and put red state Democrats in a jam. Yet, while all seems smooth, those two could gum up the works. I would have also been happy to see Third Circuit Court Judge Thomas Hardiman, who was also interviewed to fill the late Antonin Scalia’s vacancy. He was more or less vetted by the news media, confirmed 95-0, and is beyond qualified. In terms of legal philosophy, he’s reportedly a carbon copy of current Associate Justice Samuel Alito. He’s 52 years old.
This summer is going to get rough real quick with this SCOTUS fight. Prepare for war, folks. The White House communucations staff is already redeploying personnel to ensure a successful Supreme Court nomination. Trump is expected to announce his nominee on July 9.
Last Note: If Amy Barrett sounds familiar, it’s because she was grilled for being too Catholic during her confirmation hearings for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
(H/T Hot Air)
H/T Breitbart Texas.
These filthy animals are not coming to America for better lives but to take lives by murdering people and ruining lives by molesting children.
Border Patrol agents in the Rio Grande Valley Sector stopped five illegal immigrants from successfully making their way back into the U.S. The agents arrested two 18th Street gang members, two child molesters, and a man previously charged with felony sexual contact.
In a series of separate incidents, Border Patrol agents kept numerous criminal aliens from successfully re-entering the U.S. after previous removals, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials.
Agents arrested two 18th Street gang members in separate incidents in South Texas. In the first, Rio Grande City Station agents arrested a Honduran man near Roma. Elsewhere, Kingsville Station agents arrested a Salvadoran man about 80 miles inland, near Sarita. In both cases, biometric background investigations revealed the two men were members of the violent 18th Street gang.
In Donna, Texas, Weslaco Station agents apprehended a Mexican national after he illegally crossed the border. When agents investigated the man’s records, they discovered a 2007 conviction in Hidalgo County, Texas, for indecency with a child. He received a three-year prison sentence for his crime.
Further up the highway, agents at the Falfurrias Station came across a Guatemalan national illegally present in the U.S. The agents conducted a background check which revealed a 2004 conviction in Redwood City, California, for sex with a minor. The California court sentenced the criminal alien to 45 days in jail and three years of probation.
Agents assigned to the Rio Grande City Station arrested a Salvadoran man after he illegally crossed the border. The agents transferred the Salvadoran national to the station for processing where they learned the man had been arrested by the Saint Paul Police Department in Minnesota for felony sexual contact in the third degree. A court convicted the foreign national to three years in prison and placed him on probation for 15 years.
Agents processed all of the criminal aliens and turned them over to Homeland Security Investigation who will hold them for prosecution on immigration violations. Illegal re-entry after removal is a felony punishable by a prison sentence of up to 20 years. Their previous orders of removal will also be reinstated, officials said.
H/T The Washington Free Beacon.
It is about time that nations around the world cut off funding to the Palestinian Authority as they are funding terrorist.
Australia has ended its direct aid to the Palestinian Authority because of concerns that the PA could use the Australian funding to pay convicted terrorists.
Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said Monday that Australia had cut funding to the World Bank’s Multi-Donor Trust Fund for the Palestinian Recovery and Development Program, according to press reports. Bishop expressed concerns about the donations going to Palestinian criminals.
“I am confident that previous Australian funding to the PA through the World Bank has been used as intended,” Bishop said in a statement. “However, I am concerned that in providing funds for this aspect of the PA’s operations there is an opportunity for it to use its own budget to [fund] activities that Australia would never support.”
“Any assistance provided by the Palestine Liberation Organization to those convicted of politically motivated violence is an affront to Australian values and undermines the prospect of meaningful peace between Israel and the Palestinians,” she continued.
The Palestinian Authority paid terrorists and their families more than $347 million last year, and increased that figure by nearly $56 million this year, according to reports.
Bishop explained in her statement that she wrote to the PA on May 29 to seek assurance that Australia’s aid was “not being used to assist Palestinians convicted of politically motivated violence.”
Australia’s annual donation of 10 million Australian dollars ($7.4 million) to the trust fund will now be re-allocated to the United Nations’ Humanitarian Fund for the Palestinian Territories. The country allocated some AU$43 ($33.2) million in its 2018-2019 budget to the Palestinians, the Jerusalem Post reported.
Australian Senator Eric Abetz praised the foreign minister’s decision.
“Minister Bishop’s strong and decisive decision today to ensure that the Palestinian Authority can no longer use our aid to free up money in its budget for state-promoted terrorism is very positive,” Abetz said. “It is vital that we ensure that our foreign aid is not being spent on, or making money available for, the promotion of terrorism and so funneling our aid to the Palestinian territories through the United Nations will provide greater assurance that the Palestinian Authority’s clever accounting cannot occur.”
Australia’s decision comes three months after the U.S. Congress passed the Taylor Force Act, which halts some U.S. aid to the PA until the PA ends payments to terrorists, both jailed or killed, who fight Israel and their families. The bill does not cut aid for programs concerning water, child vaccinations, and east Jerusalem hospitals.
H/T Clash Daily.
These vicious animals are sure missing the divine spark that Nancy Pelosi spoke of.
They are why we need border security and a border wall.
Three of the victims were dismembered.
These people who supposedly have a ‘right’ to come here, are they looking for a ‘better’ life? Or looking to take a life?
The Media(D) has gone ‘all in’ on the Open Borders Narrative. Will this news spoil their storyline? Will Nancy Pelosi reference that ‘spark of divinity’ in this gruesome gang, too?
It’s hard to keep saying Trump is a ‘monster’ for wanting a Border Wall when actual ‘bad hombres‘ keep turning up to blow holes in that “sweet dreamers” narrative.
If illegal immigration didn’t bolster the political fortunes of Democrats, they would gladly ride the coattails of the stories of victims killed by illegal aliens. Especially if they could smear Trump in the process.
But since they’re all in on illegal immigration and sanctuary cities… don’t expect stories like these to be of any interest to the Democrats, or their AV department, the (formerly) ‘Mainstream Media’.
Two dozen members of the MS-13 gang have been indicted on federal charges of conspiracy to participate in racketeering related to murders, kidnapping, extortion and money laundering that the gang carried out from 2015 until 2017, federal prosecutors announced Friday.
The defendants are accused of murdering five people in Anne Arundel, Frederick and Montgomery counties. Three of the victims were dismembered.
An indictment in U.S. District Court in Baltimore that was unsealed Friday detailed how gang members allegedly murdered more than a dozen people from 2015 to 2017 and extorted people for money to finance the gang’s activities.
“MS-13 is one of the most violent and ruthless gangs on the streets today,” Robert K. Hur, U.S. Attorney for Maryland, said in a statement.
Source: Baltimore Sun
Is ‘extortion’ one of those needed jobs that Americans won’t do?
Eleven of those charged also were charged with conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering: Guerra Castillo, Hernandez Diaz, Portillo Rodriguez, Sandoval Rodriguez, Ramirez Pena, Arias Mejia, Rosa Moreno, Arrue Figueroa, Mendez Sosa, Ruiz Urrutia and Argueta Argueta. Also charged with conspiracy to commit murder were Darvin Zacarias, 26, and Luis Fernando Cruz Rodriguez, 21.
Source: Baltimore Sun
These are the people that Sanctuary Cities — by design — protect.
And who gets the shaft? Law-abiding Americans — native-born, or naturalized — who become the victims these goons prey upon.
Who DOESN’T pay a price for it?
Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, and anyone else who live in gated communities that shield lawmakers from the unpleasant consequences of their policies.
The only place THEY can ever pay a price for it is in the voting booth.