Actor Uses Disturbing Child Rape Case to Push for Border Wall Construction

/0 Comments/in , /by

Conservative actor James Woods is generally a commenter on the news, but a Woods tweet over the weekend is making news of its own.

In the Twitter post, Woods drew his 1.68 million followers’ attention to a case out of New York City that features a suspected MS-13 member’s alleged rape of an 11-year-old girl.

And Woods’ readers responded with revulsion.

According to Fox News, the arrest involved Julio Ayala, 18, a native of El Salvador.

Fox reported that Ayala was arrested Saturday after a manhunt that started Wednesday night, when he allegedly “climbed into the girl’s bedroom in Brooklyn through the second-floor window about 11:30 p.m. and raped her.”

According to the New York Post, Ayala carried a federal Permanent Resident Card, known as a “green card,” which would mean he was in the country legally.

But given the suspect’s purported membership in the notorious MS-13 gang, which has well-known ties to illegal alien networks – and crime — it was a reminder of what is at stake in the illegal immigration debate.

And Woods made his support for one of President Donald Trump’s proposed solutions to the illegal alien problem quite clear: #BuildTheWall.

The rape of a child is horrific, but it’s a crime that would likely pass under the national radar if it weren’t picked up by a conservative with the kind of recognition and Twitter following that Woods has built.

Considering that, the Ayala case might get more recognition than it would have without Woods’ publicizing it — and the price the country pays as a whole for an immigration system that permits criminal gangs like MS-13 might become more apparent.

According to the New York Post, Ayala has been charged with “sexually motivated burglary and first-degree rape.”

As he was led away, according to the Post, neighbors cheered.

“That makes me feel unsafe in my own home,” one woman, a 42-year-old resident of the Brooklyn neighborhood, told the Post.

Woods, and many of his followers, could relate. As the midterms approach, more tweets like this might have an impact on what happens at the ballot box in November. (For more from the author of “Actor Uses Disturbing Child Rape Case to Push for Border Wall Construction” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Texas Sheriff Heartbroken After Illegal Aliens Murder 2 Police Dogs

/0 Comments/in , /by

Over the weekend, two canines, who were helping Aransas and Refugio County Duputies, were strangled to death by an illegal immigrant. The dogs were assisting in a police chase after more than a dozen individuals jumped out of a truck.

The chase started when a police officer pulled over a black Ford pickup north of Holiday Beach. The pickup pulled over, but then took off leading to a high speed chase.

The truck then hit a brush line where 14-16 people jumped out of the truck and fled on foot.

According to a Facebook post by the Aransas County Sheriff’s Office, Refugio County offered canines to assist in the chase that were “non agressive, non-bite trained.”

The Sheriff’s Office writes that, while they had dogs they could deploy that could defend themselves, they chose to use these dogs to protect individuals that were caught in a chase such as this.

Officers soon located three individuals and apprehended two of them. However, one individual evaded capture and yelled out in Spanish, “If you want me, come and get me.”

It was then that the officers found the two canines strangled to death. The sheriff’s office wrote, “The collars carrying trackers had been twisted tightly about their necks causing their deaths.”

Six individuals were eventually captured including the individual believed to have been responsible for the death of the dogs. The sheriff’s office writes that those who were captured are believed to be from Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico.

“While most “Bail Outs” end with detentions after exhaustive searches they do not show this level of aggressive behavior,” the sheriff office writes, “Serving as a reminder to officers yesterday afternoon that while we are still dealing with individuals who may have questionable immigration status these encounters can turn just as violent as any domestic dispute we respond to.”

They continue by saying, “And while every effort is being taken to insure everyone’s safety, we are reminded that not everyone we encounter shows the same level of respect for the rule of law and or life even for highly trained animals.”

The office reminded its readers that these dogs aren’t originally intended to track dangerous suspects, but rather individuals who are missing due to dementia and Alzheimer’s.

They write, “It was an afternoon that left me wondering how many lives of Dementia and Alzheimer’s individuals in the future may have been put at risk with the deaths of these two Canines.” (For more from the author of “Texas Sheriff Heartbroken After Illegal Aliens Murder 2 Police Dogs” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The DOJ Goes After Harvard for Discriminating Against Asian Applicants

/0 Comments/in , /by

Imagine if a private college – even one that took no federal funds – openly skewed its admission standards in a way that would ensure qualified blacks would be rejected in favor of less qualified whites. Every tool of state and federal government, the media, the virtue-signaling industry, and of course the courts would force it to change course. Yet this is what Harvard has been doing openly for 45 years to Americans of Asian heritage, even though, as part of its agreement to take federal grants, the school commits to not discriminating based on race. Now, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is calling Harvard out on it.

Liberal elites, such as those who run the Harvard faculty, believe in equal outcomes for their specific protected classes, not equal opportunity and equal application of civil rights laws for everyone. Thus, through affirmative action, they will stop at nothing to distort reality and not only violate the principles of meritocracy but downright make up facts in order to discriminate against classes that are out of favor with them.

In the case of Harvard’s admission standards, the school has openly bragged for years about using race as a factor in admission in order to achieve its convoluted goals of diversity rather than treat all applicants as individuals. The fact that many Americans of Asian heritage tend to score very high academically created an inconvenient reality undermining the desire for an arbitrary racial balance. Thus, the administrators ditched the merit-based academic scores for racial targets that ensured a number of better-qualified Asian-Americans were displaced by less qualified individuals simply because of a target racial balance.

What scheme did they use? The DOJ charges that Harvard used a personal rating in addition to academic scores that included “subjective” factors, such as a “positive personality,” “likability,” and being a “good person” with “human qualities.” DOJ asserts that this progressive elite institution “admits that, on average, it scores Asian-American applicants lower on this ‘personal rating’ than applicants of other races.” The DOJ’s finding is really nothing new, because Harvard’s own internal investigative division found the same thing in a 2013 report. It found that racial balancing resulted in a 140 percent increase in the Hispanic proportion of the class and a 400 percent increase in the African-American proportion of the class. Also, merely being black was the second-strongest factor in admissions, just behind the factor of “strong personal rating,” which in itself was, on average, arbitrarily padded for black students and downgraded for Asians.

Harvard is essentially repeating the overt discrimination in admissions that it employed 100 years ago when administrators grew concerned that too many Jews were being admitted.

Plaintiffs in a recent lawsuit assert that Harvard uses ethnic balancing tools to achieve almost the exact same ethnic makeup every year, creating a floor for African-Americans and a ceiling for Asian-Americans. Every academic year, the racial breakdown is as follows: White – 50-53 percent, Asian-American – 18-20 percent, African-American – 10-12 percent, Hispanic – 10-12 percent, and Native American – 2 percent. According to research provided to the federal court in Massachusetts by plaintiffs, the racial balancing is so skewed that is serves as the dominant factor. “An Asian-American applicant with a 25% chance of admission, for example, would have a 35% chance if he were white, a 75% chance if he were Hispanic, and a 95% chance if he were African American,” wrote lawyers for the students in a June memorandum seeking summary judgement.

Talk about monkeying up the admission standards! This is hard-core racism. To ignore the reality of individuals’ higher scores and to arbitrarily concoct a system whereby they erroneously label Asians as less likable and personable in order to demonstrate they are less qualified is disgraceful. According to the DOJ, given that Harvard accepts millions in federal grant money, this practice violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

On Thursday, Attorney General Sessions announced that because Harvard accepts federal grants, the DOJ filed a statement of interest in the pending lawsuit of a group of Asian-Americans, Students for Fair Admissions, against the school. They assert that the school has shown no need for such racial balancing, has failed to divulge how administrators weigh the racial factors, has failed to explore any racially neutral criteria, has used race as the overarching factor instead of a contributing factor, and has not limited its manipulation to a specific time period, all criteria required by the Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003).

This is yet another welcoming sea change at the DOJ from Sessions. In the past, the department has been used as a tool to actually promote discrimination under the guise of fighting it, by mandating that government or private institutions purposely factor in race over meritocracy. Sessions is doing the opposite in order to follow the true intent of civil rights laws.

Harvard’s egregious slight of Asian-Americans is likely the tip of the iceberg of discriminatory affirmative action throughout higher education institutions. It is quite evident that Sessions desires to systemically reorient the mission of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, and it would not be surprising to see more action taken against other institutions. When asked if we should expect more investigations against other institutions, a spokeswoman for the department said, “As a matter of policy, DOJ does not confirm or deny the existence or nonexistence of investigations.” (For more from the author of “The DOJ Goes After Harvard for Discriminating Against Asian Applicants” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Report: NBC Used Threats to Silence Reporting on Harvey Weinstein

/0 Comments/in , /by

A former NBC News producer who was working with Ronan Farrow when the reporter was investigating sexual misconduct allegations against former Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein stated on Thursday that an order to “stand down” on the story came from “the very highest levels at NBC.”

Rich McHugh, the producer who left NBC earlier this month, made this claim to The New York Times, saying executives were “resistant” throughout the eight-month reporting process.

“Three days before Ronan and I were going to head to L.A. to interview a woman with a credible rape allegation against Harvey Weinstein, I was ordered to stop, not to interview this woman and to stand down on the story altogether,” McHugh said.

He told Fox News in a statement, “That (order) was unethical, and a massive breach of journalistic integrity. Is there anyone in the journalistic community who actually believes NBC didn’t breach its journalistic duty to continue reporting this story? Something else must have been going on.”

“As a journalist for 16 years I do know that when you have an explosive story you never let it walk out the door,” McHugh added. “You keep digging for more so you can publish it at your network. NBC owed it to those brave women who spoke to us to get their stories out.”

The Daily Beast reported, based on multiple sources familiar with the matter, that NBC News General Counsel Susan Weiner made multiple phone calls to Farrow “threatening to smear him if he continued to report on Weinstein.”

A spokesperson for NBC News, speaking on a condition of anonymity, described the allegation as “absolutely false.”

“There’s no truth to that all. There is no chance, in no version of the world, that Susan Weiner would tell Ronan Farrow what he could or could not report on,” the spokesperson said.

ABC News reporter Chris Francescani, a former coworker with McHugh and Farrow, supported McHugh’s account, saying he is telling the truth and NBC is not.

NBC News denied McHugh’s allegation, saying in a statement, “The assertion that NBC News tried to kill the Weinstein story while Ronan Farrow was at NBC News, or even more ludicrously, after he left NBC News, is an outright lie.”

The network claimed it assigned Farrow to investigate Weinstein and supported him through the eight months he worked on the story.

However, in August 2017 when he came to NBC News executives stating the story was ready to air, they disagreed because Farrow “did not yet have a single victim of — or witness to — misconduct by Weinstein who was willing to be identified.”

Noah Oppenheim, the president of NBC News, told The Times, “(McHugh) was never told to stop in the way he’s implying.”

“We repeatedly made clear to Ronan and Rich McHugh the standard for publication is we needed at least one credible on-the-record victim or witness of misconduct,” Oppenheim said. “And we never met that threshold while Ronan was reporting for us.”

The NBC News chief added that the day before Farrow’s scheduled trip to Los Angeles to interview an alleged victim of Weinstein, he asked permission to pursue the story with another outlet.

“Ronan reached out to us and said: ‘I want to get this out now. I have a magazine that’s willing to do it. Will you be OK if I take the reporting to this magazine?’” Oppenheim said. “And we granted him permission to do so.”

“We said: ‘You’ve asked for permission to go elsewhere. You can’t use an NBC camera crew for another outlet. You can do whatever you want to do. And you don’t work for us,’” Oppenheim added.

Farrow took the piece to The New Yorker, which published its explosive exposé on Weinstein in October 2017, days after The New York Times published a story about the Hollywood producer’s sexual predatory behavior.

In April, Farrow was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for his reporting along with The New York Times. Farrow left NBC in January for a position producing documentaries with HBO, Fox News reported at the time.

Appearing on MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show” following the breaking of his New Yorker story last October, Farrow was asked about NBC News’ decision not to run it.

“You would have to ask NBC and NBC executives about the details,” Farrow replied. The reporter noted that he was threatened personally with a lawsuit by Weinstein, implying perhaps NBC received the same threats.

Maddow followed up saying NBC claimed the story wasn’t “ready to go” when Farrow brought it to their attention. He immediately shot that notion down.

“I walked into the door at The New Yorker with an explosively reportable piece that should’ve been public earlier,” Farrow said. “And immediately, obviously, The New Yorker recognized that, and it is not accurate to say that it was not reportable.”

He added, “In fact, there were multiple determinations that it was reportable at NBC.”

Weinstein was arrested in May and charged with three felony counts of first-degree rape, third-degree rape and first-degree criminal sexual act.

Farrow praised McHugh on Twitter last fall writing, he “refused to bow to pressure to stop, through numerous shoots, even when it meant risking his job.” He also called McHugh an “unsung hero of this entire story.” (For more from the author of “Report: NBC Used Threats to Silence Reporting on Harvey Weinstein” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Remember That Guy Who Stole a Teen’s ‘MAGA’ Hat? He Just Got Some Bad News.

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Remember that brave 30-year-old man who assaulted a teenage boy in a Whataburger restaurant in San Antonio, Texas, for the crime of wearing a pro-Trump “Make America Great Again” hat? Yeah, he’s been indicted for theft — since the attacker stole the boy’s “MAGA” hat after cursing him out and throwing a drink in his face — and is facing up to two years behind bars. . .

“Kino Jimenez was indicted Wednesday on a charge of theft of person, which is a state jail felony. He was located in Universal City in July by San Antonio police robbery task force detectives who took him into custody on an arrest warrant,” reports My San Antonio.

In July, footage of Jimenez’s assault of 16-year-old Hunter Richard was posted online and quickly went viral. The footage went so viral, in fact, that the oldest Trump son, Donald Jr., publicly commented on the despicable harassment and arranged for Richard to receive a new “MAGA” hat signed by President Trump.

“F*** the president. You ain’t supporting s***, n****,” screamed Jimenez, seen snatching Richard’s MAGA hat and throwing a large drink in the teen’s face. “B**** a** motherf***er!” . . .

Prior to the assault, Jimenez racked up misdemeanor offenses for marijuana possession and driving while intoxicated on his criminal record, notes My San Antonio. Still, Jimenez is eligible for probation or deferred adjudication if convicted. (Read more from “Remember That Guy Who Stole a Teen’s ‘MAGA’ Hat? He Just Got Some Bad News.” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Driver Who Allegedly Killed Oregon Couple in DUI Crash Is a Illegal Alien

/0 Comments/in , /by

The man suspected of killing an Oregon couple in a high-speed drunk driving collision earlier in August is an illegal immigrant from Mexico, The Daily Caller News Foundation learned.

Eduardo de la Lima Vargas, 39, allegedly ran a red light on a state highway in Salem, Oregon, on Aug. 19, striking a motorcycle being driven by Logan Wilson, 34, and his wife Jessi, 32. The collision tossed the Wilsons from the motorcycle, fatally injuring both.

Vargas blew a .10 blood alcohol level on a breathalyzer roughly two hours after the crash, according to a Salem police report. Investigators believe he was probably driving at twice the legal alcohol limit at the time he crashed into the Wilsons, who are survived by four young children.

Following the wreck, Vargas was booked into the Marion County jail on two counts of manslaughter, as well as one count each of reckless endangering, reckless driving and driving under the influence. He remains in state custody on a $500,000 bond.

Additionally, Vargas is now the subject of a federal immigration detention request. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) confirmed the detainer Aug. 24 in a statement to Salem-based crime researcher David Olen Cross, who shared it Thursday with TheDCNF. (Read more from “Driver Who Allegedly Killed Oregon Couple in DUI Crash Is a Illegal Alien” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Religious Studies Professor: Murdering Babies Is Actually a ‘Christian’ Thing to Do

/0 Comments/in , /by

A religious studies professor and ordained minister in North Carolina wrote in a recent Op-Ed that the “abundant life” Jesus spoke of includes “trusting women to make abortion decisions.”

Rebecca Todd Peters — a social ethics professor of religious studies at Elon University — wrote in an opinion piece published in the Raleigh News & Observer and other news outlets in the Tar Heel State earlier this month that it is, in fact, a “Christian norm” to trust women with these choices.

Peters, author of the book “Trust Women: A Progressive Christian Argument for Reproductive Justice,” pointed to examples where it is morally acceptable in most Christian circles to allow for abortion.

“Prenatal health, Rape, Incest, and health of the Mother — PRIM. Evidence indicates widespread consensus and acceptance among many Christian denominations that abortion for PRIM reasons is justifiable,” Peters wrote.

The ordained Presbyterian minister contends that Christians simply need to expand their view of morality to encompass women being the final arbiters of what is right for them and their unborn child.

“By requiring women to justify their reasons for ending a pregnancy, this framework divides women who have abortions into two categories — the tragic and the damned,” according to the author.

“Women who have PRIM abortions are portrayed as tragic, not only deserving of access to abortion services but also equally deserving of public sympathy,” she said. “Women who have abortions for other reasons are stigmatized as morally unfit and labeled as selfish, cruel, and irresponsible. In short, they are the damned.”

She argued, “It is time for Christians to challenge the inadequacy, intolerance and misogyny of this paradigm of pregnancy and abortion.”

The professor dismissed adoption as a viable option for women who have become pregnant and do not want to be mothers, offering that only one percent of women make that decision after carrying their baby to term.

“Limiting our cultural approval of women’s reproductive decisions about the size, shape, and timing of their families to a narrow list of PRIM reasons flies in the face of Jesus’ teaching that he came to bring abundant life,” Peters wrote.

“If we truly value women and healthy families, we must accept that ‘I do not want to have a baby’ is an imminently appropriate reason to end a pregnancy. And we must trust that pregnant women are the only ones who are capable of making these decisions,” Peters concluded.

Micaiah Bilger, writing for LifeNews.com, finds Peters’ overall “trust women” to make their own moral decisions argument in relation to abortion “ridiculous.”

“While Christians believe God gave human beings a free will to decide whether to do good or evil, they also believe certain actions are morally evil — such as killing innocent human beings,” Bilger said.

“Peters almost certainly would not argue that Christians should allow men to beat their wives, or women to neglect their children because of free will. Yet, she claimed Christians should ‘trust women’ with the freedom to kill their own babies before birth.

“Christians believe babies in the womb are valuable, living human beings from the moment of conception, and killing innocent human beings is evil.”

Paula Rinehart, an elder in a Presbyterian church, and the author of “Sex and the Soul of Woman,” also takes exception to Peters’ views.

“Much of Peters’ argument rests on the theft of language. She commends women for the ‘moral courage’ of choosing abortion when they aren’t prepared to parent. (Missing in the conversation is what justice might look like for the child in the womb),” Rinehart wrote in The Federalist.

Rinehart pointed to a passage in Peters’ book where she recounts the moral choice she faced as a seminary student with an unwanted pregnancy.

“For Peters, this experience led to prayer and a moral quandary: ‘I knew I didn’t want to have a baby at that point in my life. I loved my husband, but things were bad between us. I was in seminary, and having a baby right then would seriously interrupt my studies and my future career. I believed that my work on issues of social justice was important; it was my calling…I knew that this was not the right time for me to become a mother.’”

Rinehart took Peters to task for trying to use scripture and church tradition to justify her views on abortion.

“Anyone well versed in the Old or New Testament realizes this religious studies professor had to don hiking boots with metal cleats to run roughshod over a vast terrain of church history and scripture,” Rinehart wrote.

“Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Augustine — none of these early church fathers considered intentionally destroying life in the womb as anything other than grave sin. That’s not to mention Jesus, who claimed that to care for ‘the least of these’ was to care, in fact, for him.”

Rinehart also said that central to church teaching through the years has been the belief that the image of God is with each person from conception to the point of natural death.

President Donald Trump quoted one of the most familiar biblical passages on this point while speaking at the annual Susan B. Anthony List Campaign for Life Gala this past spring.

“We celebrate all lives,” he said. “[E]very life is sacred and that every child is a precious gift from God.”

Trump continued. “As the Lord says in Jeremiah, ‘Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you … Before you were born, I set you apart.”

Campus Reform reached out to Peters to further explain her views regarding why is it morally preferable to abort rather than to raise or place an “unwanted” child up for adoption.

“As a Christian ethicist, I believe very strongly that abortion is a moral decision. Just as having a baby is a moral decision,” she said. “Because pregnancy represents the potential for human life, I believe that we ought to take the decision to have a child far more seriously than we do.”

Peters added: “The ethic of reproductive justice that I develop in my book offers a much more robust and demanding ethic in support of pregnancy, mothers and families than the current public discussion of abortion.” (For more from the author of “Religious Studies Professor: Murdering Babies Is Actually a ‘Christian’ Thing to Do” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Convicted Muslim Terrorist Bomber Sues Jail for Not Honoring His Religion

/0 Comments/in , /by

A federal court in Denver this week is hearing a civil suit brought by Ahmad Ajaj, one of the key figures in the the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

Ajaj is suing the United States as well as the Federal Bureau of Prisons for allegedly violating his religious freedoms.

Ajaj, who is serving a 114-year sentence for his role in the bombing that killed six people and injured more than 1,000, filed his suit in 2015, according to The Denver Post.

The convicted terrorist cites grievances against three former wardens of the U.S. Penitentiary Maximum Security Prison in Florence, two chaplains and a number of health care workers for allegedly keeping Ajaj from complying with the demands of his faith.

The law being cited by Ajaj’s legal representation is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was enacted the same year Ajaj bombed the World Trade Center.

In a motion to dismiss the case, the prison claimed it has complied with federal law regarding Ajaj’s faith, including providing him with medications at 4 a.m. during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, so that he would be able to fast during the period.

“The Court should dismiss this case as moot, because plaintiff has already received the relief requested in his complaint,” the motion state, according to the Post. But Judge R. Brooke Jackson, who is hearing the case, declined to dismiss it.

The suit claims the prison did not provide Ajaj with his medications for back pain and depression early enough.

Ajaj, a Sunni Muslim, is also attempting to make up for being unable to observe Islam’s Haji, which is a pilgrimage to Mecca required at least once during the lifetime of any Muslim who is physically and financially able to do so.

Ajaj’s lawsuit, according to the Post, argues that because Ajaj is unable to make the trip to the holy site in Saudi Arabia, he believes that he should substitute other forms of worship, including additional fasting. He also complained about being put in administrative segregation on Sept. 11, 2001, the second time the World Trade Center was attacked.

Ajaj is represented in court by the student law office of the University of Denver, according to The Associated Press. However, Ajaj himself was forced to watch the trial by video because of security concerns, the AP reported.

“Throughout his incarceration, Mr. Ajaj has been subject to relentless discriminatory practices by Bureau of Prison staff because of his race and religion,” the lawsuit states, according to the Post.

The newspaper reported that Ajaj also accused prison staff of intentionally offending his religious sensibilities by showing cartoons that mocked the Prophet Muhammed, and said that staff tossed the Quran in the trash.

“Mr. Ajaj must choose between obtaining his prescribed medications and observing religious fasts; he must choose between eating and consuming a religiously forbidden diet; and he must choose between receiving a disciplinary action and participating in group prayer,” the lawsuit states, according to the Post.

“Finally, defendants’ refusal to provide regular access to an Imam in violation of their own policy gives Mr. Ajaj no choice but to forego religious guidance.”

It has not been determined what Ajaj is seeking as restitution for the outlined grievances. However One America News reported that he previously asked to be awarded $130,000 in a 2014 lawsuit over dietary issues related to Ramadan. (For more from the author of “Convicted Muslim Terrorist Bomber Sues Jail for Not Honoring His Religion” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

State Moves to Require Universities to Provide Free Medication Abortions for Students

/0 Comments/in , /by

Soon in California, all universities may be required to provide abortion medication to students. . .

If the bill becomes law, it would make California the first state to enact such legislation. Right now, none of the 34 University of California or California State campuses provide abortion services.

The initiative is being funded by a number of private donors, who have already pledged to contribute millions of dollars to cover the start-up costs of launching the abortion program. The money will be used for things like ultrasound machines and staff training. If SB 320 becomes law, college campuses in California will be forced to implement these services by the year 2022. . .

A medication abortion involves a woman taking a series of two pills, mifepristone and misoprostol. The mifepristone, which blocks a woman’s body from producing the hormone progesterone necessary for maintaining a pregnancy, is taken in the clinic. Then the woman returns home and ingests the second pill, misoprostol, which causes the uterus to contract, cramp, and bleed, eventually expelling the baby. Medication abortion is used by mothers up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy.

According to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s number one abortion provider, you should “stock up on maxi pads, food, books or movies to help pass the time, and a heating pad for cramps. Make sure you have some pain medication — but don’t take aspirin because it can make you bleed more.” (Read more from “State Moves to Require Universities to Provide Free Medication Abortions for Students” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Wait–Who Did the Jacksonville Fire Marshal Blame for the Madden Tournament Shooting?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Last weekend, David Katz, a man who was hospitalized twice for mental health issues, opened fire and killed two people at a Madden 19 tournament in Jacksonville, Florida. He wounded at least nine more as well; Katz reportedly snapped after losing in the event. A resident of South Baltimore, he bought two handguns legally, despite his mental health history. Also, there are more questions concerning the purchases since Maryland has the one handgun a month rule. . .

Katz was hospitalized twice for mental issues during his teenage years, being prescribed anti-psychotics, and having the police summoned by his parents, but he wasn’t involuntarily committed. Even if Katz had a concealed carry permit, which raises more eyebrows due to his mental state, Maryland and Florida don’t share reciprocity. In short, he had his guns in Florida illegally. It goes without saying; it’s his fault, right? Well, according to the Jacksonville Fire Marshal, it’s the fault of Chicago Pizza, who hosted the event (via Florida Times Union) [emphasis mine]:

Chicago Pizza was cited late Wednesday for having an un-permitted gaming room by the Jacksonville Fire Prevention Division, the same space where Sunday’s mass shooting left three people dead including a 24-year-old gunman from Baltimore, and about a dozen others injured. . .

City fire inspectors say Chicago Pizza was not permitted to hold the video game tournament that turned deadly at 1:30 p.m. Sunday, according to its Wednesday code violation report. The report states the restaurant’s last approved building layout was submitted back in 2009, but the restaurant altered the layout plan without approval. That created the GLHF Game Bar, where this past weekend’s Madden NFL 19 video gaming tournament was held. That makes it an un-permitted game area, the fire department said.

“If Chicago Pizza would not have altered the layout plan by creating an un-permitted game room area, the video game tournament would not have occurred, and thus, this incident would not have occurred at the Jacksonville Landing,” the fire department statement read. “This area was neither authorized nor a part of their submitted and approved building layout plan.”

(Read more from “Wait–Who Did the Jacksonville Fire Marshal Blame for the Madden Tournament Shooting?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.