What Article V Actually Says

Increasing frustration with Federal overreaches and abuses of governmental power has resulted in many Americans returning to the Foundations of the United States to find solutions. It was known from the start that all governments are essentially a necessary evil – that in time, no matter how bound by supreme laws of the land, governments would become destructive of the very ends for which the people originally created them.

In the case of the U.S. Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights, our Founders did absolutely brilliant work to provide separation of powers, limited duties and authorities and checks and balances aimed at preventing that inevitability. They also assumed that sooner or later, the inevitable would come to pass, despite their efforts to prevent it – and they provided numerous remedies as well.

In recent years, one such remedy has been heavily promoted by some searching for a solution to Federal tyranny – The Article V Convention of States. The group leading the charge on this initiative is Citizens for Self-Governance and their web site for this project is found at www.ConventionofStates.com

In reviewing this proposed solution, I will work from the statements found at the Convention of States web FAQ page as well as Article V text itself.

First, the actual text of Article V

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.” (Source)

Next, the definition of a Constitutional Convention

Any meeting between Congress and the States in which the stated purpose of the meeting is to amend the United States Constitution, is by definition, a Constitutional Convention. The power to amend the U.S. Constitution is derived from Article V. Congress may propose and pass amendments to the Constitution without a “convention.” None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution, later sent to the States for ratification.

However, for the amendment process to begin from the states, 2/3 of the State Legislatures must apply to Congress to convene a “convention” for the purpose of considering proposed constitutional amendments being offered by the States. In either case, the same amendment process begins. The States cannot amend the Federal Constitution outside of a Constitutional Convention. They can only force Congress to convene a convention for that purpose and propose amendments for consideration.

The Amendment Process

The Amendment Process is very cut-n-dry. The process can begin either by Congress passing Joint Resolutions sent to the States for ratification, or by 2/3 of the State legislatures applying to Congress to convene a Constitutional Convention.

In either case, Congress will oversee the process, consider proposed amendments and determine which amendments will be sent back to the States for ratification. No amendment is adopted until this process has completed and at least ¾ of the States have officially ratified the amendments. (Source)

Statements by Citizens for Self-Governance

On their FAQ page, the Convention of States initiative answers the following key questions…

What is a Convention of States?

Answer: “A convention of states is a convention called by the state legislatures for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution.”

Clear enough, right… The initiative seeks to amend the Federal Constitution by having 2/3 of the States apply to Congress to convene a convention for that purpose. But then the answer continues with this text – “They are given power to do this under Article V of the Constitution. It is not a constitutional convention.”

By definition, it IS a “Constitutional Convention” they are applying to Congress to convene. The minute Congress “shall” convene, the prescribed Amendment Process begins.

How Do the State Legislatures Call a Convention of States?

Answer: “Thirty-four state legislatures must pass a resolution called an “application” calling for a Convention of States. The applications must request a Convention of the States for the same subject matter. The applications are delivered to Congress.”

Indeed, 2/3 of the State legislatures can apply to Congress to convene a convention for the purpose of hearing proposed amendments to the Constitution. In the end, ¾ of the States must ratify amendments passed at the convention and sent to the states for ratification, or the entire process is moot.

There is some word-smithing involved here… They continually refer to this convention as a “Convention of States,” when in fact, by definition, they are applying to Congress to convene a “constitutional convention.”

A Number of other Falsehoods

“As long as each states applies for a convention that deals with the same issue (i.e., limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government), Congress must call the convention.”

It is true that upon the application of 2/3 of the State legislatures, Congress “shall call” the convention, setting the time, place and process for considering amendments to the Constitution. It is false that Congress has no convening authority over that convention. Read the Amendment Process.

“The text, history, and purpose of Article V all point to the ability of the states to limit a convention to the consideration of a single topic or set of topics.”

As already stated, this process has never been attempted. All existing amendments to the U.S. Constitution were passed by Congressional Joint Resolution and sent to the States for ratification. Never in our history has 2/3 of the States applied to Congress to convene a constitutional convention on their behalf, for the stated purpose of amending the Constitution.

The theory that Congress will have no say, or that the convention can be limited or controlled by the States throughout the amendment process is just that, a theory. It has never been attempted, much less accomplished.

Some point to the Bill of Rights as an example of success. However, the Bill of Rights was actually largely agreed to during the ratification of the Constitution itself, and immediately adopted after, in order to secure the ratification of the Constitution.

Closing Statement

Yes, 2/3 of the States can apply to Congress to convene a convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution.

Yes, Congress “shall” convene upon that application by the States

Yes, the States can attempt to limit and control the scope of the amendments, with no guarantees whatsoever

No, the States cannot amend the U.S. Constitution free from any Congressional oversight

Yes, the entire Amendment Process must ensue and be completed before any amendments will have been adopted.

Further, State legislatures are constantly changing as well. By the time you can get 2/3 of the States to file an application with Congress, the make-up of those legislatures will be different than when the process began. So, there will be no way to predict what amendments will be proposed by the time that a convention could be convened, or the outcome of it.

Last, I understand that some “experts” are pushing this solution as if it could work the way they say. Don’t ask me why they do this, I do not know.

But true constitutionalists seeking to reign in a runaway federal government would simply seek to enforce existing Constitutional text, rather than amending it. In truth, a serious effort to reign in the federal government would focus on repealing several existing amendments, rather than adding to them with amendments we cannot control.

‘Trump wins’ on travel ban/refugee restrictions, or does he?

On the surface it might appear that the Trump Administration has won an important victory in the Supreme Court which ruled just a few hours ago on the so-called “travel ban” Executive Order, but in my view the Court has created an enormous bureaucratic mess, not to mention having re-written Refugee law! What were they thinking???

I know, I know, they will decide the case on the merits after hearing it next fall (and this decision does show where they are leaning), but from now until then there will be nothing but chaos and controversy relating to travel from the 6 countries and regarding the refugee admissions CEILING.  Remember readers, I am not a legal beagle, but the minute I heard some of the convoluted balancing of equities argument I thought my head would explode!

The gist of the decision is that Trump (the President) can halt immigration from the six (although incomplete list) of terror-producing countries unless the wannabe entrant (for any purpose) “can credibly claim a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

So, I guess  that means the court has decided in advance who the potential terrorists are and that they can’t possibly be someone who has a relative here already or is coming to college at the University of Hawaii (or any college) or connected to any “entity” (a VOLAG perhaps!).

Of greater interest to me is that, although Trump can have his refugee admissions ceiling of 50,000 (remember CEILING is not a target), but the ceiling can be surpassed (says the majority opinion) in the remaining months of this fiscal year  (up to September 30th) if the wannabe refugees have relatives here (what if 10,000, 20,000 and so forth have relatives here!).

Can you see the potential for fraud as all over the world, migrants wishing to get to America are scrambling to have relatives or a bona fide entity with which to associate themselves.

So, in effect the Supreme Court (led by Chief Justice Roberts) has just rewritten the Refugee Act of 1980!

The Act allows the President to exceed his designated ceiling (and here they agree it is 50,000!) only by making a case for an emergency and consulting with Congress.  Well, forget that! Looks like the Supreme Court is now determining the number of refugees to be admitted to America.

(I concede real lawyers might have a different interpretation, but reading the Court’s decision today one wonders if they read the Refugee Act!).

Here in the dissent written by Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch you can clearly see the bureaucratic and legal mess the Court has thrown to a State Department not firmly in the White House’s control, not to mention the parade of court cases the three dissenting Justices envision.

Here is the opinion.  I invite you all to make up your own minds, send comments with your analysis.

Here is the portion of the dissent that says it all:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Court partly reinstates Trump travel ban

Will President Trump restrict welfare use by refugees too?

“I’m the victim” said refugee sentenced for sex crimes in Canada, no one told me I couldn’t do this

Did Sec. of State Tillerson’s right hand man, Brian Hook, set a major policy shift on refugees?

Refugee contractors brought refugee lobbyists to Washington (again) last week

EDITORS NOTE: Here are two other comments on this SCOTUS decision:

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel American Center for Law and Justice:

“We’re very pleased with the court granting the stay concerning the most significant aspects of the president’s executive order on immigration. At the same time, we’re very pleased that the high court has agreed to hear the case in the fall. It has been our position from the very beginning that the president – the commander-in-chief – has both the constitutional and statutory authority to issue the order. President Trump acted lawfully and constitutionally with the intent to protect the national security of the United States. We are confident that the high court will conclude on the merits that the president was acting within his constitutional authority.”

Art Arthur, resident fellow Center for Immigration Studies:

“Justice Thomas, Justice Alito and Justice Gorsuch would simply allow the second executive order – the one from March – to go into effect today. The two other more moderate conservative Justices, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, are on the fence.”

“[Under this ruling, however] some individuals who would seek harm to the American people or our institutions may get in simply because they have relationships with individuals or entities within the United States. But the Supreme Court appears willing to take that risk at the present time.”

ENLIST Act Would Undermine Military, Facilitate Insider Attacks

Although it has received scant, if any, attention in the mainstream media, Congress is now taking up a bill, H.R. 60, the ENLIST Act (Encourage New Legalized Immigrants to Start Training). It would potentially provide hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, essentially “Dreamers,” who were granted temporary lawful status under the DACA program (Deferred Action, Childhood Arrival), with the opportunity to be fast-tracked to lawful immigrant status in exchange for enrolling and serving our military.

Thus far more than 200 members from both parties have co-sponsored this dangerous bill.

At first glance the concept of providing lawful immigrant status to illegal aliens who serve in the U.S. military may appeal to many Americans. Military service is properly seen as a most noble way of demonstrating patriotism for America and Americans.

However, upon closer scrutiny the alarming pitfalls to this approach become readily apparent.

Let us also be clear that there have been illegal aliens who joined our armed forces and served with distinction, and some of them paid the “ultimate price” in demonstrating loyalty to America. I do not want in any way to besmirch their reputations or sacrifices. I am however profoundly troubled that H.R. 60 could create a national security/public safety disaster.

This program could be subverted by international terrorists and transnational criminals who seek to obtain military tactics and weapons training to commit crimes and/or carry out terror attacks on-and-off military bases — “insider attacks.”

Criminals and terrorists could also seek to recruit adherents among those with whom they serve in the military.

We must begin with a clear understanding of how serious violations of America’s borders and immigration laws are. When aliens evade the inspections process conducted at ports of entry they are not entering “undocumented” as is claimed by advocates for immigration anarchy. They enter the United States without inspection. The inspections process conducted at ports of entry by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Inspectors is intended to prevent the entry of criminals, spies, terrorists, human rights violators, and fugitives from justice (categories of aliens under the aegis of federal law, contained within the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182).

Aliens who run our borders do so because they know that they would be excluded from the United States because they fall into one or more categories of aliens who, under the INA are excludible from the United States.

Additionally, no record of entry is created when an alien enters the United States without inspection. Therefore there is no reliable way to know when, where, or how they entered the United States.

Although the Obama administration and those who have supported the DACA program claim that it is simply an application of prosecutorial discretion, in reality it should be considered a case of “prosecutorial deception” because there is nothing in our immigration laws that permit a massive program that is diametrically opposed to the letter and the spirit of our immigration laws.

At the time that Mr. Obama implemented this program he claimed that it would only provide benefits to those who entered the United States before they were 16 years of age. In reality, aliens as old as 31 years of age could participate in the program if they claim that they entered the United States prior to their 16th birthdays.

With no capacity to interview the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who applied for participation in this program, let alone conduct field investigations, this program invites fraud. Immigration fraud, it must be noted, was identified by the 9/11 Commission as the key entry and embedding tactic of terrorists.

Let’s first consider the issue of transnational gang members joining our military.

On October 21, 2011, ABC News reported, “FBI Finds Gangs Expanding, Even to U.S. Military.” It stated that although FBI and members of law enforcement don’t have estimates on the number of gang members in the military, there is evidence of gangs operating in 100 jurisdictions in the U.S. and abroad, with members of more than 50 different gangs throughout the military.

The 2015 National Gang Report prepared by the National Gang Intelligence Center included this cautionary statement on page 33:

Military-trained gang members pose a serious threat to law enforcement and to the public. They learn combat tactics in the military, then return home to utilize these new skills against rival gangs or law enforcement. Military training of individual gang members could ultimately result in more sophisticated and deadly gangs, as well as deadly assaults on law enforcement officers.

MS-13 and other such gangs have grown rapidly, metastasizing across the United States since the massive influx of “Unaccompanied Minors” during the latter half of the Obama administration’s second term.

On June 20, 2017, the House Homeland Security Committee, Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, conducted a hearing on the topic, “Combating Gang Violence On Long Island: Shutting Down The MS-13 Pipeline.”

That “pipeline” crosses the U.S.-Mexican border.

On June 21, 2017, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on “The MS-13 Problem: Investigating Gang Membership, its Nexus to Illegal Immigration, and Federal Efforts to End the Threat.”

Now let’s turn to the threats posed by terrorists who could gain entry onto military bases.

On June 8, 2017, the Department of Justice issued a press release, “Two Men Arrested for Terrorist Activities on Behalf of Hizballah’s Islamic Jihad Organization.”

Both of these terror suspects/sleeper agents were naturalized citizens. They easily gamed the immigration system and the naturalization process to acquire United States citizenship. One of the defendants is further being charged with committing naturalization fraud in support of terrorism, a 25 year felony under federal law. Both are also charged with, among other crimes, traveling overseas to obtain military training and with conducting surveillance in the United States as well as in other countries, of U.S. and Israeli military facilities and personnel.

Imagine if they could have gained access to our military bases in the United States and acquired the best military training in the world on those bases.

The overt acts that they allegedly committed in support of Hezbollah are enumerated in the federal complaints concerning Samer el Debek, a.k.a. Samer Eldebek and Ali Mohamad Kourani, a.k.a. Jacob Lewis, a.k.a. Daniel.

On April 22, 2017, The New York Times reported, “‘A Shortage of Coffins’ After Taliban Slaughter Unarmed Soldiers.”

On June 17, 2017, the Military Times reported, “Another insider attack in Afghanistan leaves 7 Americans wounded.”

On June 17, 2017, CBS reported, “At least 7 U.S. soldiers wounded after Afghan soldier opens fire.” That article ended with this sentence: “Last week, three U.S. soldiers were killed by an Afghan soldier in eastern Nangarhar province. In that case Mujahid claimed that the shooter was a Taliban loyalist who infiltrated the army specifically to seek out opportunities to attack foreign soldiers.”

The June 17, 2017, New York Times article, “7 U.S. Soldiers Wounded in Insider Attack in Afghanistan” included these two paragraphs:

In two episodes in March, a total of 11 American soldiers were wounded by Afghan soldiers in green-on-blue attacks in Helmand Province, in southern Afghanistan, according to Afghan officials. Nonetheless, the incidence of such attacks has decreased greatly as American and other foreign forces have declined from a peak of 150,000 soldiers to about 14,000 now. In 2012, one-fourth of all coalition killings were carried out by Afghan insiders, according to American military officials.

The 209th Corps has been particularly troubled this year, and in April was the scene of the Afghan military’s biggest single loss of life in the past 16 years, when Taliban infiltrators entered Camp Shaheen and killed more than 160 soldiers, many of them unarmed.

Albert Einstein famously remarked that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. You don’t have to possess Professor Einstein’s intellect to see that the concerns I have voiced today are based on multiple similar instances which ultimately resulted in tragedies.

Furthermore, suicide is most certainly not an act of “compassion.”

It is imperative that you contact your elected representatives and tell them to oppose this extremely dangerous legislation.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on NewsMax.com.

VIDEO: American charged with ‘smuggling hate speech’ into Canada

I was arrested in Canada for “smuggling hate speech” on his iPad. Here is my video report on what actually happened.

Wild Bill’s ANTI HATE Hate Speech Arrested by Canada Border Police. This is the speech I was to give in Canada. The cops read the script and ARRESTED ME FOR HATE SPEECH……..watch and decide if this is hate speech.

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may support Bill by going to www.OutLawsChapel.com.

Canada arrests American Christian for having ‘hate speech’ on his iPad

The United West’s good friend Bill Finlay, a.k.a. Wild Bill for America, was stopped at the Calgary, AB Canada airport before he got to an event where he was invited to speak.

RELATED VIDEO: “One Love” Rally in Calgary and Wild Bill for America arrested:

Canadian authorities did release him and subsequently deported him, without his laptop.

They intend to search it to find a crime. Canada Wake Up Bill is NOT the enemy! Islam is! Canada, start prosecuting “hate” speech spewed by Islam and it’s followers! Hate speech against non-believers! Hate speech that specifically demands violence against non-believers! Again, Canada Wake Up

Here are a few of the details of that action:

American Speaker Arrested in Canada for Smuggling “Hate Speech” on His iPad

Wild Bill for America, also known as William Finlay, a popular author and speaker, was arrested today, June 24, 2017, at a Canadian airport…

RELATED VIDEO: Why don’t feminists fight for Muslim Women?

Supreme Court decision on ‘travel ban’ and refugee ceiling reduction eminent

According to AP at ABC News, here, they have likely already decided and an announcement will come next week.

There are two major issues at stake (maybe more than two, but two for me!).  The first is whether the President has the authority to ban, for a limited time, all entry to the US from six (mostly Muslim countries that are hotbeds of terrorism) in order to keep us safe while they review the entry screening process.  Again, this involves all those of all religions and ethnic groups entering the US through any means from those six countries.

The second issue, and the one more interesting to me, is the one addressed by the Hawaii court (9th Circuit), but NOT by the Maryland court (4th Circuit), and that is whether the President has the legal right to come in at any number below the refugee admissions CEILING set last fall (in this case set by Obama), or more specifically has a legal right to announce a mid-year lowering of the admission ceiling for all refugees, of all religions, from all countries! And, does he have the legal authority to put in place a 120-day moratorium (again all countries, all religions) while the federal government reviews the screening process for refugees.

Presidents always come in under the CEILING, some by very significant numbers, and no one has legally challenged previous presidents on that issue.  There may have been some squawking by federal refugee contractors***, who receive a large portion of their budget based on a per head payment, when Bush came in way low in the wake of 9/11, but I don’t think he was taken to court over it.

See what I said here about how Obama failed to reach some of his ceilings:

In FY2011, they were 23,576 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue President Obama?

In FY2012, they were 17,762 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue President Obama for leaving thousands “stranded in war-torn countries”?

I have my fingers crossed that Justice Department lawyers knew enough to separate the two issues (the overall travel ban from the CEILING issue) which should never have been addressed in the same Executive Order in the first place.

Here is what ABC is reporting:

The Supreme Court has almost certainly decided what to do about President Donald Trump’s travel ban affecting citizens of six mostly Muslim countries.

The country is waiting for the court to make its decision public about the biggest legal controversy in the first five months of Trump’s presidency. The issue has been tied up in the courts since Trump’s original order in January sparked widespread protests just days after he took office.

The justices met Thursday morning for their last regularly scheduled private conference in June and probably took a vote about whether to let the Trump administration immediately enforce the ban and hear the administration’s appeal of lower court rulings blocking the ban.

The court’s decision could come any time and is expected no later than late next week…..

[….]

The case is at the Supreme Court because two federal appellate courts have ruled against the Trump travel policy, which would impose a 90-day pause in travel from citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the ban was “rooted in religious animus” toward Muslims and pointed to Trump’s campaign promise to impose a ban on Muslims entering the country as well as tweets and remarks he has made since becoming president.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the travel policy does not comply with federal immigration law, including a prohibition on nationality-based discrimination.

That court also put a hold on separate aspects of the policy that would keep all refugees out of the United States for 120 days and cut by more than half, from 110,000 to 50,000, the cap on refugees in the current government spending year that ends Sept. 30.

More here.

If the court rules against Trump on this last point, I see the contractors getting what they always wanted—the President’s determination set in September in advance of the fiscal year would become a TARGET that must be reached, and not simply a CEILING not to be exceeded.  (The Refugee Act of 1980 does have a mechanism for increasing the ceiling during the course of the year that requires consultation with Congress, but is silent if the President comes in low.)

For a laugh, as the contractors argue in the Supreme Court that the President (in this case, Donald Trump) doesn’t have the right to set the ceiling, they say this (see here) about a bill in Congress that would eliminate some Presidential power to set the ceiling:

“….it would remove presidential authority to set the number of refugees who may enter the country per year.”

Make up your minds—does the President have the power or not? Truth be told, this is about Donald Trump and not if the president was Mark Zuckerberg!

***Federal refugee resettlement contractors are paid by you, on a per head basis, to place refugees in your towns:

RELATED ARTICLES: 

So did President Trump get blindsided by Dept. of State announcement last month?

LA Times headline is deceptive (yes, can you believe it!)

Zuckerberg in Minnesota….running for Prez in 2020?

How Trump Could Change the Country’s Direction With These Court Vacancies

LAWFARE: Hindering President Trump from investigating Obama

The defeated Democrats are colluding with the mainstream media to create an echo chamber of false accusations, fake news, and demands for groundless investigations and frivolous lawsuits to impede President Trump and sabotage his administration by preoccupying them in court. The Trump administration is under siege.

The Democratic Party is not your mother’s Democratic Party. Today the party is composed of radical left-wing liberals and anarchists fully committed to destroying American democracy and replacing it with socialism. The Democrats today have no interest in making America strong and great again – they have the opposite agenda and intend to pursue Obama’s goal of weakening America toward socialism in preparation for Obama’s globalist ambition of one-world government.

The “resistance” movement lead by lawless Obama is designed to topple constitutionally elected President Donald Trump and create social chaos.

There are two tiers to the Democrats’ attack strategy. The blatant goal of toppling President Donald Trump disguises the primary objective of preventing Trump’s Department of Justice from investigating the criminal activities of the Obama administration. Investigations of Obama, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Lois Lerner, John Brennan, James Comey and the corrupt Clinton Foundation would be devastating to the Democratic Party.

America is no stranger to war – we are just not used to Americans waging war against a sitting president. It is an extremely un-American and treasonous strategy the Democrats have embraced. Instead of complying with the rules of law and fielding a stronger candidate for the 2020 elections they have adopted the tactics of revolution and anarchy – it is appalling. The Democratic party is fomenting anarchy and attempting to delegitimize, destabilize, and topple the government of our constitutionally elected President Donald Trump.

The current strategy of the defeated Democrats still crying and trying to destroy American democracy is lawfareLawfare is a form of asymmetric warfare consisting of using the legal system against an enemy. Lawfare is designed to damage or delegitimize the enemy, tying up their time or winning a public relations victory by casting the pall of criminality and suspicion over them. The theory of lawfare against President Trump is that if the President and his administration are spending their time and resources defending themselves in court he will not be able to govern effectively, keep his promises to strengthen and make America great again, or investigate the criminal activities of Obama and his gang. The Democrats hope disappointment in President Trump will reward the Democrats with a gain of enough seats in the midterm election to impeach President Trump.

Even if the Democrats are unsuccessful in their goal to reverse the balance of power in the midterm elections, their objective is to make it impossible for President Trump to govern effectively and investigate criminality in Obama’s term. Lawfare is the preferred method being used by the Democrats to protect their lord and master Barack Hussein Obama – the greatest threat to American sovereignty and democracy since 1776.

First on the current list of lawfare activists is deceitful James Comey who deliberately leaked a memorandum of a conversation with President Trump saying he thought it might prompt the appointment of a special counsel to discover the truth about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Comey leaked the memo through Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman who took it to the NYT. Comey deviously made his case for a special counsel by manipulating the colluding media. Later Comey contradicted himself and exposed his actual motive saying he hoped for a special counsel to corroborate his claims that President Trump had asked for his loyalty. Comey implicated himself and revealed his deceit – he was not looking to find the truth about Russia he was looking to bring down President Trump.

Comey was disingenuously presented to the American people by the colluding mainstream media as being bipartisan. In fact, Comey was the FBI director who replaced Mueller under Obama’s lawless presidency and with Lynch’s Justice Department refused to prosecute criminal acts of the Obama Administration. Obama was the King of of Lawlessness in America for eight years and Comey, Clinton, Holder, Lynch, Lerner, Brennan, and Rice were his vassals. This is a short list of unprosecuted crimes that Comey ignored or supported provided by The Millennium Report.

  • The infamous Iran deal
  • Hillary Clinton Benghazi gun running
  • Ambassador Steven’s death
  • Eric Holder’s Fast and Furious gun running
  • Hillary’s private server espionage and treason
  • Bush and Clinton bank bailouts
  • Bombing seven sovereign nations without congressional approval
  • Obama’s IBM Eclipse Foundation’s social networking patent theft
  • James Clapper’s illegal NSA/CIA/FBI surveillance and his perjury before Congress
  • Obama’s energy company subsidies
  • Obama’s misuse of banker fines to support liberal activist groups
  • Obama’s theft of Fannie May and Freddie Mack
  • Obama’s IRS targeting of conservatives
  • Obama and Clinton’s confiscations from the Bureau of Land Management
  • Planned Parenthood eugenics and baby parts trafficking
  • Gold, silver, and LIBOR rate rigging
  • Ignoring “missing person” reports and supporting human trafficking
  • Clinton Foundation theft of $2 billion under the guise of a Presidential Library fund
  • Hillary taking money from foreign nations while Secretary of State
  • Maintaining open borders and Sanctuary Cities
  • Refugee trafficking and fraud
  • Allowing overstayed visas of more than one million people
  • Non-enforcement of existing immigration laws

James Comey has been the fixer for the Clinton crime family for decades beginning in the 1990’s with Whitewater and most famously making the strong case for prosecuting Hillary Clinton for her illegal unsecured private basement server and then stunningly recommending against prosecution. What the public did not realize is that prosecuting Clinton could expose Comey himself which is why he is actually part of the Clinton email cover-up.

Next on the lawfare list is Robert Mueller, James Comey’s mentor and predecessor. Instead of investigating the blatant crimes of Obama and his administration for which there is ample evidence, Robert Mueller is now empowered as special prosecutor to investigate the imaginary crimes of President Trump with a twin purpose. Mueller will keep President Trump bogged down for two years under a false veil of suspicion until the midterm elections in service of the defeated Democrats hoping to regain seats, and more importantly Mueller’s deceitful investigation will hinder any investigation into the Obama administration by President Trump’s Justice Department.

It is incomprehensible why the Trump administration would ever have considered Clinton loyalist James Comey for FBI director or his equally biased mentor Robert Mueller for special prosecutor. Both are proven Obama/Clinton loyalists willing to sabotage President Trump’s presidency.

Third on the lawfare list are Governors Brown, Cuomo, and Inslee. These men are not stupid – they know that what they are doing is not legal and they cannot possibly win – but they do not care. Their bluster narrative is pure political theater intended to tie Trump up in court – more lawfare. Governors do not have the Constitutional authority to make agreements with foreign countries. They cannot usurp the power of the presidency. This treasonous ploy of theirs is just another ignominious example of the Democratic Party’s tactic of lawfare against President Trump.

The Climate Alliance of California, New York, Washington, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Oregon, Colorado, Hawaii, Virginia and Rhode Island has publicly declared on the New York State government website its intention to treasonously “convene U.S. states committed to upholding the Paris Climate Agreement.” Governor Jerry Brown pompously described President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Accord saying, “This is an insane move by this president – deviant behavior from the highest office in the land.”

Really? Insane? Deviant?

Let’s talk about the meaning of insanity and deviant behavior because words matter.

Insanity is defined as unsoundness of mind or lack of the ability to understand that prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or that releases one from criminal or civil responsibility. President Donald Trump was perfectly clear when he explained in a cogent argument that the Paris Accord was extremely harmful to America. So, by definition President Trump’s withdrawal from Obama’s unlawful ant-American agreement was not insane.

The Governors Three by contrast all seem to have serious identity issues – they are out of touch with reality and do not seem to know who they are. They appear confused and  without the soundness of mind to correctly identify themselves as governors and not the president of the United States. Perhaps they missed or slept through the civics class that taught that governors have zero authority to enter agreements or treaties with foreign nations and, in fact, such agreements are a criminal offense in strict violation of the Logan Act. The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that details the fine and/or imprisonment of unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States.

Deviant is defined as departing from usual or accepted standards. If anyone’s behavior was deviant it was Obama’s when he made the unsanctioned Paris Agreement because he failed to protect the economic interests of the United States. The agreement itself was contemptuous of Congress and the democratic process. It was an example of Obama’s executive overreach and deeply divisive governance.

President Donald Trump recognized the non-binding Paris Agreement made by Obama without Congressional approval to be harmful to the United States. So, by definition President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the agreement followed the accepted standard of an American president protecting America and American interests.

All three governors are public officers sworn to protect America and uphold the Constitution – by entering into agreements they are not authorized to make, particularly agreements that fail to protect American interest, they are derelict in their duties and have, like Obama, deviated from accepted norms. This left-wing liberal threesome are colluding with the international community to de-industrialize America by damaging our mining industries and redistributing our wealth to non-industrialized nations.

It appears that if anyone is insane or deviant the award goes to Democratic Governors Brown, Cuomo, and Inslee.

Perhaps California Governor Brown, New York Governor Cuomo, and Washington Governor Inslee will use an insanity defense to absolve themselves of treason charges for their U.S. Climate Alliance attempts to uphold the anti-American Paris Climate Agreement that President Donald Trump decisively rejected.

Carolyn Glick summarized the path forward for President Trump succinctly saying, “It is time for Trump to delegate the dirty work of attacking his opponents to his attorneys, advisers and supporters. He must devote his public appearances entirely to advancing his own presidential agenda. By firing Mueller, appointing a special counsel to investigate the Obama administration, removing Obama’s political appointees from government and replacing them with his own hires, and concentrating on implementing his agenda, Trump will end the siege on his presidency. He will defeat the self-proclaimed ‘resistance’ whose purpose is to defeat him politically through administrative and bureaucratic abuses.”

It is also time for President Trump to renew an American tradition of speaking (not tweeting) directly to the American people in weekly televised broadcasts from the Oval Office that inform Americans about the efforts and accomplishments of his administration and their progress in making America great again. President Trump was elected by the people for the people and he must speak directly to the people because the mainstream media is colluding with the defeated Democrats to destroy him. President Trump can resist the resistance movement and expose the fabricated lawfare being waged against him by ignoring the media and speaking directly to the American public.

Steadfast Czechs Fight on Against EU Gun Control

The European Union’s new restrictions on firearms ownership were finalized on May 24, when the misguided changes to the European Firearms Directive were published in the political bloc’s Official Journal. Despite this setback, the Czech Republic has made clear that the country will continue its fight for European firearms freedom.

To quickly recap, following the November 13, 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, the EU expedited plans to curtail gun ownership across the political union. Of most concern to European gun owners was a new restriction on the ownership of certain types of semi-automatic firearms. However, the legislation also included more stringent requirements for member state-issued firearms licenses, and measures that implicated gun owner privacy. After significant negotiations between the European Parliament and European Council to reform the European Commission’s flawed draft, the final contours of the legislation were agreed to last December. Since the announcement of the European Commission’s draft proposal, the Czech Republic has been among the harshest critics of the gun control legislation. 

On June 14, Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka announced the country’s intention to challenge the new restrictions in the European Court of Justice. Reporting on the development, Agence France-Presse quoted Czech Interior Minister Milan Chovanec, who stated, “We cannot allow the EU to interfere in the position of member states and their citizens under the guise of fighting terrorism” adding, “I’m not happy about the complaint but we have no other option.”

The move came after deliberation by the Czech government, during which some Czech politicians were reluctant to challenge the new controls. However, throughout the process, Chovanec was adamant about the need to confront the new restrictions. On June 8, the Czech News Agency reported that the Interior Minister viewed the EU’s arguments about thwarting terrorism a “mere pretext” to impose the new controls. Expressing his severe disdain for the EU’s gun controls, Chovanec noted “In my opinion, the directive should not be implemented even if it meant that Europe will sanction the country.”

The Czech Republic has a strong tradition of civilian gun ownership and firearms manufacturing, and in recent years has made significant efforts to protect their proud heritage. In addition to confronting the changes to the European Firearms Directive directly, some Czech politicians have supported a change to the Czech constitution that would guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. Further, in July 2016, Czech President Milos Zeman expressed his support for an armed citizenry to confront terrorist threats.

The Czechs have until August 17 to file their formal complaint against the new European Firearms Directive with the European Court of Justice. NRA-ILA will continue to follow the Czechs in their crucial struggle for freedom and apprise U.S. gun owners of any new developments.

7th-year Republican Florida representative claims freshman status to evade 8-year term limit

The ugly hubris that accompanies entrenched power has been noted since human beings started taking notes. Here’s another card for the file:

FL Rep. James “J.W.” Grant (R – District 64)

In Tampa, 7th-year legislator Rep. James Grant is facing his last term in office under Florida’s 8-year term limits law. How is he choosing to finish out his public service?  By filing for re-election and throwing his hat in the ring for Speaker of the House.

No, I am not kidding.

In a case reminiscent of the veteran Palm Beach Gardens City Council member who resigned a few months early in order to restart his term limits clock, Rep. Grant is claiming that because of irregularities which led to a re-vote in his election in 2014, somehow he went back in time and became a freshman legislator.

That is particularly convenient as a meeting of all Republican freshmen is scheduled for Friday, June 30, in Orlando to choose a new speaker of the House for 2022-24. It is a secret meeting but the word is that 7th-year legislator Grant, class of 2010, will be there to cast a vote for himself.

If Rep. Grant wins, he will be dragging his party through the muck, as surely both controversy and litigation will dog their would-be leader from next Friday until he leaves office.  It will also be a slap in the face for voters who approved the 8-year term limits law by 77% back in 1992. Polls show there has been no diminution of support for the law since then.

In Palm Beach Gardens, the local political and media establishment initially circled the wagons around one of their own, offering circuitous technicalities to justify keeping power.  We are seeing this phenomenon to some degree with Rep. Grant as well, as a handful of his party colleagues and even some Tampa media are arguing for giving their golden boy a pass.

But courts are better at resisting group-think and political pressure.  In the Palm Beach Gardens case, the Fourth District Court of Appeals threw that politician out of office in June of last year.  There is no reason to expect the courts will afford Rep. Grant any special dispensation. In fact, U.S. Term limits does not know of any case in any state — ever — where a long-time state legislator busted a voter-approved term limit using this technicality.

(For nit-pickers, this is not a case of a freshman legislator being elected to a partial term via special election.  In such a case, Florida’s law does not count the partial term against the legislator’s term limit. The case here is that the re-election of a veteran, incumbent legislator was flubbed and a second vote was held a few months later. The election SNAFU hardly obviates his past consecutive years of service.)

But the sad truth is that justice will only prevail if voters raise their voices (and maybe eventually money for court fees) to object.  Rep. Grant is betting we won’t.

Let’s prove him wrong by using THIS LINK to inform our own state reps what is going on.

TAKE ACTION: Click on the image to send a message to stop this scam.

Trans-Canada

Carnival in Berlin by Jeanne Mammen, c. 1930 [MOMA, NY]

David Warren on Canadian craziness: if you’re a member of a protected class, you may still say anything; but if you are not, God help you.

One is left speechless by some government legislation. That would be its intention, for it is designed to prevent, or gravely discourage, persons with views other than the Zeitgeist’s from expressing themselves.

The Zeitgeist demands. And what it demands, Courts and Parliaments deliver.

It began as a malicious game among liberals and progressives, to tar their political opponents through a mechanism we call “political correctness,” on college campuses and in other environments over which they were able to wrest control.

It was a “trend” of the late twentieth century. The Berlin Wall came down, to much celebration; but new psychic walls were erected to advance the old project of human engineering, towards the New Soviet Man, placidly obedient to the revolutionary authorities.

Then it launched, like Sputnik, into outer space. For while the bright lights in French, then American, intellectual circles remained instinctively loyal to the old Party Line, their ambitions went beyond it. They did not wish to stop at “worker’s control of the means of production,” or anything so humble. They wanted everything changed.

The Leninists, and their politburos through three generations, did not question so many of the old bourgeois assumptions, inherited from centuries of Christian civilization. To them, for instance, a man was still a man, a woman still a woman, the child was still their child. They made “advances” on such fronts as divorce, and abortion, declared the sexes “equal” – but there were still two sexes, and in Communist societies quite old-fashioned, normative attitudes were maintained.

In many ways, the Communists were among the most “conservative” of rulers. Their movement went back before Marx, to the invention of “workers” in the Industrial Revolution, and to the French bloodbath of Robespierre, in which “the masses” were first organized as a kind of battering ram against the anciently established institutions of Church and State.

Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Ho, Pol Pot, were caught in a European time capsule. All of their adaptations assumed a conventional anthropology (“a man was a man for all that”). You could shoot him, or otherwise twist him to turn against the interests of his own person or family, but you still subconsciously knew what you were twisting.

Click here to read the rest of David Warren’s column . . .

ABOUT DAVID WARREN

David Warren

David Warren is a former editor of the Idler magazine and columnist with the Ottawa Citizen. He has extensive experience in the Near and Far East. His blog, Essays in Idleness, is now to be found at: davidwarrenonline.com.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau waving a LGBT flag with a new trans rights bill today. Photo by Justin Ling.

When Blood Cries Out

Casey Anthony

“I once was Casey Anthony,” while her daughter Caylee’s blood cries out from the ground, “I know the truth.” — The Atonement

This “blood crying out” mentioned in my July 2011 column entitled The Atonement referenced the first recorded murder in human history (Genesis 4) when Cain killed his brother Abel. Until now, it was the last time I considered this passage since the days following Casey Anthony’s acquittal and the subsequent public outrage.

With the recent news, however, of OJ Simpson’s possible release from prison in October of this year, I began to think about some of the high-profile, unsolved murder mysteries in which blood is still crying out.

Like Caylee Anthony, the JonBenét Ramseys and Natalee Holloways of this world were voices of unsuspecting innocents whose fateful end was met one ordinary day of an unknown killer’s choosing.

But many others, such as Nicole Brown Simpson, knew they were in danger and left a trail of clues to tell another kind of story—the story of one who was repeatedly failed by law enforcement, counselors, and the entire court system at the hands of an abuser’s craftiness.

In covering the LA murder of Brown Simpson, The Chicago Tribune reported that Mr. Simpson even sought to portray his wife as the aggressor during a domestic dispute on Jan. 1, 1989 that left Brown Simpson hospitalized. (Vincent J. Schodolski, Tribune Staff Writer, Feb. 3, 1995)

Later, during the murder trial, the incident was described as a mutual wrestling match by the defense, and of course we all know the rest of the story. In spite of the overwhelming evidence that pointed to Mr. Simpson as not only a violent man with a propensity for spousal abuse, but also the guilty party in the murder of two people, the jury issued a not guilty verdict. Case closed.

Though the murders remain unsolved mysteries, Nicole’s blood testified on her behalf via a trail of evidence about the darker truths of her life. The evidence carried the whisper of “OJ did it” louder than any police report that recorded her repeated shouts of “He’s going to kill me!”

On December 6, 1994, just a few days shy of the six month anniversary of Nicole’s death, Senior Investigator Michael Stevens (Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office) used a drill to open a safe deposit box previously issued to Brown Simpson. Upon successfully breaking the latch, he found photos of Nicole’s bruised face, her will, newspaper clippings detailing a 1989 domestic dispute, and three hand-written letters from OJ taking responsibility for the beating.

Though her supposed killer is still at large, Nicole’s trail of evidence is a lesson to every woman who lives inside the invisible walls of a batterer that calling for help (when escape seems impossible) and documenting a history of hidden abuse can be a powerful witness in the years to come.

That is, if the years do come.

In June of 2016, the Allstate Foundation Purple Purse launched #FreeToWalk, a campaign to call attention to barriers that keep women trapped in abusive relationships. The campaign kicked off with the release of an online film “America’s Largest Prison Break”, based upon the true story of Lori, a woman who stored cash inside tampon applicators until she could make her escape. Lori was one of the chosen who was able to make it to the other side. Countless others like Nicole, did not make it.

If you are a victim of domestic violence and find yourself wondering how the cycle of abuse will ever change, the abusive partner must be willing to admit fully to what he or she has done and have a genuine desire to change. Too often, clergymen refer couples like this to traditional counselors who tend to re-victimize the abused party and enable the cycle of abuse to perpetuate.

Like Nicole, if you live inside invisible walls and today is not the day of your great prison break, I implore you to become your own future star witness and leave yourself a lighthouse toward home while in the rough waters. You may need it someday when all of the nights of terror and confusion might

Study: 5.7 million noncitizens may have cast illegal votes

Rowan Scarborough from The Washington Times reports:

A research group in New Jersey has taken a fresh look at postelection polling data and concluded that the number of noncitizens voting illegally in U.S. elections is likely far greater than previous estimates.

As many as 5.7 million noncitizens may have voted in the 2008 election, which put Barack Obama in the White House.

The research organization Just Facts, a widely cited, independent think tank led by self-described conservatives and libertarians, revealed its number-crunching in a report on national immigration.

Just Facts President James D. Agresti and his team looked at data from an extensive Harvard/YouGov study that every two years questions a sample size of tens of thousands of voters. Some acknowledge they are noncitizens and are thus ineligible to vote.

Read more.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in November 2016 stated, “[N]oncitizens and illegal aliens are counted when apportioning congressional districts and when allocating state electors under the Electoral College. This means noncitizens play a role in determining how many congressional representatives a state has and exert an indirect influence on presidential elections.”

FAIR reports:

Mass immigration has had a significant effect on American electoral politics. Despite the fact that it is a crime for aliens to vote in federal elections, noncitizens and illegal aliens are counted when apportioning congressional districts. This means that areas with large numbers of illegal alien residents gain additional representatives in Congress.

In addition, there is evidence that both foreign nationals who are lawfully present in the United States and illegal aliens have voted in recent elections. During this election cycle, noncitizens have been discovered on voter registration rolls in both Virginia and Pennsylvania. And the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of New York recently announced that it charged a Canadian woman with making a false claim to citizenship after she registered and voted in more than 20 elections.

Several past elections – for the presidency and other offices – have been extremely close. Accordingly, ballots cast by noncitizen voters have the potential to improperly alter the outcome of elections. Consider how close the 2000 presidential election was. Could the outcome have been affected by noncitizen voting? The answer is yes.

Download the PDF of this Backgrounder.

President Trump signed an executive order setting up a Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity to try to find on-the-ground truth in illegal voting. The Advisory Commission is headed by Vice President Mike Pence.  The Commission’s mission:

The Commission shall, consistent with applicable law, study the registration and voting processes used in Federal elections.  The Commission shall be solely advisory and shall submit a report to the President that identifies the following:

(a)  those laws, rules, policies, activities, strategies, and practices that enhance the American people’s confidence in the integrity of the voting processes used in Federal elections;

(b)  those laws, rules, policies, activities, strategies, and practices that undermine the American people’s confidence in the integrity of the voting processes used in Federal elections; and

(c)  those vulnerabilities in voting systems and practices used for Federal elections that could lead to improper voter registrations and improper voting, including fraudulent voter registrations and fraudulent voting.

It would seem that Democrats and Republicans alike can rally around this effort.

RELATED ARTICLES:

1.4 million illegals working under stolen Social Security numbers

Study supports Trump: 5.7 million noncitizens may have cast illegal votes

Think tank backs Trump, says large number of non-citizens vote illegally

Did Votes By Noncitizens Cost Trump The 2016 Popular Vote? Sure Looks That Way

Cosby and Leftists’ War on Non-Victim-minded Blacks

The Bill Cosby sexual assault trial ended in a mistrial. I will not address the case because I am clueless regarding his guilt or innocence. I am going to address the insidious campaign to destroy a black American icon.

I remember hearing black relatives trash the Cosby TV Show, claiming it was unrealistic and misrepresented the black American experience.

Democrats have relentlessly worked to convince blacks that America is a hellhole of racism where whites, Republicans and conservatives plot 24/7 how to keep blacks down. Therefore, it is not surprising that my relatives believed the TV show “Good Times” about a struggling black family living in the projects painted a truer portrait of black life in America. The truth is the Cosby Show was accurate. Blacks have pursued and achieved their American dreams since slavery. As a matter of fact, the first self-made female millionaire in America was Madam C. J. Walker, a black woman born in 1867.

It puzzled me why my relatives had a problem with a TV show exposing black youths to bigger and better things, inspiring them to pursue their American dreams. Football superstar, Deion Sanders lived in the projects. Going to a cook-out at his coach’s home changed Deion life. It was the first time Deion visited a home with a driveway.

As a black kid living in a Baltimore ghetto, my dad drove me through upscale neighborhoods. Dad said, “If you work hard and get an education, you can live like this.”

I find it incredible that Hollywood and the civil rights mafia turned on Cosby when he began speaking out; encouraging blacks to stop blaming whitey and take responsibility for their lives. Relying on someone other than yourself, weakens you. Therefore, Cosby offered real black empowerment. Outraged, Leftists launched war on Cosby when he instructed black males to pull their pants up, learn to speak English, stop having babies out of wedlock, stay in school and so on.

Black comedian Hannibal Buress trashed Cosby, accusing him of talking down to blacks.

Buress even criticized Cosby for not cussing on stage. In other words, Buress suggested that Cosby is a sell-out for speaking out against the I’m-from-the-hood persona.

Why do we do that to our fellow blacks? White people are free to pursue whatever paths in life they please. Liberals, black and white, try to keep blacks in their little black box of what they decree to be acceptable black behavior. Pro football quarterbacks Robert Griffin, III and Russell Wilson have been accused by Leftist sports writers of not acting according to their dictates of acceptable black behavior. My brother loves country music. I prefer sushi over KFC. Does this make us less black? In the minds of liberals, yes.

We have witnessed Leftists’ bring-down-Cosby campaign repeated numerous times against successful high profile blacks. The crime of these blacks is not viewing themselves as victims of racist America and achieving success the old fashion way — by earning it. How else can you explain Leftists’ visceral hatred for world renown retired neurosurgeon Dr Ben Carson, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, businessman extraordinaire Herman Cain and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas? All these extremely successful and inspiring blacks have endured major campaigns by Leftists to destroy and silence them.

Cosby was a powerful black role-model trailblazer, funny without being vulgar or telling black jokes. He achieved remarkable success and earned great wealth. Cosby’s life testifies that America truly is the greatest land of opportunity on the planet for all who choose to go for it.

What really landed Cosby atop Leftists’ excrement list was inspiring black youths to follow the road he paved to success. Leftists in essence said, “Cos, your black derriere is goin’ down.” Truly unfortunate.

Illegal alien kills a 17-year old Muslim girl, discredits ‘open borders’ propaganda

Illegal alien from El Salvador allegedly murdered Nabra Hassanen a Muslim teenager walking with a group from the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) Center.

Diversity is supposed to be beautiful, right?  Immigrants who come to the great American melting pot are supposed to love and respect multiculturalism, right?  Unlike in Europe, we do everything to foster ‘assimilation’ of races, religions and cultures, right?

Well, here is a case that goes so far against the Left’s message that many predict it will disappear so fast you will think you imagined it …  This is not supposed to happen!

It is just run-of-the-mill road rage says Fox 5 headline:

Man charged with murder of Muslim teen; road rage appears to have led to killing, police say

HERNDON, Va. – A 22-year-old man has been charged with murder after police say he killed a 17-year-old Reston girl whose body was found in a pond hours after being reported missing during an early morning road rage incident in Virginia.

Illegal alien Darwin Martinez Torres (left); seventeen year old Nabra Hassanen (right)

Fairfax County Police say the victim, Nabra Hassanen, was with a group of teenagers of about 15 people walking and riding their bikes along Dranesville Road from a McDonald’s restaurant at around 3:40 a.m. Sunday. The group got involved in a dispute with the driver of a vehicle after they attended an overnight event at the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) Center, a mosque located in Sterling and is one of the largest mosque in the country.

Police say a teenage boy got into an argument with the driver, identified as 22-year-old Darwin Martinez Torres.

Continue reading here for awful details.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in a statement regarding Torres [guess this means he was not a DACA darling?—ed]

“On June 19, ICE lodged a detainer on Darwin Martinez Torres, a citizen and national of El Salvador, with the Adult Detention Center in Fairfax, Virginia. ICE lodges detainers on aliens who have been arrested on local criminal charges when the agency has probable cause to believe an alien is removable from the United States. Mr. Martinez Torres has no prior encounters with ICE.”

[….]

On Monday afternoon, Fairfax County police say the killing appears to be the result of a road rage incident and they have no evidence that Hassanen was targeted.

“No evidence has been recovered that shows this was a hate crime,” said Fairfax County police spokesperson Julie Parker. “Nothing indicates that this was motivated by race or by religion.”

However, Mahmoud Hassanen, the victim’s father believes otherwise and says his daughter was targeted because she is Muslim.

Just a reminder readers that this is Virginia, a leading diversity-is-beautiful state if there ever was one! You can tell the authorities are working overtime to keep a lid on the story.

This is a story, not about refugees, but one about the idea that we can continue to pour immigrants (legally and illegally) of all sorts in to the US at such a rate that the tensions will inevitably build and become so disruptive to the social order that civil unrest is inevitable.

If you see more on this case going forward, please send links my way.

RELATED ARTICLE: No Allah Please, We’re British

Judicial Secularists Attack Religious Freedom

On June 7, the U.S. District Court of the Middle District of Florida dealt the latest blow to religious freedom in our country.

The case arose from a request by Cambridge Christian High School, which had earned the opportunity to compete in the 2A division playoffs finals, to use the stadium’s public announcement system in prayer prior to the beginning of the game. The team’s opponent was another Christian school equally devoted to serving God and to conducting itself in His image with every activity it undertakes.

Citing issues of potential coercion and fearing that such prayer might be offensive to others, Dr. Roger Dearing, the executive director of the Florida High School Athletic Association (FHSAA), declined the request.

Of course, in so doing, Dr. Dearing dismissed the fact that the same FHSAA had approved such a request in 2012. He also dismissed the national tradition of engaging in prayer prior to the start of a football game. And most astoundingly he ignored that both teams, meaning all parties involved, wished to engage in a unified prayer as one community under Christ.

Following the denial, Cambridge Christian brought the case to the judiciary for consideration. After all, they weren’t asking for the announcer to lead everyone in prayer. They weren’t asking for the FHSAA to buy new equipment. They weren’t even asking for the game to be delayed for one moment because, in point of fact, the two teams were going to pray on the field and in front of the fans anyway.

No. The only question they were asking was, “Hey, man, can I borrow your microphone?”

Court predictably quashed religious freedom

But almost predictably, the court ruled against religious freedom citing issues of perceived endorsement of religion by government and of the infringement praying might have on the rights of others (yes, this is not a misprint).

Every time I learn of a case like this, I am baffled at the extent to which the state squashes the public’s ability to pray in an open forum merely because of government’s presence. This catastrophic road upon which the Supreme Court of the United States has placed us suppresses our right to worship and to pay reverence to God — in direct violation of the original intent First Amendment.  It ignores the spiritual aspects of human existence, and most importantly, casts aside the foundational roles of religion and religious worship in our nation’s birth.

Repeatedly, I am told that the reason for following this road is the wall of separation between church and state espoused by Thomas Jefferson in his letter written on the first day of 1802 to the members of the Danbury Baptist Church.

But there is so much that runs counter to this assertion.

First, President Jefferson’s comment was completely extrajudicial in nature.

Second, the concept of a wall of separation between church and state has been tainted by the agenda-driven nature of the Supreme Court’s 20th-century opinions. Following the 19th-century Court’s introduction of Jefferson’s wall into the legal corpus, the first two 20th-century cases invoking it did so in an effort to keep the government from interfering with state-based, religious-supporting programs.

But in 1947, the Court changed direction to one that would inhibit, rather than support, religious worship. With its McCollum decision, the court prohibited Bible verses from being recited in public schools, and later, it struck down prayer in schools as well as the observance of even a bland and neutral moment of silence.

The subsequent deterioration in the nation’s moral posture and the breakdown in the family as a central societal unit are the predictable consequences of these actions.

An alternative route ensuring freedoms

But lost in these recitations is the overt bias the Court displayed in selecting Jefferson’s wall of separation in its interpretation of the First Amendment.

Let’s consider a few similarly applicable observations made by some of the nation’s foundational greats in equally extrajudicial fashion.  George Mason, in writing the Virginia Bill of Rights, wrote, “all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and. . . it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.” His proposed amendment was subsequently approved by the Virginia legislature, the same legislature Madison and Jefferson inhabited — a far greater weight of influence than one man’s personal letter.

Based on Mason’s language, would it not have been more appropriate for a 20th century court to hold that in interpreting the First Amendment we should recognize that our nation was created with the purpose of guaranteeing that all men be able to engage in Christian forbearance? If so, wouldn’t using a public microphone for spontaneously requested prayer be not only allowed, but encouraged?

Or how about using John Marshall, the most prolific justice in the history of the Supreme Court? When asked about the nexus of Christianity and the nation’s government, he wrote in a letter, just like Jefferson did, that, “The American population. . . is entirely Christian, and with us, Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institution did not presuppose Christianity.”

Consequently, wouldn’t a more appropriate truism for the Supreme Court to follow in its interpretation of the First Amendment be that the United States of America, through its foundation and its culture, presupposes Christianity?

Or consider the observation made by Justice Joseph Story, one of the early members of the Supreme Court, who extra-judicially wrote, “My own private judgment has long been (and every day’s experience more and more confirms me in it) that government cannot long exist without an alliance with religion to some extent; and that Christianity is indispensable to the true interests and solid foundations of free government.”

From this, wouldn’t a more appropriate guide for the interpretation of the First Amendment be that Christianity is indispensable to the true interests, foundations, and existence of these United States of America?

Back the need for a legislative override

If any of these guides had been adopted instead of, or perhaps in addition to, Jefferson’s wall of separation, imagine how different American jurisprudence would be as it relates to religious liberty and our freedom to worship! Sharia law would be an impossible legal threat, and the concepts of love for one’s neighbor and respect for the dignity of man would be freely taught in our schools under the direct supervision of the community’s parents.

From this analysis a few conclusions may be reached.

First, there is no inherent reason for Jefferson’s wall of separation, at least as the courts apply it today, to be the only compass in interpreting the First Amendment of the Constitution. So long as all religious views are respected, the government can peacefully cohabitate with worshipers be they Christian, Jewish, or any peace-loving faith.

Second, neither the people of this great nation nor its elected representatives selected the road our nation has traversed regarding religious liberty. Instead, it was embraced by an oligarchy of legalists unaccountable to the will of the people.

Consequently, if it is true that the Courts have interpreted the Constitution in a manner inconsistent with the will of the people, then isn’t it up to We The People, as the true purveyors of the Constitution, to override an opinion of such a Court and reverse an ill-conceived opinion? We know, through their writings, that at least Jefferson and Madison would think so.

Truly, the road we are following regarding our religious freedom is nothing short of harrowing. It has diminished our sense of morality and has curtailed our abilities to teach our children that there are things bigger than themselves.

It is time for our country to navigate back to the road built upon Christian forbearance; the same road that would lead us to the shining city on the hill.

RELATED ARTICLE: 2 Cases Threaten to Shut Down Public Prayer. Why the Supreme Court May Need to Act.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act.