How Cryptocurrency Mining Works

 

This is oversimplified and doesn’t touch on all aspects of cryptocurrency. It’s just my take on it.


What does it mean to mine cryptocurrency?

Let me try to explain the relevant concepts of cryptocurrency first.

In usual currencies, e.g. the US dollar, there’s someone controlling and printing money, e.g. the US Treasury Department. Therefore it’s centralized.

A cryptocurrency is decentralized, means that it’s not controlled by any bank or government. How then do we print money for cryptocurrencies?

The solution: allow everyone to print money. But very slowly.

This is cryptocurrency mining.

To expand: to mine for cryptocurrency (e.g. bitcoin), someone has to download and run software that solves a meaningless but extremely computer-intensive maths problem, like what is the 1-billionth number behind the decimal place of the square root of 2? (Very wrong example but you get my gist). Someone (Mr. X) will have to run their computer for 1 hour to get this answer, and then the software will give them 1 bitcoin. Then the maths problem iterates to asking the 1-billionth and 1 number etc., and the solving goes on.

The bitcoin is now basically electronic money. Like usual currencies, it is traded in currency exchange markets, which will give you 1 bitcoin equals 100 US Dollars, which of course changes every second/minute/hour/day.


How does it help generate money for websites?

As you can see from the above, basically solving maths problems on computers will generate money.

How do I make it faster?

Solution 1: Buy a faster computer

This is already being done, and miners are buying so much that the supply of fast computers can’t keep up, and are now much more expensive than a year ago.

Solution 2: Use many computers

What if I can use computers that are not mine? Like other people’s computers? Some websites have found a way to make visitors of the websites run a program to solve the aforementioned maths problem for the website. It will run very slowly, but that doesn’t matter to the website owner, because he’ll now have millions of visitors running the program for him all at once.


 

Hopefully that was understandable. It doesn’t touch on many other aspects of cryptocurrency which is even more mind-boggling, but you’re right, it is a very futuristic concept and a whole paradigm shift in thinking about currency. So don’t worry about not understanding about it, you’re probably in the majority.

Language of Bipartisan “Bump-Stock Bill” Could Effectively Make All Modern Firearms Illegal

The bill that is ostensibly designed to ban bump-stock devices is gaining traction in the House of Representatives, thanks to the bipartisan group of legislators who are working on it. However, the bill is written in a terribly ambiguous way, that one could read into the text an effective ban on all semi-automatic weapons.

Late last week, I wrote about how the bill’s licentiously ambiguous language can be construed to mean that any combination of parts that is designed to make the rifle fire at a higher rate would become illegal. That means new trigger groups, bolt-carrier groups, gas blocks, charging handles, bolt release, mag release, etc. could fall under the bill’s language because the ambiguity (and that’s by design).

Rather than specifically targeting bump-stocks, the gun-grabbers made the language to be as expansive as possible, so that all sorts of things can be read into the language. Rather than letting the text speak for itself, by providing specific things that are clearly and properly promulgated, the bill is written with the explicit purpose of expanding their power over us, and providing themselves any sort of legal avenue possible to come after anything we do with our firearms.

 

In fact, it’s so bad that the language may even effectively prohibit all semi-automatic firearms, as Sean Davis discusses at The Federalist.

“It shall be unlawful for any person … to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle,” the bill states. At no point does the proposed legislation specify a base rate of fire against which any illegal increases would be judged, a potentially fatal flaw in the bill’s drafting. As a result, the proposal arguably institutes a federal ban on any and all parts that would allow the gun to fire at all, since the mere ability to fire a semi-automatic weapon by definition increases its rate of fire from zero.

The design of semi-automatic weapons uses the recoil of the weapon generated by the gas explosion in the chamber when a round is fired to automatically chamber a new round, and prepare the weapon to be fired again. Because of this, any parts used in that process would likely be subject to the federal ban proposed in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, since they serve to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon. Gas tubes, gas blocks, buffer springs, magazines, charging handles, ejectors and extractors, and even triggers themselves could potentially be banned under the bipartisan bump stock ban language proposed by Curbelo and Moulton.

With that in mind, no one should be surprised that’s the case. If you are surprised, you’re not paying attention.

The gun-grabbers will do anything possible to take your right to bear arms. They will use any loophole, any little obscure thing to attack you and your self-defense rights. They simply do not care if it’s unconstitutional, if you are innocent, or if it will do anything to stop more mass shootings.

They. Do. Not. Care.

One of the other issues that Sean Davis discussed was the fact that there are no grandfathering provisions included in the bill. Even if the enforcement agencies only targeted bump-stocks, there is not an enforcement method that does not run afoul of the prohibition of ex pos facto laws in Article I section ix of the Constitution, as I discussed last week.

It is because of that clause of the Constitution that all-out confiscation measures are doubly problematic for gun-grabbers; they cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, and they cannot make laws that make a certain action retroactively illegal.

Possession of the devices would be illegal 90 days after the bill became law. Even if one had purchased the device legally, it would then become illegal to possess. The only way to legitimately enforce this law is by confiscation, by finding out sales records, searching those who have bought the devices. It’s simply a matter of fact.

But it just gets worse as one looks at the language of the bill. While the bill advocates for an explicitly unconstitutional ex post facto law, the language also enables one to read into it whatever they want regarding devices that enhance the rate of fire on a given firearm.

But alas, possession of the device will become illegal if the bill passes, even if the device was bought legally. Would there be just compensation if the feds mandate confiscation of these devices, as per the Fifth Amendment?

Don’t count on it; like I stated before, they do not care. They will do whatever possible to take away your guns. Though they have not yet, don’t doubt for a second that they will if given any chance whatsoever.

 

This bill is that chance. Do not let them take advantage of it.

From: The Federalist Papers

Media Silent As Bill Allowing Warrantless Searches is Being Pushed

As the mainstream media provides relentless coverage of the Harvey Weinstein Hollywood sex scandal, there is one major piece of legislation it is ignoring, and if passed, it will have massive repercussions for all Americans.

More than 40 organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom of the Press Foundation, have joined together to condemn the USA Liberty Act, a trendy name for a dangerous bill that reauthorizes and creates additional loopholes for Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee, the coalition noted that one of the most obvious problems with the USA Liberty Act is that it fails to address concerns with the “backdoor search loophole,” which allows the government to conduct warrantless searches for the information of individuals who are not targets of Section 702, including U.S. citizens and residents.”

“The USA Liberty Act departs from the recommendation made by the President’s Review Group on Surveillance, appropriations amendments that have previously passed the House, and urgings of civil society organizations, which would have required a probable cause warrant prior to searching the Section 702 database for information about a U.S. citizen or resident absent narrow exceptions. As written, it raises several concerns. First, the bill’s most glaring deficiency is that it does not require a warrant to access content in cases where the primary purpose is to return foreign intelligence. This is an exception that threatens to swallow the rule.”

Not surprisingly, the USA Liberty Act claims that it will “better protect Americans’ privacy” by requiring the government to have “a legitimate national security purpose” before searching an individual’s database. Then when they do have that purpose established, they will be required to “obtain a court order based on probable cause to look at the content of communications, except when lives or safety are threatened, or a previous probable cause-based court order or warrant has been granted.”

 

However, as The Free Thought Project previously reported, what the USA Liberty Act does not advertise is the fact that the FBI’s “legitimate national security purpose” could be justified by just about any reason the agency chooses to give, and agents will only need supervisory authority in order to search Americans’ metadata.

As the coalition noted in its letter, “the bill’s current language leaves room for the government to conduct queries and access content for law enforcement purposes without a warrant,” which should be considered a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment.

“The current language does not make clear that the government must have a warrant to access content for law enforcement searches where the purpose may not be to specifically obtain evidence of a crime, or in cases where there may be a dual foreign intelligence and criminal purpose. As such, the bill could still permit the government to conduct queries and access content without a warrant in cases involving criminal investigations and prosecutions.”

The coalition also criticized the USA Liberty Act’s broad consent and emergency exceptions, noting that, “the emergency provision does not parallel analogous provisions in FISA and require imminence or that the government go back to the FISA court for a warrant after beginning the emergency surveillance.”

While the government claims the purpose of FISA is to allow surveillance on the communications of foreign targets who were suspected terrorists, it should be noted that the law has been used to spy on the communications of innocent Americans—despite the practice being ruled illegal—and any reauthorization of the law will only allow the practice to continue under the guise of “preventing terrorism.”

When the USA Patriot Act was passed in 2001, and the USA Freedom Act was passed in 2015, the U.S. government used fear-based propaganda disguised in the form of All-American titled legislation, which was spread without contest by the mainstream media. Section 702 is set to expire on Dec. 31, 2017, which means that Americans will likely see the same game come into play as the government prepares to pass the USA Liberty Act—a bill that is the opposite of its namesake.

Clinton Foundation and Presidential Campaign Financed by Sexual Predator

The Clinton Foundation will not return or re-donate any of the $250,000 it received from disgraced film producer and Democratic donor Harvey Weinstein, saying the funds have been spent already.

Democratic Party organizations have similarly been under pressure to return or donate money they received from Weinstein over the years. Some have donated the funds to organizations that work to combat sexual violence agains women, for example, but some have donated the money to Democratic Party-aligned groups.

Weinstein gave over $35,000 to Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, and leading up to 2014, gave between $100,000 to $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

The Clinton Foundation has also been pressured to rid itself of Weinstein’s money, but they have said that the money was already spent on projects, the Daily Mail reports. The organization claims the Weinstein money was spent on supporting women and girls around the world, as well as on lowering the cost of HIV medication.

Some Democrats believe all donations from Weinstein should be re-donated. Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) has said he believes anyone who received political contributions from Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein should re-donate the money to organizations that fight sexual assault.

On Saturday, Chelsea Clinton avoided a reporter who asked about Weinstein’s donations as she went into a Clinton Global Initiative event in Boston.

Weinstein has been accused of sexually harassing and raping women in Hollywood over the course many years, and while his behavior was described as an “open secret,” it continued unabated for decades.

President Trump ends illegal diversion of funds from Fannie and Freddie to pay Obamacare insurance subsidies

Late Thursday night, President Trump effectively ended Obamacare with the stroke of a pen, precisely following the recommendation Inforwars.com first exclusively published on April 28, 2017.

In a press release issued from the White House on Thursday, President Trump announced that based on guidance from the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services has concluded that there is no appropriation for cost-sharing reduction payments to insurance companies under Obamacare.

“In light of this analysis, the Government cannot lawfully make the cost-sharing reduction payments,” the White House press release stated.

 

The press release went on to explain that the House of Representatives sued the previous administration in Federal court for making these payments without such an appropriation, and the court agreed that the payments were not lawful.

“The bailout of insurance companies through these unlawful payments is yet another example of how the previous administration abused taxpayer dollars and skirted the law to prop up a broken system,” the press release concluded.

Congress needs to repeal and replace the disastrous Obamacare law and provide real relief to the American people.

In a separate press release from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Acting Secretary Eric Hargan and the Centers for Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma released the following statement announcing that cost-sharing reductions payments will be discontinued immediately based on a legal opinion from the Attorney General:

“It has been clear for many years that Obamacare is bad policy.  It is also bad law. The Obama Administration unfortunately went ahead and made CSR payments to insurance companies after requesting – but never ultimately receiving – an appropriation from Congress as required by law.

“In 2014, the House of Representatives was forced to sue the previous Administration to stop this unconstitutional executive action. In 2016, a federal court ruled that the Administration had circumvented the appropriations process, and was unlawfully using unappropriated money to fund reimbursements due to insurers.

“After a thorough legal review by HHS, Treasury, OMB, and an opinion from the Attorney General, we believe that the last Administration overstepped the legal boundaries drawn by our Constitution.  Congress has not appropriated money for CSRs, and we will discontinue these payments immediately.”

The article Infowars.com published on April 28, 2017, had advised that President Trump could put an end to Obamacare on his own, without requiring Congress to take any action at all.

The article next asked how that was possible?

What follows is the answer to that question that Infowars.com published in April.

All President Trump must do to “repeal” Obamacare is sign an Executive Order instructing the Solicitor General to withdraw the Obama administration’s appeal in the federal district court case U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, (130 F. Supp. 3d 53, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 2016).

The result will be to immediately defund the low-income insurance company subsidies being paid by the federal government under Section 1402 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), causing Obamacare to collapse, almost immediately.

The point is Congress never funded any taxpayer funds to pay the low-income insurance subsidies that are at the heart of making the ACA work.

What is at issue is Section 1402 of the ACA – a section written to provide federal subsidies to insurance companies for insurance purchased on state insurance exchanges to cover the difference between the capped maximum a low-income purchaser could be expected to pay and the amount the insurance cost.

Without funds provided by Congress to pay the low-income insurance subsidies under 1402, Obamacare collapses almost immediately.

No insurance company can long afford to provide low-income health insurance at a discount, unless the federal government pays the difference between what the insurance truly costs and the limited amount low-income purchasers can pay.

The problem is that Congress refused to pass an appropriation to fund Section 1402, leaving the Obama administration scrambling to find funds somewhere else in the federal budget that could be diverted to pay the low-income insurance subsidies.

Infowars.com has proved through an analysis of the Treasury Department balance sheets that the Obama administration found a solution in August 2012, when the Treasury Department decided that earnings confiscated from the Government-Sponsored Entities (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the “Net Worth Sweep” (NWS), could be diverted to pay the ACA low-income insurance subsidies.

The record contained in the Treasury Department balance sheets shows through 2013 a direct diversion of the NWS into line items used to fund Obamacare.

After 2013, the Obama administration continued the NWS (ultimately confiscating some $260 billion from Fannie and Freddie), but the one-for-one diversion of the Fannie and Freddie funds going into line items used to fund Obamacare is less clear, suggesting Treasury grew more clever after 2013 in hiding the diversion within the Treasury general account used as a slush fund.

The House of Representatives filed a federal district court case against then Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell to stop the Obamacare from diverting federal funds to pay the ACA low-income subsidies.

On May 12, 2016, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, in the case U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, ruled against Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell.

Judge Collyer decided HHS Secretary Burwell had no constitutional authority to divert funds Congress appropriated to one section of the ACA to fund Obamacare subsidy payments to insurers under another section of the ACA, Section 1402 – the clause defining the insurer subsidies – when Congress specifically declined to appropriate any funds to Section 1402 for paying the insurance subsidy.

“Paying out Section 1402 reimbursements without an appropriation thus violates the Constitution,” Judge Collyer concluded.

“Congress authorized reduced cost sharing but did not appropriate monies for it, in the Fiscal Year 2014 budget or since,” she stressed.

The Obama administration appealed the District Court decision in U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, deciding on its own authority that federal funds could continue to be diverted from other budgetary purposes to continue paying the insurance subsidies as long as the case was under appeal.

The point is that if the Trump administration simply decided to drop the Circuit Court appeal in Burwell, the District Court decision would become established law.

The result would be the Trump administration would be forbidden from diverting federal funds to pay the ACA insurance subsidies, with the result Obama care would implode.

“The Obama administration appealed the decision, but if the Trump administration were to drop that appeal, the subsidies would disappear,” commented Julie Rovner, Kaiser Health News, in an article published on April 9, 2017.

If insurance companies were forced to take a loss by absorbing the cost above what low-income insured could afford to pay for the insurance coverage required under Obamacare, no insurance company could afford to provide health insurance to low-income insureds under the ACA.

Once President Trump withdraws the Obama administration appeal in U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, Obamacare becomes history.

To revive Obamacare, Congress would have to pass a resolution funding ACA Section 1402, something even RINOs like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell might find politically suicidal to do.

YouTube Employee Uses Algorithms to Promote Black Lives Matter Videos

In a video announcement released on September 18th, Project Veritas founder and guerrilla journalist James O’Keefe warned his organization was currently operating one of the biggest ever investigations into the mainstream media’s ‘holy grail,’ promising media people will likely lose their jobs over the imminent exposé.

 

As previously reported, James O’Keefe released part one of his ‘American Pravda’ series with CNN on June 27th and subsequently released 2 more videos exposing CNN for reporting on the Russian collusion “Nothing Burger”.

O’Keefe says his goal is to expose the real motivation behind the decision making process in our dominant media corporation. The Russia story has dominated CNN. Since the inauguration, CNN has mentioned Russia on air nearly 16,000 times.

Early Tuesday morning, O’Keefe teased that he recorded the New York Times in a tweet to President Trump.

Project Veritas released part one Tuesday morning. It’s a video of the New York Times video gatekeeper Nicholas Dudich, who was caught on hidden-camera boasting of his lack of journalistic ethics. Dudich, who serves as Audience Strategy Editor, displays a lack of integrity throughout the video, manages videos which go “on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram” for the Times.

 

Wednesday morning, O’Keefe dropped part two–exploiting and manipulating the news. (transcribed via Veritas)

Project Veritas has released its second New York Times video, again featuring Audience Strategy Editor Nicholas Dudich. This time, the video gatekeeper describes how he can influence the news by manipulating social media and employing the help of his friends in Silicon Valley.

“As an editor, I’m a gatekeeper so I can choose what goes out and what doesn’t go out. And let’s say we wrote something about Facebook negatively… We actually just did a video about Facebook negatively, and I chose to put it in a spot that I knew wouldn’t do well.”

Dudich admits he has friends in Silicon Valley who help his videos trend. He buried the Facebook story because of his personal biases, and to protect his friends in Silicon Valley, which is in conflict with the New York Times mission.

When asked if it’s good for business to have Silicon Valley connections, Dudich replied, “Yeah. Very good. Very, very good.”

Dudich goes on to explain why he doesn’t want anyone at The Times to know about his connections:

“Let’s say something ends up on the YouTube front page, New York Times freaks out about it, but they don’t know it’s just because my friends curate the front page. So, it’s like, a little bit of mystery you need in any type of job to make it look like what you do is harder than what it is.”

Now this…

O’Keefe released a bonus clip on Thursday of YouTube employee, Earnest Pettie claiming he makes sure Black Lives Matter videos get discovered on YouTube.

Watch Earnest Pettie talk about making sure people associated with Black Lives Matter are on YouTube. He then uses the algorithms to promote the group.

Video Via Project Veritas:

Conservatives Call On Mitch McConnell To Resign

Conservatives are fed up.

A slew of prominent conservatives, from Tea Party Patriots to Freedom Works to the Senate Conservatives Fund are calling for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — along with top Senate GOP leadership — to resign over their inability to get anything done.

“It’s time for new leadership,” FreedomWorks President Adam Brandon said in a statement. “Mitch McConnell has been a failure in the Senate and has cost Republicans almost a year of victories. He has demonstrated that he either does not understand the frustration coming from conservatives and the urgency of passing key legislation – or he does not care.”

In a lengthy letter signed by Brandon, Ken Cuccinelli, president of the Senate Conservatives Fund, Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, David Bozell, president of For America, the leaders outline their complaints.

2017 has been a disappointing year for the millions of Americans who fully expected, and had every right to expect real change in Washington. Republicans were given full control of the federal government. They – you – have done nothing. Worse, it is painfully clear that you intend to do nothing because, as is most apparent, you had no intention of honoring your solemn commitments to the American people. You were not going to “drain the swamp.”

You are the swamp. You and the rest of your leadership team were given the majority because you pledged to stop the steady flow of illegal immigration. You have done nothing. You pledged to reduce the size of this oppressive federal government. You have done nothing. You pledged to reduce, and ultimately eliminate the out-of-control deficit spending that is bankrupting America. You have done nothing.

You promised to repeal Obamacare, “root and branch.” You have done nothing. You promised tax reform. You have done nothing.

You don’t even show up for work.

Read the whole letter here.

The leaders are particularly miffed about the failure to replace Obamacare.

President Trump reasonably asked when he arrived in the White House “Where is the bill?” After seven long years, you didn’t have a bill ready to go. You scheduled no committee hearings when you knew some in your caucus would not tolerate a bill without hearings. You had no plan at all.

America has not forgotten that Obamacare does not apply to you. You and your leadership team saw to that, even when far more ethical members of Congress tried to change that slippery exemption. That is not “leadership.” That’s cronyism, and precisely why the American people want the swamp drained.

Martin, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, said in a statement posted on teapartypatriots.org:

Perhaps if Congress were not benefiting from its illegal special exemption from ObamaCare, if members of the House and Senate and their staffs were actually living under the law the way it was written, paying the full price and bearing the same burdens that the rest of us have to live with, they’d understand just how painful ObamaCare really is, and they’d have a personal stake in repealing it.

But as long as Mitch McConnell is Majority Leader of the United States Senate, that illegal special exemption for Congress is going to stay in place.

All these failures have one thing in common – they represent a FAILURE of LEADERSHIP.

Mitch McConnell has had his chance. He has failed to deliver. It is TIME FOR HIM TO GO.

Ouch. So much yelling!

From: Daily Wire

Cry Baby Hypocrite: Jimmy Kimmel’s Sexual Misconduct Has Just Emerged

Jimmy Kimmel is all about justice and anti-Trump jokes. We’ve seen him on TV and let’s just say that we can’t stand his bragging. The comedian thinks he’s funny with all the jokes he makes about President Trump. Making jokes is fine until you cross the red line. Kimmel has just crossed it.

Kimmel seems to be trying to do the right thing. But, why didn’t he say anything about his sexual misconduct in the past. 

There’s a video of Kimmel, and it is everything you need to see at the moment. In this video, Kimmel asks multiple women to play a little game and touch his genitals. Can you believe this? Yes, that’s the very same Kimmel who wants you to believe that he is the good guy.

“Here he has women feel his crotch to guess what he stuffed in his pants. KIMMEL: “You should put your mouth on it,” the description reads. Wow, we never thought that Kimmel would do anything like this.

<blockquote class=”twitter-tweet” data-lang=”en”><p lang=”en” dir=”ltr”>More gems from <a href=”https://twitter.com/hashtag/Kimmel?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw”>#Kimmel</a>. <br>Here he has women feel his crotch to guess what he stuffed in his pants. <br>KIMMEL: &quot;You should put your mouth on it&quot; <a href=”https://t.co/Yv0MVN9vPw”>pic.twitter.com/Yv0MVN9vPw</a></p>&mdash; Austen Fletcher (@fleccas) <a href=”https://twitter.com/fleccas/status/917945914790002693?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw”>October 11, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src=”//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js” charset=”utf-8″></script>

 

We all know that Kimmel doesn’t like President Trump? He has already made a few disturbing jokes about him,

“At this point, I’m not sure Donald Trump could finish the maze on the backs of a Denny’s kids’ menu. I’d pay $100 to watch Rex Tillerson and Donald Trump take IQ tests against each other,” the comedian said. Yes, he went this far.

 

Maybe Kimmel will stop doing this after he watches this video of him. He should no longer make comments on President Trump. He should better focus on his reputation. This video says it all, and maybe he will reconsider his moves from the past. Who knows…

From: State Fort

It’s Not Just Weinstein — Entertainment Industry is a “Rape Culture”

It’s not just Harvey Weinstein.

Weinstein is accused of using his powerful position in Hollywood to serially abuse women, particularly models and actresses.  At least 20 women have now accused Weinstein, who is a major Demoratic donor and fundraiser, of sexually harassing them. The New Yorker published a bombshell report containing graphic details of Weinstein’s abuse of several women, three of whom accused him of raping them.

That Weinstein was sexually abusive is said to have been an open secret among Hollywood elites.

But Weinstein is far from alone. The entertainment industry is filled with men accused of sex abuse.

Rapper R. Kelly was accused in July of running an abusive sex cult out of his home. Kelly allegedly made teenage girls sign nondisclosure agreements, before forcing them to be his personal sex slaves.

Legendary film director Woody Allen is still writing and directing star-studded films despite his own sex abuse scandal.

Allen was accused of sexually abusing his adopted daughter when she was as young as seven years old. Allen’s son, Ronan Farrow — who broke the bombshell New Yorker report on Weinstein — wrote a column last year describing the media’s complicity in keeping his father’s alleged abuses out of the public eye. Allen is still welcome among Hollywood elites: his upcoming movie “Wonder Wheel” will star Kate Winslet and Justin Timberlake.

Director and producer Roman Polanski was accused of drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl in 1977. He later pled guilty to the lesser charge of statutory rape but avoided prison by fleeing the country to Poland, where he has successfully fought efforts to extradite him to the United States. Four different women have now accused Polanski of sexually abusing them as teens.

Polanski’s sexual abuse scandals haven’t kept him from popularity among Hollywood elite.

An audience full of movie stars, including actress Meryl Streep, gave Polanski a standing ovation at the 2003 Academy Awards.

Polanski continues producing films today.

“The truth is that Harvey Weinstein was able to get away with what he did for so long because Hollywood, led by two-faced Ms Streep, doesn’t really give a damn about powerful men abusing young women,” Daily Mail columnist Piers Morgan wrote on Wednesday. “That’s why they cheer Polanski and still finance and star in his movies.”

Mark Salling, the former star of “Glee,” pled guilty to child porn charges earlier this month. Salling is expected to serve between four and seven years in prison. He was previously accused of rape, although police never brought charges. (RELATED: Investigate Hollywood, Mr. President)

Actor Corey Feldman has said that he and another actor, Corey Haim, were repeatedly sexually abused as child actors by men in the movie industry. Pedophilia, Feldman said, is more prominent in Hollywood than the public realizes.

Feldman said he “would love to name names” but fears getting sued if he does. At least one of his accusers, he said in 2016, is “still prominently in the business today.”

Director Victor Salva pled guilty to five felony accounts related to his abuse of a 12-year-old child actor. Salva served three years in prison but remains active today. Earlier this month, The Daily Beast described Salva as “The Pedophile Director Embraced by Hollywood.”

Actor John Travolta has faced a string of sexual abuse claims. Documents published by Gawker in 2013 revealed that Travolta’s insurer paid out $84,000 the previous year in regard to sexual assault claims against Travolta. At least seven different men have accused Travolta of sexually abusing them.

Fox News host and Daily Caller co-founder Tucker Carlson has said the Department of Justice should investigate Hollywood’s culture of “systematic sexual abuse.”

From: Daily Caller

NRA Opposes New Bump Fire Stock Ban Bill

Bill’s language may reach far beyond bump fire stocks

 

The National Rifle Association announced on Wednesday its opposition to a new bill that would ban any firearm part that effectively increases the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle.

“We are opposed to the Feinstein and Curbelo legislation,” Jennifer Baker, a spokesperson for the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, told the Washington Free Beacon.

The legislation, introduced by Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R., Fla.) and cosponsored by 10 representatives from each party, is intended to be a response to the Las Vegas shooting, where a number of the rifles found at the scene were equipped with bump fire stocks. The text of the bill goes beyond banning bump fire stocks, however. Instead, in addition to banning bump fire stocks and requiring their surrendering or confiscation, it bans and requires the surrendering or confiscation of any part that increases how quickly a semi-automatic rifle can be fired.

“It shall be unlawful for any person—in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun,” the bill reads, “or to manufacture, possess, or transfer any such part or combination of parts that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.’”

The language of the bill may ban the manufacture, sale, or possession of aftermarket triggers, bolts, or other components that have any effect on increasing a rifle’s rate of fire. The ban would go into effect 90 days after the enactment of the bill into law.

“For the first time in decades, there is growing bipartisan consensus for sensible gun policy, a polarizing issue that has deeply divided Republicans and Democrats,” Curbelo said in a statement. “This common-sense legislation will ban devices that blatantly circumvent already existing law without restricting Second Amendment rights.”

Curbelo’s colleague, Rep. Seth Moulton (D., Mass.), said Congress could do more on the issue, but the bill represents a “crucial starting point.”

“I am proud to be leading on the only bipartisan effort to take action in the wake of this tragedy,” Rep. Moulton said in a statement. “We can always be doing more, but this bill is a crucial starting point. Congress needs to take a serious look, after every crisis, at whether a law consistent with the Second Amendment would have prevented it. It is time for Democrats and Republicans alike to find the courage to act.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), who has introduced bills with similar wording in previous years, said calls from the NRA and others for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to reexamine the legality of bump fire stocks were not enough.

“The ATF lacks authority under the law to ban bump fire stocks,” Feinstein said. “Period. The agency made this crystal clear in a 2013 letter to Congress, writing that ‘stocks of this type are not subject to the provisions of federal firearms statutes.’ Legislation is the only answer and Congress shouldn’t attempt to pass the buck.”

The ATF has explained its classification process for firearms and firearms accessories but has not yet said whether they will review their decision on bump fire stocks.

From: Washington Free Beacon