90 Miles From Tyranny

Thursday, May 23, 2019

Illegal Alien Convicted of Raping Dog RELEASED by Sanctuary State

An illegal alien who was convicted of raping a dog to death has been released by the sanctuary state of Oregon after being sentenced to just 60 days in prison.

Fidel Lopez, 52 years old was convicted last month and sentenced to 60 days in prison after raping his girlfriends small Lhasa Apso which led to the dog’s death.

The small Lhasa Apso was raped to death by the Illegal Alien

The judge in the case said he wanted to give Lopez more prison time, but unfortunately in Oregon 60 days is the maximum for the crime.

Lopez was immediately released after sentencing because he had already served 60 days while waiting on trial.

Despite committing a horrific crime, and the fact that he’s an illegal immigrant, Multnomah County, Oregon officials released him back into the community.

“On April 8th, Lopez was convicted of sexual assault of an animal and aggravated animal abuse and sentenced to 60 days in jail with credit for time served,” ICE spokeswoman Tanya J. Roman told the New York Daily News.

“The Multnomah County Jail did not honor the immigration detainer and released...

STUDY: White liberals’ sympathy for poor whites DECREASES after white privilege lessons, sympathy for blacks stays same

Professors and a scholar out of the University of Kentucky, Colgate University and New York University conducted a study on white privilege.
They found that white liberals who were educated about white privilege had less sympathy for poor whites and an unchanging sympathy for blacks.

A new study by three professors and one scholar reveals that when white social liberals learn about white privilege, it decreases the amount of sympathy they have for poor whites, with their sympathy for blacks stagnating.

Authored by researchers from the University of Kentucky, Colgate University and New York University, the study, “Complex intersections of race and class: Among social liberals, learning about White privilege reduces sympathy, increases blame, and decreases external attributions for White people struggling with poverty,” was published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology.
“Social liberals showed significantly less sympathy for Kevin when he was described as white" Tweet This

“Why might lessons of White privilege exacerbate negative impressions of poor Whites?” the study asks. “One possibility is that perceivers implicitly play the ‘oppression Olympics’ — that is, they draw upon default hierarchies of groups in order to mentally rank who is worst off and prioritize one group over other groups.”

In their paper, the professors and scholar state that they “simply hope to provide data that illuminate what the consequences of [white privilege] lessons are.”

The academic paper was comprised of two studies. The first one tasked participants with reading a short reading on white privilege -- a control group did not receive the reading -- and the second one asked participants to rate the sympathy they felt toward “Kevin,” who is poor, on welfare, and has been to jail multiple times, but were “randomly assigned” to learn whether he was white or black.

Kevin’s race had a significant impact on how participants answered the question and showed that “social liberals showed significantly less sympathy for Kevin when he was described as white...as compared to black,” according to the professors and scholar.

“Across two highly powered studies, we find that learning about privilege based on race may sometimes lead to reduced sympathy for White people experiencing poverty,” the study says.

“As a result, social liberals who think about White privilege (vs. control) may become more likely to blame poor White people for their poverty.”

Cooley, a Colgate professor who co-authored the study, commented on the study to the Greater Good Magazine, a project of the University of California-Berkeley.

“What we found is that when liberals read about white privilege...it didn’t significantly change how they empathized with a poor black person—but it did significantly bump down their sympathy for a poor...

#gunrights

Let's Terrify Some Politicians....

The Exquisite Outcome Of Unintended Consequences...

From My Cold, Dead Hands...

Wisdom For Our Time...

With Guns We Are Citizens...

Did Someone Tell You You Had Too Many Guns?

You Only Have The Rights You Are Willing To Fight For...

Gun Rights: Saving Lives..

The Dick Act Of 1902 Invalidates All So-Called Gun-Control Laws.

Banish Fear, Lived Armed..

Stand Your Ground Is The Right Of Self Defense

Self Defense Is A Human Right...

Modern Women Should Not Have Less Rights Than Her Historical Sisters...

The Right Of Self Defense...

Federal Rats Are Fleeing the Sinking Collusion Ship

The entire Trump-Russia collusion narrative was always implausible.

One, the Washington swamp of fixers such as Paul Manafort and John and Tony Podesta was mostly bipartisan and predated Trump.

Two, the Trump administration’s Russia policies were far tougher on Vladimir Putin than were those of Barack Obama. Trump confronted Russia in Syria, upped defense spending, increased sanctions and kept the price of oil down through massive new U.S. energy production. He did not engineer a Russian “reset” or get caught on a hot mic offering a self-interested hiatus in tensions with Russia in order to help his own re-election bid.

Three, Russia has a long history of trying to warp U.S. elections that both predated Trump and earned only prior lukewarm pushback from the Obama administration.

It’s also worth remembering that President Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation had been recipients of Russian and Russian-related largesse—ostensibly because Hillary Clinton had used her influence as Secretary of State under Obama to ease resistance to Russian acquisitions of North American uranium holdings.

As far as alleged Russian collusion goes, Hillary Clinton used three firewalls—the Democratic National Committee, the Perkins Coie law firm and the Fusion GPS strategic intelligence firm—to hide her campaign’s payments to British national Christopher Steele to find dirt on Trump and his campaign; in other words, to collude. Steele in turn collected his purchased Russian sources to aggregate unverified allegations against Trump. He then spread the gossip within government agencies to ensure that the smears were leaked to the media—and with a government seal of approval.

No wonder that special counsel Robert Mueller’s partisan team spent 22 months and $34 million only to conclude the obvious: that Trump did not collude with Russia.

Mueller’s failure to find collusion prompts an important question. If the Steele dossier—the basis for unfounded charges that Trump colluded with Russia—was fraudulent, then how and why did the Clinton campaign, hand in glove with top Obama administration officials, use such silly trash and smears to unleash the powers of government against Trump’s campaign, transition team and early presidency?

The question is not an idle one.

There may well have occurred a near coup attempt by high-ranking officials to destroy a campaign and then to remove an elected president. Likewise, top officials may have engaged in serial lying to federal investigators, perjury, the misleading of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the illegal insertion of informants into a political campaign, the leaking of classified documents and the...

VOA Fires Two More Reporters for Chinese Dissident Interview

Critics say official U.S. radio caved to Chinese pressure

The official Voice of America radio has fired two more reporters for their role in a broadcast interview with a dissident Chinese billionaire amid charges radio executives caved to Chinese government pressure in canceling the broadcast midstream.

Fred Wang and Robert Li, veteran VOA reporters with the Chinese language branch, were notified May 15 by the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), the entity in charge of VOA, that they were terminated as a result of the 2017 interview with Guo Wengui.

Guo is an exiled Chinese billionaire living in New York who has been targeted by Beijing through cyberattacks and influence and propaganda campaigns aimed at discrediting his anti-Chinese Communist Party activities. Pressure from Beijing forced Twitter, Facebook, and Google to block his access to social media.

Beijing also has enlisted American business leaders with ties to China to try and force Guo's repatriation, including casino magnate Steve Wynn, who provided President Trump with a letter from Chinese President Xi Jinping asking Trump to forcibly send Guo back to China.

Earlier, the USAGM fired Sasha Gong, VOA's Mandarin language division chief who arranged the April 17 live interview with Guo. Guo once had access to intimate details of high-level corruption within the Chinese Communist Party and has been revealing them in online broadcasts for the past two years.

The Guo interview had been scheduled for three hours but was cut off after an hour and 19 minutes following protests from the Chinese Embassy in Washington to VOA and the State Department.

The VOA did not respond to an email request for comment on the latest firings.

In the past, a spokesman for the radio agency denied VOA caved to Chinese government pressure and claimed the interview violated their guidelines.

Gong was dismissed for failing to follow orders and failing to supervise others in following orders. Wang was fired for failing to follow orders and for broadcasting a short video clip provide by Guo that VOA had directed not be aired. Li was fired for not cutting off the interview when directed by a...

Senate Picks Up the Pace in Confirming New Judges

Senate Republicans used the so-called nuclear option April 3 to eliminate one of the Democrats’ tactics for slowing down the process for considering President Donald Trump’s nominees.

In a column here at the time, I wrote that Republicans “need to seize this opportunity so that the government that Americans elected in 2016 can function as it should.”

Let’s look at the record for the three steps in the presidential appointment process: nomination, Senate committee consideration, and full Senate approval.

When Trump took office in January 2017, judicial vacancies had jumped into triple digits for the first time in six years. They are actually 20% higher today.

Fifty-seven percent of those vacancies are designated as “judicial emergencies” by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts because they have been open so long and have a negative impact on caseloads.

Trump’s pace for making judicial nominations this year is about one-third slower than it was during his first two years in office. He has made nominations for 43% of the judicial positions that are currently vacant across the country, compared to 45% at this point for President Barack Obama and 84% for President George W. Bush.

The first part of the Senate’s confirmation process takes place in the Judiciary Committee. So far this year, under Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the committee has held a hearing for 22 judicial nominees, compared to an average of 19 at this point in the third year of the previous five presidents.

Obviously, the Senate cannot confirm nominations the president has not made or the Judiciary Committee has not approved. The committee must do its part. That said, the most aggressive obstruction tactics occur on the Senate floor.

The first one happens when the Senate must end debate on a nomination in order to take a confirmation vote. This used to happen by informal agreement between the two party leaders.

When the minority won’t cooperate, Senate Rule 22 provides for a formal process that involves filing a motion and taking a separate vote to invoke cloture, or end debate. This can add days to the confirmation timeline, even for nominations that have little or no actual opposition.

As The Heritage Foundation’s Judicial Appointment Trackershows, the Senate has been forced to take 76 cloture votes on Trump’s judicial nominees, more than 10 times as many as at the same point in the previous five...

WASHINGTON — A key congressional committee has already gained access to President Donald Trump’s dealings with two major financial institutions, two sources familiar with the House probe tell NBC News, as a court ruling Wednesday promised to open the door for even more records to be handed over.

Wells Fargo and TD Bank are the two of nine institutions that have so far complied with subpoenas issued by the House Financial Services Committee demanding information about their dealings with the Trump Organization, according to the sources. The disclosures by these two banks haven’t been previously reported. Both TD Bank and Wells Fargo declined to comment for this story.

Wells Fargo provided the committee with a few thousand documents and TD Bank handed the committee a handful of documents, according to a source who has seen them. The committee, led by Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., is especially interested in the president’s business relationship with Russia and other foreign entities.

Appearing on MSNBC's "Hardball" Wednesday, Waters said "we don't have information to share with you at this time about what we've learned from the documents."

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that two other banks — Deutsche Bank and Capital One — can hand over financial documents related to their dealings Trump and his businesses to Congress. The Trump family had sued to prevent those two banks from complying with the congressional subpoena and the ruling paves the way for the committee to now have access to years of financial records from...