Site has no Description

Rep. Loudermilk wrote to Capitol Police Chief Manger asking for detailed information on Lt. Michael Byrd, who murdered Ashli Babbitt on J6 when she attempted to crawl through a window in the Capitol building. Loudermilk wanted to know the details of Byrd’s promotion to Captain. Some reports claim Byrd demanded a promotion. Loudermilk had concerns […] The post Ashli Babbitt’s Killer Received Cash, Housing, Security, a Promotion appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Far-left activist David Hogg is reportedly considering running for a top leadership position in the Democratic National Committee (DNC) because he believes he can fix the party’s problem of talking down to voters. Politico reported that Hogg has told reporters that he is “seriously considering” running for DNC Vice Chair. The failed pillow salesman, who has made a name for himself by aggressively calling for taking away American’s Second Amendment rights, appeared on CNN Thursday morning where he addressed the report. “Well, honestly, I’m considering it because I think that, one, obviously, I think we need a new generation in the DNC, if this election has taught us nothing else,” Hogg said. “I think we need an intergenerational coalition as a party.” He claimed that as he has traveled the country, he realized that the party has “a number of problems.” CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE “I think the main one overall is that we would rather live in a comfortable delusion than an uncomfortable reality,” he said. “And I think what the party needs to do is open its eyes and take its fingers out of its ears basically.” He said that Democrats only want to talk to elitist Democrats and that the party has an issue of talking in a “condescending tone” to others. WATCH: David Hogg says he is “considering” running for a top leadership position in the Democrat Party because he wants people to take the party seriously again and because they’ve become arrogant Every Republican and conservative will be praying this happens ?? pic.twitter.com/6hCAFigXkF — Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) December 5, 2024

On Wednesday, a shocking assassination occurred in New York City, and the Left celebrated.  Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare’s insurance arm, was fatally shot outside a hotel in Midtown, the center of Manhattan’s business and tourist districts. Police said it was a targeted attack. The video footage makes it seem clear this was a professional hit. Thompson walked past the shooter, who appeared to emerge from the shadows. The shooter shot Thompson, shot him again, then calmly walked by him and appeared to shoot him a third time.  The suspect fled on foot after the shooting. Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch said this was not a random act of violence, adding: It appears the suspect was lying in wait for several minutes. And as the victim was walking to the conference hotel, the suspect approached from behind and fired several rounds, striking the victim at least once in the back and at least once in the right calf. … I want to be clear — at this time, every indication is that this was a premeditated, pre-planned, targeted attack.  Paulette Thompson, Thompson’s widow, told NBC News, “There had been some threats. Basically, I don’t know, a lack of coverage? I don’t know details. I just know that he said there were some people that had been threatening him.”  There are at least two things to be said about this. First: New York City is governed horribly. When assassinations occur in public places in New York City, that reflects how law enforcement is deployed and what law enforcement is allowed to do. When violence is commonplace on New York streets, that goes to governance.  Take, for example, the case of Daniel Penny, the Marine veteran who took down a crazed drug abuser named Jordan Neely with a submission hold on the New York subway as Neely was threatening other members of the public in this subway car. Despite the fact that Neely’s death could be attributed to drugs in his system or his reaction to the lack of air to the brain, New York City is bringing a manslaughter or murder charge because the city is governed horribly.  WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show  But second, something else is going on here: the left-wing reaction to the murder of Brian Thompson.  Anthony Zenkus, a social work professor at Columbia and Adelphi University whose X bio reads, “Trauma expert. Anti-violence. Commie,” a Communist who’s apparently against violence, reacted to Thompson’s death this way: “Today, we mourn the death of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, gunned down…. wait, I’m sorry – today we mourn the deaths of the 68,000 Americans who needlessly die each year so that insurance company execs like Brian Thompson can become multimillionaires.”  Today, we mourn the death of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, gunned down…. wait, I'm sorry – today we mourn the deaths of the 68,000 Americans who needlessly die each year so that insurance company execs like Brian Thompson can become multimillionaires. — Prof Zenkus (@anthonyzenkus) December 4, 2024 So he sounds like he’s implying Thompson deserved to die because UnitedHealthcare is a mildly profitable company.  They are a mildly profitable company — meaning, when it comes to the health insurance industry, the profit margin is generally below 2%. This is not an industry in which the profit margin is 10%, 15%, or 20%. If you take issue with American health insurance and how it is run, that is because of the legal structure that has been set up for health insurance in America. We could note that health insurance should not be tied to employment, that you should be able to opt into various levels of health insurance rather than basically being shoveled into one of a few categories. We could talk about the fact that an enormous amount of health care should actually be provided just on a pay-for-play basis as opposed to via insurance. It’s bizarre that a normal checkup should be covered by insurance. What are you insuring against? That’s not typically what insurance is for. Insurance is for an unexpected situation you are betting might happen, while the insurance company bets it probably won’t happen, or at least not in the timeframe you’re thinking. That is why you have fire insurance; not because you know tomorrow you’re going to set your house on fire — which would be arson and would violate your insurance policy. It’s bizarre that health insurance in the United States works such that it is called insurance, when in reality, it’s just a kind of subsidized form of group coverage.  You can have whatever arguments you want with the system. But the idea that because you don’t like this system, the CEO of a private health care company deserves to die, or at least it is his fault if 68,000 Americans “needlessly die each year so that he can become a multimillionaire,” shows a dramatic lack of understanding of not only markets but of morality.  Taylor Lorenz, once considered a well-respected reporter at The Washington Post, reacted, “People have very justified hatred toward insurance company CEOs because these executives are responsible for an unfathomable amount of death and suffering.” Screenshot: BlueSky. Taylor Lorenz. “Executives are responsible for an unfathomable amount of death and suffering”? That’s not true. You might not agree with how the insurance companies run their business. You might think the insurance companies go too far in attempting to restrict coverage or find loopholes in their policies that prevent them from having to issue coverage.  But that’s what insurance does. It’s what they are. What you’re really criticizing is the system, the system of private health insurance in the United States, which is a bizarre amalgam of government subsidies.  Nearly all health care coverage in the United States is, in some form or fashion, government-involved. Even private health care systems are heavily government-regulated. But that is not UnitedHealthcare’s fault. Stating it is their fault is like suggesting that if a grocery’s price on bread is at a particular level because the markets have determined there is only that much bread available, that is somehow the grocery’s fault when people can’t afford that bread. The idea that if you work for a private health care insurance company you should be murdered is astonishing. Lorenz concluded, “As someone against death and suffering, I think it’s good to call out this broken system and the people in power who enable it.” I have a question. Why is Thompson the one who enables it? I wasn’t aware that Brian Thompson was a public policy professional working in an arena in which consent was not actually the keystone. What I mean is that if you don’t want to buy health care insurance via United, don’t do it or don’t work for a company that does. This says something deeper about the far-Left. There’s a reason why a Venn diagram would show only one circle including people who are fine with Brian Thompson getting murdered on the street and people who are pro-Hamas: That reason is the baseline belief of the far-Left’s system that if you are working within a system they have deemed morally inferior, you deserve to die. That belief says if someone kills you, you probably had it coming. You are a Kulak, and you deserve to die. On the other hand, if you work within a system that the hard-Left deems morally praiseworthy or you’re a member of a “morally praiseworthy group,” you can literally do anything. If your grievance aligns with the view of the Left as they deem in any way legitimate, you can do anything. This is the same group of people who will suggest, for example, that if you are in the Gaza Strip and you don’t like your situation, that justifies you raping women and murdering babies. That is the far-Left’s full-scale belief system. And Thompson’s death is a perfect example of the Left’s beliefs and how they play out. What’s astonishing about this is that the way the Left adjudicates whether a system is morally praiseworthy or morally blameworthy is not based on a utilitarian calculus. The professor from Columbia who suggested that the private health care system in the United States is responsible for 68,000 deaths doesn’t actually believe that if you work for an alternative health care system that is government-run and it kills more people, then you deserve to die. He doesn’t think that purely because his belief is not about a utilitarian calculus for what’s best for humanity.  For the Left, it never is. For the Left, it is all about the central moral principle. What the Left actually cares about is power and control. If the Left controls the system, the system is good. If the Left does not control the system, the system is bad. And if you are a member of that system, then maybe, just maybe, you deserve to die.  It’s all a power game. If you’re a prosecutor and you see a Good Samaritan on the street trying to stop a violent act on a subway, the person who tried to stop the violent act is bad because that person is not of your political ilk. They’re not part of your team, and so that person ought to be prosecuted for felony murder.  But if that person is a member of your team, you do your best to let that person off the hook because it’s all a team sport. CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE The subjugation of basic liberal principles by Left-wing principles is perfectly obvious here. It’s the great untold story of the last several decades in American politics. It used to be that liberals in this country were people who you or I, as a conservative, might disagree with on tax or health care policy. But as I’ve said my entire career, there’s a difference between a liberal and a leftist. A liberal would never argue that because someone works for UnitedHealthcare, that person ought to die or at least be shot. They might say, “This company needs to be run better.” They might object to that particular CEO. But they would never argue that person ought to be morally dispensed with and just shot on the street in the way some of these members of the radical Left are.  For leftists, all dynamics are power dynamics. To them, the only thing that matters is that their allies control the government gun. Murder is, in their view, just part and parcel of the system. Sometimes to cook the Left-wing omelet, you have to break a few eggs. Even if that means murder.

'They thought I'd been shot because they saw blood pouring down my face'

Because of course they did

'These provisions are inappropriate'

A continent once widely skeptical of Giorgia Meloni now looks to the Italian prime minister for a solution to the problem of rampant mass migration in Europe. A core tenet of Meloni’s 2022 campaign involved curbing illegal immigration flows to Italy. Italian dissatisfaction with the crisis partially propelled Meloni’s political success, as mass waves of migration disproportionately affect the European Union border state. Indeed, Italy’s southernmost tip, Lampedusa, more than earned its nickname as the “gateway to Europe.”  In 2023, over 6,000 migrants entered the island in a single day. The European Union’s so-called Dublin Regulation exacerbates the problem by requiring migrants to be processed in the first country they enter. From 2023 to 2024, Meloni’s migration policies reduced sea crossings to Italy by an unprecedented 62%. Rather than reflecting a general decrease in migration flows, the reduction reflects the success of Italian policies. Smugglers of humans have targeted other Mediterranean border states at alarming rates. Spain faced a migration increase of 155%, Greece a staggering 222%. Meloni’s primary strategy involves outsourcing the processing of foreign nationals to North African nations. Italy established processing centers and facilitated returns to Albania, Libya, and Tunisia. The Albanian deal allows Italy to disembark 36,000 migrants each year for processing at a center in Gjader, operating with Italian personnel with Italian jurisdiction. Without the mobility and legal loopholes afforded by the European Union, Italian officials can enforce returns for illegal aliens and economic migrants. Italy also has invested in transit and origin nations in Africa to combat human smuggling, shifting responsibility for migration policies. Meloni has focused on deterring migration throughout her administration, emphasizing the need to “stop people traffickers from having the choice of deciding who enters Italy.” European leaders have hailed Meloni’s success since she took office in October 2022. For example, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen praised a deal with Tunisia in which Italy provided over 500 million euros for immediate liquid assets, renewable energy, and, most importantly, border management. Von der Leyen commended the deal as “out-of-the-box thinking, based on fair sharing of responsibilities with third countries.” In September, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer met with Meloni to discuss immigration strategy, looking to fulfill his election promise to stifle criminal networks that spur migration to the United Kingdom. Starmer applauded Meloni’s success, noting her “remarkable progress” in addressing “drivers of migration.” Similarly, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán cooperated in a recent meeting with Meloni to target illegal immigration, smuggling, and trafficking. The pair particularly focused on increasing and speeding returns from the European Union to safe countries of origin. As hundreds of thousands of migrants have flocked to the European continent over the past decade, populations already there have grown more and more frustrated. European leaders increasingly will look to Meloni as Italian border deals prove successful, a trend that presents a clear opportunity for pragmatic conservatives on the continent. Meloni has proudly proclaimed Italy to be a “model to follow” on migration. Across Europe, leaders would be wise to rise to the standard she has set. The post In Praise of Giorgia Meloni’s Handling of a Migration Crisis appeared first on The Daily Signal.

THE CENTER SQUARE—U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, led a bicameral appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court requesting it to uphold American sovereignty in a $10 billion lawsuit brought by Mexico blaming U.S. gun manufacturers for cartel gun violence in Mexico. The bicameral appeal was made in concert with one by a coalition of 28 state attorneys general, The Center Square reported. At issue is a 2022 lawsuit brought by the Mexican government against U.S. gun manufacturers arguing they are responsible for Mexican cartel crime in Mexico. A federal judge in Massachusetts dismissed the lawsuit. Mexico then appealed to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled last year that its claim fell within an exception to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005. When the case was before the 1st Circuit, Cruz led a bicameral appeal, filing an amicus brief with three U.S. senators and 35 U.S. House members. Like the AGs, they argued the PLCAA protects businesses that sell firearms from being held liable for harm caused by criminals who abuse them. Mexico argues an exception in the law enables it to hold liable American gun manufacturers and distributors for cartel gun crime. But “Mexico’s arguments in this lawsuit don’t hold water, which is why the suit was thrown out in the district court,” Cruz argued in the 1st Circuit brief. “In sum, what the government of Mexico is trying to do is impose its own interpretation of American law on American businesses. This demonstrates a disregard for our Constitution and in particular, our Second Amendment. They’re also ignoring the fact that Congress has exercised its authority by passing the law in question here, the … PLCAA, and the fact that the United States is a sovereign nation.” After the 1st Circuit ruled in favor of Mexico, 27 AGs, led by Montana, appealed in June to the Supreme Court to throw out the case. Cruz also led 10 senators and 14 House members in another amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court requesting it to grant certiorari. On Tuesday, Cruz led another coalition of 16 U.S. senators and 22 House members, petitioning the Supreme Court again. Mexico’s lawsuit “seeks to trample on our Constitution,” Cruz said. “I look forward to the Supreme Court ending this madness, putting an end to Mexico’s assault on our Second Amendment, and sending a clear message that American sovereignty will not be eroded by any country.” The lawsuit has unified a large group of people “as almost as never before,” said U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who is leading the U.S. House coalition. “This is a landmark legal question and weighs whether to allow foreign governments to violate American sovereignty, bankrupt our firearms industry with lawfare, and undermine our Second Amendment rights. Today, we reaffirm our commitment to our constitutional freedoms. Our cause will prevail.” “Mexico’s lawsuit is an affront to the sovereignty of the United States of America,” the brief states. “It has no place in federal court, and it attempts to coerce American courts to subvert the policy determinations of the political branches of the U.S. Government. A nation’s authority on its own soil is virtually absolute. Congress exercised that authority in passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. … Mexico’s suit disregards those legal principles, trying to impose its own foreign view of liability protection law and the right to bear arms on the American people. “Mexico’s suit attempts to impose the laws of that foreign nation upon the citizens and companies of this nation. This is ironic, given that Mexico’s Constitution also provides its citizens the right to possess firearms in their residences for self-defense. But that nominal right is a pale shadow of its American counterpart, subject to severe restrictions, coupled with the fact that there is only a single gun store in Mexico. That nation’s laws and tradition of the right to own firearms bear little resemblance to that of our own.” They also note that the district court “properly rejected Mexico’s arguments that because its alleged injuries occurred outside the United States and because it is a foreign-sovereign plaintiff, PLCAA was categorically inapplicable to this lawsuit.” In August, U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor in Boston again dismissed the case, this time against six of eight U.S. companies named in the lawsuit. He ruled Mexico didn’t provide concrete evidence to prove that their operations in Massachusetts had any connection to cartel gun violence in Mexico. In October, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear the case. Originally published by The Center Square The post Cruz Leads Appeal to Supreme Court Over Mexico’s Lawsuit Against US Gunmakers appeared first on The Daily Signal.