Your Daley Gator Feel-Good Story O’ The Day

Passerby With Concealed Carry Permit Stops Slaughter In Philly – Bearing Arms

.

.
If you ask a concealed handgun permit holder why they choose to carry a concealed weapon all of the time, they’ll sometimes dryly reply that it’s because criminals are rarely considerate enough to put their deadly crimes on the intended victim’s calendar.

Such was the case in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania yesterday, when a man with a concealed carry permit heard gun shots as he passed by a barbershop, ran in, and stopped a massacre in the making by shooting a man who had opened fire on employees and customers:

Police say a man likely saved the lives of several people when he shot and killed a gunman inside a West Philadelphia barbershop.

A 40-year-old man was inside Falah Barber Shop Inc. on the 600 block of Preston Street shortly before 3 p.m. Sunday when police say he began fighting with another person inside.

“They were arguing,” said 16-year-old Yusaf Mack who was a customer inside the shop at the time. “They were taking it too far and one of the barbers said, ‘chill out.’”

The fight quickly escalated and the 40-year-old man took out his gun and opened fire on customers and barbers, police said.

“I heard gunshots so I ducked and I ran,” said Mack.

As he was shooting, another man outside heard the gunfire, ran into the shop and took out his own gun, according to investigators. He then opened fire, striking the 40-year-old man once in the chest.

The man who had started shooting at customers and staff in the barbershop was taken by ambulance to a local hospital, where he died of his injuries.

The concealed carry permit holder turned himself in at a local police precinct after the shooting, and Philadelphia police are conducting a formal investigation. Early indications are that the permit holder likely saved “a lot of people.”

As a general rule, citizens have the right to defend their lives and the lives of others against immediate and proximate deadly force attacks.

No charges are expected to be filed against the concealed carry permit holder.

.

.

Your Daley Gator Birds-Of-A-Feather Story O’ The Day

Dan Rather Backs NBC’s Brian Williams – Big Journalism

.

.
Disgraced former TV news anchor Dan Rather has come to the aid of embattled NBC anchor Brian Williams, saying that Williams is an “honest man.” But Williams is caught up in a scandal of his own making after admitting to lying about being in a helicopter downed by enemy RPG fire in Iraq in 2003.

Rather, who was fired by CBS in 2004 after helping to create and air a report that falsely claimed that President George W. Bush had deserted from the Texas Air National Guard, came out in support of Williams on Thursday.

“I don’t know the particulars about that day in Iraq,” Rather told Politico. “I do know Brian. He’s a longtime friend and we have been in a number of war zones and on the same battlefields, competing but together. Brian is an honest, decent man, an excellent reporter and anchor–and a brave one. I can attest that-like his predecessor Tom Brokaw–he is a superb pro, and a gutsy one.”

Rather’s vote of support came after Williams, who has been the chief anchor of NBC Nightly News since 2004, was forced to admit to his audience that he had “misremembered” the facts of the helicopter incident that he claimed he was involved in during an assignment in Iraq in 2003.

.

.

Your Daley Gator Feel-Good Story O’ The Day

Sexual Assault Suspect Severely Beaten By Acquaintance Of Victim – WIS

A man accused of sexually assaulting a victim Thursday was beaten by an acquaintance of the victim before the police even arrived.

William Mattson’s mugshot clearly shows the result of what happened to him early Thursday morning before officers with the Conway Police Department came to the scene around 12:57 a.m.

.
………………….

.
Police found the mangled Mattson, 52, at the Highway 905 residence with the victim claiming the sexual assault.

Investigators stopped short of saying who exactly beat Mattson, but said the person was “acting in defense for the victim.”

Mattson was then arrested and taken to the J. Reuben Long Detention Center.

.

.

The Real Bundy Ranch Story That The “Mainstream” News Media Won’t Show You (Videos)

Citizens Rise Up: The Real Nevada Story The Media Won’t Show You (Video) – Top Right News

.

.
The media’s version of the end of the Bundy Ranch siege is that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) simply “left” the ranch and “returned” the cattle out of the goodness of their hearts. CBS News even outrageously reported that the BLM “released the cattle to help restore order and avoid violence“! This despite widely-seen video of BLM thugs tasing Bundy’s son and shoving a pregnant woman to the ground. And the protesters never threatened violence in any way during the nearly one-week siege.

The real story was that the BLM refused to give back the cattle, and would not leave the property or disarm, to which they had agreed. The result was an epic standoff that reporter David Knight described as being like “something out of a movie.”

Supporters of Bundy advanced on a position held by BLM agents despite threats that they would be shot at, eventually forcing BLM feds to release 100 cattle that had been stolen from Bundy as part of a land grab dispute that threatened to escalate into a Waco-style confrontation.

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related:

.
Here’s Judge Jeanine Pirro, proving once again that she’s not a part of the “mainstream” news media.

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————

.
Who Actually “Owns” America’s Land? A Deeper Look At The Bundy Ranch Crisis – Michael Lofti

Turtles and cows have absolutely no relevance to the situation in Nevada. Does the Constitution make provision for the federal government to own and control “public land”? This is the only question we need to consider. Currently, the federal government “owns” approximately 30% of the United States territory. The majority of this federally owned land is in the West. For example, the feds control more than 80% of Nevada and more than 55% of Utah. The question has been long debated. At the debate’s soul is Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which is know as the “Property Clause”. Proponents of federal expansion on both sides of the political aisle argue that this clause provides warrant for the federal government to control land throughout the United States.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States…

Those who say this clause delegates the feds control over whatever land they arbitrarily decide to lay claim to are grossly misinterpreting even the most basic structure of the Constitution.

It is said the Constitution is “written in plain English”. This is true. However, plain English does not allow one to remove context. Article IV does not grant Congress the power to exercise sovereignty over land. Article IV deals exclusively with state-to-state relations such as protection from invasion, slavery, full faith and credit, creation of new states and so on.

Historically, the Property Clause delegated federal control over territorial lands up until the point when that land would be formed as a state. This was necessary during the time of the ratification of the Constitution due to the lack of westward development. The clause was drafted to constitutionalize the Northwest Ordinance, which the Articles of Confederation did not have the power to support. This ordinance gave the newly formed Congress the power to create new states instead of allowing the states themselves to expand their own land claims.

The Property Clause and Northwest Ordinance are both limited in power and scope. Once a state is formed and accepted in the union, the federal government no longer has control over land within the state’s borders. From this moment, such land is considered property of the sovereign state. The continental United States is now formed of fifty independent, sovereign states. No “unclaimed” lands are technically in existence. Therefore, the Property Clause no longer applies within the realm of federal control over these states.

The powers of Congress are found only in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. With the exception of the less than two dozen powers delegated to Congress found within Article I, Section 8, Congress may make no laws, cannot form political agencies and cannot take any actions that seek to regulate outside of these few, enumerated powers.

Article I, Section 8 does lay forth the possibility of federal control over some land. What land? Clause 17 defines these few exceptions.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is known as the Enclave Clause. The clause gives federal control over the “Seat of Government” (Washington D.C.) and land that has been purchased by the federal government with consent of the state legislature to build military posts and other needful buildings (post offices and other structures pursuant to Article I, Section 8). Nothing more.

Being a requirement, state permission was explicitly emphasized while drafting this clause. The founders and respective states insisted (with loud cries) that the states must consent before the federal government could purchase lands from the states. Nowhere in this clause will you find the power for Congress to exercise legislative authority through regulation over 80% of Nevada, 55% of Utah, 45% of California, 70% of Alaska, etc. unless the state has given the federal government the formal authority to do so, which they have not.

If a state legislature decides sell land to the federal government then at that point the Enclave Clause becomes applicable and the federal government may seize legislative and regulatory control in pursuance to the powers delegated by Article 1, Section 8.

In America’s infancy, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Founding Fathers’ understanding of federal control over land. Justice Stephen J. Field wrote for the majority opinion in Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1855) that federal authority over territorial land was “necessarily paramount.” However, once the territory was organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal ground, the state government assumes sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government retains only the rights of an “individual proprietor.” This means that the federal government could only exercise general sovereignty over state property if the state legislature formally granted the federal government the power to do so under the Enclave Clause with the exception of federal buildings (post offices) and military installations. This understanding was reaffirmed in Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan (1845), Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the city of New Orleans (1845) and Strader v. Graham (1850).

However, it did not take long for the Supreme Court to begin redefining the Constitution and legislating from the bench under the guise of interpretation. Case by case, the Court slowly redefined the Property Clause, which had always been understood to regard exclusively the transferring of federal to state sovereignty through statehood, to the conservation of unconstitutional federal supremacy.

Federal supremacists sitting on the Supreme Court understood that by insidiously redefining this clause then federal power would be expanded and conserved.

With Camfield v. United States (1897), Light v. United States (1911), Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) and multiple other cases regarding commerce, federal supremacists have effectively erased the constitutional guarantee of state control over property.

Through the centuries, by the hand of corrupt federal judges, we arrive and the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. The Founding Fathers never imagined the citizens of a state would be subject to such treatment at the hands of the federal government. Furthermore, they certainly never imagined the state legislatures themselves would allow such treatment to go unchecked. The latest updates appear to show that Bundy has won his battle against the feds – for now. However, it remains a damn shame that the state of Nevada would allow for such a situation to arise in the first place.

What does Nevada’s Constitution say about property? Section 1, titled “Inalienable Rights,” reads: All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness (Emphasis added).

In Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution, eminent domain is clarified. The state Constitution requires that the state prove public need, provide compensation and documentation before acquiring private property. In order to grant land to the federal government, the state must first control this land.

Bundy’s family has controlled the land for more than 140 years.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is an agency created by Congress, claimed that Bundy was “violating the law of the land.” Perhaps the agency has forgotten that the law of the land is the Constitution, and the only constitutional violation here is the very modern existence of the agency’s presence in Nevada.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Communist News Network Fails To Retract Second Christie Scandal Story After It Is Proven Bogus

CNN Fails To Retract ‘Exclusive’ On Second Christie Scandal After Their Story Implodes – Daily Caller

On Monday, CNN flooded the airwaves with reports of a second scandal threatening to engulf New Jersey’s Chris Christie, claiming the Republican governor is under federal investigation after evidence surfaced that Hurricane Sandy relief funds were used to purchase a self-promoting advertisement campaign. But according to the federal government, that’s simply not true – and CNN has yet to issue a meaningful correction or retraction.

.
………….

.
The story first broke early Monday morning. “CNN has learned exclusively that a federal investigation will be launched into why money meant for Hurricane Sandy relief was used in a marketing campaign involving Christie’s family,” anchor Kate Bolduan began, before punting it off to CNN’s new investigative reporter, Chris Frates.

Frates alleged that the Christie administration improperly spent $25 million in federal Hurricane Sandy relief funds on a 2013 advertisement campaign to promote tourism in the wake of the storm – even going so far as to spend $2.2 million more on one ad because the agency agreed to feature Christie and his family.

New Jersey Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone, a longtime rival of Christie, was apparently the network’s big tipster. “After an initial review of the Sandy relief spending,” Frates said, “the office of inspector general at the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] has concluded that there is enough evidence to launch a full-scale investigation, according to Congressman Pallone.”

The network pushed the story hard, revisiting the report in at least fourteen separate segments on Monday alone. But on Tuesday, HUD’s inspector general issued a rare press release directly contradicting CNN’s story.

“The Department granted a waiver to allow the State to use $25 million of its award on a marketing campaign to promote the Jersey Shore and encourage tourism,” the release read. “An audit was initiated in September 2013 to examine whether the State administered its Tourism Marketing Program in accordance with applicable departmental and Federal requirements. This is an audit and not an investigation of the procurement process.” The statement adds that audits of federal expenditures “are something that this office does routinely.”

That means there was never any “initial review of Sandy relief spending,” no “evidence” yet dug up suggesting wrongdoing, and certainly no “full-scale investigation” – a word the federal government uses only to define a probe by law enforcement. Instead, the inspector general’s release suggests a routine accounting review, the likes of which are pursued dozens of times each year by any agency doling out large grants.

So how did CNN respond to these new revelations? The television reports mostly dried up, while a few sentences added to Chris Frates’ written report Tuesday noted that the inspector general released a statement calling the probe an audit, not an investigation.

But the “update” failed to note that the audit is part of a routine inspector general process, that the $25 million diversion for advertising was approved by HUD or that CNN was wrong in its initial claim that the federal government was pursuing a law enforcement investigation against Christie. And on Wednesday Frates pushed boldly onward, writing that the ad agency rejected by Christie was asked if they would feel “comfortable” featuring the governor in their ads and that – unsurprisingly for a New Jersey state initiative – the committee evaluating the ad proposals was made up entirely of Christie officials.

It’s unclear whether Rep. Pallone misrepresented the audit to CNN or if the network misrepresented the congressman’s explanation of the audit. Both CNN officials and Pallone failed to respond to a request for comment.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Federal Solar Auction Gets ZERO Bidders… Leftist Media Do Their Best To Sweep The Story Under The Rug

Federal Solar Auction Gets No Bidders; AP (Just A Local Story) And Politico (Deceptive Headline) React Predictably – NewsBusters

Green energy is supposedly the future. Why, solar energy will break out and become a major energy source any year now, or any decade now. Or maybe never. It has been the subject of national attention ever since President Obama made it a cornerstone of his 2008 presidential campaign. Of course, what Obama claims is in energy policy has worked out to be more a of a growth-constraining, government money-wasting endeavor than anything else.

The Denver Post carried the original story on Thursday of how the federal government’s first attempt at a solar auction went. The headline was accurate: “1st auction of solar rights on public lands in Colorado draws no bids.” That’s right. Zero. Post reporter Mark Jaffe’s first sentence was charitable but acceptable: “The plan to auction rights to federal land across the West for solar-power plants got off to a rocky start Thursday when no bidders showed up for the first auction in Colorado.” Too bad that two establishment press outlets which were in a position to communicate this news to the nation failed to adequately do so.

From all appearances, the Associated Press failed completely, treating the the matter as a local story. Searches on “solar auction” and “solar Colorado” (each not in quotes) at the APs national site returned no results and no results, respectively, even though those those words are in that locally carried story:

.

As was the case in August when it minimized the significance of almost no activist interest in promoting “Action August” agenda items at the permanent Obama administration campaign’s Organizing For Action, Alex Guillen at the Politico apparently felt the need to downplay the completeness of the failure. So in his Morning Energy report, he went with a deceptive headline:

BLM’S FIRST SOLAR AUCTION GETS CLOUDY RECEPTION: The Bureau of Land Management’s first-ever competitive lease auction for parcels in two Colorado Solar Energy Zones yesterday drew no bids, even though five developers expressed interest in the land.

According to the Post, those five developers “filed preliminary applications for the three San Luis Valley parcels.” Given their failure to bid, whether those entities ever had genuine expressions of interest is debatable.

Jaffe at the Post relayed the pathetic excuses (bolds are mine):

Uncertainties about the solar market and federal rules probably were major factors in the auction’s failure, industry officials said.

…”We are going to have to regroup and figure out what didn’t work,” said Maryanne Kurtinaitis, renewable-energy program manager for the BLM in Colorado.

“It is always tough to be the first out of the chute. This is a learning experience,” Kurtinaitis said.

The parcels are in solar-energy zones – areas designated for fast-track development because they have access to transmission and are not in environmentally sensitive areas.

The bureau has created 19 solar zones in six Western states covering about 300,000 acres.

…The tepid response probably was the result of market uncertainties, said Ken Borngrebe, environmental-permitting manager for Tempe, Ariz.-based solar developer First Solar.

…”It may come down to the lack of confidence in the market for solar today,” Borngrebe said.

Ya think?

The Obama administration’s failed attempts to force-feed alternative energy to a nation which mostly doesn’t want it or need it have been legion. Though this exercise doesn’t seem to have cost taxpayers large amounts of money like the legion of failed green energy loans, it is humiliating – which is why the AP and Politico engaged in the protection efforts.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Your Daley Gator Feel-Good Story O’ The Day

Suspect Robs Family At Miami Burger King, Then Man Shoots Him: Police – WTVJ

A father who was robbed while eating with his family took out his own gun and shot the suspect, Miami Police said.

.

It happened at about 1 p.m. Friday at the Burger King restaurant at Biscayne Boulevard and Northeast 17th Street, police said.

The robber walked in, flashed his gun to the family, demanded their valuables, then headed for the door, according to police.

The father, fearing for his life, took out his gun and shot the suspect in the leg as he stood outside the restaurant, police said.

The suspect, 36-year-old Travis Harris, jumped into a getaway Ford F-150 and took off, police said.

Police said they found him and the driver, 38-year-old Ramon Smalls, a few blocks away thanks to a Good Samaritan who followed them and alerted police. The two suspects were taken into custody at a gas station at Northeast 2nd Avenue and 26th Street after they apparently ran out of fuel, police added.

The Burger King incident followed an earlier incident in which the duo teamed up to rob a young woman of her iPhone 4S at 2200 NE 4th Ave. at about 10:15 a.m., with Smalls driving the truck as they fled, police said. Her phone was later found inside the truck, police added.

Harris was taken to Jackson Memorial Hospital’s Ryder Trauma to be treated for his gunshot wound, and faces three counts of armed robbery with a firearm, police said.

Smalls faces one count of strongarm robbery for the morning incident, and possible pending charges for the afternoon incident, police said.

It was not immediately known whether Harris or Smalls have attorneys.

The father who fired his gun is not being charged, police said.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.