State-level gun grabbers across eight states are going full throttle to stop the release of 3-D printable gun designs to the American people. The tricky part, however, is that judges may not be able to lawfully block release of the files. Rather, they may only prevent state residents from downloading the gun design files. At least that’s the plan. The lawsuits are the result of the Trump administration’s decision to allow a Texas company to publish the blueprints. From the left’s perspective, printable guns are a direct threat to the drive toward full gun control. And they’re absolutely right.
Here’s more from Hot Air…
Over the weekend I looked at the imminent release of a collection of 3-D printable gun designs and the frantic efforts of gun control advocates to prevent it from happening. The deadline for action was originally supposed to be midnight tonight, but apparently, the files became available last night. In either case, the wheels of justice would need to be moving far, far faster than is their normal routine if anything was to happen. Surprisingly, opponents of the release were able to push some judges to begin issuing orders in record time, but only at the state level.
The first example comes to us from Pennsylvania, where a judge might not be able to block the release, but will at least attempt to stop residents from downloading the files.
Pennsylvanians will not be able to download plans to make 3D-printable guns.
The decision comes after a rare Sunday night emergency hearing in Federal Court. Attorney General Josh Shapiro, Governor Tom Wolf, and Pennsylvania State Police sued to block the company that distributes those plans.
A record low number of Americans are proud to be…American. A mere 47% of those polled by Gallup in a recent survey claim to be extremely proud patriots. This is the first time the poll dipped below a majority. The peak occurred in 2003 when 70 percent claimed pride in being American on the heels of 9/11. Get ready for the left to blame both President Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress. What they’ll not tell you, however, is that the discernible downturn started soon after the reelection of Barack Obama.
This Fourth of July marks a low point in U.S. patriotism. For the first time in Gallup’s 18-year history asking U.S. adults how proud they are to be Americans, fewer than a majority say they are “extremely proud.” Currently, 47% describe themselves this way, down from 51% in 2017 and well below the peak of 70% in 2003.
The latest results are based on a June 1-13 poll. When Gallup first asked the question in 2001, 55% of Americans said they were extremely proud. After the 9/11 terror attacks caused the public to rally around the nation and its leaders
, the percentage expressing extreme pride in the country increased to 65%, and went up further to 70% less than two years later.
By 2005, about the time George W. Bush was set to begin his second term in office and the U.S. was going on its second year of military involvement in Iraq, the percentage extremely proud to be Americans fell to 61%. It held in the high 50% range between 2006 and 2013, but has fallen at least marginally each year since 2015, about the time the 2016 presidential campaign was getting underway.
Recall Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro’s speech was upended by the University of Minnesota back in February.
The move quickly earned lawsuits after the speech venue was switched to an isolated, smaller venue because ‘Defendants and other students and faculty members disagreed with the content and viewpoint of the Plaintiff’s speech’ and chose censorship instead.
According to Young America’s Foundation, who filed suit along with Shapiro, “Internal emails obtained by Young America’s Foundation through the Censorship Exposed project revealed top-level administrators’ plans to arbitrarily cap attendance at Shapiro’s lecture,” contrary to public statements.
In short, Ivory Tower elitists are all about academic freedom and the First Amendment…so long as it’s reliably leftist.
On Tuesday, Young America’s Foundation (YAF), Students for a Conservative Voice (SCV), and Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the University of Minnesota, charging the university with unconstitutionally infringing upon students’ First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights by suppressing Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro’s speech and relocating it to a smaller, more isolated venue in late February 2018, “all because Defendants and others students and faculty members disagreed with the content and viewpoint of Plaintiffs’ speech.”
AS YAF wrote in their statement:
School policy permits administrators to wield unbridled discretion to suppress student speech that administrators dislike. The University of Minnesota has a long history of welcoming leftist guest speakers to campus, but when conservative students invited Ben Shapiro to speak at a YAF-sponsored lecture, administrators put the school’s Speech Suppression policy into action.
University administrators schemed to limit student exposure to Mr. Shapiro’s conservative ideas. They banished Shapiro’s lecture to the St. Paul campus, refusing to allow him to speak on the University’s main campus in Minneapolis, and they arbitrarily limited student attendance to 500 attendees.
Internal emails obtained by Young America’s Foundation through the Censorship Exposed project revealed top-level administrators’ plans to arbitrarily cap attendance at Shapiro’s lecture and move the event to the St. Paul Campus—all despite misleading public statements to the contrary.
The Twitter hashtag turned trendy a misinformed rally cry known as ‘Abolish ICE’ which is failing to gain political traction for the Left.
In fact, according to a Harvard-Harris poll, three-quarters of Republicans and a solid majority of Democrats oppose abolishing ICE.
A few Democrats more in tune with reality are urging a refocus on policy reform rather than abolishing immigration law enforcement.
Which shouldn’t come as a surprise; after all, opening up our back door to every would-be drug dealer and terrorist somehow doesn’t sit well with even the most liberal Democrats.
“Abolish ICE” isn’t a solution, argues my colleague Ed Morrissey at the Daily Beast today, it’s a slogan. Indeed, and that’s being generous. It started as a Twitter hashtag, per HuffPost. As the phrase started showing up more online, desperate opportunists like Kirsten Gillibrand who are looking for an angle to shore up their left flank in the 2020 primaries glommed onto it. Just like that, the hashtag #AbolishICE had become the slogan “Abolish ICE,” which had in turn become a semi-serious policy proposed by a semi-serious U.S. senator. And once it did, other supposedly serious 2020 contenders had to keep pace with Gillibrand by proposing it too.
Suddenly Democrats have a problem. No one to the right of the DSA thinks “abolish ICE” will help claw back Rust Belt voters who flipped from Obama to Trump in the last election, but because it’s gone from zero to “litmus test” overnight with Gillibrand’s and Warren’s help, the party leadership can only run so far from the idea without getting into trouble.
Just under 600 Women’s March protestors were arrested by Capitol Police after they occupied the Hart Senate Office Building atrium on Thursday.
The group chanted “Abolish ICE” and “We care!” as part of their protest against the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” border enforcement policies.
The latter was, of course, a response to First Lady Melania Trump’s now infamous olive-green jacket which was emblazoned with “I really don’t care, do u?”
Apparently members of Congress didn’t care much for the protestors either, as they were promptly ignored before being arrested.
Capitol Police arrested nearly 600 Women’s March protesters who filled the atrium of the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill today in opposition to the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” border enforcement policies.
The women and a few men chanted “Abolish ICE” and donned foil blankets like those given to child detainees in photos of Texas border processing facilities recently released by Customs and Border Protection.
During a visit to Brazil for a meeting with President Michel Temer, Vice President Mike Pence took the opportunity to deliver a pointed message to Central Americans who may be thinking about illegally immigrating to the U.S. (or counting on smugglers to traffick their children).
Pence demanded: “If you can’t come legally, don’t come at all.”
He went on to urge Central Americans to “hold on to your children” and to “build your lives in your homeland” and called for respecting American sovereignty.
It’s a bold message but one that needs to be delivered.
Democracy is the preferred system for a reason: use it or lose it.
Here’s more from Breitbart…
Vice President Mike Pence traveled to Brazil on Tuesday with a warning message for Central Americans thinking of coming to the United States or sending their children with smugglers: “If you can’t come legally, don’t come at all.”
Pence was in Brazil meeting with President Michel Temer when he made remarks specifically addressed to Central Americans.
“To the people of Central America, I have a message for you, straight from my heart and straight from the heart of the American people,” Pence began, calling them neighbors with hopes that they will “prosper and thrive.”
Let’s see how quickly the Left changes the subject from crying children detained by the Obama administration and calls for mob protest in the defense of illegal immigrants when they get word of the latest CBS News/YouGov poll.
Respondents indicated by 51% among ALL likely voters and 55% among swing voters in battleground districts support President Trump’s border wall to roll back the open-borders welcome.
As for the Establishment Republicans, they’d better get in line with their constituents: an overwhelming 90 percent of Republican battleground voters want the wall.
The blue wave isn’t just a blue trickle now; in November it’s looking like a red river.
Here’s more from Breitbart…
A majority of Americans and swing voters in battleground districts across the United States say they support President Trump’s most central campaign promise of building a border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border to end illegal immigration.
In the latest CBS News/YouGov poll, a majority of 55 percent of swing voters said they believe the border wall is a “good idea that can probably be completed” or a “good idea that should be tried, even if it can’t be completed,” as Trump wants.
Likewise, about 51 percent of all likely voters in those battleground districts said the same, supporting the construction of a border wall on the southern border.
Notoriously self-serving and self-funding billionaire and NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg is pledging $80 million for congressional candidates supporting gun control in the hopes of flipping the House of Representatives accordingly.
He did however give a shout out to Republican Senators John McCain (AZ) and Pat Toomey (PA) for breaking with the NRA to support knee-jerk legislation in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School attack.
We’re wondering how this isn’t equivalent to aiding and abetting the red coats as they marched on their way to Lexington and Concord to disarm the colonials.
We should remind Bloomberg that that episode did not end well for the British.
Here’s more from Breitbart…
Gun control proponent Michael Bloomberg is donating $80 million to Democrat candidates in hopes of flipping the House of Representatives to a pro-gun control position.
Looks like the leftist notion of minimum wage hikes and overregulation are forcing Starbucks’ corporate decision makers to close approximately 150 locations.
Despite the big PR bias-training maneuver, the over-saturated coffee chain is now focusing on moving its development to rural and suburban areas closing locations often found in “major metro areas where increases in wage and occupancy and other regulatory requirements” are hurting the bottom line, according to CEO Kevin Johnson.
“Now, in a lot of ways, it’s middle America and the South that presents an opportunity.” It’s funny how that works.
Perhaps they’ll find some prime real estate…just next door to Chick Fil A.
Here’s more from Hotair…
A ubiquitous as Starbucks appears to be, their growth has begun slowing of late, and not just because of public-relations disasters like the one that took place in Philadelphia. Existing-store sales have been declining over the past several years and especially over the last two, Bloomberg reports, prompting CEO Kevin Johnson to start shutting down some stores while looking for greener pastures elsewhere. And guess what one key criterion for these closures might be?
Although business abroad has been booming and the chain has been opening more and more cafes, U.S. sales growth has stalled for the company that brought espresso to the masses. With about 14,000 stores domestically, Starbucks is now pumping the brakes on licensed and company-operated locations, with a renewed focus on rural and suburban areas—not over-caffeinated urban neighborhoods where locals already joke that the next Starbucks will open inside an existing store.
The closing stores are often in “major metro areas where increases in wage and occupancy and other regulatory requirements” are making them unprofitable, Johnson said. “Now, in a lot of ways, it’s middle America and the South that presents an opportunity.”
This week’s Non Compos Mentis Award goes jointly to the Department of Health & Human Services (where plenty of Obama holdovers still have jobs) and the Department of Gender and Women’s Studies at the University of Wisconsin.
HHS is funding a new study at UW to the tune of 350 grand to study contraception for lesbians.
Yep, according to the Washington Free Beacon, professor Jenny Higgins (who claims 20% of women in the US are lesbians) is examining whether “lesbians and bisexuals have ‘barriers’ to ‘adequate contraceptive care’.”
Meanwhile, we’d like to announce that we’re applying for a federal grant to study why federal bureaucrats are statistically likely to waste taxpayer dollars on useless ‘studies’.
We’ll keep you posted on whether we’re approved.
Here’s more from Hotair…
In today’s Taxpayer News You Can Use segment, we bring you a new study coming from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) which truly seems to be breaking new scientific ground. I ran across this information at the Free Beacon and at first thought it might be some sort of typo. But it wasn’t. The NIH is spending nearly $350K on a study to follow the habits of a number of women (in various categories) to find out what methods of contraception are “sexually acceptable” to them. That’s not really the startling part. Apparently, there are reports of significant numbers of women who are switching or even discontinuing the use of birth control because they find it to be unsatisfying in some fashion. If that’s the case you’d clearly want to correct that I suppose. Having birth control pills you don’t take seems to be on par with keeping an unloaded gun in your house.
The leading researcher on the project is Jenny Higgins, an associate professor in the Gender and Women’s Studies Department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Higgins specializes in “mixed-methods research on sexuality, gender, and reproductive health—especially people’s use of condoms and other contraceptive methods.”
Higgins is also currently involved with research into sexual minority women, or “people who identify as lesbian, bisexual and queer (among many other things).” She claims 20 percent of the female population in the United States are lesbians or bisexual.
“The overwhelming majority of SMW [sexual minority women] will engage penile-vaginal intercourse at least occasionally,” according to the researcher’s website. “New research suggests that SMW women have an increased risk of unintended pregnancy compared to their heterosexual peers.”
The study is examining “unique barriers” lesbians and bisexuals have to “adequate contraceptive care.”