Man Arrested After Attacking Texas Teen Wearing ‘MAGA’ Hat

Authorities in Texas say a suspect is in custody after viral video footage depicted an apparently unprovoked attack at a San Antonio fast-food restaurant.

Kino Jiminez, 30, was arrested in Universal City and is expected to face charges including theft of a person.

Witnesses said the man violently ripped a Donald Trump campaign hat from a 16-year-old boy’s head before throwing a drink at him.

According to Hunter Richard, the man grabbed the “Make America Great Again” cap from his head so forcefully that he also ripped out several hairs.

The incident occurred on Tuesday at a Whataburger location and an area bar soon identified the suspect as a part-time employee who had been fired for his behavior.

“It came to our attention earlier this evening that a part-time employee was captured on cell phone video assaulting another person at a local eatery,” Richard wrote in a Facebook post. “The assault took place, presumably, because this employee did not agree with the other individuals political stance.”

Richard confirmed shortly after the incident that he had filed a police report against the man.

Whataburger issued a statement in response to the video recorded in one of its restaurants, as reported by KABB.

“We were shocked to see this video and certainly don’t condone this type of customer behavior in our restaurants,” the company’s corporate communications office wrote. “To be clear, no Whataburger employees were involved or witnessed the incident, and we ask that questions be directed to San Antonio PD as we continue supporting their efforts. – Whataburger Corporate Communications.”

As part of the social media attention Richard has received as a result of the video, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted his offer to replace the stolen hat.

“If someone can get me this young man’s information I’ll get him a new #maga hat… SIGNED by #potus!!!” the president’s eldest son wrote.

As the video spread widely this week, Richard told reporters that he had seen “mixed opinions” expressed online, adding that he never expected the incident to attract as much publicity as it had.

“I was looking at the comments by some people and they are like, ‘This is uncalled for,’” he said. “And other people are like mixed opinions, but I didn’t think it would blow up to what it is now.”

Though the teens say they uploaded the video in hopes that it would lead to the suspect’s identification, the original clip has been viewed more than 1.4 million times as of Friday morning. (For more from the author of “Man Arrested After Attacking Texas Teen Wearing ‘MAGA’ Hat” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Man Dies Protecting His Children From Polar Bear

By ABC News. . .Aaron Gibbons, 31, was at a popular fishing and hunting place on Sentry Island in Hudson Bay, approximately 10 kilometers from the hamlet of Arviat on the western shore, according to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and Gibbons’s uncle, Gordy Kidlapik.

When Gibbons saw the bear, he jumped in between his children and the animal and told his kids to run to the boat, Kilapik told ABC News via direct message on Twitter. . .

Gibbons’ children ran and called for help on CB radio, Kidlapik said on Twitter, referring to Gibbons as “qangiaq,” the Inuinnaqtun word for nephew.

“The victim was unarmed at the time of the attack,” officials said. “The polar bear was put down by another adult as other individuals were on the island nearby.” . . .

“Research suggests that polar bear attacks are typically associated with nutritional stress in the animal,” Churchill Wild told ABC News in a statement. “We don’t know yet the circumstances surrounding this incident nor the motivation for the attack so we aren’t in a position to provide an educated comment as to the cause.” (Read more from “Man Dies Protecting His Children From Polar Bear” HERE)

___________________________________________________

‘He Died a Hero’: Canadian Man Mauled by Polar Bear While Protecting His Family

By The Guardian. A father in the northern Canadian territory of Nunavut is being hailed as a hero after he died protecting his three young children from a polar bear attack. . .

“The bear started to stalk or charge one of his children,” he said. “He told his children to run back to the boat and put himself between his children and the bear.”

His school-age children made it safely to the boat and called for help on the CB radio. Kidlapik was among those who heard the call, describing it as “heartbreaking”.

Police said Gibbons was pronounced dead at the scene. “He died a hero,” said Kidlapik. (Read more from “‘He Died a Hero’: Canadian Man Mauled by Polar Bear While Protecting His Family” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Democrats’ 2018 Slogan Is a Godsend for Republicans

Democrats love frivolous slogans. The party that brought us “Bush Lied, People Died” (he didn’t) to “No War For Oil” (there wasn’t) has now delivered Republicans an election year boon with just two simple words: “Abolish ICE.” Democrats ranging from Statue of Liberty scaling activists to congressional candidates to bona fide U.S. senators have adopted the motto, which demands the dissolution of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. The embrace of “Abolish ICE” as a campaign trail motto exposes Democrats as the party of ignorance, lawlessness, and open borders. All three are big losers with the American people, and Republicans should troll Democrats into shouting, “Abolish ICE!” at every turn.

ICE, which stands for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is an agency within the Department of Homeland Security. Democrats have recently targeted the agency for separating illegal alien families at the U.S. border with Mexico. While the family separation policy has existed since 1997 and was robustly enforced at various points during the Obama administration with nary a peep from Democrats, the great irony is that it isn’t ICE separating families at the border. Rather, it’s up to Customs and Border Protection, which operates Border Patrol, to arrest foreign nationals crossing the southern border illegally. Democrats calls to “abolish ICE” for separating families at the border illustrate their ignorance of the very laws they wish to ignore.

But while Democrats are frequently wrong, they’re never in doubt. They may not know what ICE does, but their demand to abolish it highlights their increasing lawlessness. In recent weeks, a major Democrat lawmaker has openly called for mob terror against Republican officials. Left-wing commentators and activists within such movements as Black Lives Matter have suggested abolishing the police—whatever that means. The New York Democratic Socialists of America, of which Democrat congressional nominee Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a member, recently declared, “Abolish ICE. Abolish prisons. Abolish cash bail. Abolish borders.” By taking aim at law enforcement per se, Democrats offer a vision of America governed not by duly enacted law passed by representative institutions but rather a country governed by the caprices and prejudices of men, popular sovereignty be damned. (Read more from “Democrats’ 2018 Slogan Is a Godsend for Republicans” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watch: College Students Say They Despise Trump’s SCOTUS Nominee, but Here’s What They Don’t Realize

By The Blaze. One of the most contentious political issues over the next several months will be President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee and the fight for Republicans to confirm that person before the midterm elections this November.

College Reform’s Cabot Phillips recently asked students at New York University about Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, where the students offered up strong opinions — despite the fact that Trump has yet to announce who it is. . .

[Watch the opinions below

When asked what qualities the students believe shape a quality Supreme Court justice, students offered qualities such as “black,” “woman,” and “liberal.” They said the justice should not be a “swing-vote,” a reference to Anthony Kennedy, the court’s retiring justice.

The students also said Trump should listen to the American people when deciding who to nominate. When Phillips countered with the fact that former President Barack Obama nominated two liberal justices to the court and didn’t listen to conservative voices then, the students were unable to defend their suggestions.

Trump is slated to formally announce his nominee for the Supreme Court on Monday, July 9. His shortlist has reportedly been narrowed down to three justices: Amy Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Raymond Kethledge. (Read more from “Watch: College Students Say They Despise Trump’s SCOTUS Nominee, but Here’s What They Don’t Realize” HERE)

________________________________________________

Two Nominees Are Now Trump’s Greatest Focus for Top Court, NBC News Says

By CNBC. None of the four contenders being considered as President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court has been excluded, but the greatest focus has fallen on two candidates: Brett Kavanaugh and Thomas Hardiman, a source with first-hand knowledge of the process told NBC News.

Kavanaugh sits on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Hardiman is a judge on the 3rd Circuit of Appeals.

The other two front-runners are Amy Coney Barrett Barrett of the 7th Circuit of Appeals and Raymond Kethledge of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

CNBC reported last week that Trump privately indicated to a small group that he had settled on a nominee to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter. (Read more from “Two Nominees Are Now Trump’s Greatest Focus for Top Court, NBC News Says” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Socialist Ocasio-Cortez Changes Misleading Bio After Truth Exposed

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the self-declared “democratic-socialist” from the Bronx, is accused of changing her biography on her campaign website days after she was criticized for misleading voters about where she grew up.

Ocasio-Cortez received national acclaim after she defeated 10-term congressman Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) in the New York Democratic primary last month. She will be running as the Democratic candidate for New York’s 14th congressional district this November and is almost guaranteed to win. . .

As the Journal News noted, Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign biography originally stated: “She ended up attending public school 40 minutes north in Yorktown, and much of her life was defined by the 40-minute commute between school and her family in the Bronx.”

However, the sentence was rather misleading. It was later revealed that Ocasio-Cortez’s “girl from the Bronx” moniker was dishonest because her family moved away from New York City when she was 5 years old. They moved about an hour north to the ritzy suburb of Yorktown Heights in Westchester County, one of the wealthiest counties in the U.S.

The website biography has since been updated, but it still doesn’t explicitly state that Ocasio-Cortez’s move to Westchester County was permanent. (Read more from “Socialist Ocasio-Cortez Changes Misleading Bio After Truth Exposed” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Did This Senator Just Accidentally Reveal Who Trump Will Nominate to the Supreme Court?

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the longest serving member currently in the Senate, wrote an op-ed for Deseret News on Friday explaining what Americans should expect after President Donald Trump formally announces his nominee for the Supreme Court. . .

Hatch, who has sat through the confirmation hearings for all nine current Supreme Court justices, predicted Democrats will initiate “confirmation wars” in the coming months because Trump is unlikely to nominate an activist judge who will protect the progressive agenda.

[The clue is the pronoun used in his writing.]

“Given their vision of a politicized judiciary, we should not be surprised when Democrats cry bloody murder at the announcement of the president’s Supreme Court nominee. The coming meltdown on the left is sure to be as sensational as it is predictable,” Hatch wrote. . .

“Just as he did with Neil Gorsuch, the president has promised to nominate an impartial judge, a wise and seasoned jurist committed to upholding the Constitution at all costs. But no matter the nominee’s background or credentials, progressives will do everything they can to paint her as a closet partisan, if not an outright extremist,” Hatch wrote.

He then added: “And I will devote all my energies to ensuring that we confirm the kind of Supreme Court justice America needs: a justice who says what the law is, not what she wants it to be; a justice who calls balls and strikes instead of swinging for the fences; a justice whose foremost allegiance is to the American people and to the Constitution.” (Read more from “Did This Senator Just Accidentally Reveal Who Trump Will Nominate to the Supreme Court?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Wait–How Many Immigrants Are on Welfare Again?

By Townhall. This is the land of opportunity, and anyone who wants the come here can…legally. That’s not the issue. For the Trump White House, it’s been their stated position to shift our immigration policy toward allowing more high-skilled workers into this country.

As for the families of the low-skilled working immigration population in the country, 51 percent (76 percent counting immigrant-led households with children) are collecting some sort of check from our welfare services. Is that good? No. Does that mean we shut it all down? No. That figure comes from the Center for Immigration Studies, who noted the need for the immigration process to be more “selective.” At the same time, there are a lot of American households with children that are also getting some form of government assistance (via USA Today):

About 51% of immigrant-led households receive at least one kind of welfare benefit, including Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches and housing assistance, compared to 30% for native-led households, according to the report from the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for lower levels of immigration.

Those numbers increase for households with children, with 76% of immigrant-led households receiving welfare, compared to 52% for the native-born.

The findings are sure to fuel debate on the presidential campaign trail as Republican candidates focus on changing the nation’s immigration laws, from calls for mass deportations to ending birthright citizenship.

(Read more from “Wait–How Many Immigrants Are on Welfare Again?” HERE)

______________________________________________

Homeland Security Extends Special Immigration Status for Some Yemenis

By NBC News. The Trump administration said Thursday that Yemenis granted special immigration status in the U.S. after an escalating civil war can keep the designation, making them among a shrinking group of people from countries wracked by violence and natural disaster to have permission to remain in the country.

Yemen was first designated for the special status in 2015. The civil war reached new levels last year — the United Nations said at least 10,000 civilians were killed and more than half the country had a serious food shortage. Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in a statement that the armed conflict and extraordinary conditions support the need for continuing the designation. But the administration will not take on new applicants.

Those already with the status — nearly 1,250 — will be able to remain in the U.S. and will be allowed to work until at least March 3, 2020.

International Rescue Committee, a humanitarian group, called it a relief that the Trump administration was extending the designation for some Yemenis but said that placing an “arbitrary date on eligibility” could force some Yemenis to return to deadly conflict. (Read more from “Homeland Security Extends Special Immigration Status for Some Yemenis” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Emails Appear to Blow a Hole in Strzok’s Statement on Page FISA

By Conservative Tribune. During a closed-door interview on June 27, former FBI official Peter Strzok downplayed his role in obtaining surveillance warrants to spy on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

The Daily Beast reported that Strzok, the former deputy chief of counterintelligence, claimed in the interview that he had no substantive input on drafting or securing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants used to spy on Page, an energy consultant who left the Trump team in September 2016. . .

A Republican in the June 27 interview confirmed that Strzok, who oversaw the Russian investigation, denied having a direct role in the FISA process. But the Republican was also incredulous at Strzok’s suggestion that he had little to do with the spy warrants obtained against Page. . .

Strzok and Lisa Page exchanged numerous anti-Trump text messages during their work on the Russia probe, which was codenamed “Crossfire Hurricane.” In one Aug. 8, 2016, message, Strzok told Page that “we’ll stop” Trump from becoming president.

Strzok, who was the FBI’s top investigator on Crossfire Hurricane, sent an email with the subject line “Crossfire FISA” to Lisa Page discussing a set of talking points aimed at getting then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to push the Department of Justice to approve a surveillance warrant against Carter Page, according to Solomon. (Read more from “Emails Appear to Blow a Hole in Strzok’s Statement on Page FISA” HERE)

____________________________________________

Peter Strzok Agrees to Testify Before Congress Next Week

By CBS News. The FBI’s Peter Strzok has agreed to go before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, according to his attorney, Aitan Goelman. Strzok’s agreement is in response to a subpoena requiring his appearance, after he already appeared for a behind-closed-doors meeting on Capitol Hill.

Strzok, who worked on the FBI’s investigations into Hillary Clinton’s emails and Russian meddling in the 2016 election before briefly joining special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, was the subject of criticism in last month’s Department of Justice inspector general report on the handling of the Clinton probe. He had already been criticized for sending text messages critical of President Trump during the campaign.

Strzok’s attorney said in a statement that, even though it will be impossible for his client to get a fair hearing, claiming some House members have a political bias and “disdain for the truth,” Strzok still wants to play by the rules in order to attempt to have the unfiltered truth be heard.

“If members of Congress actually want to be honest with the American people and seek a fair process, they must publicly release the transcript of Pete’s previous 11-hour testimony,” Goelman said in the statement. “Today we sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee requesting that the public have access to that testimony prior to the July 12th hearing.” (Read more from “Peter Strzok Agrees to Testify Before Congress Next Week” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Army Discharging Immigrants’ Story May Not Be the Outrage It’s Cracked up to Be

On Thursday, The Associated Press published a story with a headline that read, “US Army quietly discharging immigrant recruits.” That headline was quickly met with outrage — but the story itself isn’t anything new. . .

But as retired Army Col. Kurt Schlicter predicted, there was more to the story.

NPR’s Tim Mak offered a little more context, pointing out the fact that the real question — whether or not recruits are being discharged because they are immigrants — is never answered in the article.

(Read more from “‘Army Discharging Immigrants’ Story May Not Be the Outrage It’s Cracked up to Be” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

More People Use a Gun in Self-Defense Each Year Than Die in Car Accidents

How is it that so many kids raised on “Harry Potter”, “The Hunger Games”, “Star Wars”, and all the Marvel action figure movies manage to miss a critical point of the stories? The lesson being: If you want to prevail over evil villains, you must have the proper tools to fight back.

Millions of people protect themselves and their families with guns every day in the United States. They choose guns as a means of self-defense for the same reason the Secret Service uses them to protect the president: guns stop bad people from doing bad things to good people.

It’s absurd to speak about the right of self-defense in theory but then deny people the tools they need to exercise that right.

Without a gun, most Americans are defenseless at the hands of a violent criminal. How many of us have training in hand-to-hand fighting, the physical strength, and the mental resilience to react in a fight-or-flight situation to repel an aggressive predator, especially someone who attacks us first and is armed with a deadly weapon?

Does a gun guarantee your safety? No, but it gives you the ability to defend yourself against an armed, physically superior, or mentally unstable attacker (or all three).

Why in the world would anyone not want to have the means to protect themselves and their families against criminal predators and lunatics? Worse yet, why would anyone actively lobby their government to deprive themselves and every other law-abiding citizen of the most effective means to protect themselves?

Guns Are Life-Saving Tools

The gun grabbers are convinced that if we shut down the National Rifle Association and take away guns from law-abiding gun owners, then bad people will no longer have the tools to do bad things.

A gun is a tool, plain and simple. You should own a gun for the same reason you install smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, purchase fire extinguishers, and buckle your seat belt. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Smart people are prepared. Foolish people bring a knife—or nothing at all—to a gunfight.

The gun grabbers say: “There is no evidence that guns save lives.” The truth: If there is no proof that guns save lives, then why does every American law enforcement agency, including the U.S. Secret Service, carry guns? What’s the point of the guns?

There is an old saying in the world of investing: “Do what the smart money does.” This means that when you personally invest, it makes sense to buy and sell the same investments as the “smart money” people—large banks, institutional investors, hedge funds, and investment gurus like Warren Buffett. The idea is that these industry leaders have a better understanding of the marketplace and better access to information than ordinary investors do. And that is usually true.

What do the “smart money” people do when it comes to protecting lives?

Virtually all professionals carry guns—and lots of them. Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies charged with protecting the streets you walk on all carry guns. The Secret Service protects the president with guns. The federal Department of Homeland Security, with its $44 billion annual budget, issues its own agents handguns and fully automatic rifles (rifles far more powerful than the AR-15s many gun grabbers don’t want you to have to protect yourself).

So, the smart money in the business of protecting lives chooses guns. That’s right. They choose guns!

Guns Are Often Used for Defense

But if you don’t want to follow the smart money on guns, then let’s turn to the statistical scoreboard. Does civilian gun use help in self-defense against criminals?

The U.S. Department of Justice investigated firearm violence from 1993 through 2011. The report found, “In 2007–2011, about 1 percent of nonfatal violent crime victims used a firearm in self-defense.” Anti-gun zealots attempt to use this statistic to discredit the use of a gun as a viable means of self-defense, and by extension, to discredit gun ownership in general.

But look deeper into the numbers. During that five-year period, the Department of Justice confirmed a total of 338,700 defensive gun uses in both violent attacks and property crimes where a victim was involved. That equals an average of 67,740 defensive gun uses every year. In other words, according to the Justice Department’s own statistics, 67,740 people a year don’t become victims because they own a gun. (I suspect that if more states allowed concealed carry to be widespread, the number of instances of defensive gun uses would be even higher.)

Is it significant that at least 67,740 individuals use a gun in self-defense each year? Well, in 2016, 37,461 people died in motor vehicle accidents in the United States; in 2015, the number was 35,092 people. Mark Rosekind, administrator of the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration (NHTSA), called those road fatalities “an immediate crisis.” If the NHTSA administrator considers it a crisis that approximately 37,000 people are dying annually from car accidents, then saving nearly twice that many people each year through the use of firearms is simply stunning.

In reality, the Department of Justice findings about defensive gun uses are very conservative. A 2013 study ordered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and conducted by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council found that “Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence…. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million . . . in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008…. On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey….”

The most comprehensive study ever conducted about defensive gun use in the United States was a 1995 survey published by criminologist Gary Kleck in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. This study reported between 2.1 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year.

Ultimately, the number of defensive gun uses doesn’t matter much to the anti-gun zealots. Whether the number is 67,000 or 2.5 million or anywhere in between, they’ll do whatever they can to dismiss defensive gun uses as insignificant. They want to focus only on the dead people lying in the street rather than those folks who use a firearm to remain standing.

I suspect those people still alive would have a different view. (For more from the author of “More People Use a Gun in Self-Defense Each Year Than Die in Car Accidents” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.