Massive Bank Denies Service to Conservatives

/0 Comments/in , /by

Activist Laura Loomer, who has already been banned by PayPal, claims she had her account suspended by Chase Bank. . .

Enrique Tarrio, the black leader of the Proud Boys, a group that has laughably been branded a white supremacist organization by liberals, was also suspended by Chase. So was Martina Markota. And Joe Biggs, who made enough of a stink that Chase reluctantly gave him his account back.

Banking is one of the most heavily regulated industries in America for a good reason – and it’s not just because the bankers can steal your money. The idea that citizens could be cut off from using a bank because of their political views is extremely dangerous. Imagine going to your bank and being told to produce your voter registration before you’re allowed to open an account or get a credit card. If Chase is allowed to do this, we are taking a step into that world. A world where your political views could keep you from being able to get credit or run a business. Certainly, there are an awful lot of liberals who would love to see us enter a world like that. In fact, there was a column in the New York Times last year calling for weaponizing the financial industry in exactly this way to shut down the gun industry as part of an effort to deny Americans their Second Amendment rights.

Republicans in the Senate should demand that Chase executives come before them and answer some hard questions about targeting customers for their political views. Maybe we need to rewrite banking regulations to make sure this kind of discrimination can’t occur. I tell you what’s not a “maybe”: Republicans in Congress should at least let banks know that they are paying attention to this issue and that there could be rather severe consequences for Chase or, alternately, for the whole industry if this practice spreads.

You may have heard someone say, “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.” I would add to that “capitalism is not a suicide pact.” Breaking up monopolies is a conservative idea with a long track record. Protecting middle-class citizens from the abuses of corporations that are targeting them unfairly is not something conservatives have historically shied away from doing when it was needed. (Read more from “Massive Bank Denies Service to Conservatives” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Guns, Ammo, and Tactical Gear: Oh My! Here’s How Much Firepower Swamp Agencies Have Stockpiled

/0 Comments/in , /by

As you get ready to file those tax forms before the annual April deadline, it might interest you to know that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) currently has 15 submachine guns and around five million rounds of ammunition at its disposal.

And while those numbers might seem shocking to many, the IRS isn’t the only federal agency with a stockpile. According to a GAO report from December, a lot of federal agencies have a lot of firepower.

A recent article by Adam Andrzejewski, founder and CEO of Open the Books, a transparency nonprofit, points out some rather eye-popping procurements by federal agencies over the past decade.

The IRS currently has 4,461 guns, including 621 shotguns, 539 rifles, and those 15 submachine guns. The Department of Health and Human Services has over one million rounds of ammunition stockpiled for use.

The VA doesn’t just have red tape and long waiting times, it turns out. The agency also purchased almost 3,000 rounds for each of its almost 4,000 police officers between 2010 and 2017. The agency also has camouflage uniforms, riot gear, and “tactical lighting.”

In total, the GAO report lists “at least $1.5 billion in total” spending on ammunition, firearms, and tactical equipment between the 20 agencies it surveyed from fiscal years 2010 through 2017.

But while the title of Andrzejewski’s post asks why President Trump’s federal agencies have been stockpiling these weapons and ammunition, a great many of the purchases were made during the Obama administration.

Here’s a quick breakdown of the numbers by year, according to Appendix II of the GAO report:

While the IRS hasn’t spent any funds on new hardware since 2014, the agency’s ammunition purchases held somewhat steady into 2017.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s hardware purchases spiked in 2013, 2014, and 2016, but show very little for 2017.

VA law enforcement purchases showed a 2017 spike, though there were steady purchases and a 2011 spike during the Obama years.

HHS has two departments that have purchased munitions: The National Institutes of Health, which saw a spike in firearms buying in 2017, and and the Office of Inspector General, which did almost all of its recent gun shopping between 2010 and 2012.

Furthermore, the same section also outlines why each department and agency listed claims to need the firepower, though some information was deemed “sensitive” by HHS, the IRS, and the Transportation Security Administration and was redacted from the report’s original version.

Why do agencies have all this firepower? According to the report, each of these different agencies has its own federal law enforcement officers (FLEOs). For instance, the EPA’s police program “enforces the nations’ laws by investigating cases, collecting evidence, conducting forensic analyses; and provides legal guidance to assist with prosecutions.” The VA’s police force “Protects veterans by enforcing federal law at VA medical facilities (and some National Cemetery and Benefits locations) and by serving as initial response forces to active threat incidents.” And the NIH has guns to protect “our country’s scientific research and the NIH research community.”

Those explanations may or may not be reassuring to the small-government-minded, who might be coming down with an understandable case of the heebie-jeebies at this point.

Questions such as whether regulatory agencies require their own specific law enforcement capabilities, how much oversight Congress takes over these weapons purchases, and whether or not agencies should be limited in the amount of ammunition they can stockpile at a given time are all fair game. And they should be asked. Do you have to be concerned about a martial law crackdown to wonder if federal agencies stocked on firepower are a good thing? (For more from the author of “Guns, Ammo, and Tactical Gear: Oh My! Here’s How Much Firepower Swamp Agencies Have Stockpiled” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Democrats Block Republicans From Saving Infants BORN ALIVE From Botched Abortions

/0 Comments/in , /by

By Daily Wire. On Monday evening, Senate Democrats blocked their Republican counterparts from protecting infants born alive after botched abortion procedures. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which is sponsored by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE), failed to pass the Senate with a vote of 53-44, seven votes shy of the required 60. . .

“This bill amends the federal criminal code to require any health care practitioner who is present when a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion to: (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) ensure that such child is immediately admitted to a hospital,” reads the legislation.

“The term ‘born alive,'” the bill explains, “means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut.” . . .

DeSanctis noted: “All six of the Democratic senators currently running for the 2020 presidential nomination voted against the bill: Cory Booker (N.J.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kamala Harris (Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), along with Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont.”

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, representing Alaska, declined to vote on the bill. According to DeSanctis, Republican senators Tim Scott (SC) and Kevin Cramer (ND) did not vote on the bill due to flight delays, per their communications directors. (Read more from “Democrats Block Republicans From Saving Infants BORN ALIVE From Botched Abortions” HERE)

__________________________________________________

Dems Block ‘Born Alive’ Bill to Provide Medical Care to Infants Who Survive Failed Abortions

By Fox News. Senate Democrats on Monday blocked a Republican bill that would have threatened prison time for doctors who don’t try saving the life of infants born alive during failed abortions, leading conservatives to wonder openly whether Democrats were embracing “infanticide” to appeal to left-wing voters.

All prominent Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls in the Senate voted down the measure, including Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. The final vote was 53-44 to end Democratic delaying tactics — seven votes short of the 60 needed.

Three Democrats joined Republicans to support the bill — Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Doug Jones or Alabama. Three Republicans did not vote, apparently because of scheduling issues and plane flight delays — including Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Tim Scott of South Carolina. . .

The bill, which exempted the mother involved in the birth from prosecution, also would have required practitioners to “ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.” It prescribed a possible term of imprisonment of up to five years for violations, not including penalties for first-degree murder that could have applied. (Read more from “Dems Block ‘Born Alive’ Bill to Provide Medical Care to Infants Who Survive Failed Abortions” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Heavy Pot Smoking Has Now Been Linked to THIS Strange Syndrome

/0 Comments/in , /by

But when it comes to recreational use, the problem becomes one of how much you are smoking and for how long. Studies have shown that regular users can develop cognitive and behavioral problems, and an increased risk of anxiety and depression.

And according to a recent study at NYU Langone Health, chronic pot smokers (defined as more than 20 days per month) had almost a one out of three chance of developing Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome (CHS), an awful condition associated with varying degrees of pain and uncontrolled nausea and vomiting, which can for last several hours. This translates to over 3 million sufferers in the U.S., when you consider the current numbers of chronic pot smokers. . .

According to Dr. Joe Habboushe, associate professor of emergency medicine at NYU and first author of the study, the weed-induced vomiting doesn’t respond to routine anti-nausea drugs but only to several hours of hot showers or capsaicin (derived from peppers) cream.

While Habboushe acknowledged to me in an interview that small amounts of marijuana (containing cannabinoids) suppresses nausea and pain in the brain and nerves, at the same time, too much of it over time may “overstimulate and turn off the very receptors that were suppressing nausea and pain in the first place.” Habboushe added, “Hot showers seem to be able to stimulate the same receptors and turn them back on.” . . .

Despite the growing number of cases of CHS, many doctors are still not familiar with this condition and may misdiagnose the problem as something else. Patients have had multiple diagnostic tests and even had their gallbladders removed unnecessarily as a result of the symptoms. (Read more from “Heavy Pot Smoking Has Now Been Linked to THIS Strange Syndrome” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

There Is at Least One Tribe Willing to Accept Elizabeth Warren as a Member

/0 Comments/in , /by

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s claims of Native American ancestry and tribal affiliation will likely follow her for the entirety of her presidential campaign. But, there is at least one “tribe” that’s willing to accept her, according to The Washington Free Beacon. . .

The Una Nation in Oregon is a “mixed-blood” tribe that has officially invited Warren to join.

“If she’s Native American, or of Native American descent, that means she’s a mixed-blood, and we stand by her and her statement that she is part-Native American,” said Richard B. Lake, the 29-year-old leader of the tribe. . .

“We’re granting her, as a gift, enrollment in the Una Nation,” said Lake, who also goes by King Richard II Ziwahatan. “When she’s asked next if she’s a member of the tribe, hopefully she’ll be able to say proudly she’s a member of the Una Nation, who accept me for who I am.”

After publicizing the results of a DNA test showing she was somewhere between 1/64 and 1/1024 Native American to prove President Donald Trump wrong, Warren apologized to Native Americans, including the Cherokee tribe, for her claims, which she has said were based on her “understanding from my family’s stories.” (Read more from “There Is at Least One Tribe Willing to Accept Elizabeth Warren as a Member” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Federal Court Judge Rules in Challenge to Bump Stock Ban. Here’s What You Need to Know.

/0 Comments/in , /by

Back in December, the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) finalized a new regulation that changed definition of “machinegun” to include “bump-stock-type devices.” Beginning March 26, owning or possessing a bump stock will be illegal.

On Monday night, a federal court judge denied three separate preliminary injunction requests. The decision was a consolidated ruling in two cases, Firearms Policy Coalition v. Whitaker and Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

According to court documents, the plaintiffs had varying arguments for a preliminary injunction:

To prevent the rule from taking effect, the plaintiffs—Damien Guedes, the Firearms Policy Coalition, David Codrea, and their co-plaintiffs—filed three motions for a preliminary injunction in which they raised overlapping statutory and constitutional challenges. All of the plaintiffs contend that ATF violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when it promulgated the rule. Guedes also argues that ATF violated certain procedural requirements in 18 U.S.C. § 926(b), which grants the agency rulemaking authority. Codrea further argues that the rule violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. And all of the plaintiffs contend that then–Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker lacked authority to promulgate the rule under either the Appointments Clause of the Constitution or 28 U.S.C. § 508 (the AG Act), a succession statute specific to the Office of the Attorney General. Because none of the plaintiffs’ arguments support preliminary injunctive relief, the Court will deny all three motions.

“It is important to note that today’s order is not a final ruling on any claim, and is merely a trial court’s denial of a temporary injunction. And while we had hoped for a quick and positive outcome at the trial court level, we have been and remain committed to litigating these issues as much as it takes to completely resolve the cases and protect Americans from a rogue and growing executive branch, including by petitioning the United States Supreme Court if necessary,” the group said in a statement.

(Read more from “Federal Court Judge Rules in Challenge to Bump Stock Ban. Here’s What You Need to Know.” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

FYI: The Obama Administration, Not Trump, Determined ISIS Bride Isn’t an American

/0 Comments/in , /by

ISIS bride Hoda Muthana, who advocated for the murder of Americans and other innocent civilians in the name of jihad, is fighting to come back to America as the caliphate continues to collapse. . .

“This is a woman who inflicted enormous risk on American soldiers, on American citizens. She is a terrorist. She’s not coming back. President Trump made clear that she wasn’t coming back. She is not a U.S. citizen, she is not entitled to U.S. citizenship, and she’s not coming back to our country to pose a threat,” Pompeo said during an interview on Fox Business last week.

Muthana’s family and attorneys, who have filed a lawsuit on her behalf, argue President Trump is abusing his power, uprooting the law and showing his bigotry by throwing aside Hoda’s request to return.

But it was the Obama administration that originally determined she doesn’t qualify as an American by birth.

(Read more from “FYI: The Obama Administration, Not Trump, Determined ISIS Bride Isn’t an American” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Another Media Hoax: Anti-Trump Letter’s 58 ‘Bipartisan’ Signers Are Mostly Obama Officials

/0 Comments/in , /by

A so-called “bipartisan” letter from 58 national security officials condemning the president’s use of an emergency declaration for border security has almost nothing “bipartisan” about it. In fact, it’s a document signed by a who’s who of top Obama administration officials and fiercely anti-Trump figures. But that didn’t stop the media from reporting the story as if there were actual bipartisan consensus.

The letter made the rounds through the legacy media on Monday, castigating the president’s use of an emergency declaration to enhance U.S. border security measures. It claims that there is “no factual basis for the declaration of a national emergency,” adding that there is no justification for “reprogramming billions of dollars in funding to construct a wall at the southern border.”

Teeing up an anti-Trump, open-borders narrative, Politico reported: “President Donald Trump — already facing opposition on his national emergency declaration from House Democrats and a collection of state attorneys general — will on Monday have to contend with a rebuke by a bipartisan group of 58 former national security officials denouncing the White House’s directive.”

Countless media publications, including CNN, Politico, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, and many more, claimed that the letter was bipartisan, offering credibility to the argument that these former national security officials are somehow neutral in their outlook.

But just looking at the group of 58 makes it quite clear that this “bipartisan” label is incredibly misleading, and the document has been reported with gross negligence concerning the signatories’ political beliefs and associations. The notion that the letter is bipartisan could not be further from the truth.

Running the numbers on the so-called national security experts shows that the group is hardly bipartisan: 47 of 58 signatories to the letter served in the Obama administration. The roster is a who’s who of several high-profile Obama personnel, including:

Former Secretary of State John Kerry

Former CIA Director John Brennan

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper

Former National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon

Former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano

Former UN Ambassador Samantha Power

Former CIA Director Leon Panetta

Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice

Another six of the signatories to the letter served in the Clinton administration. That leaves just five who served in the Bush 43 administration. All of the self-identified Republicans who served in the Bush administration — John Bellinger, Nicholas Burns, Eliot Cohen, Jendayi Frazer, and John McLaughlin — have publicly denounced President Trump and/or signed letters opposing him. A few of the 47 Obama officials who were carried over to the Trump administration have publicly attacked the sitting president. There is not one pro-Trump voice among the 58 signatories.

It still remains unclear what organization was behind gathering the signatures. For reasons unknown, none of the dozens of well-sourced national security reporters who wrote about the document disclosed where it came from. However, the letter does state that the signatures are on file with Yale Law School Professor Harold Koh, who was a political appointee under President Obama.

Much of the media played a large role in propping up a “bipartisan” letter that is in reality nothing of the sort. Fake news strikes again. (For more from the author of “Another Media Hoax: Anti-Trump Letter’s 58 ‘Bipartisan’ Signers Are Mostly Obama Officials” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

New Theory Surfaces in Jussie Smollett Hoax

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By The Blaze. Actor Jussie Smollett was arrested this week for filing a false police report after Chicago Police say he orchestrated a hate crime hoax against himself. Authorities alleged two Nigerian brothers helped Smollett carry out the hoax.

But on Saturday, a new theory surfaced alleging reality is not what law enforcement say it is. . .

Chicago Police said Thursday that Smollett paid two Nigerian brothers — Olabinjo Osundairo, 27, and Abimbola Osundairo, 25 — $3,500 each for their help in carrying out the fake attack. Authorities said Smollett paid the brothers with checks.

But TMZ reported Saturday that “sources connected to the case” say the money Smollett paid the Osundairo brothers was not for the alleged fake attack. Instead, Smollett paid the brothers to help train him in the gym. . .

According to TMZ, even the check’s memo line read, “5 weeks training nutrition plan.” (Read more from “New Theory Surfaces in Jussie Smollett Hoax” HERE)

__________________________________________________

Police Say Jussie Smollett Paid Two Men by Check to Stage Attack; ‘This Publicity Stunt Was a Scar That Chicago Didn’t Earn’

By CBS Chicago. Accusing him of slapping the city in the face, Chicago police announced Thursday that “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett had been charged with concocting an attack in Streeterville, because “he was dissatisfied with his salary.”

“Smollett took advantage of the pain and anger of racism to promote his career,” Chicago Police Supt. Eddie Johnson said at a news conference Thursday morning. “This publicity stunt was a scar that Chicago didn’t earn, and certainly didn’t deserve.”

Smollett turned himself in to Chicago police early Thursday morning, hours after he was charged with disorderly conduct for allegedly staging a racist and homophobic attack against himself last month in Streeterville. Smollett turned himself in at the Central District police station at 18th and State streets around 5 a.m., police said. He made no statement to police. (Read more from “Police Say Jussie Smollett Paid Two Men by Check to Stage Attack; ‘This Publicity Stunt Was a Scar That Chicago Didn’t Earn'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

POTUS Announces Major Plans for Fourth of July

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Trump has some major plans to celebrate American independence this year. He’ll be holding a celebration called “A Saulte To America” at the Lincoln Memorial, 45 revealed on Twitter Sunday morning.

The last time Trump was celebrating at the Lincoln Memorial, he had just been elected president. “The Make America Great Again Welcome Concert” featured performances by the likes of Lee Greenwood, Toby Keith, and 3 Doors Down, not to mention thousands of supporters. . .

PBS always hosts a major concert on July 4 as well on Capitol Hill, and they’re usually able to score some major talent. Will the two venues be clashing/competing?

(Read more from “POTUS Announces Major Plans for Fourth of July” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE