In October, High Bridge Arms – the last gun store in San Francisco – will be closing its doors for good due to gun controls with which the store refuses to comply.
San Francisco has emerged as the gun control capital of California, with laws regulating everything from magazine capacity to allowable types of ammunition to limits on advertising to the manner in which guns must be stored–and beyond. For decades, High Bridge Arms has adapted to the passage of each new gun control, but it views the latest push as a step too far.
According to SFist, the newest control push “comes from Supervisor Mark Farrell (District 2), and proposes to require that all gun sales in San Francisco be videotaped.” It would also “further require that all gun and ammunition buyers’ names, birthdates, addresses and driver’s license numbers be supplied to the San Francisco Police Department. Sup. Farrell proposed the idea in July, and it may be voted on this month.”
Fox News reports that High Bridge Arms’ general manager, Steven Alcairo, said the store’s owners are tired of keeping up with the new regulations and equally tired of trying to guess what might come next. Alcairo said, “This time, it’s the idea of filming our customers taking delivery of items after they already completed waiting periods. We feel this is a tactic designed to discourage customers from coming to us.” He added, “This year, it’s this and next year will probably be something else. We don’t want to wait for it.”
Comments from Supervisor Farrell bolster Alcairo’s concern that further gun control is on the way. When Farrell began pushing for the videotaping of all gun sales, he said:
Easy access to guns and ammunition continue to contribute to senseless violent crime here in San Francisco and across the country. Even though San Francisco has some of the toughest gun control laws on the books in the country – there is more we can do to protect the public.
High Bridge Arms opened in the mid-1950s. It will soon be closed after dying the death of a thousand cuts.
Nowhere has there been so much hand-wringing over a lack of “affordable housing,” as among politicians and others in coastal California. And nobody has done more to make housing unaffordable than those same politicians and their supporters.
A recent survey showed that the average monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco was just over $3,500. Some people are paying $1,800 a month just to rent a bunk bed in a San Francisco apartment.
It is not just in San Francisco that putting a roof over your head can take a big chunk out of your pay check. The whole Bay Area is like that. Thirty miles away, Palo Alto home prices are similarly unbelievable.
One house in Palo Alto, built more than 70 years ago, and just over one thousand square feet in size, was offered for sale at $1.5 million. And most asking prices are bid up further in such places.
Another city in the Bay Area with astronomical housing prices, San Mateo, recently held a public meeting and appointed a task force to look into the issue of “affordable housing.”
Public meetings, task forces, and political hand-wringing about a need for “affordable housing” occur all up and down the San Francisco peninsula, because this is supposed to be such a “complex” issue.
Someone once told President Ronald Reagan that a solution to some controversial issue was “complex.” President Reagan replied that the issue was in fact simple, “but it is not easy.”
Is the solution to unaffordable housing prices in parts of California simple? Yes. It is as simple as supply and demand. What gets complicated is evading the obvious, because it is politically painful.
One of the first things taught in an introductory economics course is supply and demand. When a growing population creates a growing demand for housing, and the government blocks housing from being built, the price of existing housing goes up.
This is not a breakthrough on the frontiers of knowledge. Economists have understood supply and demand for centuries – and so have many other people who never studied economics.
Housing prices in San Francisco, and in many other communities for miles around, were once no higher than in the rest of the United States. But, beginning in the 1970s, housing prices in these communities skyrocketed to three or four times the national average.
Why? Because local government laws and policies severely restricted, or banned outright, the building of anything on vast areas of land. This is called preserving “open space,” and “open space” has become almost a cult obsession among self-righteous environmental activists, many of whom are sufficiently affluent that they don’t have to worry about housing prices.
Some others have bought the argument that there is just very little land left in coastal California, on which to build homes. But anyone who drives down Highway 280 for thirty miles or so from San Francisco to Palo Alto, will see mile after mile of vast areas of land with not a building or a house in sight.
How “complex” is it to figure out that letting people build homes in some of that vast expanse of “open space” would keep housing from becoming “unaffordable”?
Was it just a big coincidence that housing prices in coastal California began skyrocketing in the 1970s, when building bans spread like wildfire under the banner of “open space,” “saving farmland,” or whatever other slogans would impress the gullible?
When more than half the land in San Mateo County is legally off-limits to building, how surprised should we be that housing prices in the city of San Mateo are now so high that politically appointed task forces have to be formed to solve the “complex” question of how things got to be the way they are and what to do about it?
However simple the answer, it will not be easy to go against the organized, self-righteous activists for whom “open space” is a sacred cause, automatically overriding the interests of everybody else.
Was it just a coincidence that some other parts of the country saw skyrocketing housing prices when similar severe restrictions on building went into effect? Or that similar policies in other countries have had the same effect? How “complex” is that?
Democratic Wisconsin Rep. Gwen Moore is continuing her push to keep Planned Parenthood funded, claiming reallocating the funds to other healthcare organizations that don’t perform abortions wouldn’t be an adequate option.
At a press conference held by the Congressional Black Caucus Monday, Moore said due to the length of time women are fertile throughout their lives, it can be difficult preventing pregnancy.
“That is a lot of time to prevent pregnancies, and it’s hard for me to believe that any woman would want to be pregnant every year for 35 years,” she said. “So women have been desperately in need for this healthcare remedy, which is why it has been such a strenuous effort to provide this life saving benefit to women.”
While Planned Parenthood receives close to half a billion dollars a year in federal funds, Moore says due to the Hyde Amendment none of that money goes toward abortions. Critics say the money indirectly funds the cause because money provided by private donors could be used for women’s healthcare instead of the procedure.
Planned Parenthood has recently come under fire after a series of videos allegedly showing doctors discussing selling fetal body parts for profit. Republican legislatures have since pushed to defund the organization, some even at the cost of a government shutdown.
Moore also said many women with unintended pregnancies carry out full-terms because they can’t afford the service.
“It has all kinds of implications on a family – not just financial, but emotional, social and the ability of a family to provide for their children really relies on that family being able to decide when and how many children and if they will have any children at all,” she said. “I don’t think we do children a favor by forcing women to give birth.”
By now, many have seen the reports that the clock was not a clock as the media is reporting. The video here does a great job of explaining why this “project” may have been an intentional ploy for CAIR’s agenda (GatewayPundit exposed details on this back story). JihadWatch reports that the family is now claiming the boy was “severely traumatized” and hires lawyers (who most likely represent CAIR). When MRCTV interviewed student’s on a college campus and they were shown the actual picture of the “clock,” all agree that they thought it was a picture of a bomb and would notify authorities if they saw this “invention” in a public space.
The No Agenda radio show with Adam Curry and John C. Dvorak does a great analysis on their Sep. 22 show (audio clip here). Curry and Dvorak dissect the carefully parsed answer from Ahmed to the press when the question is posed regarding the conversation Ahmed had with his teacher. The answer is simply “No” – NO OPENESS on the topic allowed and no details given.
Well maybe the tight lipped response was due to the fact that there was no “PROJECT” – thus no need for the suitcase clock to be discussed with the teacher. The Mayor of Irving, TX (a town not far from the Garland, TX shooting) presents some interesting insights in the audio from the Sep 24 show clip below. One insight seems to be that Ahmed probably never had the conversation he claims to have had in showing off his “invention” to the teacher, but rather the teacher simply found the suitcase and reacted to the suitcase, and did not know who the suitcase belonged to thus was NOT reacting to Ahmed (which again, may explain why the answer to the media’s question was “NO”). Listen to the full clip (directly at YouTube link here), or below:
Highlights of the above segment as follows:
1:00 minute marker: Garland, TX is near by Irving, TX, and CAIR is attempting to set up Islam tribunal courts, thus the Mayor is helping to enforce a measure to protect the constitution and U.S. law.
6:00 minute marker: The clock stunt was planned with CAIR for “civilization jihad”… possibly in response to the U.S. law being prepared in Irving, TX. Recall that the father of the Muslim kid has a past history with pushing Islam.
8:30 minute marker: Irving Mayor talking about the other side of the story that is not being reported by media… the family is ignoring any requests to cooperate. The breakdown of the High School… less than 10% of the demographics is white, thus racism is not a factor. The Muslim Clock kid was NON-Cooperative with police. The teacher did not know who the device belonged to… she was reacting to the device… not the student.
10:55 minute marker: Irving Mayor discusses that the kid is a constant “no-show” at scheduled meetings. The same time Ahmed was supposed to meet with the police chief and mayor… Ahmed was having a press conference instead with the CAIR representatives close at hand.
12:00 minute marker: Irving Mayor confirms that the timing of Obama’s pro-Muslim clock kid tweet is odd… in which Obama once again jumps to conclusions before facts are released.
For anyone that missed the Bill Maher clip mentioned in the audio, the full clip can be seen here.
Black Woman Arrested In GA For Threatening To Kill Police, White People, Connected To Black Lives Matter, FYF… Update: Charges Include Making Terroristic Threats And Cruelty To Children, Judge Denies Bond – Weasel Zippers
CLAYTON COUNTY, Ga. – Clayton County police are investigating threats against officers made by a woman in videos posted on the Internet.
Police say the woman who made the Internet threats lives a mile-and-a-half from a Clayton County police station.
The videos are filled with profanity and hate for white people.
The woman in the video, Latausha Nedd, who goes by the name Eye Empress Sekhmet, calls for a war on not only white people, but she advocates shooting police officers.
“I say let’s have a take a gun day, and start walking up on these untrained and stealing their weapons,” Nedd said.
“You really want people to kill cops?” Channel 2’s Tom Jones asked Nedd.
“I never said that,” Nedd told Jones.
Here’s the arrest:
Here’s some of the uncensored video (warning for language):
Here’s another interesting fact. In the first video above, there are two men in one of her videos, one identified as ‘Black Supreme Power’, the other as ‘Palmetto Star’.
Palmetto Star was involved in organizing the Black Lives Matter FYF event at Stone Mountain on 9/11. If you’ll recall they said they were going to have 2500 people out and ended up with 8.
Here’s a picture of the eight:
Latausha showing her affection for the flag on Memorial Day:
She used to work for the Georgia Citizen’s Coalition for the Homeless, Amnesty International and other social justice organizations. She was a fellow of the ‘Women’s Policy Institue’ to train grassroots leaders in California to help pass legislation.
The charges for the ‘Empress’ include making terroristic threats, criminal solicitation (urging people on youtube to kill white people and take over police stations), battery and ‘cruelty to children’. We do not yet know the story behind the last two charges yet.
After all sorts of proclamations about not caring what the police or anyone thought, her buddy, Palmetto Star, is now claiming the youtube threats were part of a ‘movie’. Given several videos and appearances on his blog talk radio show, it’s clear that was not the case. He also encouraged people to phone harass the police to ‘check on her’.
The judge denied her bond, so the Empress is going to sit for a bit.
Now who’s being the child?
Conservative YouTube sensation CJ Pearson, a 13-year-old black middle schooler from Georgia, revealed on Wednesday that he’s been blocked from following President Obama on Twitter. He’s also unable to view the president’s tweets.
11,040 Likes – 4,948 Comments – 5,410 Shares
“It’s an honor,” Pearson tells The American Mirror, insisting he did nothing to warrant being blocked, except his most recent video released last week.
In the video, he accuses the president of playing politics with the Texas student who was suspended for bringing a clock to school that appeared to be a bomb.
“He’s used this child as a political prop,” Pearson said. “This president has used this child to push his radical, leftward agenda. And I think it’s disgusting, and I think many, many people agree.”
Pearson’s video has been viewed over 1.8 million times on YouTube.
UPDATE – 10:23 p.m.:
CJ says the White House issued a statement saying the president didn’t block him on Twitter. CJ responds here:
By now it’s clear: even fellow Republican candidates Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham have piled on, the mainstream media is in an uproar, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is demanding he drop out of the race, and the only people who agree with Ben Carson’s statements about a Muslim president, Sharia, and the Constitution are racist, bigoted Islamophobes.
“I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” said Carson, and hatemongers everywhere applauded.
The Islamophobes even piled on with hateful statements of their own:
Let’s face the grim truth… There is no evidence whatever that Islam in its various political forms is compatible with modern democracy. From Afghanistan under the Taliban to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and from Iran to Sudan, there is no Islamist entity that can be said to be democratic, just, or a practitioner of good governance.
Oh, the Islamophobia! Ibrahim Hooper and Nihad Awad of CAIR are no doubt gearing up for another press conference to denounce that one, but they’re coming so thick and fast that those guardians of the Constitution may not be able to keep up.
The first basic difference between the political system endorsed by Islam and democracy is that in democracy, the ultimate authority lies with the people. In Islam, however, the ultimate authority doesn’t belong to people; it belongs to God alone. That means that both the ruler and the ruled in Islam are subject to a higher criterion for decision-making, that is, divine guidance.
That would mean that the Constitution would have to give way to Sharia wherever the two conflict, as another Islamophobe makes clear when he says:
Democracy runs counter to Islam on several issues… In democracy, legislation is the prerogative of the people. It is the people who draw up the constitution, and they have the authority to amend it as well. On this issue we differ.
Supposedly, in Islamic thought only Allah legislates. There is no shortage of Islamophobes who spew this hate.
Another howled that in Islam, “democracy, freedom, and human rights have no place.”
Still another yelped that in Islam, “democracy is evil, the parliament is evil and legislation is evil.”
One Islamophobe went Carson one better, saying not only that a Muslim should not be president, but that Muslims shouldn’t even participate in elections. He had the audacity to claim that “electing a president or another form of leadership or council members is prohibited in Islam.”
These Islamophobes have even tried to convince people that because Islam is a “comprehensive system of governance,” many Muslims reject democracy as “a system whereby man violates the right of Allah and decides what is permissible or impermissible for mankind, based solely on their whims and desires.”
One complained that some Muslims even assert that they can only participate in politics in Western societies “on Islam’s terms.”
These must be the kind of Islamophobic statements Carson was reading when he formulated his hateful, bigoted opinions. Shameful.
So who said the awful statements above? Pamela Geller? Geert Wilders? Some other hatemongering profiteer whom all decent people must shun?
In order, the authors of the Islamophobic statements I quote above are:
* Hisham Melhem, the Washington bureau chief of Al-Arabiya,
* Renowned moderate Muslim and Islamic apologist Jamal Badawi,
* Syrian Islamic scholar Abd Al-Karim Bakkar,
* The leader of Iran’s Shia Taliban, Mesbah Yazdi,
* Australian Muslim cleric Ibrahim Siddiq-Conlon,
* Saudi Islamic scholar, Sheikh Abdul Rahman bin Nassir Al Barrak,
* A Muslim group in Wales that plastered Cardiff with posters denouncing democracy and exhorting Muslims not to vote, and
* A Muslim group in Denmark that likewise urged Muslims to boycott elections.
Carson’s detractors would no doubt dismiss all these Muslims as “extremists.” All they have to do to make their case, after all, is point to all the thriving Constitutional republics that have Muslim majorities and guarantee freedom of speech, equal rights for women and non-Muslims, and other aspects of traditional Islamic law that Islamophobes claim contradict the Constitution.
In reality, there is not a single country to which they can point. There is no democratic tradition in the Islamic world. There is no history of secular republics, no concept of the equality of all people before the law.
People often invoke Turkey as an example of how Islam and democracy are fully compatible. In reality, the secular Turkish republic was established in an atmosphere of war with Islam, with explicit restrictions placed upon political Islam that were considered necessary so as to rein in its authoritarian, supremacist, anti-democratic tendencies. Now, the Erdogan regime is reasserting Islam’s political aspects. Turkish secularism has been severely weakened, and may not be long for this world.
The absence of Constitutional republics in the Islamic world is no accident. It comes from: Islam’s sharp dichotomy between believers and unbelievers, retarding the development of the principle of equality of rights for all; its blasphemy laws, which hinder the freedom of speech and intellectual development; and its vision of Allah as a solitary and all-powerful despot whose will is absolute – hardly an ideal model upon which to build the idea of parliamentary give-and-take in order to discover the truth or determine the best path.
In Islam, Allah alone reveals the truth and marks out the straight path: Islam.
“We are a different kind of nation,” Ben Carson said as the controversy raged over his remarks. “Part of why we rose so quickly is because we wouldn’t allow our values or principles to be supplanted because we were going to be politically correct… Part of the problem today is that we’re so busy trying to be politically correct, that we lose all perspective.”
Indeed. Lost in the Carson firestorm is the question of whether or not he was right about Islam and Sharia. He was.
Whatever becomes of his presidential ambitions, Americans owe him a debt of gratitude for, even for a brief period, breaking through the media fog of obfuscation about Islam and allowing for some honest discussion of these all-important matters. Even as he stands on the firing line, that may be the most valuable service this good man performs for his country.
The controversy stirred by Ben Carson’s response to a question whether he would support a Muslim for president has worked to his campaign’s benefit, at least in two important ways.
According to ABC News, both donations and the candidate’s following on Facebook have increased significantly since he announced on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday that he would not support a person adhering to the Muslim faith to be President of the United States. Carson’s campaign relayed that the candidate’s Facebook page has picked up more than 100,000 new “likes” in the 24 hours since the interview.
As reported by Western Journalism, the host of Meet the Press, Chuck Todd, asked Dr. Carson: “Should a President’s faith matter?”
“If it’s inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem,” he explained.
The Obama administration is just weeks away from imposing a new ozone particulate standard that manufacturers say will cripple jobs and productivity in the U.S. and leave some firms and industries clinging to life.
The National Association of Manufacturers released a study suggesting the standard would cost the U.S. 1.4 million jobs and $1.7 trillion in productivity by 2040 if the standard is lowered from 75 parts per billion to 65 parts per billion. The EPA could bring it as low as 60 parts per billion, which the study projects would be catastrophic.
For business owners like Summitville Tiles CEO David Johnson, the change would be devastating. The firm is based in Ohio, which relies heavily on manufacturing for jobs and economic growth. Johnson recently wrote a column explaining what’s at stake if the Obama administration get’s it’s way.
“We have 88 counties in this state and under this new ozone standard, all 88 of these counties would be out of compliance, just by the stroke of the pen of this executive order of the president,” Johnson said.
In addition to burdening existing manufacturers, Johnson said the new ozone standard would stifle new business.
“It would essentially stop any new projects from going forward unless there were reductions in emissions in other plants in other areas,” he said. “In other words, there’s a trade-off. If you’re going to add new emissions, you’d have to reduce emissions somewhere else. So (if you) shut down a factory or a company goes out of business, then and only then would you have a permit to expand your particular operations.”
According to Johnson, American manufacturing has never received a gut punch like this from its own government.
“This is not a bill that’s been passed by Congress, hasn’t been vetted, hasn’t been studied,” Johnson said. “It’s simply President Obama and his EPA’s effort to combat what they believe is global warming. So yeah, it would be the most expensive regulation in the history of regulations.”
Hundreds of children sick with cancer along with their parents were forced by President Barack Obama’s Secret Service to leave a park near the White House Saturday night after the group had planned a candlelight vigil.
The event was part of CureFest for Childhood Cancer, a two-day event to raise money and awareness for childhood cancer cures. The group of nearly 700 attendees received all the permits they needed to hold “A night of Golden Candles” in Lafayette Park, but were still forced to leave, The Washington Post reports.
The Secret Service said the park was closed down as a security precaution.
The children and their parents waited for several hours for the park to open back up, but it never did, and some of the cancer stricken children needed to receive medication and return to their hotel rooms after becoming fatigued by the wait.
“I cried last night in my hotel room because it was my first CureFest, and I couldn’t believe people were acting like they don’t care about children,” Natasha Gould, one of the children told the Post.
Security agents wouldn’t even let people back in to get the chairs and blankets they left when forced to leave earlier in the night.
According to the group, they only held the candlelight vigil because the White House refused to light up its outside in gold, to symbolize solidarity with cancer stricken children.
In June, the White House lit up with rainbow lights after the Supreme Court ruling to legalize gay marriage.
The group had permits to set up in the park from 7 to 9. Many had already left, but some stayed until around 10:30 to see if they might be let back in. The group never got to re-enter the park and eventually they all gave up.
This story has been so annoying I’ve been mostly ignoring it, and while I’m generally not about conspiracy theories, this is… kinda weird.
So Ahmed has been invited to the White House and become an intern for Twitter because the media says evil racist cops and teachers arrested him for innocently bringing an invention, a clock, to his classroom. It’s Islamophobia!!!
But wait… what if… he didn’t actually build any clock?!
I’m an electronics geek. I was interested in the clock! I wanted to figure out what he had come up with.
I found the highest resolution photograph of the clock I could. Instantly, I was disappointed. Somewhere in all of this – there has indeed been a hoax. Ahmed Mohamed didn’t invent his own alarm clock. He didn’t even build a clock. Now, before I go on and get accused of attacking a 14 year old kid who’s already been through enough, let me explain my purpose. I don’t want to just dissect the clock. I want to dissect our reaction as a society to the situation. Part of that is the knee-jerk responses we’re all so quick to make without facts. So, before you scroll down and leave me angry comments, please continue to the end (or not – prove my point, and miss the point, entirely!)
For starters, one glance at the printed circuit board in the photo, and I knew we were looking at mid-to-late 1970s vintage electronics. Surely you’ve seen a modern circuit board, with metallic traces leading all over to the various components like an electronic spider’s web. You’ll notice right away the highly accurate spacing, straightness of the lines, consistency of the patterns. That’s because we design things on computers nowadays, and computers assist in routing these lines. Take a look at the board in Ahmed’s clock. It almost looks hand-drawn, right? That’s because it probably was. Computer aided design was in its infancy in the 70s. This is how simple, low cost items (like an alarm clock) were designed. Today, even a budding beginner is going to get some computer aided assistance – in fact they’ll probably start there, learning by simulating designs before building them.
Now, the blogger continues to show that basically what Ahmed did is buy an old clock, rip out it’s insides, stuff it into another box, and take off to school.
So I turned to eBay, searching for vintage alarm clocks. It only took a minute to locate Ahmed’s clock. See this eBay listing, up at the time of this writing. Amhed’s clock was invented, and built, by Micronta, a Radio Shack subsidary. Catalog number 63 756.
The shape and design is a dead give away. The large screen. The buttons on the front laid out horizontally would have been on a separate board – a large snooze button, four control buttons, and two switches to turn the alarm on and off, and choose two brightness levels. A second board inside would have contained the actual “brains” of the unit. The clock features a 9v battery back-up, and a switch on the rear allows the owner to choose between 12 and 24 hour time. (Features like a battery back-up, and a 24 hour time selection seems awful superfluous for a hobby project, don’t you think?) Oh, and about that “M” logo on the circuit board mentioned above? Micronta.
Sooooo… what happened here? The blogger draws some conclusions:
So there you have it folks, Ahmed Mohamad did not invent, nor build a clock. He took apart an existing clock, and transplanted the guts into a pencil box, and claimed it was his own creation. It all seems really fishy to me.
If we accept the story about “inventing” an alarm clock is made up, as I think I’ve made a pretty good case for, it’s fair to wonder what other parts of the story might be made up, not reported factually by the media, or at least, exaggerated.
I refer back again to this YouTube video interview with Ahmed. He explains that he closed up the box with a piece of cord because he didn’t want it to look suspicious. I’m curious, why would “looking suspicious” have even crossed his mind before this whole event unfolded, if he was truly showing off a hobby project, something so innocuous as an alarm clock. Why did he choose a pencil box, one that looks like a miniature briefcase no less, as an enclosure for a clock? It’s awful hard to see the clock with the case closed. On the other hand, with the case open, it’s awful dangerous to have an exposed power transformer sitting near the snooze button (unless, perhaps his invention was to stop serial-snooze-button pressers by giving them a dangerous electrical shock!)
Now I think it’s a real leap in logic to believe this was all an elaborate CAIR planned hoax. They would have done it better if it was. What it seems like is this dumb kid did this as a joke, got caught, and it was taken WAYY too far, and the easiest way to get out of it was to claim racism, or Islamophobia.
And the proof of this, is that he really didn’t invent the clock.
UPDATE!!! Here’s a video for those of you who don’t like to read long stuff:
The U.S. House of Representatives voted 248 to 177 on Friday afternoon to approve a bill that would give a born baby who survives an abortion the same protection under the law as “any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.”
Under the bill, the Congressional Research Service explained in its official summary of the legislation, “An individual who commits an overt act that kills a child born alive is subject to criminal prosecution for murder.”
The bill would also “require any health care practitioner who is present when a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion to: (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) ensure that such child is immediately admitted to a hospital.”
Five Democrats voted for the bill, and all 177 votes against it were cast by Democratic members. One member, Rep. John Garamendi (D.-Calif.), voted present, and eight members, including three Republicans and five Democrats did not vote.
Among the members who voted against this bill that would clarify that it is an act of murder to kill a baby who survives an abortion were House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.), Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.-Fla.), Rep. Jackie Speier (D.-Calif.), and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D.-N.Y.)
The bill was sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R.-Ariz.), who was joined by 98 co-sponsors. These included Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R.-Tenn.), Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R.-Mo.), and Rep. Kristi Noem (R.-S.D.).
“The Born Alive Abortion Survivor Protection Act protects little children who have been born alive,” Rep. Franks said in a speech on the House floor before the vote. “No one in this body can obscure the humanity and the personhood of these little born alive babies.”
“The abortion industry labored all these decades to convince the world that unborn children and born children should be completely separated in our minds, that while born children are persons worthy of protection, unborn children are not persons and are not worthy of protection,” he said.
“But those who oppose this bill to protect born alive babies now have the impossible task of trying to join born children and unborn children back together again and then trying to convince all of us to condemn them both as inhuman and not worthy of protection after all,” he said.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney spoke against the bill on the House floor.
“I stand in strong opposition to this punitive and intrusive bill,” she said.
“This is politics at its most manipulative and politics that should never be permitted to come between a patient and her doctor,” she said.
“This bill attempts to criminalize legal medical care and punish millions of women by rolling back reproductive choices. It wages a kind of guerilla warfare against Roe v. Wade by threatening doctors with jail time for providing care to their patients.”
Earlier this year, Hillary Clinton told a cheering Silicon Valley audience, “There is a special spot in hell for women who don’t help other women.”
If there is such a place in hell, Hillary has reserved parking there. It’s hard to think of any other politician who has done as much to exploit women while doing so little for them. Except maybe her husband.
While Hillary pontificated about the glass ceiling, the tabloids were filled with new allegations of sexual abuse about Clinton pal Jeffrey Epstein by one of his former “slaves”. Bill Clinton had taken frequent rides on Epstein’s private jet which had been nicknamed the “Lolita Express” because of its transportation of underage girls for the use of Epstein and some of his friends and associates.
Hillary Clinton was lecturing on feminism while new allegations were coming out about the former slave’s meeting with Bill Clinton on the “Lolita Express” and the favors that Bill owed Epstein.
Jeffrey Epstein was good at cashing in his favors. Despite buying girls as young as twelve, he served a year in the private wing of a Palm Beach prison with “work release” for six days a week and sixteen hours a day which he used to fly the Lolita Express back to his private island.
That island was a special place in hell for some little girls, but not one that Hillary Clinton was interested in doing anything about.
Now Hillary has decided that she stands with rape victims.
“I want to send a message to all of the survivors,” she said. “Don’t let anyone silence your voice, you have the right to be heard, the right be believed, and we are with you as you go forward.”
But the right to be believed didn’t extend to the twelve-year-old Arkansas girl who was beaten into a coma and raped.
Hillary Clinton defended her rapist by hurling false accusations at the little girl, claiming that she was mentally ill and sought out older men. She accused the girl, who had been beaten into a coma, of romanticizing “her sexual experiences”.
On tape, Hillary Clinton can be heard laughing about her client failing a lie detector test. She had known all along that it was the rapist who was lying.
“Hillary Clinton took me through Hell,” the victim said.”You are supposed to be for women? You call that for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.”
If there’s a special spot in hell, Hillary belongs there.
Hillary’s right for rape victims to be believed doesn’t apply once she is being paid to lie about them. And she still continues to break new ground for her special spot in hell by covering up her donors’ rapes.
When one of her donors, Howard Gutman, was made ambassador to Belgium in exchange for his generous donations and fundraising for Hillary and Obama, whistleblowers who reported that he had escaped his security detail to “solicit sexual favors from minor children” were targeted.
Hillary’s close aide, Cheryl Mills, oversaw a cover-up of the Gutman case, just as she had on Benghazi.
Hillary Clinton stood with the abuser as she had always done in her personal life and her political life.
Kathleen Willey, one of her husband’s victims, responded to Hillary’s “Message to Survivors of Sexual Assault,” ad by saying, “She believed what happened for sure. She just chose to ignore the plight of all of his victims, thus enabling him to continue to abuse and rape women in the future.”
“She’s a lying pig. I cannot believe that she had the gall to make that commercial. How dare she? I hope she rots in hell.”
Hillary didn’t stand with victims then. Instead she ran a “war room” targeting the women her husband had harassed in a repulsive political cleanup operation. But for her, the agenda has always come first. And women have come last. When Senator Bob Packwood was facing sexual harassment charges, Hillary told a friend that she was “tired of all those whiney women” because she needed HillaryCare to pass.
To Hillary Clinton, victimized women are just “whiney”. That’s the way it was. That’s the way it is.
Hillary Clinton is trying to win back the female voters abandoning her sinking campaign by promising to fight for women the way she claims to have done as Secretary of State. But if there’s a special hell for women, it’s Saudi Arabia. And Saudi Arabia was Hillary’s own special spot in hell.
Hillary Clinton traveled to a lot of countries, but one of her favorite destinations was Saudi Arabia. The Saudis weren’t just allies; they had donated as much as $25 million to the Clinton Foundation which Hillary would be using to help launch her presidential campaign.
The constant visits to Saudi Arabia, a country where little girls are married off, gang rape victims go to jail and women can’t travel without permission from their male guardians, were in sharp contrast to the image of an advocate for women that the Clinton Foundation was buying for her using Saudi money.
A kingdom where women can’t even drive was helping fund Hillary Clinton’s fake image as a feminist.
But Saudi rape problems didn’t just stay in Saudi Arabia. When Hillary Clinton visited Saudi Arabia in 2012, a rape trial against a member of the entourage of a Saudi prince had just wrapped up in New York. The victim, who had been drugged and raped, later sued the prince claiming that the rapist had been hired to lure women to the hotel.
The Plaza Hotel, where the assault took place, was more concerned for the rapist than his victim. But then it was owned by yet another Saudi prince who had also had a rape accusation leveled against him.
In 2010, Saleha Abedin, the mother of close Hillary aide Huma whose organization supported child marriage, female genital mutilation and marital rape, welcomed Hillary Clinton to her college in Saudi Arabia. Abedin assured Hillary that “no goats or sheep or camels will be offered for the lovely hand of your daughter, Chelsea”.
Hillary responded by praising Abedin and the Saudi king for recognizing “the fundamental importance of the education of women.” Then Hillary blamed the “American media” for its “unidimensional view of Saudi women.” Instead of challenging the Saudi king, Hillary Clinton blamed America.
And that is what she always does.
Whether it’s Bill Clinton or the Saudi King, Howard Gutman or some Arkansas rapist, Hillary Clinton panders to male abusers at the expense of the women and girls they hurt. It’s what she has always done to take her career to the next level.
Hillary Clinton is not here because of her talents. She’s here because she helped powerful men cover up their crimes, from her husband to the Saudi royal family. She has only gotten power by serving power and sacrificing other women to its demands.
She isn’t here to help women, men or children. Not unless they can get her closer to what she wants. Hillary is no philanthropist. She doesn’t do anything without a reason. Every move is calculated to get her a check or a favor owed.
What Hillary Clinton wants most of all is power. And like the men she has served, she will do anything and hurt anyone to get it.
President Obama will apparently test just how far Pope Francis’ notorious tolerance will go by inviting a rogue’s gallery of people opposed to Catholic teaching to greet the pontiff at the White House during his visit next week.
In a stunning show of political indecorum, Obama has invited a series of individuals who publicly flout Catholic teaching, including a pro-abortion religious sister, a transgender woman and the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, along with at least two Catholic gay activists.
The White House was illuminated in gay pride colors on June 26, 2015, after the Supreme Court legalized gay same-sex marriage.
One of the invitees, retired Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson, made history by becoming the first openly gay episcopal bishop in 2003 and subsequently the first to divorce his gay partner in 2014, after having previously separated from his wife of 14 years. He has attended a number of religious events with the Obama administration, offering a prayer at President Obama’s inauguration in 2009 and taking part in the 2014 National Prayer Breakfast.
Mateo Williamson, a cross-dressing woman and former co-chairman of the Transgender Caucus for Dignity USA, has also received an invitation to the White House for Pope Francis’ visit. Williamson says that though she now thinks of herself as a man, she continues to be attracted to males. “Today I identify as a gay man and before that was difficult to understand because I thought that in order to be transgender, in order to be a transgender male that I had to be attracted to females but I never have throughout my entire life.”
Though Pope Francis has said that he doesn’t believe in judging persons and is ready to welcome anyone in Christ’s name, he has also said that Catholics do not accept the modern mentality of transgenderism and once said that gay marriage is the devil’s “attempt to destroy God’s plan.”
“The acceptance of our bodies as God’s gift,” Francis wrote in his encyclical letter on the environment, “is vital for welcoming and accepting the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home, whereas thinking that we enjoy absolute power over our own bodies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy absolute power over creation.”
Earlier this month, the Vatican officially prohibited transgender persons from being baptismal godparents posing as the opposite sex from which they were born.
In its response, the Vatican Doctrinal Congregation said that “transsexual behavior publicly reveals an attitude contrary to the moral imperative of resolving the problem of one’s sexual identity according to the truth of one’s sexuality.”
Another White House invitee for the Pope’s visit, Sister Simone Campbell, is the pro-abortion executive director of the social justice lobby NETWORK. Campbell fought against the U.S. bishops when Obama’s Affordable Care Act was originally being debated, in an attempt to undermine their abortion and conscience concerns.
Sister Campbell will attend two events: the White House reception and Pope Francis’ address to Congress on Wednesday. Campbell famously helped organize the “Nuns on the Bus” a tour by Catholic religious women to protest the budget of then-Senator Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).
An intermediary for several of the invitations to greet the Pope was Vivian Taylor, a 30-year-old male transvestite who acted as Executive Director of Integrity USA, a homosexual and transgender activist wing of the Episcopal Church, until last March.
“A few months ago I received an invitation from the White House to attend the reception for Pope Francis,” Taylor told CNS News. “I was told I could bring several friends with me,” adding that he is “glad we can bring some LGBT representation to the event.”
Here’s how the federal government rewards an energy company for upgrading its power plants to lower costs for families and businesses and improving the environment: slap them with a nearly a million dollar fine, force them to close power plant units and lay off employees and make them millions of dollars in environmental mitigation projects.
If that sounds backwards to you, well it is.
In a lawsuit that lasted 15 years, Duke Energy and the Environmental Protection agency (EPA) reached a settlement where Duke “will pay a civil penalty of $975,000, shut down a coal-fired power plant and invest $4.4 million on environmental mitigation projects.”
The EPA and Department of Justice brought the suit against Duke Energy in 2000 arguing that the company failed to comply with the Clean Air Act when the company modified 13 coal-fired units in North Carolina.
At issue is the New Source Review (NSR), one of the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments. Power plants must meet certain air quality standards, and companies must follow Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rules to demonstrate that the construction and operation of new projects and major modifications will not increase emissions above a specified threshold.
Therefore, if a company wants to make plant modifications that improves the power plant’s efficiency, it will trigger New Source Review and the EPA will regulate the plant to meet the most recent emissions standards.
However, what constitutes a significant modification is subjective under the rules. The amendment excludes routine maintenance, repair, and replacement, but what falls under the definition of significant modification remains murky, despite multiple administrative attempts to clarify the meaning. The lack of clarification also forces companies into years, if not decades, of litigation over NSR violations. Such is the most recent case with Duke Energy.
Companies could be allocating resources to invest in new equipment and provide jobs that benefit energy consumers, but instead have to waste resources fighting ridiculously long and unnecessary lawsuits. Even though companies argue in court they complied with the law, the result will be a settlement where the federal government hands down millions of dollars in fines, and forces the closure of power plants, killing jobs in the process.
New Source Review is a cost to both the economy and the environment. Plant upgrades can improve efficiency and reduce operational costs, thereby lowering electricity costs for families and businesses, increasing reliability, and providing environmental benefits.
Nevertheless, because those upgrades trigger a New Source Review, the policy discourages new investment and keeps power plants operating less efficiently than they otherwise would.
Although increasing the efficiency of a plant will likely cause it to run longer and consequently cause the plant’s emissions to rise, NSR does not account for the emission reduction that would occur if a less efficient plant reduced its hours of operation to compensate for increases in operation of a more efficient plant.
That is why Congress should repeal New Source Review.
New Source Review is a bureaucratic mess that prevents plants from operating at optimal efficiency. Power plants are already clean because companies equip them with sophisticated, state-of-the-art pollution prevention technology to ensure safe operations no matter how long the power plant runs.
Repealing NSR would not be a free pass for companies to pollute but instead allow them to improve plant efficiency, reduce emissions and also increase power generation to meet U.S. energy needs.
The Bremerton School District is investigating a football coach for praying after high school football games. District policy states “school staff shall neither encourage nor discourage” students from praying.
Bremerton High School assistant football coach Joe Kennedy, who is still coaching, said he always prays after games on the 50-yard line. He said sometimes he’s alone, sometimes players join him.
“I never asked anyone,” Kennedy said. “They just all showed up one day and the next thing I know, the other team was showing up with us.”
KING 5 spoke to Kennedy at Monday’s JV football game, He’s the assistant head coach for Bremerton High’s varsity team and the head coach for the JV squad. After Monday’s game, Kennedy still prayed on the field, and a large crowd made up of players and parents from both Bremerton and its opponent took part.
“I spent 20 years in the Marine Corps, and it’s been about protecting the freedom of other people,” he said. “It’s about the freedom, and people can believe whatever they want. I’m just exercising my right. The game is over, and I just thank god for every one of these young men that are out here.”
It’s not yet clear what promoted the district investigation, but many in the stands at Monday’s game assumed it came as the result of a complaint or concern about the separation of church and state.
“It’s freedom of religion, not freedom from religion,” said Bill Bailey, who was actually cheering for Bremerton’s opponent to win the game, but says he supports Kennedy’s post-game prayers completely. “If they don’t like it, they don’t have to participate.”
The district would not comment on the ongoing investigation, except to say that Coach Kennedy has not been fired or placed on administrative leave. News of the investigation spread online over the weekend, sparking protest on a Facebook page called “Support Joe Kennedy.”
Kennedy told KING 5 he’s not worried about losing his job. Instead, his team remains his top priority.
“I don’t really worry about all that nonsense,” he said. “The only thing I worry about is the kids. It’s not about what my beliefs are, it’s about believing in each other. It’s about the sport that we love.”
Parents in the stands on Monday told KING 5 they’ve watched Kennedy pray after every game for years. Some didn’t seem to understand why it’s all of a sudden become an issue.
“Maybe there are some people who don’t go to church and don’t want their kid exposed to it, but you can’t stop it for everyone,” said Wanda Stone. “He doesn’t tell the kids that if they don’t come out and pray they’re not going to play. The kids are voluntarily going out there.”
A rally in support of Coach Kennedy is planned for Friday – the day Bremerton High School’s varsity team takes the field.
The prayer Kennedy prayed after Monday’s game lasted only about 13 seconds.
“Lord, I just want to lift up all these warriors that came out here to compete today,” he prayed. “I don’t care what their beliefs are. We do believe in this sport. We believe in football, we believe in a team and competition. It’s all about the game. In your name, Amen.”
Many who bowed their heads with him also said “Amen” and cheered when he finished praying.
District policy states that staff members can’t encourage or discrouage a student from engaging in non-disruptive oral or silent prayer. So there’s nothing wrong with students or student athletes praying, it’s just a question of what role the teacher or coach is playing in that prayer. It appears that is what the district investigation will try to determine.
It’s not yet clear when that investigation will be complete.
Kathleen Willey, the former Democrat activist who claims she was sexually assaulted by President Bill Clinton, is calling out Hillary Clinton for a new ad that expresses the presidential candidate’s purported concern for the survivors of sexual assault.
“She’s a money-hungry hypocritical witch who will do anything for money,” Willey told the American Mirror.
In the ad, which is only about 17 seconds long, Hillary Clinton states: “I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault. Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have a right to be heard, and you have a right to be believed. We’re with you.”
Willey pointed out she got a different message from Hillary when she accused Bill Clinton of sexually assaulting her.
“She believed what happened for sure. She just chose to ignore the plight of all of his victims, thus enabling him to continue to abuse and rape women in the future,” Willey said of Hillary.
“She’s a lying pig. I cannot believe that she had the gall to make that commercial. How dare she? I hope she rots in hell.”
See the ad:
Willey, author of the book “Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton,” has been critical of Hillary Clinton in previous interviews.
WND reported a few months ago Willey’s statements about the Clintons’ mental health.
“[Hillary] is really looking awfully haggard these days,” Willey told “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.”
“After watching [Bill’s] performance with [NBC News’ Cynthia] McFadden, when he said that I’ve gotta pay my bills, I think he’s showing early signs of dementia or something. He’s not the old Bill Clinton that we all remember. I mean, he was all over the place. Now you’re seeing clips of [Hillary] talking to herself all the time. I think that I want somebody in there who knows what they’re doing, and money isn’t the No. 1 issue for them. They have enough money. They made $30 million… in the last 15 months on speaking engagements. Isn’t that enough?”
WND reported last month that Willey, who with her husband, Ed, founded Virginians for Clinton and helped send Bill and Hillary to the White House in 1992, was shocked when Hillary claimed she and the president were broke when they left the White House in 2000.
“For her to say dead broke… I can tell you what it is to be dead broke and owing money,” she told WND in an interview.
Willey goes way back with the Clintons. While serving as a volunteer in the White House and facing financial hard times, she says she met with Bill Clinton in the Oval Office to request a paying position. But instead of getting help, she says, she was subjected to “nothing short of serious sexual harassment.”
Distraught, Willey fled Clinton’s presence, only to discover that her husband had committed suicide that same afternoon.
Later, she was drawn “unwillingly” into the Paula Jones lawsuit, the Ken Starr investigation and impeachment proceedings.
Willey wrote about her experiences with Bill Clinton’s sex addiction and Hillary Clinton’s revenge in the book “Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill & Hillary Clinton.”