Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Crime

BREAKING: Shooting At SC Elementary School, A Gun Free Zone – Libs Call For Gun Ban

At least two children and one teacher were transported to hospitals, with one being life-flighted because of the seriousness of the injuries

Published

on

South Carolina law enforcement officials are reporting that there has been a shooting at an elementary school in Townville, SC.

The Townville Sheriff’s office said that their deputies received reports of a shooting at around 2 pm on Wednesday.

Lt. Sheila Cole who is with the Townville Sheriff’s office said that there are reports of multiple wounded, but she couldn’t say how many.

Law enforcement and EMTs are staging at Townville Baptist Church.

Medical helicopters have been called to the scene, and multiple agencies are en-route to assist.

At least two children and one teacher were transported to hospitals, with one being life-flighted because of the seriousness of the injuries.

A nearby highway has been shutdown as law enforcement officials work the scene.

The shooter, who is a teenager, has been taken into custody.

Authorities are saying that a homicide that occurred a few miles from the school is connected, and that the shooter killed one of his family members. None of those injured at the school are believed to be related, though.

Townville Elementary has 286 students in pre-K through the 6th grade.

sc-school-shooting

The school is a gun-free zone.

We expect liberals to politicize the incident and call for a ban on guns at any second. Wait, they already are.. Idiots.

This is a developing story.

Jeff was the national rally organizer to free Marine Sgt. Tahmooressi from the Mexican prison, chairman emeritus of Ross Perot’s Reform Party of California, and a former candidate for governor. Jeff is editor-in-chief at Freedom Daily. He wrote for former Hollywood talent agent & Breitbart contributor, Pat Dollard, and headed up his 30 person research team. Mr. Rainforth also wrote for the Wayne Dupree Show. Jeff is single & says he is not gay.

Join the conversation

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Crime

BOMBSHELL! Congress ‘ROCKED’ By NEW MAJOR Scandal Announcement

Published

on

Now this is what we can call “Draining the Swamp”

An investigative reporter, Luke Rosiak, who works at The Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) has now announced that Congress’ human resources scandal is about to break wide-open and had made the prediction that over a dozen members of the House of Representatives will be forced to resign in the coming days.

He followed his initial tweet with this new one:

In addition to this breaking news early last week Rosiak also broke the story that Democrat Congressman from New York Gregory Meeks was part of a settlement deal with one of his former congressional aides which he had fired after she reported being sexually assaulted at the business of a major campaign donor.

The first congressmen to go down in this #metoo movement for sexual misconduct was Michigan Democrat Congressman John Conyers, Conyers resigned after accusations against him started to gain momentum and multiple women came forward. Senator Al Franken was also accused of sexual assault by multiple women to which there is even a picture of him groping a sleeping model on a plane. Has said he would resign but has given no timeframe as to when this will be happening.

The Hill Reports:

Congress owes taxpayers answers about its harassment ‘shush’ fund

Since when are members of Congress and their staffs accused of sexual harassment allowed to hush up and pay off their accusers from a secret “shush” fund full of taxpayer dollars? Since 1995, it turns out.

Congress, we all know, chooses to exempt itself from many of the same laws it foists on the rest of us. It’s a grievance I hear regularly during my travels around the country, as grassroots activists complain about this law or that regulation. “If only Congress had to live under the same laws we do, they’d get it, and they’d change it” is a common refrain.

For years, for instance, I’ve been speaking out about the illegal special exemption of Congress from ObamaCare, which allows members and staff to avoid the financial burdens they imposed on us when they passed that terrible law. If only they had to live under the law the same way the rest of us do, without benefit of taxpayer dollars to subsidize their premiums purchased fraudulently on the D.C. small business exchange, they might be more incentivized to repeal that law.
But until recently, I did not know about the “shush fund” of Congress, a fund managed by the “Office of Compliance,” which itself was created following the 1995 enactment of the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), the first law enacted by the first Republican House in four decades.

Ironically, the CAA was a serious attempt to bring Congress under many labor laws from which it had previously exempted itself. In fact, under the CAA, Congress applied 12 different labor laws to itself for the first time, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Federal Service Labor Management Relations Statute, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, among others.

The CAA sought to make changes in how Congress dealt with charges of sexual harassment against its members and staff, too. Prior to enactment of the law, a victim of sexual harassment by a member of Congress had virtually no legal recourse at all. With whom would such a victim lodge a complaint or seek redress?

So the CAA created the “Office of Compliance” to deal with such issues. Complainants begin the dispute resolution process with a mandatory (yes, really) course of counseling that can last up to 30 days. Only after completing the compulsory counseling may a complainant pursue mediation. That, too, can last up to 30 days. If mediation fails to resolve the issue to the complainant’s satisfaction, she or he can then go to an administrative hearing, or file a federal lawsuit.

Here’s the kicker: If the dispute is resolved in favor of the complainant (read: victim), funds for the settlement don’t come out of the offender’s personal bank account, or his or her campaign account. Instead, they come out of a secret account maintained by the Office of Compliance. It is so secret, in fact, that taxpayers don’t even know they are funding it.

According to the Washington Post, there were 235 complainants received compensation totaling $15.2 million between 1997 and 2014. That’s more than one settlement per month for 17 years and nearly $1 million per year. We, the taxpayers, have no idea on whose behalf we’ve been paying to settle these sexual harassment claims. That’s wrong.

Now, in defense of Congress, the reasoning behind this rather convoluted dispute resolution process was that there could be scurrilous political operatives trying to game the system to target political opponents with potentially career-ending sexual harassment claims. That is a reasonable concern. But in the process of establishing protections for its members, Congress inadvertently institutionalized a cover-up culture, in which the supreme end goal is to get the alleged victims to go away quietly.

The “resolution” system is unfairly rigged to protect the careers of politicians, not to protect vulnerable staffers. That the counseling sessions are mandatory reveals that the objective has little to do with helping the alleged victim, but is instead simply aimed at dissuading the alleged victim from proceeding with a complaint. Leave it to Congress to find a way to insert layers of bureaucracy and paperwork into this “resolution” process.

Various proposals are floating around the Congress now that would require mandatory sexual harassment training for members of Congress and their staffs. That’s a fine idea, and I’m all for it. But those legislative proposals should make another change to the sexual harassment dispute resolution mechanism, too.

We, the taxpayers who have been paying for more than two decades to quietly settle literally hundreds of sexual harassment claims against members of Congress and their staffs, have a right to know which members and staffers have made use of the hush money over the years. Going forward, taxpayers should have knowledge about how that fund is used.

If Congress wants to get serious about its apparent culture of abuse, it will need to address its cover-up culture. Shush funds may serve the immediate purpose of getting alleged victims to go away, but they do little to stem the tide of sexual harassment. What Congress needs — and American taxpayers deserve — is more transparency.

How dare the United States Congress use our hard earned money to shut up their own indiscretions? We as a people, especially those in the middle class, struggle enough to keep our heads above water to have politicians stealing from us to pay off women they have sexually assaulted because they are a bunch of elitist unevolved cave dwellers who can’t seem to keep it in their pants. In any other society, citizens would be gathering with pitchforks outside of the capitol building by now.

We need government accountability and we need it fast. Congressmen are there to serve us, not the other way around.

Please share if you agree we need to hold corrupt politicians accountable for their actions….

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading

Crime

BREAKING News Out Of Virginia… Jury Gives Illegal Alien Special Treatment – THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!!

Published

on

Say what?

A jury in the newly minted blue state of Virginia saw itself forced to convict a maid for felony grand larceny after she stole $5,000 worth of rings from the home she cleaned. But since they felt bad for the pregnant 19-year-old they all did something truly unthinkable and downright foolish. The Jury foreman, Jeffery Memmott, in a statement, said all the jurors pooled together the $80 so that Sandra Mendez Ortega could pay the $60 fine and go free. Ortega is pregnant with her second child.

But on top of this whole act being outrageous, it gets even worse when you look the other side of the coin.

Of course, Lisa Copeland, who is the accuser is outraged. In a statement, she said she prayed that none of the jurors are ever in my shoes She also added that Ortega never accepted responsibility for the theft nor did she ever apologize, if she had accepted responsibility she would have no issue with this, but since she never did it’s not a good thing and since the maid makes $60 a day she is now $20 richer since the jury gave her $80 to pay her $60 fine.

Now lets sum this whole mess up shall we?

An illegal breaks the law by sneaking into our country to procreate and work for peanuts while sponging off the already overburdened taxpayers and Lisa Copeman is surprised that she stole from her? Copeman was too cheap to get a real cleaning company who is bonded and insured so she decided to employ someone whom she didn’t know to clean her house. And at the same time, the jury fell for the sob story this illegal criminal told them.

Maybe next time Ortega is in court she’ll be pregnant with her 6th anchor baby! When people in Latin America refer to us Americans as “Gringos Estupidos,” they might have a point.

Investor’s Business Daily Reports:

Sorry, But Illegal Aliens Cost The U.S. Plenty

Immigration: A center-left think tank has hailed new findings showing that illegal immigrants contribute $11.6 billion in state and local taxes nationwide. But that report really shows how little they pay compared to the rest of us.

If there’s any doubt America is importing poverty, take a look at a new study this week from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, which touts the $11.6 billion illegals pay in taxes to state and local coffers. This isn’t federal or payroll taxes, just cash paid through sales taxes, property taxes and city and state fees.

“Data show undocumented immigrants greatly contribute to our nation’s economy, not just in labor but also with tax dollars,” ITEP state tax policy director Meg Wiehe said in a statement. “With immigration policy playing a key role in state and national debates, accurate information about the tax contributions of undocumented immigrants is needed now more than ever.”

We couldn’t agree more. So let’s take a look at some actual accurate information:

With an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., that $11.6 billion comes to about $1,050 per person, which The Latin Post hails as “lots of taxes.” In fact, it’s less than the average paid by citizens in even the lowest-tax states, such as Tennessee, where the average per capita state and local tax burden is $2,805, not to mention high tax areas, like Washington, D.C., where the figure is $7,540, according to data from the Tax Foundation. Media reports point out that illegals pay about 8% of their incomes in state and local taxes, compared with 5.4% for “the 1%,” but ignore that average taxpayers, based on the Tax Foundation data, pay an average of 9.48%.

Well, sure, you might say, but once illegals get amnesty, they will contribute similar amounts as the rest of us, right? Actually, no.

Illegals have far less education than average Americans and correspondingly lower base incomes. Based on another study reported this week from two other center-left think tanks, if the U.S. handed out work permits, through a program such as Deferred Action For Parents Of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), it would add only 10% to illegals’ incomes — meaning, an additional $3,000 per capita, which would then see a small slice taken as state and local taxes, for a grand total of just $805 million to the government. It still wouldn’t approach the average Tennessee local tax rates, cited above.

Illegal immigrants in fact absorb far more in benefits than they contribute. The Heritage Foundation in 2013 found that illegals contribute an average of $10,000 in total taxes (federal and payroll as well as local taxes) but use almost $24,000 in welfare and services, creating a net $14,000 per capita gain per illegal worker.

With benefits like that — and a president determined to shower even more on them — it’s little wonder the world’s impoverished feel the red carpet is out for them to come here illegally.

Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, said Heritage understates actual welfare use by illegals by its use of the federal government’s Current Population Survey. “In a more recent study where I looked at welfare use only (not taxes or other expense) using the much more accurate Survey of Income and Program Participation, I found that 62% of households headed by illegal immigrants used at least one major welfare program,” Camarota told IBD via email.

“Bottom line, illegal immigrants have a 10th grade education on average,” he said. “In the modern American economy people with that level of education tend to make modest wages and as result pay relatively little in taxes, at the same time they tend to use a lot in public services, regardless of legal status. In the case of illegals, they often receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children. If you had to put it in a bumper sticker it would be: ‘there is a high cost to cheap labor.’ “

Please share if you agree we need to build the wall…

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading

Crime

BOMBSHELL! Hillary Tarmac SECRET Revealed! This is HUGE!!! LOCK THEM UP NOW!!!

They Tried To Hide It But It’s Out Now!

Published

on

New information is continuing to come out regarding the now infamous Tarmac Meeting between the serial rapist and former President Bill Clinton and the Barack Hussein Obama administration Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

But what is indeed the most alarming part of this whole ordeal is the FBI’s reaction to the leaking of this clandestine meeting to the public. Agency leadership wasn’t even a tab bit concerned about how they should respond the meeting between Lynch and Clinton or how it would look considering Crooked Hillary was at that time under a full investigation by the FBI?

You would think the FBI would be concerned about the optics of this matter, but It will come as a surprise to some, not many at this point after everything we’ve learned in the past few months, that the FBI was actually more concerned about where the leak came from than about what actually went down on that tarmac. All they were concerned about is finding who within the FBI leaked the information about the meeting to the press and making that person pay.

As Katie Pavlich reported at Townhall, the FBI released a series of emails yesterday afternoon where we learn more details about the Department of Justice’s response to the information leak of the now infamous secret meeting between Lynch and Clinton.

The dates on the emails range from July 1-3, 2016. On July 5, 2016, FBI Director James Comey announced former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would not face criminal charges for mishandling classified information. Interesting dates, don’t you think?

Since the Clintons have always treated the American people like idiots Bill said at the time that he, and Lynch, only spoke only about their grandchildren, but since we know perfectly well the former Attorney General isn’t Bill Clinton’s type, the only possible answer to this tarmac meeting is Bill was trying to get Hillary off the hook.

Via Newsweek:

AFTER CLINTON-LYNCH TARMAC MEETING, FBI SCRAMBLED TO FIND AND PUNISH SOURCE, NEWLY RELEASED EMAILS SHOW

After news broke about an airport meeting between former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton in the midst of last year’s presidential campaign, the FBI scrambled to identify the source who leaked details about the encounter and discipline him or her, according to emails released on the FBI website on Friday.

The meeting between Lynch and Clinton took place in June 2016, while the FBI was investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. Bill Clinton boarded Lynch’s plane while it was on the tarmac at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International Airport. The following month, then-FBI Director James Comey announced the bureau would not recommend that the Department of Justice pursue charges in the email probe. Comey has testified before Congress that Lynch asked him to refer to the probe as a “matter,” a request that made him feel “queasy.”

Related: What will Loretta Lynch tell Russia investigators?

Keep Up With This Story And More By Subscribing Now

The internal emails show that on June 29, 2016, a senior spokeswoman for the Justice Department emailed her counterparts at the FBI to flag articles that were starting to appear about the meeting. In the email, the spokeswoman, Melanie Newman, described the encounter as “a casual, unscheduled meeting.” She provided talking points, which are redacted in the released version.

That same day, multiple FBI officials sent links about the story to Comey, who responded to one email, “Got it, thanks sir.” Also on those email chains were FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whom President Donald Trump and others have accused of a pro-Clinton bias because his wife received money for a political campaign from entities associated with Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a Clinton ally; and Peter Strzok, who was removed from special counsel Robert Mueller’s team because of text messages critical of Trump. Strzok oversaw the Clinton email investigation.

But after Observer published an article containing additional details about the encounter, citing an anonymous “security source” who had been present, the FBI and Justice Department moved from damage control to discussions about identifying the source and punishing that person, the emails show. At the time, the publisher of Observer was Jared Kushner, Donald Trump’s son-in-law and one of his senior advisers.

On December 15, the FBI released documents related to the so-called tarmac meeting in Phoenix between former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, pictured here on June 20, and former President Bill Clinton.
SPENCER PLATT/GETTY

On July 2, a person whose name is redacted in the FBI release wrote to a bureau employee about the Observer article. The employee, whose name is also redacted, responded, “I agree with your assessment about the source, which in reading the article, I believe was one of the local PD officer [sic] assisting with one of the two motorcade [sic] there on the Tarmac. Either way, they should have never offered any type of opinion or details of what did or didn’t happen, as this is the most principle and basic tenant of executive protection.”

The FBI employee added, “Unfortunately, this article is a breach in security protocol and I am addressing it with the Phoenix division to make certain that they pursuit [sic] this and identify the source of the breach.”

The next day, an undisclosed FBI employee, presumably the same person from the earlier email, wrote to several colleagues, “I believe that the source quoted in this article is one of the local Phoenix LEO’s. Needless to say that I have contacted the Phoenix office and will contact the local’s [sic] who assisted in an attempt to stem further damage.”

An FBI employee responded, “This article is infuriating.” Another FBI person wrote in response, “You think there will be a need for non-disclosure agreements in the future?” A colleague wrote back, “That might not be a bad idea, given the circumstances.” All of their names are redacted.

Another FBI employee whose name is redacted responded to the email about the article, “We need to find that guy and bring him or her before a supervisor.” A colleague responded, “I’m trying to find out thru [sic] the PX STL. Hopefully, we will find out and at the very minimum, make sure he never works on any detail.”

Republican lawmakers and at least two of Trump’s lawyers have called for a special counsel to investigate the handling of the Clinton emails probe. Several congressional committees are also looking into that subject, as is the Justice Department inspector general.

Both Lynch and Clinton still maintain the chance meeting, which Clinton waited for 30 minutes on that tarmac to have, was only by chance.

Please share if you want to get to the bottom of this mess….

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Trending