Fighting back and going where no Republican has ever had the balls to do!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Connecticut Democratic Lawmaker Arrested On 19 Voter Fraud Charges

On Friday, Connecticut state Representative Christina “Tita” Ayala, 31 years old, who represents Bridgeport was arrested on 19 counts of voter fraud. The Connecticut State Attorney’s office said that she is accused of voting in various local and state elections where she does not live. Ayala was originally elected into Connecticut’s 128th District in 2012 and lost her reelection campaign.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Where criminals get their guns info from DOJ

The Department of Justice just updated its decades-old study asking criminals where they got the guns they used in committing the crime for which they were currently incarcerated. After asking 287,000 prisoners in 2016 where they got the gun they used, 90 percent of them “did not obtain it from a retail source” and less than one percent obtained it from a gun show.

Half of them obtained their firearm from the “underground” market, while just six percent said they stole it. The survey reported that “most of the remainder had obtained it from a family member or a friend, or as a gift. Seven percent had purchased it under their own name from a licensed firearm dealer.”

In other words, current or pending laws banning “assault weapons” (usually variants of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle) almost totally miss the mark, as nearly every crime was committed using a handgun. Also, those closing the so-called gun show loophole miss the mark as well.

The survey’s results are very similar to the study the DOJ completed back in 1997. Back then, 93 percent of criminals obtained the guns they used illegally, with “straw buyers” — a person buying a gun for another so he won’t have to undergo a background check — representing 40 percent, another 40 percent being obtained from “street dealers (i.e., the black market), and 13 percent being stolen. That left just seven percent obtained legally: five percent from pawn shops or gun dealers, one percent at flea markets, and less than one percent from gun shows.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Electoral college not racist

There you go again,” Ronald Reagan famously joked in 1980 when President Jimmy Carter painted an inaccurate picture of one of his policies. Perhaps he’d say the same of those who are distorting the history of the Electoral College today.

New York’s newest congresswoman, Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has been quick to jump onto this bandwagon, recently labeling the Electoral College a “shadow of slavery’s power on America.” Others have called it a “living symbol of America’s original sin,” an “antiquated relic of slavery,” or even a “pro-slavery compromise.”

Mere hours into the new Congress, a bill was introduced to eliminate this “outdated” system.

Such a view of the Electoral College’s roots threatens to become conventional wisdom, but nothing could be further from the truth.

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

Obviously, some of the Founders owned slaves. Compromises were made in America’s early years because North and South couldn’t agree on whether to continue the institution. Just as obviously, virtually all Americans today wish that slavery had never existed. It’s a part of America’s heritage that is clearly at odds with America’s founding principles.

That does not mean, however, that the Constitution and its presidential election process are simply a “relic of slavery.” The discussions at the Constitutional Convention were shaped more by the delegates’ study of history and political philosophy, as well as their own experiences with Parliament and the state legislatures. They wanted to avoid the mistakes that had been made in other governments. They sought to establish a better constitution that would stand the test of time.

George Washington expressed this conviction, felt so strongly by the founding generation: “[T]he preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of government,” he concluded, “are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.”

His words echoed an argument that James Madison had made about a year and a half earlier. Only a republic, Madison had written, “would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.” He thought the experiment worthwhile. The Constitution met these criteria.

Nevertheless, some modern commentators brush this history aside and insist that the compromises at the convention were nothing more than attempts to preserve slavery. Americans, they say, have been fooled into thinking that their heritage is more admirable than it is. The specific charges about the Electoral College in this context are inaccurate, but they need to be addressed since they are raised so often.

First, critics sometimes cite the Constitution’s “three-fifths” compromise, which determined how slaves would be counted in apportioning congressional representation. The South wanted to count each slave as a whole person. The North did not want to count slaves at all—a larger population would give the South more voting power. In the end, convention delegates agreed to count each slave as three-fifths of a person.

But did that compromise really do more for the South or for the North?

If slaves had been counted as whole persons (as the South wanted), then the South would have had even more representatives in Congress. In other words, while the three-fifths compromise is often cited as an advantage for the slave-holding South, it can also be interpreted as a win for the North.

One additional nuance complicates an assessment of the three-fifths compromise—the convention applied the same formula for apportioning direct taxes. The North effectively offered the South a compromise: In return for having fewer representatives in Congress, the South would be assessed less in federal taxes.

A more honest assessment of the three-fifths compromise shows what it really concerned—congressional representation and taxation, not the Electoral College. Indeed, the discussions about the compromise and the discussions about the presidential election system were largely separate. The main reason the compromise is cited today is because, late in the convention, it was decided that each state’s electoral vote allocation would match its congressional allocation.

Overriding all these discussions is a much bigger compromise that was brokered between the large and small states: The large states agreed that representation in the Senate would be based on the principle of “one state, one vote.” The small states agreed that representation in the House of Representatives would be based on population.

This blend between the two types of representation was later reflected in the Electoral College, which gives every state three electors, regardless of its size. The rest of the electors are allocated according to population.

Critics of the Electoral College ignore the larger context of the three-fifths compromise, focusing instead on one statement made by Madison. Taken in isolation, it certainly sounds damning.

“The right of suffrage,” he told the convention in July, “was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern states; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the negroes.”

Since Madison mentioned presidential electors in his very next sentence, Electoral College opponents contend that he was proposing such a system in order to increase Southern political power and to protect slavery.

But Madison wasn’t the first to suggest the use of electors that day. Rufus King of Massachusetts had already mentioned them. King was not in favor of slavery. To the contrary, he worked against it during his lifetime. William Paterson of New Jersey, another slavery opponent, also endorsed the concept of electors that day.

The reality is that the discussion that day wasn’t about slavery or the three-fifths compromise. Madison’s statement was a tangent to the main discussion, which revolved around the president’s eligibility for a second term of office. If the president were chosen by the legislature and also eligible for re-election, some delegates feared that he would end up working too hard to satisfy legislators. After all, he’d be worried about winning their support so he could be re-elected. Executive independence would ultimately suffer.

Indeed, Madison made exactly this point just before his now-controversial comment about the “right of suffrage” in the South. “[T]he appointment of the executive should either be drawn from some source,” he told the delegates, “or held by some tenure, that will give him a free agency with regard to the legislature.”

The delegates were discussing separation of powers. Slavery was not their focus. Indeed, the debates about the presidential election process never focused on slavery. Instead, the delegates discussed whether legislative selection or a national popular vote was preferable. The division was between large and small states, not between slave and free states.

Some of the larger states had slaves, some did not. Some of the smaller states had slaves, some did not. All of the small states, however—slave and free—were worried about the dangers of a simple national popular vote. As slavery opponent Gunning Bedford of Delaware had said so eloquently, the small states simply feared that they would be outvoted by the large states time and time again.

The Electoral College had everything to do with balancing power between large and small states in America’s new experiment in self-governance. It had nothing to do with slavery. What an inconvenient truth for those who would like to eliminate the system.

This excerpt was adapted and taken with permission from Tara Ross’ book, “The Indispensable Electoral College: How the Founders’ Plan Saves Our Country from Mob Rule” (Regnery Gateway, 2017). Some punctuation in quotations has been adjusted from the original version.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Virginia Governor trying to take guns

One of the slang terms we use for gun control supporters is the word “gun grabber.” That term exists because many gun rights advocates feel that the ultimate endgame for gun control is to take away all of our guns.

Yet many gun control backers rankle at the term. I’ve seen more than one recoil at it, arguing that they don’t want to take away anyone’s guns. Who knows, they might even mean it…at least right now.

But the term persists because so many proposals call for taking away people’s lawfully acquired property despite no evidence that they’ve done anything wrong. Frankly, it’s going to keep on persisting too, because of people like Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s latest push.

The plan to ban the sale and possession of certain kinds of firearms proposed by Virginia governor Ralph Northam (D.) could affect millions of gun owners, an industry group said on Friday.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), which represents gun manufacturers and dealers, said the vague description of the legislation released by Northam on Jan. 4 would apply to most firearms currently on sale in the commonwealth.

“The legislative proposals being discussed would put most firearms beyond the reach of law-abiding Virginians who choose the firearms of their choice to protect themselves, hunt, and practice recreational target shooting,” said Lawrence G. Keane, the group’s general counsel. “That could potentially impact the availability of tens of millions of firearms.”

While short on details, Northam’s announcement said part of the proposed gun-control package would ban the “sale, purchase, possession, and transport” of undefined “assault firearms” including “any firearm that is equipped with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition.” Since the vast majority of semiautomatic handguns and rifles in the state are sold standard with magazines capable of holding 10 or more rounds, it appears the proposed ban would affect most firearms on sale in Virginia. Additionally, the announcement of the ban did not include mention of any grandfathering to allow what NSSF estimated would be millions of Virginians who already own such firearms to legally keep them.

The governor’s office did not respond to multiple requests for more details on his proposed ban and confiscation plan or answer questions on how such a plan would be enforced.

Note that the law will ban possession of these weapons. That indicates there won’t be a grandfather clause built in. Instead, it will require gun owners to turn in the firearms the lawfully purchased in accordance with all state and federal laws or else face potential punishment.

Meanwhile, the criminals? Yeah, they’re not going to hand over jack squat.

Of course, neither will a lot of otherwise law-abiding citizens for that matter. They may stash their magazines and play nice while out in public, but they’re going to hold onto those standard capacity magazines.

Northam is simply trying to create a legion of new criminals.

The problem with this, though, is that it won’t accomplish anything. It won’t make anyone safer. We know this. The 1994 assault weapon ban had a negligible impact on crime at best. Banning standard capacity magazines doesn’t make them all go away. Especially at the state level. Especially in a state where so many already exist.

Northam needs to be shut down with this nonsense because all he’s going to do is empower the criminals who ignore the law and make life difficult for those who want to remain law-abiding citizens.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

three illegal aliens with $200,000 worth of methamphetamine in their possession.

By: FOX 46 Web Staff
POSTED: JAN 09 2019 05:08PM EST


UPDATED: JAN 14 2019 03:57PM EST

GASTON COUNTY, N.C. (FOX 46 CHARLOTTE) – Gaston County police say they arrested three illegal aliens with $200,000 worth of methamphetamine in their possession.

Christian Cabrea-Rivas, 36, Silvia Hernandez-Iturralde, 29 and Marco Tulio Ramos Garcia, 35 were taken into custody on Monday, Jan. 7 after authorities found them in possession of two kilograms of meth. 

by TaboolaSponsored LinksAd Content
U.S. Cardiologist: It’s Like Superfuel for Your Gut
Health Headlines
Forget Social Security If You’re A Nevada Homeowner Born Before 1988 (Do This)
Finance Daily
Police say several children were present during the drug bust. They have since been taken into protective custody. 

Credit: Gaston County Police Department
All three suspects were charged with trafficking methamphetamine by the Gaston County Police Department. Hernandez-Iturralde and Garcia are being held under a $250,000 bond. Garcia also had an outstanding deportation order when he was arrested, and is under an immigration hold as well. 

Cabrea-Rivas is being held on a $275,000 bond and an immigration hold. He is a documented member of the street gang MS-13, and has an extensive criminal history.

In December 2018, he was arrested in Mecklenburg County for an assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, assault by pointing a gun, communicating threats and possession of a stolen gun. 

Several agencies participated in the large-scale investigation, including Gaston County police, Gastonia Police, Mount Holly police, Belmont police, State Bureau of Investigations, Charlotte Mecklenberg police, Homeland Security Investigations, and Homeland Security Investigations officers. No other information has been released at this time. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Illegal alien crime report

LACOMBE, LA (Fox 8 News) – U.S. Marshals tracked a violent criminal accused of stomping an 83-year-old man to death to Lacombe and arrested him after a standoff.

WGNO reported that 23-year-old Silvano Echavarria is awaiting extradition for the brutal murder of the elderly grandfather in Pasadena, Texas.

Echavarria stomped on the victim’s head 74 times and punched him 25 times before leaving his lifeless body in a parking lot, according to the U.S. Marshals.

Authorities said Echavarria fled to Lacombe after Texas authorities began to move in.

When the Marshals approached the Lacombe residence where Echavarria was staying, Echavarria refused to come out before peacefully surrendering a short time later.

“This arrest was a direct result of interagency cooperation,” U.S. Marshal Scott Illing said. “This suspect mistakenly thought he could escape justice by crossing state lines. The community can rest easy knowing our team is not discouraged by geographical boundaries and are ready to pursue fleeing felons wherever they hide.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment