'It started to rain and quickly got worse'

'My heart is broken'

Radio talk-show host and podcaster Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service agent, predicted another “incident” with the Secret Service, claiming that the agency is worse off today than it was before the assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump on July 13 in Butler, Pennsylvania. After Congress began to ask then-Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle about the assassination attempt, Cheatle resigned, leading Ronald L. Rowe Jr. to step in as interim director. Rep. Eli Crane, R-Ariz., asked Bongino, “Is the Secret Service in a better spot today with Director Rowe in charge?” “No, it’s worse,” Bongino replied. He predicted that “something else” will happen, although he added, “I pray to my Lord and savior Jesus Christ that I’m wrong.” “[If] you think this is the last incident, you’re out of your mind,” he said. The former Secret Service agent said Rowe represents more of “the same people” in charge on July 13. “Kim Cheatle, the director, wasn’t even fired. She was allowed to resign,” Bongino noted. “She’ll go get some cushy job somewhere, and her deputy” got promoted. Bongino said whistleblowers within the Secret Service told him that Rowe “was concerned about the tie color of the agents on the detail because it seemed to imply they supported President Trump. This is the kind of stuff the Secret Service was actually wasting their time with.” “If you can explain it, then good luck, because that’s not the agency I worked for,” he quipped. ?Secret Service is "WORSE" than before July 13, Dan Bongino says. “[If] you think this is the last incident, you're out of your mind,” he warns. Bongino says interim Director Ronald Rowe represents more of “the same people” in charge when Thomas Crooks opened fire on President… pic.twitter.com/eHVzW5PNJ2— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) August 26, 2024 Seeking Answers Bongino spoke at a forum on the July 13 assassination attempt on Trump, responding to questions from five Republican members of Congress: Andy Biggs and Eli Crane of Arizona, Matt Gaetz and Cory Mills of Florida, and Chip Roy of Texas. Erik Prince, a former Navy SEAL and founder of the private military contractor Blackwater, and Ben Shaffer, a Washington regional SWAT operator who assisted in security on July 13, also answered the lawmakers’ questions. Speaking at The Heritage Foundation near the U.S. Capitol, the congressmen presented video clips from July 13, showing that members of the crowd at the Butler speech had attempted to alert police to the presence of Thomas Crooks, the 20-year-old man who opened fire at Trump—an hour before the shooting. Mills asked Shaffer a series of questions clarifying how poorly Secret Service had prepared for a potential threat. Shaffer confirmed that Secret Service “didn’t take the communication platform that was given by local forces,” that the agency “didn’t take the surveillance drone offered by local forces,” and that agents “didn’t show up for the morning briefing to ensure that last-minute planning could be accounted for.” He also confirmed that Secret Service “did not access the water tower that has the highest vantage point.” ?Ben Shaffer, a Washington regional SWAT operator who took part in the security in the July 13 assassination attempt on Trump, goes through all the ways Secret Service did NOT accept help from the police forces on the ground. Secret Service: didn't take communication, didn't… pic.twitter.com/M46jU18DT6— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) August 26, 2024 Biggs noted that rallygoers had first attempted to alert police to Crooks at 5:10 p.m., fully an hour before the shooting took place at 6:11 p.m. Shaffer said pictures of the shooter came across his text chat at “approximately 5:38 p.m.” He learned “within minutes” that Crooks had a range finder, which would have “automatically escalated” Crooks from a “suspicious person to a person of interest,” the level right below a “threat.” Crooks’ position lay outside Shaffer’s sector of responsibility and outside his visual range, the SWAT operator said. Jill Biden Comparison “President Trump was definitely deprived of resources that day,” Prince noted. The Secret Service “had one-third the amount of agents covering him as were covering Jill Biden in the same region at an indoor event,” he said. “She had 12 post-holders covering her, again no statutory or constitutional authority for the first lady. Donald Trump had four Secret Service agents assigned.” ‘Point-Blank Range’ Prince noted “140 yards is point-blank range” for a sniper. “Thank God that 20-year-old aimed for a headshot at President Trump, because if he had aimed center-mass, President Trump would probably be dead.” “A Hezbollah team, or ISIS, or you name the terrorist organization that actually knows what they’re doing, would have been successful that day,” the former SEAL added. “The Secret Service was nearly defeated by a 20-year-old, and we all, including Donald Trump, dodged a bullet that day.” ?Erik Prince notes that a Hezbollah or ISIS team would have likely succeeded in taking out President Trump had they been in the place of Thomas Crooks on July 13. "The Secret Service was nearly defeated by a 20-year-old, and we all—including Donald Trump—dodged a bullet that… pic.twitter.com/7paBmGrSWE— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) August 26, 2024 ’Grade School-Level Politics’ Gaetz asked Bongino why it seems that Trump, “one of the most threatened people on the planet earth,” deals with “limited protection.” Bongino emphasized that Secret Service “was definitely not a political enterprise” when he worked there. Yet he suggested that politics likely played a motive in the Secret Service decreasing Trump’s protective detail. “I absolutely believe Donald Trump and an enhanced security posture he should have had would have made him look more presidential, would have facilitated the logistical operation of him traveling,” Bongino said. “I think they were concerned about optics and making him look like a bigshot or whatever word you want to throw out there.” “They were making some of these decisions based purely on grade school-level politics,” he lamented. “I don’t want to believe that,” Gaetz responded. “I didn’t want to believe it with the FBI, either. … A lot of these agencies that have been, I think, subject to political capture. We want to think of them as above that.” ?'CONCERNED ABOUT OPTICS': Dan Bongino suggests the Secret Service understaffed Trump's protective detail because more personnel would have made him "look more presidential," more "like a bigshot." “They were making some of these decisions based purely on grade school-level… pic.twitter.com/sSf4Ast35y— Tyler O'Neil (@Tyler2ONeil) August 26, 2024 Rep. Laurel Lee, R-Fla., announced Monday that members of Congress launched the Bipartisan Task Force to Investigate the Attempted Assassination of Donald Trump. “On July 13, 2024, the American people witnessed a catastrophic security failure that nearly resulted in the loss of President Trump’s life,” Lee said in a press release. “The United States Secret Service has a no-fail mission to protect America’s leaders, and unfortunately, they failed at their core mission that day.” The task force, which consists of seven Republicans and six Democrats, aims to understand what went wrong on July 13, to ensure accountability, and to prevent such an agency failure from happening again. The post Dan Bongino Predicts Another Security ‘Incident,’ Says Secret Service Is Worse Today Than Before Trump Assassination Attempt appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A federal district court ruled Thursday that pro-life pregnancy centers in New York may inform women “that the abortion pill reversal (‘APR’) protocol is safe and effective for a pregnant woman to use, with her doctor, to reverse the effects of a first chemical abortion pill and thereby, help to save the life of her unborn child.” District Judge John L. Sinatra Jr., a Trump appointee, granted a preliminary injunction because the pregnancy centers are “likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment Free Speech claim, and they are suffering irreparable harm each day that their Constitutional freedoms are infringed.” New York State Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, had initiated a civil enforcement action against 11 faith-based, pro-life pregnancy centers that were part of Heartbeat International to censor their speech, alleging that informing women about the APR protocol was “misleading advertising.” In response to James, Alliance Defending Freedom challenged the constitutionality of her enforcement action in federal court, on behalf of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, a pregnancy center network with 51 locations in the state, and two of its members, Gianna’s House and Options Care Center. “Women in New York have literally saved their babies from an in-progress chemical drug abortion because they had access to information through their local pregnancy centers about using safe and effective progesterone for abortion pill reversal,” said Caleb Dalton, Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel. “But the attorney general tried to deny women the opportunity to even hear about this lifesaving option.” Elected abortion activists have sought to restrict pro-life pregnancy centers from offering the APR protocol, which literally reverses the work of a chemical abortion. In April 2023, the Colorado Legislature banned APR on similar grounds that it was ineffective. At first, the state agreed not to enforce that law, but a federal judge eventually enjoined the law in October on religious exercise grounds. However, studies show that the APR protocol has saved the lives of over 5,000 unborn babies and has a success rate of up to 64%-68%. “Many women regret their abortions, and some seek to stop the effects of abortion drugs before taking the second drug in the abortion drug process. Taking supplemental progesterone may give them a chance to save their baby’s life,” Dalton added. “Women should have the option to reconsider an abortion, and the pro-life pregnancy centers we represent in this case truthfully inform them about that choice.” This is not the first time National Institute of Family and Life Advocates has gone to court over attempts by pro-abortion politicians to police its speech. Eight years ago, the pro-life network of pregnancy centers challenged a California law that would have required it to refer women for abortion, something that went against its deeply held religious beliefs. NIFLA’s opponents in the case were California Attorney General Kamala Harris and later California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, both Democrats. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in NIFLA v. Becerra that the California law did unconstitutionally compel the speech of the pro-life pregnancy centers. Sinatra quoted NIFLA v. Becerra in his opinion. “Government, even with the purest of motives, may not substitute its judgment as to how best to speak for that of speakers and listeners; free and robust debate cannot thrive if directed by the government,” the judge wrote, citing another case. “And this is particularly true ‘in the fields of medicine and public health, where information can save lives.’ Nat’l Inst. Of Fam. & Life Advocs. V. Becerra.” “Indeed, the ‘very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind through regulating the press, speech, and religion,’” wrote Sinatra. “The First Amendment protects Plaintiffs’ right to speak freely about APR protocol and, more specifically, to say that it is safe and effective for a pregnant woman to use in consultation with her doctor.” Originally published by The Washington Stand The post Free Speech Victory for New York Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers appeared first on The Daily Signal.

'It Feels Lawless': Only Half of Bus Riders in NYC Pay the Fare

Does AP stand for Associated Publicists? Conservatives today on social-media took after an article by AP reporters Zeke and Chris Megerian titled "How Harris balances competing messages as VP and candidate." The joy of having liberal reporters as your unpaid aides means you can have it both ways! She's an incumbent and an insurgent! It's like that old skit where "it's a floor wax and a dessert topping!"  Kamala Harris is having it both ways as she hits the campaign trail after the Democratic National Convention, taking credit for parts of President Joe Biden’s record in rallies staged in front of Air Force Two while casting herself as a new leader who rails against “the politics of the past.” In every presidential cycle candidates run on experience or freshness, but Harris so far appears to be successfully harmonizing two seemingly competing messages, much to the frustration of former President Donald Trump and his allies. It's one thing to put Kamala flacks or Democrat hacks in your story to underline your premise. But then comes....the Republican support quote: Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster, said Harris’ ability to embody change has “a lot more to do with her age, her race and her gender, than it has to do with any policy positions that she’s articulated.” He added, “That shouts change.” That's the dumbest, wokest quote in the whole sorry article.  Miller and Megerian employ the usual lingo of struggling Republicans: "The Trump campaign has attacked her lack of policy specifics and tried to portray her as someone far more liberal than she’s letting on." But they're only "trying" apparently, because the media refuse to let Harris be defined in a negative light as a radical.  At least there is a proper Republican reply:  “We’ve certainly had a front row seat to the ‘honeymoon,’” wrote Trump pollsters Tony Fabrizio and Travis Tunis. “In fact, the Media decided to extend the honeymoon for over 4 weeks now.” The article ends with an Obama bro saying she's the hopeful one:  Voters, said former Obama aide Dan Pfeiffer, “are thirsting for a new, more hopeful politics.” “If she can prove to people that she can turn the page, then Kamala Harris will win,” she said. Here's some tweets in response:  Harris is having it both ways only because the media won't call her out on her hypocrisy, or the fact that she won't give an unscripted interview where she has to state her policies and answer real questions. https://t.co/GPKCXgOLFy — Sean The Producer (@SeanTheProducr) August 26, 2024 https://t.co/UGQFGXX4yk pic.twitter.com/nsFmOIDMnc — Sunny (@sunnyright) August 26, 2024 All the media's hopes and dreams are pinned on "hopeful" and "joyful" Kamala and her "new politics," which isn't based on her actual politics, but on race and gender and age. 

Since Biden took office, the borders have been wide open, allowing untold millions of illegal immigrants to flood into the United States. The Democrats point the finger at Trump, and they call critics of open borders bigots and racists. But Mark Levin knows the truth. “The borders are open because they want to replace the majority in this country.” “The Democrat Party wants to change the citizenry, wants to change the electorate to empower itself,” he says, coining the movement “revolution by immigration.” - YouTube www.youtube.com Instead of representing American citizens, who by and large have expressed concerns over the open border, the Democratic Party intends to “change the people who they claim to represent” by ushering in millions and then legalizing those individuals who will then “vote for them.” The power the party gains is worth the cities being “overrun,” the “murder and rapes and fentanyl,” and the “women sold into sex slavery and children sold into pornography,” says Levin, calling the plan “diabolical” and “evil.” “The federal government is processing citizenship requests at the fastest clip in a decade, moving rapidly through a backlog that built up during the Trump administration and the coronavirus pandemic. At ceremonies in courthouses, convention centers and sports arenas across the country, thousands of immigrants are becoming new Americans every week and becoming eligible to vote in time for the presidential election this fall,” Levin reads from a recent New York Times article by Miriam Jordan. “Sports arenas and convention centers? That's tens of thousands of people at a time,” he says, noting that the election “could be decided by 40,000 votes.” The Times article goes on to boldly admit that this mass granting of citizenship is “potentially reshaping the electorate, merely months before a pivotal election.” “It's the replacement theory, which isn't a theory; it's a reality,” says Levin. A more terrifying part of the people flooding into our country, however, is not the sheer number of them but rather the anti-American beliefs a huge percentage of them harbor. “You got people coming from Iran and Syria; you got people coming from communist China; you got people coming from Sudan ... they're coming from countries that we're hostile with or we’re adversaries with,” Levin explains, adding that a terrifying number of these people are “Islamists” and “potential terrorists.” Then you have Kamala Harris vowing to “get rid of detention centers,” where immigrants with malicious intentions might be detained, “defund ICE,” and “defund the police,” and it’s crystal clear what’s going on — “the whole thing is set up for the invasion.” But the scariest part of all is where we’re at in this game of revolution by immigration. “We're not in the middle of revolution by immigration; we're in the third of four quarters,” Levin warns. To hear more of his commentary, watch the clip above. Want more from Mark Levin?To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Was his cosplay too gay?Former "X-Men 97" showrunner Beau DeMayo claims the studio stripped him of his season two credits because of some homoerotic fan art he posted on Instagram for Pride Month. DeMayo recently reposted the art — a cartoon he drew of himself as an underwear-clad, musclebound Cyclops — along with the comment that "On June 13, Marvel sent a letter notifying me that they’d stripped my Season 2 credits due to the post. Sadly, this is the latest in a troubling pattern I suffered through while on working on X-Men ’97 and Blade." The "troubling pattern" DeMayo mentions would seem to allude to his mysterious sudden firing from the show in March. Marvel responded to DeMayo's post by offering its own reasons for this parting of ways. "Mr. DeMayo was terminated in March 2024 following an internal investigation," the studio said in a statement. "Given the egregious nature of the findings, we severed ties with him immediately and he has no further affiliation with Marvel." The studio further claimed that it stripped DeMayo of his credits after he repeatedly violated his termination agreement. As for the exact nature of the behavior that led to DeMayo's firing, showbiz journalist Jeffrey Sneider cited unconfirmed rumors that DeMayo groped an assistant and sent male staffers suggestive pics of himself naked and in "superhero" poses. Although DeMayo has yet to offer his own detailed version of why he was fired, in a recent post on X, he wrote that "the truth will be revealed."A a popular reboot of the beloved 1990s "X-Men" animated series, "X-Men '97" faced criticism from some fans for taking the previously male character Morph and making him "nonbinary." DeMayo, who took credit for the change, later confirmed that the character had "romantic feelings" for fan-favorite Wolverine.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

An Arizona mayor had a woman arrested at a recent city council meeting after she spoke out against a city attorney in apparent defiance of meeting rules.On Tuesday, Rebekah Massie, 32, attended the city council meeting in Surprise, Arizona, a city of some 143,000 residents just outside Phoenix. When her turn came to speak during public comments, Massie — described by the Sinclair National Desk as a "Libertarian activist" — took the opportunity to criticize Surprise city attorney Robert Wingo and a raise he had reportedly been given.'Do not put your hands on me!'According to Massie, Wingo engaged in "numerous violations, or alleged violations, and in blatant disregard ... for not only the Arizona revised statutes, the state Bar rules of professional conduct, but also the Arizona state Constitution, and the Bill of Rights at the federal level."Massie then referenced previous election integrity issues and insisted that Wingo "did nothing" about them.Shortly thereafter, Mayor Skip Hall warned Massie that, by "attacking the city attorney personally," she was apparently violating one of the rules governing public comments. The rule says: Oral communications during the City Council meeting may not be used to lodge charges or complaints against any employee of the City or members of the body, regardless of whether such person is identified in the presentation by name or by any other reference that tends to identify him/her.Massie countered that she was sharing only "factual information" and that the rule itself is "unconstitutional.""That's a violation of my First Amendment rights," she said calmly.Massie further asserted that she could stand at the podium and shout curse words at Hall for three minutes and that speech would still be "protected" by the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent.At that point, Hall became exasperated and threatened to have Massie escorted out of the chamber. While Massie acknowledged that meeting rules forbade her from publicly criticizing city officials, Massie once again argued that the rule was unconstitutional."That's your opinion," Hall insisted.Massie was flabbergasted that Hall would threaten to have her hauled out of the room in front of her 10-year-old daughter, who was in attendance, simply because she had exercised her "First Amendment rights." She also indicated that Mayor Hall may have violated meeting rules about debate.After more back and forth, a security officer walked over to the podium and attempted to walk Massie out. When she refused, the officer began putting her hands behind her back."Do not put your hands on me!" Massie railed."Are you kidding me?" she continued. "Why am I being detained? Under what charges?"The officer then dragged Massie out of the meeting by force as she screamed, and another meeting attendee — perhaps Massie's daughter — quickly left as well, video of the meeting showed.Massie was later cited for alleged trespassing, a class 3 misdemeanor, as well as for allegedly resisting arrest and obstructing government operations, both class 1 misdemeanors.Massie claimed that she was never read her Miranda rights and not permitted to contact an attorney, according to Not the Bee. She also accused the arresting officer of throwing her on the ground and against a wall."I'm not resisting, my daughter is here, I don't know what's going on, you say I'm being detained, but I don't know what for," Massie said, according to Not the Bee.The city claimed Miranda rights were not warranted in Massie's case because she had not been interrogated, only cited and released. City officials "remain strong in their stance that the anti-free speech policy isn't a violation of the First Amendment," Not the Bee said.The entire meeting can be seen here. Massie appears at about the 1:58:04 mark.H/T: Libs of TikTokLike Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

OH THE FRAGILE WHITE IRONY: Anti-Racist Robin DiAngelo Plagiarized Minority Scholars in 2004 Dissertation