If you ask a Democrat, they’ll say to limit gun ownership.
But that easy and knee-jerk answer never works. Just look at all the gun-free zones that are host to murder.
The correct answer is to arm citizens. Would-be shooters will think twice if they knew their victims would be shooting back.
That’s just what this Western state believes. They just signed a bill into law that will make sure every American has a fighting chance.
The bill is being praised as a pro-Second Amendment law. It has restored this important right to the people.
From Washington Times:
Gov. Matt Mead has signed into law a measure allowing people to carry concealed weapons into churches and other houses of worship in Wyoming.
The legislation Mead signed Monday was approved earlier by the Wyoming Legislature…
Supporters say church-goers need the ability to defend themselves against attackers such as a man who killed 26 people in a Texas church shooting in November. They also note that churches can now allow people to open-carry weapons.
Nobody likes the idea of people packing heat in a church. But it’s better than having dead people in a church. In a time when sick losers open fire on Houses of God, we need to be prepared.
Let doctors and professionals discuss the causes of mass shootings. The rest of us? Let’s protect our families.
The recent shootings at churches could have been easily stopped, had a church-member been armed. Not everyone has to carry a gun.
Only a few vigilant members of the congregation need to be strapped. They can even be ushers or deacons placed by the doors. The rest of the church can worship in full security.
This kind of legislation makes sure that no citizen is left defenseless. Police work hard to keep our communities safe.
But they can’t be everywhere. It’s insane to think that an American citizen cannot fight back in the face of death.
Hopefully, more states will adopt Wyoming’s policy. If so, we will finally see an end to mass shootings.
President Donald Trump has been in office for a little more than a year, and we are all still patiently waiting for substantive progress to be made on a border wall between the United States and Mexico.
It hasn’t been for lack of trying on the part of the commander-in-chief. His office remains open for business, but the obstructionists on the Left simply refuse to play ball and focus on the actual needs of our nation as a whole.
That being the case, it can make it seem like a wall is never going to happen. However, there is a way that it could easily happen – and be paid for to boot.
A simple Trump maneuver could quickly pay for the entire $18 billion border wall and send Mexico into the meltdown of all time!
The New York Post explains.
That’s the finding of recent immigration studies showing the $18 billion wall President Trump plans to build along the southern border will pay for itself by curbing the importation of not only crime and drugs, but poverty.
“The wall could pay for itself even if it only modestly reduced illegal crossings and drug smuggling,” Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, told The Post.
This isn’t a mere pie in the sky dream from Camarota either.
He comes to the table fully equipped with facts that outline his case, and he exposes the outright absurdity of not having a wall in place while doing so.
Absent a wall, the Homeland Security Department forecasts an additional 1.7 million illegal crossings at the US-Mexico border over the next decade.
If a wall stopped just 200,000 of those future crossings, Camarota says, it would pay for itself in fiscal savings from welfare, public education, refundable tax credits and other benefits currently given to low-income, illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America.
If a wall stopped 50 percent of those expected crossings, he says, it would save American taxpayers a whopping $64 billion — almost four times the wall’s cost — to say nothing of the additional billions in federal savings from reduced federal drug interdiction and border-security enforcement.
Is a border wall going to magically solve all of our nation’s problems?
Of course not, and it would be foolish to think that it would. That said, it would cut down on a whole lot of the more serious ones our nation faces as a whole, and that would result in even more savings for American taxpayers.
Camarota has outlined an excellent case for why it needs to happen and how we can get there. Good luck to the spin-meisters in the liberal echo chamber as they continue to attempt to portray it as if it would somehow be a bad thing.
President Trump is right to call for tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. Tariffs are often used as a last resort, but the domestic steel industry has reached that point.
Rather than attacking the president for his proposal, all Americans should applaud him for beginning to end our nation’s wholesale surrender on trade.
The president’s action is already producing results, as U.S. Steel announced Wednesday that it will restart one of its idled blast furnaces in Granite City, Illinois and create approximately 500 jobs.
I have visited communities deeply affected by steel imports.
Coatesville, Pennsylvania is home to the oldest continuously operating steel mill in the country, and is among the last places in America capable of supplying the military with steel armor plate that meets exacting defense specifications.
In 2007, when the Pentagon escalated the war effort in Iraq, Coatesville’s sister mill in nearby Conshohocken turned its production on a dime to fulfill military orders for the steel needed in mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles.
Today, both mills teeter on the brink of collapse. So workers there listened intently when candidate Trump promised to rearrange trade agreements and bring factory jobs back to this country.
The president’s announcement last week of a 25 percent tariff on imported steel and a 10 percent tariff on imported aluminum is precisely what he promised.
Enacting these tariffs will restore some needed sanity to the global trade in the metals markets, which is in imbalance because of the actions of China’s government.
Beijing has followed a state-led policy with a goal of dominating the global steel industry. This has been so successful that China now makes half the world’s steel.
Big government subsidies enable Chinese steel mills to dump steel on world markets at prices below the cost of production, creating unfair competition for steel mills in the U.S. and other nations.
There is no end in sight to the overcapacity China has created.
Chinese steel has consequentially flooded outside of its borders and roiled the global market, affecting mills and workers everywhere.
In the United States – the most open steel market in the world – 10 blast furnaces have closed since 2000, and our remaining mills only operate at roughly 75 percent of their capacity.
More than a quarter of our market is serviced by imports. During a decade of slow but steady economic expansion, the American steel industry has instead remained in a malaise, its workers plagued by the threat of layoffs.
This is the reality in steel making communities like Lorain, Ohio, or along the lakeshore in Northwest Indiana.
Yet in the face of these facts, many of the president’s fellow Republicans are lashing out at his attempt to address these problems.
Despite that, President Trump beat an almost entirely free-trading field in the 2016 GOP primaries. Though he continues to enjoy support of the conservative base, some Republicans will apparently not stomach even this slightest break from trade policy dogma.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and many House Republicans are seeking to block or water down President Trump’s plans, though last year Ryan himself proposed a 20 percent border adjustment tax on all imports.
National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn (before his resignation in protest Tuesday) was marshalling Wall Street collaborators and global companies to attack the tariffs proposal, even though taken to their maximum extent the tariffs would mean a $9 billion cost spread through a $20 trillion economy.
That same crowd completely misjudged America’s years-long economic embrace of the Chinese government, which is currently using this influx of wealth to fortify an enormous mercantilist police state.
These same critics argue tariffs will raise consumer costs and hurt steel communities far more than they help.
But the only credible review of former President George W. Bush’s comparable tariffs in 2002 showed most steel consumers didn’t see a significant price hike, and that American steel prices rose even more slowly than global prices did.
Those tariffs allowed a domestic industry staggered by more than 30 bankruptcies time to recover – and even recapture market share before China’s steel juggernaut emerged.
The critics also claim there is no national security basis for protecting American steel. But they conveniently ignore the fact that you can’t build a steel mill quickly in an emergency, and that our steelmaking redundancies are already becoming thin.
The Navy’s Virginia-class submarines rely on specialty armor plate forged in places like Coatesville. There is only domestic producer of electrical steel necessary to build power transformers – the kind of infrastructure needed after a natural disaster in Texas or Puerto Rico.
An economics textbook wouldn’t see anything wrong with America offshoring its entire steel industry, but most Americans would be unnerved to be defended by tanks made with Chinese steel, nor would they support them rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington in a military parade.
Instead of attacking the president, the critics should instead show us their own plans to stop the economic bleeding in America’s industrial belt.
Because too often, it’s all about President Trump. He’s regularly accused of looking to the past when he speaks of industry, and specifically of steel.
But the people in our steel mill towns know their communities won’t ever again look like they did in the 1950s. That’s not what they’re asking for; they’re simply asking to be included in America’s future.
This tariff will give them a chance at that – and set the tone for how we should now approach China and its state-led capitalism.
Already, China is well on its way toward dominating the markets for future-oriented technologies like semiconductors and artificial intelligence, and it has used trade as a tool to achieve that objective.
China forces technology transfers upon foreign firms operating in its borders. It rampantly abuses intellectual property protections.
And it’s even unsurprising then that the only time Chinese military officers have been indicted in the United States for cyber espionage was for spying on private businesses.
Taxpayers in the United States have to work hard in order to pull the liberal gimme wagon.
Our families have less of our hard-earned money because we must provide for the indolent dreamers who live off the welfare state.
Basically, we toil away at grueling jobs so that the welfare class doesn’t have to. What’s truly despicable is that our earnings do not always go to people that truly need it.
In fact, millions of taxpayer dollars wind up being funneled into food stamp fraud schemes every year.
But don’t bother bringing up these facts to the left! If you point out these valid criticisms of the food stamp program you just hate the poor because you’re an evil capitalist. Probably a racist too.
However, one state has had enough of giving welfare benefits to people who do nothing to earn it. In West Virginia, the gravy train is coming to a stop.
The state Senate voted 27-6 to require West Virginia residents, ages 18-49 who are not disabled, pregnant, or military veterans and do not have dependent children, to work a minimum of 20 hours per week to receive food stamp benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
The bill already passed the West Virginia House in a 78-19 vote.
With our current economy, welfare recipients should have no problem fulfilling these requirements. Unlike the Obama presidency, there’s a help wanted sign on every window these days, thanks to President Trump.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this program since it’s specifically targeting the slackers.
If Liberals still want to criticize this bill, they should look into what Bill Clinton had to say on the subject. Even Slick Willy supported this type of legislation, signing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act in 1996.
Authored by Republicans, this bill required welfare recipients to, you guessed it, take some personal responsibility and work in order to receive welfare.
With the economy booming, there should be no excuse for able-bodied Americans to not find some kind of employment to earn their SNAP benefits and to eventually get off welfare entirely.
We need a reassertion of America’s work ethic, and that is just what this bill intends to do.
Let’s hope this is the beginning of the great unwinding of the Food Stamp Redistribution boondoggle. Next up, maybe we can begin drug testing welfare recipients. If you can’t pee clean, you get no green!
President Trump viewed border wall prototypes in California Tuesday.
Eight 30-foot mockups stood ready for his perusal, some made with solid concrete while others were constructed with steel.
The president took one look at the prototypes and realized what would make them really useful.
The wall needed to be see-through.
“You could be two feet away from a criminal cartel and you don’t know they’re there,” Trump said.
Tuesday’s visit marks the first time that the president has visited California since he was elected.
The whirlwind trip highlighted Trump’s triumphs, like his decision to beef up the presence of immigration officers in the state, and ignored everything else.
The Los Angeles Times thinks that Trump should have spent more time with his critics.
“The president did not mix with ordinary residents, let alone the many protesters at his San Diego and Los Angeles stops. He spoke to senior Border Patrol officials while inspecting the wall prototypes for about an hour, addressed service members at the Marine Corps Air Station Miramar and, finally, mingled with deep-pocketed donors at a $5-million campaign fundraiser…”
In other words, he spent his time wisely. The purpose of the trip was to view the border wall prototypes, not to placate unhappy liberals. The purpose of the wall is to benefit “ordinary” residents.
The Trump administration predicts that the wall will cost $18 billion to erect.
“There’s a lot of problems in Mexico — they have a lot of problems over there,” Trump said. “The fact is, if you don’t have a wall system it would be bedlam, I imagine.”
Liberals are more focused on the effects the wall will have on the illegal immigrants trying to enter the country.
“The wall is more than a wall,” immigration advocate Andrea Guerrero told NPR’s Richard Gonzales.
“In the shadow of that wall, a deportation force is growing and it is ripping families from one another. It is devastating communities well within the interior of the United States.”
It’s not often that a Hollywood star has the stones (no pun intended) to turn to their peers and tell them what they’re doing is essentially stupid, but that’s what legendary actress Sharon Stone just did and it has Tinseltown hopping mad!
Former sex icon Sharon Stone feels the #MeToo movement has gone to excessive lengths at times and has ruined lives over a few “awkward” sexual advances.
Speaking with Marc Maron on his “WTF” podcast, Stone defended actor/director James Franco against accusations of sexual misconduct.
Having worked with him on last year’s “The Disaster Artist,” Stone said she was “appalled” by what happened to him, describing Franco as a “kind friend.”
“I’m appalled by this thing about him that is happening. Now all of a sudden he’s a bad guy? I worked with him, I know him,” Stone said.
“He’s the loveliest, kindest, sweetest, elegant, nicest man. He’s a kind friend, lovely professional. I’m absolutely appalled by this.”
The actress described #MeToo as functioning as a sort of public kangaroo court, where men are destroyed “without due process.”
“I don’t feel like these trials without due process are entirely appropriate,” she continued.
“I feel that it’s appropriate that people have to take responsibility for the actions, but I do feel that some due process is in order. There’s a range of activities. And you can’t charge somebody with a felony over a misdemeanor.”
Although Stone might be right about the excesses of #MeToo, especially in regard to what happened with Aziz Ansari, the accusations against Franco have been rather weighty.
As many as five actresses have accused him of “sexually exploitative” behavior on set, including his alleged removal of their plastic vaginal guards while they were simulating oral sex.
While Franco has not addressed specific allegations, he has said generally that the claims made about him were “not accurate.”
“In my life, I pride myself in taking responsibility for things I’ve done. I have to do that to maintain my well-being. I do it whenever something needs to be changed,” Franco told Stephen Colbert.
“I completely support people coming out and being able to have a voice because they haven’t had a voice for so long. I don’t want to shut them down in any way. It’s a good thing I support.”
“If I have done something wrong, I will fix it — I have to,” said Franco. “That’s how that works. I don’t know what else to do.”
The allegations against Franco arguably cost him an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of F-movie actor Tommy Wiseau in “The Disaster Artist.”
Share this everywhere if you support Stone for speaking her mind!
Bashing President Trump, even if you’re clueless about politics, is the cool, hip and trendy thing to do in Hollywood.
It was a quick and dirty way to pander to their liberal fans and anti-Trump jokes are always good for a few cheap laughs.
But what isn’t cheap is how its starting to affect many of these anti-Trump Hollywood elites — especially the ones who depend on ratings for a paycheck, like ultra-liberal Jimmy Kimmel.
Conservative Tribune reports:
Jimmy Kimmel should be learning.
A guy who makes his living playing to the public shouldn’t make a habit out of alienating half the general population every time he opens his mouth.
And even Kimmel admits it’s starting to show up in his bottom line.
“According to polls I’ve seen, it has cost me commercially,” he told Oprah Winfrey’s O magazine in April’s issue, according to Fox News. “That’s not ideal, but I wouldn’t change anything I said.”
Kimmel might want to rethink that — especially if his grating, heart-on-the-sleeve liberal schtick keeps hitting him commercially.
It’s easy to forget now — after Kimmel has spent more than a year unnecessarily taking sides in the country’s culture wars — but the late-night comedian wasn’t always so radioactively political.
As the liberal website Vox noted in September, prior to President Donald Trump’s election, “Jimmy Kimmel Live” on ABC “tended to approach politicians with the same instinct it applied to uninformed people wandering down Hollywood Boulevard: wryly pointing out how stupid they could be.”
Other than an idiotically emotional response to the death of a lion in Zimbabwe at the hands of an American big game hunter, Kimmel was generally just another guy who told gags as most of America headed to bed.
(Kimmel’s weeping over the death of Cecil the lion was a mainstream media phenomenon, with gushing coverage from his own ABC as well as outlets like CNN.)
Kimmel even got some support from pro-life conservatives in late 2016 when he pointedly did not refer to the unborn baby he and his wife, Molly McNearny, were expecting as a “fetus.”
That all changed when he hosted the Oscars in February 2017 and turned it into an anti-Trump hate fest aimed directly at pleasing the liberal Hollywood audience — and ended up alienating audiences at home (Record-low ratings proved that).
Then, Kimmel used a monologue in May to go public about his newborn son’s heart condition. Anyone with an ounce of feelings could sympathize with a new father and root for a young boy with a life-threatening illness.
But Kimmel, for reasons that still aren’t clear, decided to make Republicans and their efforts to overhaul the disastrous Obamacare system the villains in the story.
In 2017, he was making about $15 million a year hosting “Jimmy Kimmel Live” on ABC, according to CNBC. When a guy has money like that and his son is still facing medical problems, it’s not the fault of the government’s health care system.
But the liberal media, always eager for a storyline to bash Trump and the Republicans, greeted Kimmel’s new activism like it was a sign that the country wanted to get rid of the president and his party.
New York magazine headlined an item: “Jimmy Kimmel Might Have Struck the Final Blow Against the GOP Health-Care Plan.”
Now, Kimmel is a de facto spokesman for Democrats, vying with the loathsome Stephen Colbert at CBS for who can offend more Trump supporters on any given night.
The problem he is seeing is that infuriating half the potential members of the audience is bad business in show business.
That showed up in the ratings for the Oscars, which he hosted again this year — and which posted another record ratings low, according to The New York Times.
So, Kimmel admits his political stance is hurting his show commercially.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will soon have no choice but admit its annual celebration of liberalism and demonizing of conservatives at the Oscars is hurting it with the American public. (Maybe a third straight year of record low ratings will do the trick.)
Because any service business that starts off by offending half its customer base is a service business that can’t survive.