Trump’s Foreign Policy Speech Criticizes Immigration, Praises Nation-State

Last night,  James Kirkpatrick wrote  that “Trump is offering American workers a nationalist vision on trade and immigration and is defying the neocons by putting forward an unapologetic America First foreign policy.”

That was shown in Trump’s big foreign policy speech yesterday—here’s the speech as prepared, and here’s a transcript on the New York Times‘s website, with ad-libs.

I’ve extracted a couple of important points, one about immigration, and one about the National Question, with links and emphasis added:

The struggle against radical Islam also takes place in our homeland. There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens and dozens more.We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies. We have no idea where these people are coming from. There’s no documentation. There’s no paperwork. There’s nothing. We have to be smart. We have to be vigilant.

A pause for reassessment will help us to prevent the next San Bernardino or frankly, much worse. All you have to do is look at the World Trade Center and September 11th, one of the great catastrophes, in my opinion, the single greatest military catastrophe in the history of our country…

Later, Trump said:

No country has ever prospered that failed to put its own interests first. Both our friends and our enemies put their countries above ours and we, while being fair to them, must start doing the same. We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism. The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down and will never enter.

(APPLAUSE)

And under my administration, we will never enter America into any agreement that reduces our ability to control our own affairs.

This is getting the GOP back to patriotism–I can see the New York Times and Guardian hating it already.

http://www.vdare.com/posts/trumps-national-interest-speech-the-nation-state-remains-the-true-foundation-for-happiness-and-harmony

The Military Draft May Soon Include Women

The push for gender equality in the military just moved one step closer after the House Armed Services Committeeapproved a measure Wednesday that would require women to register for the military draft.

The current law dictates that all men aged 18 to 26 are required to register for the draft with the Selective Service System. The decision to exclude women dates back to 1981, when the Supreme Court ruled that women would not take part in the draft since they were left out of combat roles as well.

In a strange twist of events, the author of the bill actually voted against the measure, The Associated Press reported. Rep.Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) said he introduced the measure in February to prompt a more focused conversation in Congress about women in the military -- even though he also opposed the Defense Department's decision to open up combat roles to women.

But he wants Congress to decide these kinds of measures, not the executive branch.

“If this administration wants to send 18- to 20-year-old women into combat, to serve and fight on the front lines, then the American people deserve to have this discussion through their elected representatives," he said in a statement.

Hunter warned that he was considering voting against the bill.

“It’s unfortunate that a bill like this even needs to be introduced," he added. "And it’s legislation that I might very well vote against should it be considered during the annual defense authorization process.”        

Hunter used graphic war imagery on Wednesday in an effort to try and prove that combat roles are unfit for women.

"A draft is there to put bodies on the front lines to take the hill," he said. "The draft is there to get more people to rip the enemies' throats out and kill them."

Several Republicans joined Democrats in voting in favor of the bill.

“We have a standards-based force now, and we don’t have a standards-based Selective Service,” Rep. Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.) said.

While the bill is a step forward for military equality campaigners, this is only one committee vote.

In order for the measure to be signed into law, the entire House and then the Senate would have to approve the legislation. The House plans to vote on the measure, which now belongs to the annual defense authorization bill in May, according to The Washington Post.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-military-draft-may-soon-include-women/ar-BBsnw1M?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=spartandhp

America Has The World’s Most Predatory “Victims”

Townhall |

"Bullying isn't cool. Bullying is lame.

Bullying is ugly and has a stupid name.

For a healthy world, bullying's unfit.

And I think I know what we should do to i-it.

Do do do do do to i-it.

Let's all get together and make bullying kill itself.

Bullying's an ugly thing

Let's shove its face in the dirt and make bullying kill itself.

Woah-oh. Woah-oh. Woah-oh." -- From the song Make Bullying Kill Itself on South Park

What’s the difference between a bully and a victim? It seems like a simple question, but in America’s victim-obsessed culture, the bully is often the supposed victim. As Voltaire said, “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

Here in America, we have certain groups that have been unofficially designated as victim classes by the Left. They’re not held to the same standards as the rest of us; criticism of them is considered to be out of bounds and they’re supposed to get special treatment.

So for example, more than a few times we’ve had gay couples looking to get married who’ve obviously searched out Christian bakers or florists who won’t work at their wedding because of their religious beliefs and they have tried to turn that into a profit-making venture. They put up a GoFundMe page; they get fawning articles in the press and poor business owners are often fined and sued out of business while we’re told the gay couple are the real “victims.” They’re not victims. They’re bullies.

Similarly, we’re now told that women who don’t want men who claim to “feel” female in the bathroom with them are obviously terrible people. These awful women are supposedly victimizing all these poor people who just want to use the bathroom they feel like using and worse yet, we’re not supposed to tell transsexuals the truth. Gender is not a social construct; it is biology and a man can no more change into a woman than a woman can change into a fruit bat. So apparently, we’re expected to put half our population in danger at worst and make them extremely uncomfortable at best because what -- .1%, .2% of the population will say they feel victimized if we don’t? I’m sorry these people are mentally ill, but their mental illness should be their cross to bear, not everyone else’s.

Of course, race is another area where this happens. Any non-liberal white man who disagrees with a non-conservative black or Hispanic person is immediately presumed to be racist. Decent people are incessantly called “racists” just for disagreeing with liberal policies. We’re told black Americans are such victims that they must be helped out with Affirmative Action. But who’s really getting victimized when the son of a white cop is passed over for the son of a black CEO purely because of the color of his skin? It has gotten so bad that illegal aliens, who broke the law KNOWING that the penalty for it is deportation, are now considered to be victims. Enforcing the law against illegal aliens? We’re not supposed to do that because they’re a protected victim class that has to be allowed to break the law with impunity. “Oh, they’re victims, they’ve victims,” -- victims of what? Their own disregard for the law? Meanwhile, there are millions of poor Americans out of jobs because they can’t afford to work as cheaply as an illegal alien who cheats on his taxes to make extra money via the earned income tax credit and doesn’t have health insurance. Not only are they out of a job, but those poor Americans who want to work are falsely stereotyped as lazy because they can’t compete with the financial advantages illegals have over them. Illegals aren’t victims; they’re criminals that are breaking the law and making life worse for poor Americans just by being here.

We’ve even gotten to the point where college students have started believing that they’re such fragile little flowers that they can’t possibly be expected to even listen to an alternative viewpoint inside their precious little “safe spaces.” Yet, on the rare occasions when a conservative speaker is allowed on campus, many of those same fragile little flowers go to the speech just so they can scream, throw food and try to shut the whole event down. Yet, we’re supposed to feel sorry for poor offended college students who act like spoiled brats instead of a speaker who has to put up with their obnoxious behavior.

The way we deal with Islam is probably the most bizarre example of this phenomenon. Every time Muslims murder people in the United States, the first reaction is to always criticize anyone who thinks Islam has something to do with it. Silly us! Just because Muslim terrorists keep telling us that they’re going to kill people in the name of Islam doesn’t mean it has anything to do with Islam. When all those Southern Baptist members of Al-Qaeda show up, won’t we all feel foolish? You can’t state the obvious truth without having people freak out and accuse you of hating every Muslim on earth because you think we should take common sense steps to prevent another 9/11. There are literally Americans who are dead because of this and we can be sure that more will die, but we’re still supposed to pretend Muslims are the victims every time there’s a terrorist attack.

It has gotten so bad that fake hate crimes are now a semi-regular occurrence. In other words, there are so many people just DYING to be victims so they can drown in acclaim, attack their enemies or just make a few bucks that they’re faking it. If there’s a claim that some unknown person left a noose sitting around, scrawled a racist message somewhere or wrote something nasty on a check for a waitress, you have to take it with a grain of salt because there’s a decent chance you’re being scammed.

What does it say about our society that we spend so much time celebrating victimhood? Does it seem healthy that the best thing that could ever happen to someone is to be jokingly called a slut by a talk radio host (Sandra Fluke) or to have a Christian refuse to take pictures at your gay wedding? That’s a sign of how deeply unhealthy our culture has become -- because the more time you spend trying to figure out who’s a victim and how to reward him for it, the less time you have to focus on winning, merit and free expression. The United States would have never become a great nation if we had obsessed over victimhood like this all along and it won’t remain a great nation if we continue to do it.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2016/04/23/america-has-the-worlds-most-predatory-victims-n2152649?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

NGOs called out, care more about flooding Europe with ‘diversity’ then with the well-being of refugees

Posted by Ann Corcoran 

Invasion of Europe news…..

I didn’t know that major international ‘humanitarian’ organizations had threatened to quit helping refugees in Greece in protest against the German/Turkish deal to return many migrants to Turkey.

US resettlement contractor, the International Rescue Committee, tells us that one of the first questions the ‘starving, persecuted refugees’ ask when they arrive in Greece is “do you have wi-fi?” https://medium.com/uprooted/what-refugees-ask-when-they-arrive-in-europe-e09c72c80ea9#.vmld1rhv0

But (whether true or not), the important thing this article reaffirms is that legitimate refugees have a right to ask for care, they don’t have a right to go country shopping.

For instance, every ‘other-than-Mexican’ who arrives at the US Southern Border is NOT a candidate for asylum in the US (although they are being granted asylum) because they could have asked for asylum in Mexico or whatever FIRST safe country they came to in their flight.

If a Somali has traveled via the Middle East, to Russia, to Cuba, to somewhere in South America and then northward to our border, that person should not be granted asylum here.  If they were truly persecuted they could have asked for asylum in half a dozen other safe countries on that journey.

Likewise those migrants passing through Turkey, then hopping over to Greece, could claim asylum in Turkey (a SAFE country), but are instead shopping for a better deal in say Germany or Sweden.  They really don’t even want asylum in Greece.

Again, legitimate refugees do not have the right to shop for the country of their choice.  And, those who have no evidence that they are personally persecuted for one of several reasons have no right to ask for asylum (refugee status) at all.

So here is the article at Commentary Magazine from earlier this month about “rights groups” being exposed as, first and foremost, concerned with politics and changing Europe than with the care of individual refugees.

Israel and its supporters have argued for years that many “human rights” organizations are far less concerned with human rights than with pushing a political agenda. But as long as that political agenda consisted mainly of attacking Israel, most Westerners remained convinced that these groups still deserved their credibility and moral haloes.

[….]

The “human rights community” is outraged by the EU’s recent deal with Ankara, under which all migrants entering Europe via Turkey will be promptly returned there. The Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights, Nils Muiznieks, declared that such “automatic forced return” is “illegal,” and the only acceptable solution is for EU countries to “ramp up the relocation of asylum seekers” into their own borders. Human rights groups similarly asserted that the deal violates international humanitarian law, inter alia, because they claim Turkey is unsafe for refugees. Amnesty, for instance, termed the deal “abhorrent.”

Then, angry over the EU’s refusal to accept their view, the organizations halted assistance to tens of thousands of migrants already in Greece. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Medecins Sans Frontieres, the International Rescue Committee, the Norwegian Refugee Council and Save the Children all suspended operations in Greek refugee centers to protest the deal.

[….]

….if Turkey is willing to continue hosting these refugees in exchange for benefits like billions of euros and visa-free access to Europe, there’s no earthly reason why those refugees should be entitled to relocate to the EU instead. Indeed, if Turkey’s drawbacks suffice to entitle refugees to resettle in Europe, at least half the world’s population would be similarly entitled.

[….]

Similarly, refugees in Turkey don’t have it easy, but they’re surviving. Thus, relocating them to Europe isn’t necessary to fulfill the refugee convention’s goals; it’s necessary only to achieve a political purpose: remaking Europe by flooding it with millions of migrants.

Continue reading here.

Remember every person on the move around the world is NOT a refugee, but these organizations making a living in this industry want you to think they are. What we are witnessing in Europe is truly an invasion aided and abetted by the NGOs.

And, go here for our complete ‘Invasion of Europe’ archive.

Colonizers on Greek island of Lesbos: Do you have wifi? In "Asylum seekers"

More single young men on the way to the US from Malta In "Europe"

Germany (and Europe) doomed to repeat history? In "Africa"

https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/ngos-called-out-care-more-about-flooding-europe-with-diversity-then-with-the-well-being-of-refugees/

Vox Popoli: What in the actual....

  Interesting. Yeah, usually a Presidential candidate’s pick for Vice Presidential running mate is calculated to gather a lot of votes to his cause. I don’t really see how Cruz’s pick of Carly Fiorina helps in that regard. I get it that it’s a Hail Mary play on Cruz’s part, but still I don’t see a lot of receivers downfield where he’s throwing the ball.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

What in the actual....

Cruz/Carly 2016: What's the point, exactly?

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, in a last-ditch bid to slow front-runner Donald Trump's momentum, named former business executive Carly Fiorina on Wednesday as his vice presidential running mate should he win the nomination.

After crushing losses to Trump in five nominating contests in the Northeast on Tuesday, Cruz praised Fiorina, a former presidential rival, as a principled fighter for conservative values who would be a valuable ally on the campaign trail.

"Carly is a vice presidential nominee who I think is superbly skilled, superbly gifted at helping unite this party," the U.S. senator from Texas told a rally in Indianapolis, the capital of Indiana.

The Midwestern state is the next battleground for selecting the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates for the Nov. 8 presidential election and is shaping up to be Cruz’s best - and perhaps last - chance to block Trump’s march to the nomination.

Cruz acknowledged it was unusual to choose a running mate so early in the race. Traditionally, the winners of the Republican and Democratic nominating races announce their running mates in the period between clinching the nomination and summer's national conventions.

I didn't take seriously the claims that Ted Cruz might be autistic until now. Seriously, on what planet is anyone going to support HP-killer Fiorina, particularly in California? I have no idea what he's trying to accomplish with this except perhaps to submarine his campaign without actually shutting it down.

They certainly make a fascinating pair from a visual perspective. Both their faces look about 15 percent melted.

As I said previously, it's over. Like it or not, Donald Trump is the Republican Party nominee.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/04/what-in-actual.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fvoxpopoli+%28Vox+Popoli%29

Mexico Is “Driven Up the Wall” by Trump Making Mean (True) Observations; Meanwhile Mass Murder Cover-Up Continues

Our narco-neighbor to the south is in a regular tizzy about Donald Trump for reminding Americans of what a lawless hellhole it is and why keeping them out with a wall is a good idea. Like many a useless government, the first move was to think “image makeover” rather than deal with actual problems.

On Tuesday, Rush Limbaugh noticed the Mexican squirming:

RUSH: Mexico ‘Driven Up The Wall’ By Trump

RUSH: Look at this headline. I mean, there’s all kinds of little nuggets out there. “Driven Up the Wall by Trump, Mexico Looks to Recast Image in US.” This is a Reuters story. Why, some might say whatever Trump is doing is already getting results. Page two of this story: Mexican officials say that Republicans told them they will take care of Trump.

Let’s see what this story has to say here. “At first, Mexico’s government did its best to ignore Donald Trump. Then it likened him to Adolf Hitler. Now it has appointed a new ambassador to come up with a better plan. Fed up with the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination labeling Mexico as a cradle of drug-runners, job poachers and rapists, the government is sending in respected diplomat Carlos Sada to lead a fightback.

“Mexico’s new ambassador in Washington, Sada acknowledges his country has neglected its image across the border and aims to fix that with PR and media campaigns, and by lobbying prominent US companies, lawmakers and civic leaders.” (continues)

Meanwhile, Mexico has more serious problems than accurate trashtalk. An international panel just handed in a disturbing report about the 43 college students who went missing in 2014 (something I reported at the time: Mexico: 43 Disappeared Students Highlight Deep-Seated Lawlessness). The upshot is that a brutal mass murder happened, but the government blocked the panel’s investigation to determine details.

This video report seems to have pertinent facts — which remain sketchy even after two years of investigations:

Here are a few headlines from the last couple days:

• Missing Mexican Students Suffered a Night of ‘Terror,’ Investigators Say, New York Times, April 24.
• Mexico missing students: Government ‘hampered’ independent inquiry, BBC, April 24.
• Report: Mexican police tortured suspects in students’ case, Associated Press, April 24.
• Mystery of how 43 Mexican college students disappeared may never be solved, Los Angeles Times, April 25, with front-page headline below:

Political correctness represses much of the truth about Mexico — that it is a barbaric and violent society where 43 students can be murdered with no government accountability or even explanation. Donald Trump is the least of Mexico’s problems and his mention of Mexican alien crimes only skims the surface of the rot.

http://www.vdare.com/posts/mexico-is-driven-up-the-wall-by-trump-making-mean-true-observations-meanwhile-mass-murder-cover-up-continues

Puerto Rico Bailout Divides GOP, But Why Not Cut The Island Loose?

Le Current Year Man, otherwise known as John Oliver, dedicated another one of his insufferable extended displays of virtue signaling to the subject of Puerto Rico. With the help of the creator of the musical Hamilton, Oliver demanded America bail out the struggling commonwealth and relieve its crushing debt burden. After all, Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens! Their “fate is interwoven with ours,” Oliver claims.

To which there is an easy rejoinder. It shouldn’t be.

Puerto Rico is a nation. It has a different language, culture and history than the United States. It has its own symbols and identity. Its people are conscious of themselves as a people. Whatever piece of paper they hold, Puerto Ricans aren’t Americans. They don’t think of themselves as Americans. Why should we?

Conservatives used to understand dependence ultimately hurts the recipient as much as the person who pays. By keeping Puerto Rico in the American orbit, we are cultivating a culture of dependence as well as saddling our country with liabilities it doesn’t need and can’t afford much longer.

However, Mr. Fiscal Conservative, Paul Ryan, is trying to push through a bailout.

While he can try to pin many of those woes on Boehner, Ryan owns the Puerto Rico problem.

It was Ryan who cut the deal with Democrats last December that kept Puerto Rico out of the sweeping omnibus spending bill. In return, Ryan promised to offer a plan by March 31 to deal with the territory’s $70 billion debt crisis.

The House Natural Resources Committee did produce a discussion draft, HR. 4900, before the deadline, but efforts to agree on some orderly combination of a federal financial oversight board and a framework for debt restructuring have since stalled. Republicans, Democrats and U.S. Treasury Department officials differ on details, including the scope of the board’s powers, how to deal with creditors, and how long creditors should be blocked from suing the island.

This is all playing out amid intense lobbying — not only by Puerto Rico’s government, but also insurers and holders of Puerto Rico bonds, who themselves are split.

[Ryan’s Biggest Test Yet: Saving Puerto Rico From Congress, by Billy House, Bloomberg, April 25, 2016]

It’s important to remember no matter what happens, Republicans will be blamed for any negative effects. Democrats will tell voters of Puerto Rican descent in the United States that the GOP was too tight fisted to do what is necessary to help the island.

Meanwhile, once again, conservative Republican voters will be told they must do their duty to protect the bottom line of Wall Street. While Ryan is willing to bail out Puerto Rico, he won’t show the same kind of enthusiasm for bailing out the American workers whose jobs he wants to ship overseas and whose benefits he wants to cut.

The end result of all of this will be yet more Republican fury at their supposed leaders and a political advantage for the Democrats.

There’s a simple solution. Make Puerto Rico Great Again. Cut it loose.

http://www.vdare.com/posts/puerto-rico-bailout-divides-gop-but-why-not-cut-the-island-loose

Bernie Sanders Wants to Legalize Weed, Ban Cigarettes

  One of the main things that Leftists don’t like about cigarettes is that they are manufactured, advertised and sold by corporations. Whereas marijuana is not. So the Left hates corporations, a product of evil capitalism, but is cool with drug dealers, since they are oppressed victims of our unjust capitalist society. Once marijuana evolves into largely a corporate owned enterprise, as “big tobacco” did, then the Left will probably deicide they don’t like it either. After all, the laws first prohibiting marijuana sale and possession over a hundred years ago were advanced by the modern Leftist’s ancestors, the Progressives.

_________________________________________________________________________

Many of the positions that the left takes are not based on a comprehensively reasoned set of values, but on class attitudes and assorted forms of identity tribalism. So smoking cigarettes is evil, but smoking pot is great. These attitudes are not rational. They're cultural at best. And the Bernie Sanders campaign is riding these irrational class attitudes like a Whole Foods ad.

Sen. Bernie Sanders said Sunday that he is not sure cigarettes should remain legal.

"Cigarettes are causing cancer, obviously, and a dozen other diseases," Sanders said on "Meet the Press." "And there is almost the question as to why it remains a legal product in this country."

This comes from the same guy who wants to legalize pot. But who says totalitarian lefties have to be remotely consistent when persecuting people?

Smoke from marijuana combustion has been shown to contain many of the same toxins, irritants and carcinogens as tobacco smoke. Beyond just what's in the smoke alone, marijuana is typically smoked differently than tobacco. Marijuana smokers tend to inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than cigarette smokers, which leads to a greater exposure per breath to tar.

Secondhand marijuana smoke contains many of the same toxins and carcinogens found in directly inhaled marijuana smoke, in similar amounts if not more.

But Bernie supporters are more likely to smoke pot than cigarettes. So legalize weed, ban cigarettes. This is how the left makes its decisions. Ban the stuff we don't like. Legalize the things we do like.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/262649/bernie-sanders-wants-legalize-weed-ban-cigarettes-daniel-greenfield

Lawmakers want flame-resistant gear for all troops

POSTED BY: HOPE HODGE SECK 

Members of Congress are asking leaders of all the military branches to update them on efforts to get better and cheaper flame-resistant uniforms to more members.

Within the draft of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act prepared by the House Armed Services Committee’s readiness subcommittee is a provision calling for a report on development of flame-resistant technologies. Two years ago, under then-chairman Buck McKeon, R-Calif., the committee asked for a similar report.

“The committee noted that distribution of flame-resistant uniforms is limited to military units that are preparing to deploy to contingency operations, are currently deployed in contingency operations, and to those serving in certain military occupational specialties,” the bill reads.

Since then, it notes, the Army and the Marine Corps have conducted their own studies and have started to look at commercial off-the-shelf products to use “in varying degrees of [flame-resistant] protection.”

The committee wrote that it encouraged all the service branches to consider setting flame-resistant uniform “protective postures” that would dictate when to wear the gear based on an assessment of threats and the environment.

The secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force and the commandant of the Marine Corps are directed to provide a joint briefing to the House Armed Services Committee by August 15, 2016 to outline their plan to do so and discuss costs involved to outfit all military personnel with flame-resistant uniforms.

The NDAA is still in the draft phases; a committee-wide markup is scheduled to take place tomorrow.

http://kitup.military.com/2016/04/lawmakers-want-flame-resistant-gear-for-all-troops.html

Report: 'High Capacity' Magazine Bans Have No Impact in CA Cities

A report on “high capacity” magazine bans in Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco, and Sunnyvale shows the bans are not having any “actual impact.”

This means that “no magazines [have been] turned in, and none seized as a direct result of the local large-magazine bans on the books.” Therefore, criminals still have them, but law-abiding citizens cannot get them in LA, Oakland, San Francisco, and Sunnyvale.

Allison Anderman of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence says, “The fact that these laws may be difficult to enforce in some cases is not an argument against enacting them.”

Anderman argues that the bans are still a valid option if they “have the potential to have an impact.”

According to KQED, UC Irvine criminal justice Professor George Tita believes the actual impact of “high capacity” magazine bans is unknown, and he suggests the so-called difficulty of “determining the efficacy of local regulations is of course the prohibition against federal funding on researching gun violence.”

KQED reports that the core of the problem may be in the enforcement mechanism, as the punishment for possessing a banned magazine in the four cities is a misdemeanor. Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley states, “The misdemeanor does allow us to take the guns away” and even to “destroy” magazines.  However, she explains, its best purpose is ensuring that with repeat offenders, subsequent violations can lead to harsher penalties.

The penalty for violating Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom’s proposed statewide “high capacity” ban will also be a misdemeanor.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/04/26/high-capacity-magazine-bans-no-impact-ca/

Burglar sues homeowner who shot him

FYI you generally are not allowed to shoot a fleeing criminal, since if he is fleeing he no longer poses a lethal threat to you. Even in states with Castle doctrine law once the burglar is out of your house you don’t automatically  have a right to use lethal force against him unless he is threatening you with lethal force. The exception is that you can shoot a fleeing criminal if you can demonstrate a strong reason to believe the criminal intends to commit murder or some other heinous crime if he is allowed to escape. As for example in the case of an active shooter who has already committed murder. It would be reasonable to assume he would commit more murders if not stopped.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

A burglar has sued the Dunkirk homeowner who shot him during a garage break-in

PORTLAND – A burglar who broke into a Dunkirk man’s garage has filed a lawsuit against the homeowner for shooting him.

Authorities said David A. Bailey, now 31, of Albany, broke into the garage of Dunkirk resident David McLaughlin on April 21, 2014.

McLaughlin, now 33, fired gunshots at the intruder he saw fleeing from his property, in the 400 block of West Commerce Drive. One of the bullets hit Bailey in the left arm as he ran down an alley.

In September 2014, a Jay Superior Court jury found McLaughlin guilty of criminal recklessness in the shooting. Judge Max Ludy later sentenced the Dunkirk property owner to 60 days in jail, to be followed by four months on home detention.

In June 2015, Bailey – who had pleaded guilty to burglary – was placed on electronic home detention for three years by Jay Circuit Court Judge Brian Hutchinson.

Last week, attorneys for Bailey – Jason Delk and Daniel Gibson of Muncie – filed a Jay Circuit Court lawsuit against McLaughlin.

While Bailey pleaded guilty to a related burglary charge last year, in the lawsuit he contends he “had not entered (McLaughlin’s) garage” and “never entered the defendant’s garage for the purpose of stealing property.”

The suit alleges Bailey was in an alley behind McLaughlin’s home when the homeowner “exited his residence and began firing his weapon into the air in response to a security alarm sound in his garage.”

As Bailey fled down an alley, McLaughlin “continued to the public-right-of-way (and off his property) and continued firing his weapon down the dark alley,” the suit says.

Three shots were fired at Bailey, the suit contends. One narrowly missed the Albany man’s head. Another struck him in the back of the arm and pierced an artery, causing “serious and permanent damage.”

The lawsuit asks for “a monetary award in an amount sufficient to compensate (Bailey) for all damages."

An attorney for McLaughlin has not yet entered an appearance in the case, and no related hearings have been scheduled.

http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/crime/2016/04/25/burglar-sues-homeowner-who-shot-him/83418638/

Wait, why did Ted Cruz pick Carly Fiorina as his vice presidential nominee?

Announcing Fiorina is a big swing at story-changing.

© REUTERS/Carlo Allegri Ted Cruz shakes hands with Carly Fiorina Ted Cruz named Carly Fiorina as his vice presidential pick in the event he becomes the GOP nominee at a campaign event in Indianapolis on Wednesday.

So, why is Cruz picking Fiorina? And why is he announcing it now?

The second question is easier to answer. Cruz and his team understand that after the primary votes over the past two weeks, any momentum he might have had following Wisconsin on April 5 is now gone. And all of it has gone to Donald Trump who now looks damn-near unstoppable in his quest to become the GOP's nominee.

Given that reality, Cruz needs to change the narrative of the race. Immediately. There are five and a half days until the Indiana primary and if Cruz loses to Trump there the nomination fight will be effectively over. And if nothing changes in the race in the Hoosier State, Cruz will lose.

Announcing Fiorina is a big swing at story-changing.  Cruz has to hope that the coverage over the next few days — both in Indiana and nationally — will focus on Fiorina and why it was smart of him to pick her. Every second that cable TV and local media outlets spend talking about Cruz and Carly is a second that Trump doesn't dominate the conversation. And what recent history has told us is that when Trump dominates the conversation, he almost always wins.

This is rightly understood as a desperate attempt to re-take the momentum in the race before it's too late. To Cruz's credit, he's trying it. (I'm a big believer in leaving it all out on the field. If you are going to lose, lose with all of your best plays called. Or something.)

Now to the first question: Why Fiorina?

Let's take as a given that since Fiorina's campaign ended and she endorsed Cruz on March 9, the two have found out that they have a genuine rapport and share a vision for the country. And let's also assume that Fiorina has passed some sort of basic (or more-than-basic) vet by the Cruz campaign. (Remember that Fiorina not only ran for president in 2016 but also ran for Senate in 2010.)

What else does she bring Cruz?  In order of importance:

* A woman.  Trump's numbers among female voters — especially in a general election — are disastrous.  Cruz has struggled to drive that message home in the primary but is clearly hoping that by elevating Fiorina to I'll-pick-her-if-I-can-pick-anyone status that Fiorina can help reach female voters who the Texas senator needs, not just in Indiana but going forward in the race.

* A Californian. Fiorina is a known commodity in California Republican circles due in large part to her 2010 Senate campaign which, although she lost, got better post-campaign reviews than the gubernatorial effort run by fellow wealthy businesswoman Meg Whitman. Cruz is banking on Fiorina as an able surrogate for him in California — both in front of the camera and behind the scenes — in advance of the state's June 7 primary. By that point, Trump should be nearing the 1,237 delegates he needs to be the nominee, and depriving him of a handful here and there in California congressional districts may be Cruz's only option. He believes Fiorina can help that cause.

* An attack dog. This works on a near-term and long-term basis. In the near term, Cruz now has an attack dog who has proven to be relatively effective in battling Trump. Fiorina's reputation on that front is largely built on a single exchange during a CNN-sponsored debate in September 2015 in which she appeared to get the better of the real estate mogul who has made comments about her face. (Yes, really.)

Long term — meaning if Cruz is the nominee — Fiorina is a potentially potent weapon to attack Hillary Clinton.  In fact, during her own presidential campaign, Fiorina was, by far, the most willing to hit Clinton on personal matters — an approach she would likely continue if/when she was formally the Republican Party's vice presidential nominee. And, as a woman, Cruz likely believes Fiorina would have more leeway and be more effective in those attacks.

None of it is unreasonable.  And if Cruz is going to pick a VP this far in advance of the party convention — and with so little certainty that he will ever actually be in a position to pick a second in command — he could do worse than Fiorina.

But make no mistake: This is a Hail Mary pass. It, like the deal that Cruz and John Kasich cut earlier this week, amounts to a tacit acknowledgment that if nothing changes in the race Trump is going to win.

Could it work? Sure. Sometimes Hail Marys get caught. But usually they get knocked down and the other team starts celebrating.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/wait-why-did-ted-cruz-pick-carly-fiorina-as-his-vice-presidential-nominee/ar-BBsllOF?ocid=spartandhp