Mediaboss Marketing

Liberal television personality Rosie ODonnell confirmed that she donated $1,000 to a GoFundMecampaign set up for the family of Reality Winner, the25-year-old NSA contractor accused of illegally leaking classified intelligence documents.

Winner, who was arrested Tuesday for giving classified documents to the website The Intercept,has pleaded not guilty to one count of willful retention and transmission of national defense information. If convicted, she faces up to 10 years in prison.

This is part of the description from the GoFundMe page:

LETS STAND UP WITH REALITY LEIGH WINNER AND HER FAMILY!

It is a Difficult time for Reality Winner and her family. Please show your love and support with kind messages and a monetary donation if you feel led to do so.

This is a time to come together and unite in peace and hope and show the world LOVE ALWAYS WINS over hate! Good resists even when evil persists!

These funds will be able to assist with loss of wages, counseling from this traumatic experience and tobe able to recover from this as Reality & her family rebuilds theirlives. Possible expenses for travel for the family and anything they might need to help them through these troubled times.

ODonnell praised Winner as a brave young patriot in a tweet.

The page may violate GoFundMes terms of service, which prohibits establishing a campaign for the defense or support of anyone alleged to be involved in criminal activity. But that doesnt bother liberals like ODonnell, who sees Winner as a victim rather than as a traitor to her country.

Originally posted here:
Rosie O'Donnell Donates $1000 to NSA Leaker's GoFundMe Page - Accuracy In Media (blog)

Eugene Volokh is tackling a less common Second Amendment argument this week. It stems from a recent decision made by the New Jersey state supreme court involving a resident who was convicted of Unlawful Possession of a Weapon. The crime in question was the fact that there was a dispute going on with a neighbor in his apartment complex and when he came pounding on the door, the defendant answered the door with a machete in his hand. He may or may not have pointed it at the unruly neighbor (stories conflict on that point) but he definitely didnt injure or even attack the person. The state supreme court overturned the conviction and sent the case back for a new trial with different instructions from the judge because the defendants rights had been violated.

This leads Volokh to answer another question which he apparently gets fairly often from people who dont follow the subject closely. Are swords, knifes, machetes and other blade weapons covered by the Second Amendment? We spend so much of our time talking about guns that this area of hardware doesnt come up very often. His conclusions: (The Volokh Conspiracy, Washington Post)

This should be obvious, I think: The Second Amendment protects arms, and the D.C. v. Heller opinion discusses bows and knives as examples of such arms; opinions in the 1800s and 1900s dealing with state constitutional rights to bear arms also mention bladed weapons; and post-Heller opinions, such as from courts in Connecticut, Michigan, and Wisconsin agree. But some have disagreed the Massachusetts government in the Caetano stun gun case before the Massachusetts high court, for instance, argued that Heller was limited to firearms. The New Jersey decision should be a helpful precedent, then, for other non-gun cases (though of course it doesnt dispose of the question of exactly what weapons are protected, and where they can be possessed).

The Constitution Society has a handy document you might want to bookmark which covers this, as well as many other questions on related topics. In it, they go into a bit more detail about precisely what the Founders intended and what classes of weapons should be covered. (Emphasis added)

The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define arms. When it was adopted, arms included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare. That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line.

Personally, they go a bit further over the gray line that must be drawn between personal weaponry and group combat weapons for my taste (grenade launchers and anti-tank missiles seem a bit heavy handed) but thats mostly about right I think. Keep in mind that not everyone could afford a firearm at the time of the nations founding and many may have been making do with a bow, a knife or even a farm implement. Im not sure how common swords were for the layman at the time (good ones were also historically quite expensive) but that would have to fall into the same class.

Its also commonly noted in literature of the time that people signing up for militia duty would need to be provided with a rifle if they couldnt afford their own. This, by the way, is where we get the term well regulated because regulated in that context meant properly supplied. But in any event, Volokh has some good information in both of the articles linked above which I thought you might find useful. And since weve recently seen them used by terrorists, might the Second Amendment also cover hammers if you were holding one when you answered the door? Since you can clearly kill someone with a well placed hammer blow Id have to say yes. Same for baseball bats.

Visit link:
Does the Second Amendment cover edged weapons? - Hot Air Hot Air - Hot Air

CALAIS, France He was walking alone, to a place that no longer exists.

These days, Baz a 25-year-old Afghan who has been in Calais for 20months, he said could use a place to sleep. Not so long ago, he had one: a tent in the Jungle encampment, where nearly 10,000 migrants and refugees from the Middle East and East Africa languished for months, even years, in hopes of eventually reaching Britain, a short 20miles across the English Channel.

But in late October, the French government after a devastating sequence of terrorist attacks and the spike in anti-immigrant rhetoric that followed demolished the camp. The migrants there were either transported to welcome centers throughout France or simply evicted from the makeshift city that teemed with smugglers and violence.

In any case, the Jungle is gone, and Baz like so many other migrants still here now sleeps on the streets.

[Europes harsh new message for migrants: Do not come]

The end of the camp was not the end of the migrant crisis in France, and hundreds more have continued to trickle into this working-class city on the shores of northern France, which remains the closest point in continental Europe to Britain. If no longer in the headlines, the problem is no less urgent, aid workers say, insisting that conditions for newcomers have never been worse.

This! Baz, who declined to give his surname, said recently, gesturing at the asphalt on a road near the old entrance to the Jungle, far outside of town. This! This is where you sleep.

We are literally trying to get drinking water to people. We dont have water, we dont have food and no sanitation, said Clare Moseley, the founder of Care4Calais, an aid organization active throughout France. Theres skin disease, gum disease. It really, really is the absolute basics of life here.

When we were in the Jungle, we were trying to get clothes to people and even some kinds of social care. It really was a step up from where we are now.

Since the Jungle, major elections have come and gone in France and Britain, whose border with the European Unions Schengen zone begins at the French coast.

[Migrants evicted from miserable Calais camp leave with bittersweet memories]

In France, despite the victory of the centrist, pro-migrant Emmanuel Macron over the fiercely anti-immigrant Marine Le Pen last month, little has happened to suggest any immediate change in policy toward migrants seeking either temporary residence or asylum.

The duty of Europe is to offer asylum to those who are persecuted and ask for its protection, Macrons campaign platform read. In this context, France must take its fair share in the reception of refugees. It must issue permits to all those whom it deems entitled to asylum in its territory.

But last week, Grard Collomb, Macrons interior minister, authorized the transfer of three extra police squadrons to the Calais region. In an interview with the Le Parisien newspaper, Collomb said that the transfer would amount to roughly 150 additional officers and gendarmes.

Our priority, Collomb said, is that Calais and Dunkirk do not remain places of fixation and that Jungles do not reconstitute.

In Britain, where Prime Minister Theresa May narrowly survived her own snap election recently, Brexit will still mean Brexit, and strict immigration regulations for migrants and refugees are unlikely to be reconsidered anytime soon.

[Calais migrants face opposition at new, small-town destinations]

Unlike many of the migrants now here, Baz is a legal adult. Approximately 150 of the 400 new migrants who have recently arrived in the Calais area are unaccompanied minors, Moseley said.

After the destruction of the Jungle, there is no longer a central gathering place for these younger migrants, who have begun to seek refuge in odd locations throughout the city.

Two of them, for instance, were huddled on a recent evening under a covered drive-in outside a Pizza Hut in central Calais. Customers came in and out, paying the two boys little notice. Pizza deliveries proceeded; cars passing through the nearby roundabout drove by.

Calais people dont like refugees, said Kiya Rabbira, 16, from Ethiopia, one of these refugees. He was sitting with his friend, Fiiri Nanaki, 15, also from Ethiopia. Theyre always calling the police, and they never give us food. They see us sleeping here, and say, dont sleep here go.

This was never supposed to happen.

In the fall, leading up to the Jungles demolition, the U.K. government pledged to take in a host of unaccompanied minors. Already nominally committed to the Dublin III agreement, a European Union regulation allowing the resettlement of refugee children in member states where they have family, the government vowed to do more.

Last year, the British Parliament approved an amendment to an immigration bill that also permitted the resettlement of unaccompanied minors with no family in Britain. Sponsored by Alf Dubs, a member of the House of Lords, the Dubs amendment harked back to one of the proudest moments in modern British history, when the United Kingdom in convoys known as Kindertransports sheltered Jewish children from Nazi persecution in central Europe in the late 1930s.

Dubs, now 84, was one of those children.

In the months since, however, the United Kingdom has reneged on its commitment, largely because the final text of the new amendment mandated no specific number of unaccompanied minors to admit, Dubs said in an interview.

Unfortunately, we werent able to tack a number on it, so the government could go back on the amendment, he said. We simply said they had to do it, never thinking they would cut it short like that.

[Marine Le Pen rarely mentions gender issues, unless shes talking about Muslims]

Calais is a historic stronghold of the National Front, the far-right, anti-immigrant and populist party that lost the French presidential election but is vying to represent the area in Frances upcoming legislative elections. Le Pen, who lost the Elyse Palace to Macron last month, is ultimately running for a seat in Parliament here. She has a decent chance of winning, as she carried the area in both rounds of the presidential election.

In recent years mostly thanks to the Jungle Calais and its environs have developed a particular reputation for a certain xenophobia, with migrants frequently complaining of vigilante reprisals from ordinary citizens. Recently immortalized in the pages of The End of Eddy, the best-selling novel of the 24-year-old douard Louis, much of northeastern France is a predominantly white and working-class terrain, as resentful of change as it is of the Parisian elite.

In the season of Frances upcoming legislative elections, appealing to this demographic appears to be a motivation for Macrons cabinet.

I had the opportunity to speak with local elected officials, Collomb told Le Parisien. I heard their concerns, and I want to tell the people of all these territories that they are not forgotten.

But the migrants here often find these promises sinister, mostly in terms of an increased police presence.

Kicking, dogs, spray, Rabbira said, when asked to describe his encounters with the local police.

Theres a problem with the police here they spray you, Baz said, acting out a forceful kick.

Calais City Hall did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Read more

How Merkels efforts to save Europe may lead to its undoing

A French farmer fed and sheltered migrants. Today he was fined $3,200.

France and Britain just beat Donald Trump to building a border wall

Todays coverage from Post correspondents around the world

Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news

Continued here:
The Calais 'Jungle' is gone, but France's migrant crisis is far from over - Washington Post

An attorney at the Court of the European Union finds that Croatias actions were proper.

The way in which Croatia acted during the migrant crisis of 2015, when the government led by Zoran Milanovi decided to transport migrants and refugees from the eastern borders to the western borders as quickly as possible, was proper and in accordance with European regulations, concluded an independent attorney of the Court of the European Union. She gave her opinion as part of two cases in which Slovenia and Austria claim that Croatia is the one responsible for asylum requests made by citizens of Syria and Afghanistan, reports Veernji List on June 10, 2017.

The two cases are being reviewed by the Court of the European Union in Luxembourg. In the first case, Slovenia claims that Syrian citizen ''A.S.'' entered Croatia illegally, within the meaning of the Dublin II regulation. The Syrian challenged the Slovenian decision, arguing that the fact that the Croatian authorities had allowed him to enter the Republic of Croatia and continue traveling on the Western Balkan route should be interpreted as him lawfully entering Croatia.

In the second case, the Jafari family from Afghanistan first entered the European Union in Greece and then re-entered the EU in Croatia, which then transferred them further to the west, before the whole family claimed asylum in Austria. Austria also argues that Croatia is responsible for dealing with their asylum requests.

Although these two cases are about specific individuals, the verdict of the Court of the EU (which is still pending) will legally answer a much greater dilemma that concerns all similar situations with asylum seekers, who have used one of the migrant routes to reach the European Union.

The independent attorney of the Court of the EU whose opinion is important and influential, although not final concluded that, contrary to the arguments made by Slovenia and Austria, Croatia was not responsible for the consideration of such applications for asylum. Slovenia is responsible for A.S.s request, while Austria is in charge of the Jafari family.

According to her legal opinion, the term illegal crossing of the border does not cover a situation where, due to the mass influx of people seeking international protection in the European Union, member states such as Croatia allow these people to cross the external border of the EU and continue travelling to other countries in order to seek asylum.

Read more:
Croatian Actions During Migrant Crisis Were Legal - Total Croatia News

One of President Donald Trumps central (and most controversial) campaign promises was to shut down the flow of immigrants illegally crossing into the United States, especially from Mexico. Newly released figures show Trump appears to be making good on his promise.

An analysis by the Daily Caller News Foundationfound that from February through May in 2016, 188,000 people were caught attempting to illegally enter the United States from Mexico. During the same period in 2017, only 76,000 were captured or deemed inadmissible, a decline of 59 percent.

In May alone, the number caught in 2017 was less than half (19,967) that recorded in 2016 (55,442), a truly remarkable turnaround considering Trumps much-talked-about border wall has still yet to be financed by Congress.

Theyve done more than any administration in the history of the world, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton told the Daily Caller.

So, Im pretty happy that theyve done so much in such a short period of time so it would really be difficult for me to criticize them on that issue because theres no comparison with any other administration as far as how quickly and effectively theyve approached the problem on many different fronts, Paxton also said.

In May, Ronald Vitiello, the chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, told a Senate Judiciary subcommittee the decline is due to Trumps January executive orders mandating a shift in policy and resources on the border.

As a result of the executive orders issued by the president, and the implementing policies issued by the secretary, as well as earlier policy changes and the significant investments we have made in border-enforcement personnel, technology, and infrastructure, we are seeing a historic shift in illegal crossings along the southwest border, Vitiello said, according to the Washington Examiner.

Read the original here:
New illegal immigration numbers reveal Trump's incredible impact on the border - TheBlaze.com