4/21/26

Gas Light: From Democrats and Voting ... WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY

Gas Light: From Democrats and Voting ... WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY:

I hate to beat a dead horse. However, everytime I hear a Democrat say the word 'DEMOCRACY' or 'Our DEMOCRACY is at stake' I want to go 'AAARRRRGGGHHH'. We don't live in a DEMOCRACY. We live in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC by design.

When they say DEMOCRACY that is code for POPULAR VOTE. Even though Trump won the POPULAR VOTE in 2024 they are fighting to keep ILLEGALS in the country and fighting against the SAFE ACT. They want the future votes from the anchor babies. They also are pushing for ILLEGALS to vote in National elections, as they are already allowed to vote in Municipal elections. I saw it in Los Angeles County. I remember when they passed that Legislation.

They hate the ELECTORAL COLLEGE. If they can remove it's Angeles, Chicago, NYC, Seattle, Portland, and Detroit would decide every Presidential election. Those are the POPULATION BIG CITY BLUE CITIES. If we just used the POPULAR VOTE Republicans would probably never win the Whitehouse again. States like Wyoming, North Dakota, or South Dakota, and the like would never have a say In a Presidential election again. They don't have enough people to have a voice. You don't want BLUE CITIES running AMERICA.

The Reason The Forefathers Added The ELECTORAL COLLEGE:

The Forefathers added the ELECTORAL COLLEGE because they were afraid VIRGINIA would or could decided every Presidential election (In a 13 State country at the time.) Virginia was the most populous State at that time. Virginia had enough people to drown out all of the other States. And they weren't having that.

Thank God the Forefathers, although some were slave owners, were smarter than the MODERN DAY DEMOCRATS. However, remember, DEMOCRATS were the Party of Slavery. Go after THEM for your REPARATIONS CHECK.

#ElectoralCollege #Democracy #Voting #Forefathers #ConstitutionalRepublic #Constitution

Democrats prepare to abandon Cherfilus-McCormick en masse

Many House Democrats are ready to vote to expel Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.) from Congress as soon as the House Ethics Committee meets to decide her fate on Tuesday, Axios has found in interviews with over 30 lawmakers.

Why it matters: Republicans are expected to force an expulsion vote, but they will need roughly 80 Democratic votes to remove Cherfilus-McCormick.

#Congress #Cherfilus-McCormick #Florida #Corruption #CherfilusMcCormick

4/15/26

Parents organize own gathering in response to planned 'teen takeover' in Hyde Park

IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!

Parents organize own gathering in response to planned 'teen takeover' in Hyde Park

This comes after a teen trend descended on Hyde Park last month, resulting in damage to cars and the arrest of a 16-year-old girl.

https://snip.ly/o23o8y

#Chicago #Crime

Democrats Knew About Swalwell

Democrats Knew About Swalwell

Swalwell:

Democrats cover up their own and eat their own in order to keep power, gain power, and lie to you. If you wonder why Democrats complain about the Epstein files, ask yourself why Democrats cover up sex crimes on their side. Swalwell was an asset for the January 6th Committee, but when it looked like his run for Governor of California all of a sudden HE HAD TO GO. They knew a long time ago what Swalwell was about.

#Swalwell #Democrats #California #rape #sexualassault #Congress

The Swalwell Reckoning: What Democrats Knew and When They Knew It

The political obituary of Representative Eric Swalwell writes itself in real time a California Democrat who rose to prominence as a telegenic Trump antagonist, served as a House impeachment manager, became a fixture on cable news panels, and positioned himself as the frontrunner to succeed Gavin Newsom as governor of the nation's most populous state. Then, in a matter of days, it all collapsed. Multiple women came forward with allegations of sexual misconduct spanning years. The House Ethics Committee opened an investigation. Democratic leadership including Nancy Pelosi and Hakeem Jeffries publicly called for him to end his gubernatorial campaign. Swalwell complied, first suspending his campaign and then announcing his resignation from Congress altogether .

For conservatives who have long observed the Democratic Party's selective application of moral standards, the Swalwell saga represents something more revealing than a single politician's downfall. It exposes the machinery of a party that protects its own until protection becomes politically untenable and then discards them without ceremony when power is threatened.

The Fang Connection: A Scandal in Plain Sight

Before the sexual misconduct allegations surfaced, Swalwell carried baggage that would have ended most political careers. In 2020, Axios reported that Swalwell had maintained a relationship with Christine Fang, a woman identified by U.S. counterintelligence officials as a suspected Chinese operative running an influence operation targeting California politicians. Fang reportedly bundled campaign contributions, attended fundraising events, and even recommended an intern who worked in Swalwell's congressional office.

The FBI briefed Swalwell about Fang in 2015 meaning Democratic leadership in the House knew, or should have known, that one of their rising stars had been compromised by a foreign intelligence operation. Yet Swalwell was not marginalized. He was elevated. He received plum assignments. He was named to the House Intelligence Committee, a position granting access to America's most sensitive secrets. He became a manager in Donald Trump's second impeachment trial, entrusted by Pelosi to make the constitutional case against a sitting president.

The question conservatives have asked for years is straightforward: If a Republican congressman had been caught in a relationship with a suspected Chinese spy, would Democratic leadership have rewarded him with Intelligence Committee membership and impeachment manager status? The answer requires no imagination. The same party that demanded Congressman Devin Nunes recuse himself from the Russia investigation and that spent years investigating Trump's every foreign contact saw no issue elevating a member with documented ties to a suspected Chinese influence operation.

The January 6th Connection

Swalwell's role on the January 6th Select Committee merits particular scrutiny in light of what we now know. The committee, which Democrats structured to exclude Republican members appointed by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, served as a made-for-television prosecution of Donald Trump and his supporters. Swalwell was among the most aggressive questioners, using his platform to paint the former president and his movement as existential threats to democracy.

What the American public was not told during those nationally televised hearings was that one of the committee's most visible members was simultaneously navigating with apparent assistance from his party's leadership serious questions about his own judgment and conduct. The Fang revelations were public knowledge by 2020. The sexual misconduct allegations, we now understand, involved conduct dating back to at least 2019. The woman who accused Swalwell of drugging and raping her described her encounter in harrowing detail at a press conference, claiming she was incapacitated and unable to consent.

Democrats made a calculated decision. Swalwell was useful. He was young, articulate, and unafraid of the cameras. He could be deployed against Trump and the MAGA movement. The baggage could be managed, ignored, or explained away as partisan attacks. The same media ecosystem that amplifies every allegation against Republican officials treated the Fang story as a minor curiosity rather than a national security concern warranting sustained investigation.

The California Calculation

What changed? Not the evidence. The Fang connection was documented years ago. The first sexual misconduct allegations were reportedly known to some in Democratic circles well before they became public. What changed was Swalwell's ambition.

A March 2026 poll showed Swalwell leading the crowded field to replace term-limited Gavin Newsom. California's jungle primary system in which the top two vote-getters advance regardless of party created a nightmare scenario for Democrats. With too many Democratic candidates splintering the electorate, Republicans stood a credible chance of securing both general election spots, locking Democrats out of the governor's mansion in a state where Donald Trump's approval rating hovers below 30 percent.

Suddenly, Swalwell was no longer an asset but a liability. The allegations that Democratic leadership had been content to overlook when Swalwell was merely a House backbencher and cable news surrogate became disqualifying when he threatened to cost the party the California governorship. Within days of the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN publishing detailed accounts from multiple women, Pelosi issued her carefully worded statement calling for the allegations to be "appropriately investigated with full transparency and accountability" outside the context of a gubernatorial campaign. The translation was unmistakable: we can no longer protect you, and you must go.

The Double Standard and the Epstein Parallel

The original post raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: "If you wonder why Democrats complain about the Epstein files, ask yourself why Democrats cover up sex crimes on their side." The comparison is not as strained as critics might suggest.

The Jeffrey Epstein case has become a conservative rallying point precisely because it exemplifies elite protection networks. Epstein's social circle included prominent Democrats and Republicans alike, but the aggressive pursuit of his client list and flight logs has come primarily from conservative media and Republican officials. Democrats, with notable exceptions, have shown considerably less enthusiasm for full disclosure.

The Swalwell case operates on the same principle at a smaller scale. Multiple women accused a powerful Democratic congressman of sexual misconduct ranging from inappropriate messages to rape. Democratic leadership knew about the Fang counterintelligence concerns for years. They likely knew or suspected more about Swalwell's personal conduct than they will ever acknowledge. Yet they protected him until the political calculus inverted.

Representative Ro Khanna, who initially defended Swalwell against what he called social media rumors, reversed course once the allegations gained media traction, declaring on Fox News that "what he did is sick and disgusting" and calling for investigations . Khanna's statement reveals the pattern: defend the party's own until defense becomes impossible, then pivot to outrage as though the information is new to you.

The Institutional Rot

The Swalwell affair is not merely about one politician's misconduct. It illuminates the institutional incentives that enable such behavior to persist. The Democratic Party like any political organization values power above principle. Members who deliver results receive protection. Members who threaten electoral outcomes get cut loose.

House Democratic leadership had multiple off-ramps with Swalwell. They could have removed him from the Intelligence Committee when the Fang story broke, as Republicans demanded in 2021. They could have insisted on a full Ethics Committee investigation years ago. They could have declined to feature him as an impeachment manager, sending the message that members with counterintelligence red flags should not be elevated to national platforms.

They chose none of these options. Instead, they waited until Swalwell's continued presence on the ticket endangered Democratic control of the California governorship. Only then did the dam break. Pelosi withdrew her protection. Jeffries called for a "swift investigation." Endorsements evaporated overnight .

What Conservatives Should Learn

The Swalwell episode offers several lessons for conservative observers of American politics.

First, it confirms that the media double standard conservatives have long alleged is real and consequential. The same outlets that would devote months of wall-to-wall coverage to allegations against a Republican congressman treated the Fang story as a one-day curiosity. When the sexual misconduct allegations finally forced their hand, the framing emphasized the implications for the California governor's race rather than the substance of the accusations against a powerful Democrat.

Second, it demonstrates that Democratic Party discipline is real but situational. The party can close ranks around a vulnerable member when that member serves an important function. It can also orchestrate a swift and decisive purge when that member becomes expendable. Swalwell experienced both realities within the span of a few years.

Third, it underscores the importance of institutional memory. The Fang counterintelligence concerns should have disqualified Swalwell from sensitive committee assignments regardless of partisan affiliation. That they did not reveals a party willing to subordinate national security to political convenience.

The Democratic Party that lectures Americans about believing women, about transparency, about accountability for sexual misconduct, protected Eric Swalwell until protecting him became more costly than discarding him. The women who came forward deserved to be heard years ago. The voters of California deserved to know about the Fang connection before Swalwell was entrusted with Intelligence Committee access. The American people deserved a January 6th Committee whose members were not carrying undisclosed baggage while prosecuting their political enemies.

None of that happened. And when conservatives point out the hypocrisy, they are not engaging in whataboutism. They are identifying a pattern that corrodes public trust in institutions. A party that selectively enforces standards based on political utility rather than principle has forfeited its claim to moral authority. Swalwell is gone, but the machine that protected him—and that will protect the next useful member until protection becomes inconvenient remains intact and operational.

The United States Is Only 6% Developed: Unpacking the Claim That the Government Owns the Rest

The statistic flashes across social media feeds and talk radio segments with a tone of conspiratorial alarm: The United States is only 6% developed. Who is using the other 94%? Could it be the GOVERNMENT?! It's a claim designed to stoke indignation a suggestion that a sprawling, unaccountable bureaucracy is hoarding a continent while ordinary Americans struggle to find affordable housing or space to build.

But while the meme captures a genuine truth about the scale of federal land ownership in America, the numbers it relies on are a dramatic misreading of geography and policy. The federal government does indeed own an enormous amount of land roughly 28% of the nation but that land is not unused, nor is it a secret . The real story behind that "94%" reveals less about government hoarding and more about the geographical quirks of the American West, the difference between a parking lot and a national park, and the complex debate over what "developed" land actually means.

The Truth Beneath the Meme: Where the 28% Figure Comes From

Let's start by correcting the math. The federal government owns approximately 640 million acres of surface land within the United States. Given that the total land area of the 50 states is roughly 2.3 billion acres, this means the federal stake is just over a quarter of the country a far cry from 94%, but still a massive real estate portfolio.

This ownership is not a modern bureaucratic land grab. It is largely a historical artifact of westward expansion. As the United States acquired territory through the Louisiana Purchase, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and other acquisitions, the federal government became the default owner of vast tracts of land before private citizens settled them. Over the 19th century, much of this land was transferred out of federal hands through homesteading, railroad grants, and statehood agreements. But in the arid, mountainous West, large portions were never privatized because they were, quite simply, difficult to farm or settle.

Today, federal ownership is concentrated in 12 Western states. Nevada leads the nation, with the federal government managing over 80% of the land within state boundaries. In Alaska, the figure exceeds 60%, and in Utah and Idaho, it hovers around two-thirds. In contrast, states east of the Mississippi River tend to have federal ownership levels in the single digits often limited to military bases, national forests, and historic sites.

Who Actually Manages This Land?

The notion that the "government" is a monolithic entity locking away 640 million acres for nefarious purposes fades when you look at how the land is actually managed. The acreage is divided among four primary agencies, each with distinct missions mandated by Congress :

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages about 244 million acres, primarily in the West. This is the agency closest to the meme's caricature, but its land is far from unused. It is managed for "multiple use," which actively includes livestock grazing, oil and gas drilling, mining, and timber harvesting alongside recreation and conservation .

The U.S. Forest Service oversees 193 million acres of national forests and grasslands. These are working forests sources of timber, water, and recreation explicitly managed for sustained yield under the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act .

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages 89 million acres, primarily as wildlife refuges focused on conservation. While these lands have stricter protections, they also generate billions in economic activity through hunting, fishing, and ecotourism .

The National Park Service manages 80 million acres of the country's most iconic landscapes. These are preservation-first lands, but they also function as massive economic engines for gateway communities .

The remaining federal acreage belongs to the Department of Defense for military bases and training ranges. While the public can't picnic on an artillery range, these 27 million acres serve a clear national security function .

The Definition Problem: What Does "Developed" Mean?

The "6% developed" statistic most likely stems from a misinterpretation of urban land use data. Studies of land cover show that urban areas cities, suburbs, pavement, and buildings do indeed cover only about 3% to 6% of the contiguous United States. The rest is a mix of forests, cropland, pasture, wetlands, and open space.

The error lies in equating "non-urban" with "unused government land." A cornfield in Iowa is not "developed" in the urban sense, but it is private, productive agricultural land. Similarly, a national forest in Colorado is not developed with houses, but it is actively used for timber, grazing leases, and recreation infrastructure. To call the federal share "undeveloped" as a pejorative ignores that undevelopment is often the explicit legislative purpose we *want* Yellowstone to stay undeveloped, and that decision was made by elected representatives, not unelected bureaucrats hoarding acres for themselves.

The Legitimate Debate: Housing and the Nevada Example

While the "94%" meme is statistically absurd, the frustration that fuels it is not entirely unfounded, particularly in states like Nevada. When 80% of a state is federally controlled, local governments and residents often feel a legitimate squeeze. As cities like Las Vegas grow, they literally bump against federal boundaries. This limits housing supply and drives up land costs, making housing less affordable for residents.

This has led to a growing, bipartisan push to release small portions of federal land for development. In Nevada, Governor Joe Lombardo has been vocal in asking Washington to release land for housing, and even Democrats like Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona have recently proposed evaluating federal lands for residential use in land-constrained Western regions . The argument is not to pave over national parks, but to adjust the boundaries at the urban-wildland interface to allow for logical, managed growth.

However, there is a strong counterargument rooted in conservation and long-term planning. Once federal land is sold to private interests, it is exceptionally difficult to reclaim for public use . Conservationists argue that selling off parcels near sensitive habitats can lead to fragmentation, wildfire risk, and the loss of ecosystems that clean water and support biodiversity. The debate, therefore, is not about government hoarding versus freedom it is a genuine policy tension between preservation, property rights, and affordable housing.

Conclusion: Government Land, Public Land

The claim that the government secretly controls 94% of America is a social media fiction built on a kernel of geographic truth. The government does own nearly a third of the nation's land, but almost all of it is in the West, and almost all of it is managed for specific, publicly mandated purposes from timber harvesting and cattle grazing to wildlife conservation and national defense.

The more interesting conversation is not about the size of the portfolio, but about its management. Should the boundaries drawn in the 19th century be adjusted for 21st-century housing needs? Can we balance energy extraction with recreation and conservation? These are complex questions of land use and public policy. They deserve a more nuanced discussion than an angry post about a 94% government hoax, because the land in question isn't the government's secret stash—it is, by law and by purpose, the public's land.

#land #realestate #USA #blm #usforestryservice

4/14/26

Eric Swalwell investigated for alleged rape of Lonna Drewes, LA County Sheriff's Dept. says

Lonna Drewes reacts during a press conference alleging U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) sexually assaulted her alongside a photo of Drewes with Swalwell (R) on April 14, 2026 in Beverly Hills, California.

#Swalwell #Congress #Rape #SexualAssault #California

4/13/26

Illegal alien sends 2 ICE officers to hospital after attempt to dangerously evade arrest

BALTIMORE — On April 2, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers attempted to arrest an illegal alien with a final order of removal, but the illegal alien chose instead to dangerously evade arrest—endangering himself, law enforcement and the general public.

#ILLEGALS #ICE #IMMIGRATION #CRIME

4/8/26

Rex Heuermann admits to killing 8 women in Gilgo Beach in changed plea hearing

What took him so long to plead guilty? He could have saved money to put on his BOOKS for the Moon Pies and Raman Noodles.

Rex Heuermann admits to killing 8 women in Gilgo Beach in changed plea hearing

#RexHeurmann #NewYork #LongIsland #Crime #Murder

Heuermann pleaded guilty to murdering seven women and intentionally causing the death of Karen Bragata. In exchange for the guilty plea,

3/30/26

A Deadly Reckoning: How Sanctuary Policies Undermine Justice and Endanger American Lives

Sheridan Gorman’s family slams Chicago Mayor and Illinois governor over student’s killing

The suspect, an undocumented migrant from Venezuela, was hiding behind a lighthouse when he came out and shot at the group 18-year-old Sheridan Gorman was with.

#Chicago #StudentKilled #Loyola #Crime

Kate Sneinle, Shot By An ILLEGAL while walking with her Father on the San Francisco pier. Kate Steinle's Father Calls on Congress to Reform Immigration LawsJim Steinle, father of woman who was shot and killed on a pier in San Francisco less than a month ago, called on Congress on Tuesday to pass legislation that would take "undocumented felons off our streets for good.

San Francisco Woman Shot, Killed While Strolling on Pier with Father in 'Random Shooting'

She was reportedly on her way to see her brother and his wife expecting a baby.

A Deadly Reckoning: How Sanctuary Policies Undermine Justice and Endanger American Lives

The city of Chicago, bathed in the blue glow of its iconic skyline, has long been a stage for progressive political theater. For years, its leaders have wrapped themselves in the banner of “sanctuary,” proclaiming their jurisdictions to be havens for those who flout federal immigration law. Yet, the tragic and violent death of 18-year-old Sheridan Gorman has torn away the abstract rhetoric to reveal a stark, gruesome reality. As her grieving family now levels its fury at Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, we are forced to confront the consequences of policies that prioritize political ideology over the safety of American citizens.

According to reports, Sheridan was with a group when a suspect, identified as an undocumented migrant from Venezuela, emerged from behind a lighthouse and opened fire. In an instant, a young life full of promise was extinguished. The suspect, who had no legal right to be in this country, was roaming the streets of an American city. The question demanding an answer is simple: How did this happen? The answer, though uncomfortable for the progressive establishment, is equally simple: sanctuary policies.

Sanctuary cities and states are not merely passive refuges; they are active impediments to the rule of law. By deliberately refusing to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), these jurisdictions create a magnet for illegal immigration. They declare to the world that within their borders, the federal statutes governing who may enter and reside in the United States will not be enforced. This is not compassion; it is a dereliction of the most fundamental duty of government: to protect the people within its jurisdiction.

The danger posed by these policies is not abstract. When local law enforcement is prohibited from communicating with federal immigration authorities, dangerous individuals who should be deported are instead released back into the community. We are not speaking of families seeking a better life in the abstract; we are speaking of individuals who have already demonstrated a willingness to commit violent acts. In the case of Sheridan Gorman’s alleged killer, an undocumented migrant was present in Chicago because the city’s leadership built a wall of bureaucratic resistance against federal immigration enforcement.

When Mayor Johnson and Governor Pritzker double down on the Illinois Trust Act and similar measures, they are not merely making a political statement. They are actively obstructing the ability of federal agencies to remove public safety threats. The logic is perverse: a violent illegal alien is shielded from deportation because local police are handcuffed by policies designed to prevent “fear” in the undocumented community. What about the fear of a mother burying her 18-year-old daughter? What about the fear of citizens who wonder if the next person hiding behind a public landmark is there to sightsee or to ambush?

The consequences extend beyond the immediate horror of violent crime. The drain on public funds in sanctuary jurisdictions is a secondary crisis that exacerbates the primary one. States like Illinois and cities like Chicago are already teetering on the brink of fiscal insolvency. Yet, they continue to invite a humanitarian and logistical crisis that strains resources to the breaking point.

Taxpayer dollars that should be used to repair crumbling infrastructure, bolster understaffed police departments, and improve struggling public schools are instead diverted to provide shelter, healthcare, legal aid, and education to a massive influx of illegal immigrants. This is not an issue of xenophobia; it is an issue of math. The welfare state, already bloated, becomes unsustainable when millions of individuals who did not go through the legal immigration process are granted access to services funded by American taxpayers.

We see this acutely in Chicago, where the city has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on migrant shelters and services—funds that were not budgeted for and that critics argue are being siphoned from long-neglected South and West Side neighborhoods where American citizens, many of them minorities, live in poverty. The progressive hypocrisy is staggering: the same leaders who champion sanctuary policies preside over communities where crime rates are high and city services are failing the citizens who live there. They would rather spend political capital protecting illegal aliens from deportation than protecting their own constituents from being victimized.

Furthermore, the illegality of sanctuary states cannot be overstated. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution establishes that federal law is supreme over state law. By intentionally obstructing federal immigration enforcement, states like Illinois are engaging in a form of nullification—a concept settled by the Civil War. When governors and mayors refuse to honor ICE detainers, they are not exercising “local control”; they are actively violating the principle of federal law enforcement.

The Biden administration, which shares the ideological bent of the Illinois governor, has done nothing to enforce federal supremacy. Instead, they have facilitated the crisis by ending remain-in-Mexico policies, halting border wall construction, and releasing hundreds of thousands of migrants into the interior. The result is that violent criminals who have no right to be here are filtered into cities where local leaders have promised to shield them from accountability.

Sheridan Gorman’s family is right to be furious. They are the victims of a political experiment that has failed. While the Mayor of Chicago and the Governor of Illinois hold press conferences virtue-signaling about their “welcoming” cities, American families are burying their children. The suspect in this case should never have been in a position to hide behind a lighthouse with a firearm. He should have been detained at the border, processed, and, given the nature of his eventual alleged crimes, deported long before he had the chance to take an American life.

It is time to call this what it is: a dereliction of duty. Sanctuary policies do not make communities safer; they make them more dangerous. They do not save taxpayer money; they squander it on a crisis of their own making. They do not uphold American values; they undermine the rule of law that makes ordered liberty possible.

If there is to be justice for Sheridan Gorman, it must begin with an honest reckoning. We must dismantle the sanctuary structures that gave her alleged killer a foothold in this country. We must demand that federal law be enforced uniformly, without regard to the political whims of local mayors. And we must insist that the safety of American citizens not the comfort of illegal immigrants who have broken our laws be the paramount concern of our government. Until then, we will continue to see headlines like this one: a promising young life cut short, and a family left to mourn in the shadow of a political agenda that valued sanctuary over safety.

#KateSteinle

3/20/26

Body of missing student James Gracey found in sea near Barcelona, police confirm

#Crime #JamesGracey #Spain #BodyFound

3/15/26

Hundreds Of Passengers Have Said They Were Sexually Assaulted On Cruise Ships. Their Stories Highlight Years Of Lax Security, Critics Say.

Numerous passengers traveling on major cruise lines such as Carnival and Disney say in court documents that they were raped and assaulted — oftentimes by crew members.

#vacation security #cruise #sexualassault

ICE lodges immigration detainer against criminal illegal alien who allegedly abused and violently murdered 3-year-old nephew

The child’s mother abandoned the toddler with her brother when she was deported in February

#ICE #ILLEGALS #IMMIGRATION

3/10/26

ICE Houston arrests over 400 criminal illegal alien child sex offenders in President Trump’s first year back in office

The 414 criminal alien child predators arrested are nearly double the number arrested during the last year of the Biden administration when ICE Houston arrested 211

#ICE #Houston #Trump #sexoffender

2/10/26

ICE arrests violent criminal alien after sanctuary jurisdiction released him despite immigration detainer

Prince George’s County released a criminal illegal alien charged with attempted murder and later convicted of assault.

#ICE #Sanchez #Immigration #CBP

2/5/26

Crazy Guy With Knife Shot By NYC Cop After the Cop Was Stabbed

Crazy Guy With Knife Shot By NYC Cop After the Cop Was Stabbed ...You Won't Believe Who The MAYOR went to see.

When someone, family or not, calls 911 and says someone has a knife the 911 Operator is going to send the POLICE, not a Social Worker. Social Workers and Ambulance Drivers do not show up on a scene until the Police secure the scene. And yes, if you charge a cop with a knife you're gonna get shot.

BTW, Mamdani went to the hospital to visit the crazy guy, not the Cop. NYC is in trouble and they will get what they voted for.

#NewYorkPoliceShooting #NYC #Mamdani #Police

CLICK HERE FOR A FULL STORY

Body camera footage show

shooting of man by NYPD officer

Two officers went to the Queens home of a 22-year-old when he was experiencing a mental health crisis. A newly released video shows the man grabbed a knife, and an officer shot him. CBS News New York's Christina Fan reports.Feb 4, 2026

1/28/26

Why Do Cops Shoot Suspects So Many Times?

This Is Why Cops Shoot Suspects/Assailants Multiple Times.

Before I go into the 'shots fired' I would like to explain where several Police reforms came from including the amount of rounds.

Bill Clinton signed the 1994 Crime Bill that was written by Joe Biden as the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman. That Bill by Democrats allowed the Criminal Justice System go hard on the Black and Brown Communities. This was during the height of the crack epidemic. Back then the average person on Crack was black or brown, and the average person using powder cocaine was usually white. The crime bill changed the Federal Sentencing guidelines for both forms of cocaine. If you were caught with a kilo of powder, basically a backpack full, you got a max of 5 years. It takes powder to make the Crack. However, if you had rocked cocaine you got 10 years/gram. A palm of Crack for sale could get you 50 years to life. If you recall Kim Kardashian lobby Donald Trump to pardon a Grandmother that was facing life under the law that Biden wrote.

Other items in the Crime Bill included adding 10,000 Cops in the US as well as funding for Police Departments around the country to purchase Military surplus equipment. That is whT the Left calls Militarized Police. Democrats wrote the Bill then they cry DEFUND THE POLICE. If you have half of a brain and a half ass memory you should be able to CONNECT the DOTS and realize they were and are lying to you. Also, if you recall, during the 2020 Debate Kamala Harris basically called Biden a Racist, while Biden bragged about working with Segregationists. I am sure those Segregationists helped him write the Crime Bill. [Biden also wrote the 1986 Crime Bill]

Now, about the amount of rounds Cops fire towards an assailant or suspect:

When I went through Law Enforcement Training in 1995/96 this is how it was explained by the Firearms Instructor. "We do not shoot to kill. However shooting to wound is prohibited." If you recall going to the range or in the Military, a target is presented in front of you. The target has a head and upper torso. You can receive thousands of hours of firearms training and if you aim for a leg or arm of a target, especially a moving target, the chance hitting the leg or arm is about 10%. If you miss the round will land 'somewhere' it wasn't intended to go to. Another reason is because all of the major organs are in the upper torso [and head]. The idea isn't to kill. The idea is to hit major organs and force the blood pressure to drop.

This was also explained to us. Back in the day Cops were trained to fire 2 rounds down range then observe the target. If the target is still up you fire 2 more rounds. Those rules changed when assailants and suspects were high on drugs and gang bangers were toting high capacity guns. So we're were trained to put as many rounds down range as fast as possible until the threat was DOWN.

CALIFORNIA is known for freeway chases ever since O.J. did his thing on the 405 Freeway. A watched a murder suspect leave the OC on the Freeway running from the cops. BTW, at the end of a California car chase if you don't get shot 6 to 8 cops cover the runner, .are a pretzel out of him and then he is cuffed and walked to the car. Anyway the guy running from the OC stopped on the Freeway near North Hollywood. He gets out of the car and reaches for his waste instead of putting his hands up. 6 Cops were drawn down on him. When they were done firing the guy had 78 Bullet holes in his body. Last year a a guy in Chicago shot at a group of cops 11 times before they got a shot off. He didn't hit any of them. When they were done shooting back he had 80 Bullet holes in him.

Another incident was when I was waiting on a training client to arrive. There was a strip mall with an El Polo Loco around the corner. Iwent to the Sushi Bar across from El Polo Loco. I walked there and back. When I got back to the gym there was a car chase on the 710 Freeway. I joked and said "He'll probably come to Long Beach." He came to Long Beach. Then I joked and said "He'll probably come down Anehiem Blvd. The gym I was at was near Anaheim a d Redondo Ave. The guy they were chasing pulled into El Polo Loco. He got out of the car and reached for his waist band. I'll never forget watching 3 Long Beach Cops standing shoulder to shoulder and lit him up in the spot I had just walked across.

Once you have been determined a threat whether you live or die doesn't matter. You are/were a threat. A threat is shot until the threat is DOWN. So if you see a cop shooting someone on the ground it's because the threat is still moving. Recall Rodney King. He was on the ground and still getting the BEAT DOWN

If you don't like what I just explained to you don't be mad at cops. Be mad at the Skirts, Suits and PantSuits for the laws they pass and the regulations they approve. The MINNEAPOLIS KNEE ON THE NECK was an actual tactic taught in the Minneapolis Police Department during the time of George Floyd's death. The media should have told you that.

Another thing, if you think Law Enforcement is RACIST, what does that say about the Politicians that passed the laws and approved Police practices.