A so-called “instant” bridge collapsed in Miami early this afternoon just days after its installation, reportedly trapping pedestrians underneath.
The bridge was installed by Florida International University to give students a safer crossing over, rather than across, the busy seven-lane Tamiami Trail.
The main span is 174 feet long. Pictures from the scene show most of the span collapsed and pancaked.
CNN is reporting that multiple people have been killed. Possibly a dozen dead.
(CNN)Multiple people have died as a result of a pedestrian bridge collapse at Florida International University in Miami, according to a spokesman with the Florida Highway Patrol.
Instant bridge? Not quite, but in a single morning Florida International University dropped a new elevated pedestrian span into place over the Tamiami Trail to provide students a safe route over the perilous roadway for the first time.
Once it’s finished in early 2019, the new pedestrian bridge will link FIU’s Modesto A. Maidique Campus directly to the small suburban city of Sweetwater, where the university estimates 4,000 of its students live.
A pedestrian bridge under construction collapsed Thursday, just days after crews dropped an elevated 950-ton span in place in a project that was intended to give Florida International University students a safe route across the busy roadway.
The bridge crashed across six lanes of heavily traveled Tamiami Trail, crushing a still undetermined number of car and killing a still unclear number of people. Police on the scene said at least six people could be dead. The Florida Highway Patrol reported five or six cars were trapped under the bridge. Miami-Dade County police said at least eight cars had been crushed under the walkway, which was not yet open to student traffic.
NOQ Staff Contributors: Eric Dixon & Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
Supreme Court Schadenfreude: Mainstreaming the Left’s Demands for Gun confiscation.
While many Liberty Grabbers hailed the mainstreaming of the subject of Gun Confiscation, many others realised it was a supreme mistake to do so.
While we on the Pro-liberty, Conservative-Right fully realise that the Left’s jihad against freedom is deadly serious. However, there are moments when it’s duplicity makes for what can only be described as pure schadenfreude. The Left’s increasingly shrill attacks against Liberty, with particular emphasis on the basic human right of self-defence poses a dilemma for them. On the one hand, they have to rally the troops, keeping them focused on the prize of Gun Confiscation. Meanwhile, they have to vehemently deny their obvious goal of Gun Confiscation to everyone else.
So, given the Left’s two-faced war against liberty, it was quite amusing to see the reaction to retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’ New York Times piece demanding a repeal of the Second Amendment.
While many a Leftist hailed another coming out of the authoritarian closet, others were not very delighted with the prospect that their Gun grabbing goal having just become mainstream. Twitter sprung to life with the subject with three camps. Most of the Liberty defending Right condemned this gross example of Leftist overreach. While the enemies of Liberty on the Left either praised or tried to downplay this outing of their final solution.
The Liberty Grabbers were all a Twitter.
Joy Reid’s twitter feed had some choice conversations unmasking the national Socialist Left’s “negotiating strategy” – accept the ‘crumbs’ of your common sense human rights or lose it all:
27 Mar 2018
Retired Justice Stevens goes there.
27 Mar 2018
No, no, this is good Joy! Tell someone they stand a chance of losing all their guns and suddenly sensible gun control seems like the best idea they’ve ever heard. That’s how I see this going 🙂 Cause, suddenly, repealing seems actually possible. wild
Replying to @ShilohFoxRoslin
27 Mar 2018
As a negotiating strategy you are absolutely right.
Replying to @brandon_r_horan @JoyAnnReid
27 Mar 2018
Nah. We tried to compromise but they wouldn’t. Now they lose everything.
The National Socialist Media realises this was a Supreme mistake.
But it was the articles reacting to this totalitarian coming out party of the former ‘Justice’ that turned the schadenfreeude up to eleven. First up was the Washington post with the piece entitled: John Paul Stevens’s supremely unhelpful call to repeal the Second Amendment
It bluntly made the point in it’s first sentence:
One of the biggest threats to the recovery of the Democratic Party these days is overreach.
A party that was once afraid of being saddled with supporting “government-run” health care is increasingly okay with the word “liberal” and even voted in droves for a self-described socialist in 2016. And its 2020 hopefuls are leading the leftward charge.
It is also infuriating enough that a party going after Liberty by depriving people of their most basic of human rights would dare label itself with the term ‘Liberal’. But that’s a discussion for another day.
The real ‘red meat’ came later:
But rarely do we see such an unhelpful, untimely and fanciful idea as the one put forward by retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens.
In a New York Times op-ed on Tuesday, Stevens calls for a repeal of the Second Amendment. The move might as well be considered an in-kind contribution to the National Rifle Association, to Republicans’ efforts to keep the House and Senate in 2018, and to President Trump’s 2020 reelection bid. In one fell swoop, Stevens has lent credence to the talking point that the left really just wants to get rid of gun ownership and reasserted the need for gun-rights supporters to prevent his ilk from ever being appointed again (with the most obvious answer being: Vote Republican).
One can almost hear the Leftists whispering “icksnay on the gun ban ray” in reaction to a demand for the destruction of ‘reasonable’ human right of self-preservation.
Then there is this other example in the same tone from NBC news whose title says it all: How calls for a Second Amendment repeal could easily backfire for gun control advocates.
The author buries this deep in the piece after copious amounts of Liberty Control propaganda:
Thus, by framing the debate in terms of absolute repeal, Justice Stevens’s Times piece may therefore have the complete opposite of its intended effect — implying that common-sense reform proposals wouldn’t be constitutional today and satisfying the narrative that many gun rights supporters have been using to oppose those proposals on policy grounds.
The phrase ‘No kidding’ comes to mind. The fact is we oppose their ‘common-sense reform(s)’ because they are stepping-stones to gun confiscation. The Liberty grabbers obsess over Intergalactic Background Checks because they are the precursors to registration followed by CONFISCATION. That fact should be plain to everyone.
It is easy to see why the national Socialist-Left has to balance on the razor’s edge of duplicity on this subject. They at once have to deny that they are demanding gun confiscation while demanding gun confiscation.
While this is a deadly serious game they are playing, one can only laugh when they quibble amongst themselves on how to best lie about the subject. Perhaps that is why those of us on the Conservative-Right find so much enjoyment at the Left’s discomfiture. It is always supremely satisfying to see Liars caught in their web of deceit, foretelling what exactly will happen to those who cannot further their agenda without such practices.
The Biblical phase: “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Has never had so much relevance.
The Republican Party showed its true stripes and proved David Leach right all along
Over the recent years, the Republican Party told us that they needed control of the House. We gave them the House. Then they said we can’t do enough, we need the Senate. We gave them the Senate. Then they said we can’t do enough, we need the White House. We gave them the White House, even if it’s not the guy they really want. But now I turn on the cable news shows and they now say they just have a thin majority.
Can’t the Republican Party make some kind of stand for little “r” republicanism? Can’t it make a stand for conservatism? Can’t it make a statement for liberty and freedom? Can’t it make a statement for private property rights? Now it needs a greater majority that is basically mission impossible, especially in the Senate.
The Republicans overwhelmingly have decided to pass the omnibus bill which was put together by mostly progressive thinking lobbyists. Granted military spending will be increased but so will the Democrats beloved welfare programs which they have used to buy votes and gain more and more power. It will also fund Planned Parenthood which in spite of shining a light on shady dealings of fetal parts, getting abortions for underage girls under the table, or not really investing in pap smears or mammograms as it will continue to keep its bread and butter of pre-born baby murder going strong. I really believe that many politicians in both parties benefit from abortion due to the fact they seek constant sexual flings with just about any women who work under them as these young ladies try to move ahead in their careers.
The Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer (his pet projects will be funded) are so happy with this bill cause they know it’s only going to benefit Washington and the Democrat Party.
For all the faults Rand Paul has, including his support of Mitch McConnell’s last election campaign, I have to give him credit for speaking out against this current omnibus spending bill. It seems that if the Democrats want to spend more of the taxpayers’ money it is wrong. If the Republicans want to spend more money, than its OK…but it should not be OK.
Sadly conservatives who have not read Pastor Cary Gordon’s book A Storm A Message A Bottle http://cornerstoneworld.org/a_storm_a_message_a_bottle or watched his series of animated videos Five Steps to Political Epiphany. http://stepstopoliticalepiphany.com/ They will protest the election by sitting out the election, instead of using their write-in blank or third-party options since Duverger’s law forbids this. Meanwhile, President Trump might go down in history as the bigger spender than Barack Obama.
We can’t any longer tolerate any more excuses. Regardless if the Democratic left is in the majority or the minority they seem to have the power in the elected branches of government. They have the power in other areas of government no matter what. We can learn one thing from Bible Believing Christians when they start a new denomination when breaking away from a bigger one. They break away because the establishment in the old denomination they are breaking away from does not repent of their apostasy (while claiming new truths). They try and they try, but like the American Gladiator event Pyramid they just knock you down to the bottom time and again. The only thing you can do is to let them go their way and let the denomination implode as they try to prevent themselves from being corrupted. It proves Jesus that you can’t put new wine into old sheepskins. We must do the same thing and try to build a new political party that can replace the Republican Party. The Grand Old Party is not what it used to be.
Mr. President, you made a choice and that choice was to sign the bill and take what you can get. Conservatives like myself, Steve Deace and Mark Levin, would call this a betrayal of conservatism. Either you are naive and/or a fool about politics, or a true charlatan, or something in between. All I can say to you is only “proved” that Benjamin Wilhelm and David Leach correct, and it will show in this midterm election. You screwed the pooch just as the Republican Party elite has done many times before, and the Democrats wildest dreams are coming true. Your likely impeachment, single-party rule, making America a new Soviet Union or some kind of socialist experiment, and the Democrats desire to become Demi-Gods.
Your own words you said on TV so many times are coming back right at you like a boomerang…”You’re Fired.”
An open letter to Sen. Lamar Alexander, US Senate on the nomination of Chai Feldblum
The Honorable Lamar Alexander
Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions committee
United States Senate
CC United States Senators
March 17, 2018
Dear Senator Alexander,
It has come to my attention that President Trump has re-nominated Chai Feldblum to her position as commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This news has brought me grave concern.
On behalf of the American people, it is up to you and the rest of the Senate to remedy this unfortunate situation.
As you are aware, the EEOC deals with cases of workplace discrimination; having the power to enforce federal laws, investigate discrimination complaints, regulate and pursue legal charges against private businesses, and influence public opinion. It is imperative that any federal agency entrusted with such powers be steered by the conscientious counsel of unbiased leadership.
A former college basketball coach once said, “Offense is not equal opportunity.” However, since her appointment by former President Obama in 2010, Ms. Feldblum has exploited her position at the EEOC to offensively further her own fanatical advocacy goals at the expense of religiously-oriented American citizens, the Bill of Rights be damned.
Religious liberty, inviolable and protected from governmental infringement by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, is richly ingrained in our country’s values, having been secured by the blood of our ancestors. In fact, religious liberty, often referred to by the Founders as freedom of conscience, was considered by early Americans to be so precious that, even in the midst of America’s fight for independence, conscience objections were considered sacrosanct.
Consider the words of America’s first President, George Washington, in a letter to Benedict Arnold during America’s Revolutionary War:
“While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the conscience of others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to Him only in this case are they answerable.”
For Chai Feldblum, however, religious freedom must be subjugated with the full force of the government’s ugly fist.
She is, in a word, tyrannical.
Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines tyranny as “a rigorous [strict] condition imposed by some outside agency or force,” as imposed by a tyrant.
A tyrant is defined as “one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power.”
Ms. Feldblum has made several deeply troubling statements that betray her tyrannical intentions, wholly at odds with America’s founding principles:
- “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win… Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner (emphasis mine).”
- “I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if ‘pockets of resistance’ to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people (emphasis mine).”
Ms. Feldblum’s seditious statements are in dramatic contrast to what Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1774, in Emblematic Representations:
“The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy (emphasis mine)”
In addition, Ms. Feldblum’s thesis on the proper role of government is unequivocally incompatible with the words spoken by President Thomas Jefferson during his first inaugural address, 1801:
“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”
Chai Feldblum’s offensive advocacy through the EEOC is so extreme and outside of Constitutional bounds that, in 2012, the usually divided Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously against Feldblum’s EEOC attempt to void the “Ministerial Exemption,” which allows leeway for religious organizations to carry out routine, religiously-related matters of hiring and terminating employees.
While Ms. Feldblum claims to represent the LGBTQ+ community, she speaks only for a small, yet loud portion of the demographic; one comprised almost entirely of radical LGBTQ+ activists.
In truth, Ms. Feldblum’s fanatical, extremist, ideologically-driven agenda only serves to marginalize a significant portion of sexual minorities, in addition to women and countless Americans of religious orthodoxy.
Ignoring the conservative, sexual minorities who disapprove of the forced subjugation of religious Americans, Ms. Feldblum propagates stereotypes of the various people she claims to represent, and actively encourages neighbors to go to war with neighbors.
Feldblum insists on a “zero-sum” game, where religious Americans and members of the LGBTQ+ community are incapable of living peaceably side-by-side. As the architect of former President Obama’s Transgender executive order, Feldblum further victimizes traumatized women and children, insisting they must tolerate an unsafe existence, as grown men are ushered into their locker rooms and bathrooms in the name of “progress.” Feldblum insists on subjugating religious, yet same-sex attracted business owners in the private market, drastically hindering their pursuit of happiness through economic independence. Feldblum insists that all LGBTQ+ Americans think as she does.
Ms. Feldblum is a tyrant; wholly unworthy of another five years at the helm of the EEOC.
Speaking on the sacredness of religious liberty in America, Samuel Adams stated, August 1, 1776:
“Driven from every other corner of the earth freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum.”
The responsibility, Senator Alexander, now rests with you and the Senate to protect religious liberty as vigorously and as confidently as our Founding Fathers.
If you fail to perform this duty, this great test of your legacy as one of the leaders of the free world, may the words of Samuel Adams haunt you for the remainder of your days:
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
Paige Rogers, Tennessee