90 Miles From Tyranny

infinite scrolling

Thursday, November 29, 2018

Hot Pick Of The Late Night

No UN Migration Pact; Save European Culture


Guy Verhofstadt Calls For US "Intervention" In Hungary | The Authoritarian EU | George Soros


Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Portland is a Sh*thole


Girls With Guns

On Disarming Law Abiding Citizens...




Two Birds, One Stone....


Some Caravan migrants are choosing to go back to Honduras – here’s why they’re doing it

According to an MSNBC reporter from Tijuana in Mexico, some of the caravan migrants are choosing to go back to their home countries – and they say it is because they were misled about how easy it is to enter.

“They have realized that it is very difficult”

MSNBC’s Gadi Schwartz reported from the migrant encampment where the situation had turned violent on Sunday as migrants tried to force their way into the United States.

“Many of these men tell us that they heard in Honduras that it would be easy to cross into the United States,” he reported.

“Some of them told us that they had heard that there were programs, work programs,” he continued, “that they would be eligible for and so now that they’re here in Tijuana, and they have realized that it is very difficult to get into the United States, especially after what happened on Sunday, some of them are deciding to turn back.”

“In fact,” he continued as the camera swung to a tent, “this is a tent that’s been set up by a bunch of different governmental agencies here in Mexico, but this is where people come if they want to go back to Honduras or Guatemala, or El Salvador.”

“These are people who have decided that it is time to go back and that they don’t have the opportunities that they wanted here,” he concluded.

Schwartz also reported that Mexico is extending humanitarian visas to the migrants and setting up jobs for them.

The San Diego Union Tribune interviewed many migrants who said that they could not afford to continue to stay in Tijuana further, and others said it was not safe in...

THIS Terrifies Democrats Like Nothing Else Can!


BORDER PATROL AGENTS USED TEAR GAS, PEPPER SPRAY UNDER OBAMA MORE THAN 500 TIMES

U.S. Border Patrol agents used tear gas or pepper spray more than 500 times from 2012 to 2016 under President Barack Obama’s administration.

According to numbers provided to the Daily Caller by the Department of Homeland Security, CS gas, commonly known as tear gas, was used by U.S. Border Patrol agents 79 times from 2012 to 2016.

Tear Gas Usage At The Border:




In addition to CS gas, Border Patrol regularly used Pava Capsaicin, which is commonly known as pepper spray, for performing area saturation associated with law enforcement operations. The numbers below describe the uses of Pava Capsaicin between 2012 to 2018. Pepper spray was used 434 times while Obama was president.




The agents used pepper spray or tear gas a total of 513 times between 2012 and 2016. A DHS spokesperson told The Daily Caller that no records before 2012 were available.

The Trump administration is getting criticized for deploying tear gas against a border mob this weekend. Hundreds of migrants stormed the U.S. border waving Mexican and Honduran flags and throwing rocks at Border Patrol in Tijuana, Mexico, before eventually being repelled. The border entry was shut down for a number of hours as a response and Mexico deported a number of the violent migrants.
Multiple high-profile Democrats criticized President Donald Trump for the use of tear gas against the migrant mob without noting that the use of tear gas happened frequently under the Obama administration.

Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said, “It’s horrifying to see tear gas used on mothers and young children as they seek refuge in the United States. That’s not what...

She Doesn't Look Hungry To me....


...Daughter Looks Well Fed Too...

Florida Gun Grabbers Launch ‘Assault Weapon Ban’ Petition

Florida has long been unofficially known as the “Gunshine State” for its generally pro-gun status. While it wasn’t as pro-gun as many places–waiting period, I’m looking at you–it’s still a state with a pro-gun attitude. This is despite the knee-jerk legislation passed through in the emotional wake of the Parkland massacre.

However, anti-gun groups appear to believe the emotional wake is still taking place. Why else would they launch a ballot initiative to ban so-called assault weapons?

The groups, Americans for Gun Safety Now and the unambiguously-named Ban Assault Weapons Now, said in a joint statement released this week that they were formed during the advocacy wave that surged following the Marjo

ry Stoneman Douglas High School shooting that left 17 dead in the state in February. Working together, they hope to gather enough signatures to put the initiative in front of voters for a yes or no vote that, if successful, would enact a statewide ban.

“The assault rifle, and its ability to fire approximately one hundred rounds a minute, can be purchased legally with no proof of training, no background check, and no regulations what so ever,” said Gail Schwartz, BAWNs chair, and the aunt of Alex Schachter who was killed at Parkland. “Our goal is to take military-style firearms off the shelves thus saving the lives of innocent people.”

Both organizations, with a small social media footprint and few independent events under their belt, are facing an uphill battle. The groups would need to gather 766,200 signatures from registered Florida voters through an approved petition process to put the amendment on the state’s 2020 ballot. Once there, state law requires that a constitutional amendment has to gather 60 percent of the vote to become law, rather than a simple majority.
The media footprint is only one of the challenges creating an uphill battle for their effort.
Another is the fact that now that things have settled down after Parkland, it’s unlikely that all that many people will want to sign the blasted things.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m quite sure that you can find 766,200 anti-gunners in a state the size of Florida. The problem will be getting the petition in front of them.

Even if that happens, though, I’d be shocked to see 60 percent of the electorate–in a presidential election year, mind you, which means a greater turnout than normal–decide to ban a class of firearms after all...