New Jersey lists Antifa as a ‘Domestic Terrorism’ organization

The New Jersey Department of Homeland Security and Preparedness (DHSP) lists under the category of Domestic Terrorism the organization Antifa.

Here is the complete listing from the New Jersey DHSP website:

Anarchist Extremists: Antifa

June 12, 2017

Domestic Terrorism

Anti-fascist groups, or “Antifa,” are a subset of the anarchist movement and focus on issues involving racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism, as well as other perceived injustices.

  • Self-described Antifa groups have been established across the United States and in several major cities, including New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and San Francisco. A majority of New Jersey-based anarchist groups are affiliated with the Antifa movement and are opposed to “fascism,” racism, and law enforcement. Antifa groups coordinate regionally and have participated in protests in New York City and Philadelphia. There are three loosely organized chapters in New Jersey, known as the North Jersey Antifa, the South Jersey Antifa, and the HubCity Antifa New Brunswick (Middlesex County).
  • In December 2016, a group known as the Antifascist Action-Nebraska engaged in a doxing campaign against a prominent member of American Vanguard, a white supremacist organization. The group published his personal information on several social media platforms and posted fliers on the University of Nebraska Omaha campus, calling for his expulsion.
  • On March 28, a small fight occurred between Antifa members and supporters of the US President during a rally in Seaside Heights (Ocean County).  Because of advance publicity about the event on social media, local and state law enforcement officers were able to keep altercations to a minimum.

ANTIFA: INCITING VIOLENCE TOWARD FAR-RIGHT EXTREMISTS

Violent confrontations between Antifa members and white supremacists—as well as militia groups—will likely continue because of ideological differences and Antifa’s ability to organize on social media. In the past year, Antifa groups have become active across the United States, employing a variety of methods to disrupt demonstrations.

  • On April 18, following the Patriots Day Free Speech Rally in Berkeley, California—which turned violent—an Antifa member wrote, “Every Nazi that gets punched is a victory. . . . We must realize that these days are going to become more and more common, unless we put a nail in this coffin once and for all.”  On March 29, as a response to an Antifa post on social media, a national militia group wrote in an online article, “Whenever their kind [Antifa] assumes power, individual freedom, including of speech and worship, is brutally suppressed.”
  • Beginning in March, the Philadelphia Antifa Chapter used Facebook to encourage followers to disrupt a “Make America Great Again” event in Philadelphia, resulting in over 300 participants. Antifa’s presence resulted in law enforcement shutting down the event early for safety concerns. As of May, a manual on how to form an Antifa group—posted on a well-known Anarchist website in February—had approximately 13,500 views.
  • On February 1, the University of California Berkeley canceled a controversial speaker’s appearance following a protest by approximately 100 Antifa members. In response, far-right extremists assembled at a free-speech rally, which Antifa members disrupted, resulting in 10 arrests and seven injuries. Additionally, on April 15, Antifa and far-right extremists clashed at a demonstration, leading to 23 arrests and 11 injuries.

RECENT ANARCHIST AND WHITE SUPREMACIST CONFRONTATIONS

pic 3.pngpic 4.png

  • On February 11, members of the 211 Crew/211 Bootboys, a white supremacist gang, allegedly attacked two brothers at a New York City bar after seeing a “New York City anti-fascist sticker” on the back of one of the victim’s cellphones, according to New York authorities.
  • In June 2016, 300 counter-protesters, including anarchist extremists, attacked 25 members of the white supremacist Traditionalist Worker Party with knives, bottles, bricks, and concrete from a construction site while rallying at the California State Capitol in Sacramento, injuring 10.

EDITORS NOTE: Below is an Antifa flyer provided by a reader on Facebook:

Students for Justice in Palestine UC Irvine — Out of Control

How long before someone gets hurt?

The group has incited against and disrupted Jewish speakers on campus since 2010.

In February 2010, eleven UCI students, including SJP UCI members, disrupted Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren’s speech. These students, dubbed the “Irvine 11,” were arrested and prosecuted.

On May 18, 2016, SJP UCI members disrupted a pro-Israel film screening. SJP UCI student leader, Celine Qussiny led a crowd of fifty who tried to force their way into the venue. They called for “Intifada” (violent uprising) and to “Fight the police.” Pro-Israel attendees were escorted out by police, for their own protection.

The university administration put SJP UCI on probation, effective until March 2017.

When the probation period expired, Celine Qussiny and SJP UCI were back. On May 10, 2017, they stormed a pro-Israel panel discussion event, with Qussiny leading a crowd in various chants including, “When people are occupied, resistance is justified!”

Again, attendees needed a police escort out of the venue.

The next day, Celine Qussiny bragged how SJP UCI had gone “to disrupt the event” in order “to let them (the panelists) know that we refuse to allow the normalization of their presence here.”

She admitted that SJP UCI knew full-well that “the administration told us not to disrupt, that we have to be civil.”

It’s hard to understate the seriousness of this. But it gets worse.

Our 2017 Report on the University of California, Irvine unearthed the shocking discovery that a number of protesters from the May 10th incident were members of the UCI student government.

SEE THE FULL REPORT

When student senators join disruptions that flout university rules and jeopardize student safety, is it not time to say enough is enough?

Contact UCI Chancellor Howard Gillman at chancellor@uci.edu and tell him that you have had enough of SJP UCI disrupting Jewish life on UCI’s campus. SJP should be banned from the UCI campus and the student government members who participated in their disruptions, impeached.

RELATED ARTICLES:

College Trustees Are Largely to Blame for Today’s Campus Madness

Palestinian Preacher on Temple Mount Calls for Slaughter of Americans

Israel, the Arab States, and the Illusions of Normalization

New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness lists Antifa as a “Domestic Terrorism” Organization

Infant Sentenced To Death By European Human Rights Court

How is this any different from Hitler’s early “euthanasia” policies? It always starts the same way. The sick, the dying, the elderly, and of course the Jews are targeted first. Nazi Germany’s “euthanasia” program represented in many ways a rehearsal for Nazi Germany’s subsequent genocidal policies.

A European court has ruled that the parents of a critically ill baby cannot privately pay for him to go to the United States for “experimental treatment”, and the child must stay in a British hospital to “die with dignity”.The parents of 10-month-old Charlie Gard are reported to be “utterly distraught” after the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) denied them a final effort to save their dying son. (here….)

After losing a battle in the UK’s Supreme Court, they had appealed to the court in France to fight the decision of British doctors at Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital, who argued that the baby could not be saved in the U.S. and must “die with dignity.”

INFANT SENTENCED TO DEATH BY EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS COURT

Daily Caller, June 30, 2017:

Ten-month-old Charlie Gard was sentenced to die by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Tuesday, who ruled against potentially life-saving treatment for him.

The ECHR ordered that Gard’s life support be shut off and blocked him from travel to the U.S. for an experimental treatment for which Gard’s parents raised over $1.7 million. Doctors diagnosed the infant boy with a rare mitochondrial disease, according to a report from Daily Mail. The court labeled the Gard’s appeal case “inadmissible” and upheld the previous decision of the U.K. High Court, saying their decision in Gard’s case was “final.”

“Subjecting him to nucleoside therapy is unknown territory — it has never even been tested on mouse models — but it may, or may not, subject the patient to pain, possibly even to mutations,” wrote Justice Francis in the High Court’s judgment. “But if Charlie’s damaged brain function cannot be improved, as all seem to agree, then how can he be any better off than he is now, which is in a condition that his parents believe should not be sustained?”

Francis then concluded that the hospital “may lawfully withdraw all treatment, save for palliative care, to permit Charlie to die with dignity.”

Gard was born with encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS), which causes gradual muscle weakening and brain damage. Doctors at Ormond counseled Gard’s parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, to remove Gard’s ventilator in March and said it would be best for Gard to “die with dignity.” Gard’s parents refused on the grounds that they wanted to take Gard to the U.S. for a treatment known as nucleoside, which a doctor from the U.S. said he would be willing to perform.

Dr. Brian Callister of Nevada, who has spoken out against assisted suicide and euthanasia, said the court’s decision was contemptible.

“To withdraw life support against somebody’s will when they have hope of a treatment that either could extend their life or, who knows how long it could extend it, who knows what kind of quality of life may or may not be available — to take away that hope and say ‘you’re life is worth nothing’ I think is wrong on every level,” Callister told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “It’s wrong on a human level. It’s wrong on any basic level of medical ethics, and there are medical ethicists out there in Europe and the United States who think that’s just fine. I think they’ve got a screw loose.”

The courts cited reports from expert counsel, which said that Gard was likely in pain and was suffering. However, Callister said that while it was possible that Gard was in pain, pain and suffering are subjective terms and typically are not the reasons that people legally end their lives, according to data from the state of Oregon.

“Pain is not even in the top five — doesn’t even make the top five of reasons listed in Oregon of people that commit assisted suicide,” Callister said. “It doesn’t make the top five. Burden to family, loss of autonomy —those are the top reasons people kill themselves legally.”

Callister was careful to differentiate between euthanasia and ending life support, which he said were two different matters. While euthanasia constitutes actively killing a person, ending the artificial prolonging of life via machines when a patient no longer wants to live via machine is simply “letting nature take its course” and is not morally reprehensible in Callister’s eyes. In Gard’s case, however, Callister said it was wrong of the court to deny his family the opportunity to seek treatment, whether or not it would have prolonged or saved Gard’s life, and the ruling could have “indirectly contributed to his death.”

Given the ECHR’s geographical range of jurisdiction, Callister also said he was suspicious of their stance on human rights, citing euthanasia practices in Belgium and the Netherlands.

“Keep in mind those are places where it’s legal to euthanize people now,” Callister said. “So, I’m going to be real suspect of any group that talks about human rights in places where euthanasia is legal, and I’m not talking about assisted suicide. I’m talking about actively killing people — often involuntarily or without their knowledge.”

The ECHR has made questionable calls concerning human rights in the past, such as when the court pressured Ireland to legalize abortion, saying that Ireland’s ban on abortion violated human rights and put mothers at risk of harm and death. Ireland, however, had one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in Europe at the time and still does.

Gard’s parents were heartbroken over the ECHR’s decision, and though they cannot use the money they raised to save their son, they said they will donate the money for treatment of other children suffering from the same mitochondrial disease. Gard will be taken off life support Friday.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.

Congressman Trey Gowdy on Government and the Church

On March 20, 2015, at Convocation, North America’s largest weekly gathering of Christian students, U.S. Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) spoke to students about the importance of communicating their desire for change.

Congressman Gowdy encouraged students that if they want to change the world, they first need to figure out what they believe and why they believe it.

Trey Gowdy gave an insightful speech at Liberty University on the role of government and the church. His remarks deal with truth or freedom. Unity or diversity. Good, bad and relative.

Congressman Gowdy’s remarks begin at the 7:55 mark:

Click here to read Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue.

RELATED ARTICLE: Welfare Currently Punishes Work and Marriage. This Bill Would End That.

America’s Gang Crisis: Congressional Hearing Focus on MS-13

As with international terrorists, transnational gangs exploit immigration failures.

Failures of the immigration system are, once again, behind headline-making news reports. Last week two Congressional hearings were conducted into what has become America’s most pernicious and violent transnational gang, MS-13 that now operates in some 40 states.

Illustration by Graham Smith

I am very familiar with MS-13, I began investigating them nearly 25 years ago early into my assignment at the Organized Crime, Drug Enforcement Task Force following my promotion to INS Senior Special Agent.

Back then the number of the members of MS-13 in New York was small, consequently and the impact they had was also relatively small.

The immigration policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations certainly did not help law enforcement.  However, the greatest influx of MS-13 gang members is directly related to the flood of Unaccompanied Minors from Central America during the latter part of the Obama administration.

On April 28, 2017 Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke at the federal building in Central Islip where the Congressional field hearing would be held nearly two months later.  His speech, and his message, was reported by CBS news, Attorney General Sessions To Gangs: ‘We Are Targeting You.’

Yet the enforcement of our immigration laws by the Trump administration and by Attorney General Sessions has been frequently attacked by the media and by politicians, especially the “leaders” of Sanctuary Cities.

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

That “pipeline” crosses the U.S./Mexican border and is operated by members of drug cartels and transnational gangs.

It is important to read the prepared testimony of Subcommittee Chairman Peter King who focused on how the flood of unaccompanied minors from Central America flooded America with young and violent gang members who are now recruiting more gang members in our schools.

Here is the brief description of that hearing, and its predication, as posted on the official Congressional website:

This field hearing will examine the threat posed by transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), particularly Mara Salvatrucha 13 (MS-13) and the extent to which this violent gang is able to circumvent border security measures to gain entry into the U.S.  Since January 2016, there have been 17 murders linked to MS-13 in Suffolk County alone. The hearing will feature testimony from the stakeholders related to the interaction and cooperation between Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to combat MS-13. Additionally, testimony will be provided by community members directly impacted by these TCOs. The two panels reflect the broad cross section of the community required to respond to the threat posed by MS-13 and other TCOs on Long Island and across the nation.

The very next day, 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.

It is important to read the Judiciary Committee Chairman, Senator Chuck Grassley’s statement for that hearing and watch the video.

Here is an excerpt from Chairman Grassley’s statement:

This organization has been dubbed the world’s “most dangerous gang,” and some say it could be a terrorist organization. But, you wouldn’t expect anything less from a group whose motto is “kill, rape, and control.”

Unfortunately, over the past two years, this terrifying motto has become a vicious reality for many communities across our nation. So far this year, the gang has been publicly linked to dozens of high-profile killings, rapes, and assaults across the country, from the Washington D.C. metro area to Houston, Texas.

Undoubtedly, there are many more that simply haven’t been reported.

The mainstream media that reported on these hearings all but avoided mentioning that multiple failures of the immigration system have enabled these violent criminals to enter the United States and that Border Security Is National Security.

The “journalists” also blithely ignore that Sanctuary Cities: Where Hypocrisy Rules, often harbor and shield criminal aliens from detection by immigration law enforcement personnel.

In point of fact, Opponents of Border Security and Immigration Law Enforcement Aid Human Traffickers.  The most effective way to attack the human smugglers, who facilitate the entry of transnational gang members such as MS-13 is to have ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents work closely with local police and other law enforcement agencies to gain access to smuggled aliens who could then provide actionable intelligence to enable ICE and the Border Patrol to identify, locate and ultimately arrest human traffickers and dismantle their operations.

Shielding illegal aliens from detection by ICE also shields gang members and smugglers.  It is nearly impossible to identify human traffickers without interviewing the aliens whom they smuggled into the United States.

Illegal aliens who cooperate with law enforcement authorities can be granted visas that enable them to remain in the United States and legally work- to encourage such individuals to come forward without fear.

As an INS special agent my law enforcement colleagues, on the local, state of federal level, often told me that the granting of such visas to illegal aliens provided far more important intelligence that could any other incentive.

If mayors of Sanctuary Cities were truly concerned about doing what is compassionate, they should issue public service announcements, urging illegal aliens to come forward if they have significant information that could aid ICE agents in identifying and ultimately arresting criminals including human traffickers living in their communities to safeguard those who live in those ethnic immigrant communities, where these transnational criminals live and ply their “trades.”

This would simply be an extension of “If you see something, say something.”  (If you know something say something!)

Those mayors should require their respective police departments to work closely with ICE agents rather than prevent them from working with those agents.

Yet this fact is utterly ignored by the media and by many politicians.  In fact the media often portray mayors of “Sanctuary Cities” as heroes who shield illegal aliens from immigration agents who, according to the narrative, are the “bad guys.”

There is an additional price to be paid for this false and dangerous narrative, as reported on June 19, 2017, Citing Uptick in Attacks, Senators Request Better Protection for ICE Officers.

Here is an expert from that report that appeared in Government Executive:

According to ICE, there have been 19 recorded assaults on ICE personnel in 2017 through May 22, compared to 24 incidents in all of 2016. (Senators) Johnson and McCaskill also requested data since 2010, what DHS and ICE have done already to protect employees, and whether assailants have been prosecuted.

Thomas Homan, ICE’s acting director, at a congressional hearing last week blamed the media and immigrant groups for putting officers at risk by promoting false or misleading reports about the nature of their jobs. His employees, Homan said, have been “unfairly vilified for simply trying to do their jobs.”

“People have the right to protest, but ICE officers also have rights,” Homan told a House Appropriations Committee panel. “They have a right to enforce the law safely and return to their families at the end of the day.”

Homan promoted the controversial practice of making immigration arrests at courthouses, noting it helped with safety for his officers because they could be certain the detainees did not have any weapons on them. He decried as untrue any reports that ICE employees were making arrests at schools or hospitals. ICE officers, he said, should be celebrated for keeping communities safe rather than depicted as inhumane or callous.

As to the supposedly “controversial practice of making immigration arrests in courthouses,” arrest operations are inherently dangerous.  Individuals, especially those who face severe consequences for their crimes, can become extremely violent in an effort to evade law enforcement.  Sociopathic criminals including those who are addicted to narcotics, may react irrationally when confronted by law enforcement.

Generally everyone entering a courthouse is carefully screened for weapons.

A courthouse is often the best place to take a defendant into custody.  I speak from many years of experience.

It is particularly ironic and, indeed, vexing that there are judges and lawyers (who are “officers of the court”) who oppose federal law enforcement officers executing lawfully issued warrants in a building dedicated to the Constitution and to the principles of the rule of law and justice.

Furthermore, when an arrest goes badly on the street or a building, and a gunfight ensues, innocent civilians as well as agents and the defendant, are placed in extreme mortal danger.

No rational, reasonable or compassionate person would rather risk innocent lives rather than facilitate the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws that have absolutely nothing to do with race, religion, ethnicity, but have everything to do with public safety, national security and the well being of America and Americans.

Considering the foregoing, I am compelled to remind you that the ENLIST Act (H.R. 60) would undermine national security and public safety, providing gang members with access to military training and military bases.  When “Compassion” Endangers National SecurityThe landmines of illegal aliens entering military service.

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: 

White House Backs 2 Bills Targeting Illegal Immigration

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.