FATWA: Hunted in America

Pamela Geller’s shocking new book published by Milo’s New Publishing House, Dangerous Books

At a major news conference kicking off the now cancelled “free Speech Week” at Berkeley San Francisco, Milo announced the launch of the shocking new book, Fatwa: Hunted in America. It will be the first book published by Milo’s groundbreaking new publishing house, Dangerous Books. Old school publishers would be terrified to publish this book.

Get it. Now. Support the work. Support new media.

Look what they are they saying:

When Pamela Geller talks about Islam, she does it with both barrels. For sparing us the platitudes when confronting this direct and present danger, she is reviled by society’s bien pensant. In this book, she recounts her adventures in “hate speech,” or as we used to call it, “telling the truth.”  It is both an enlightening and gripping tale.

—- Ann Coulter, Bestselling Author

“How did a nice Jewish girl from Long Island become the Joan of Arc of the counterjihad movement? In this remarkably absorbing page-turner of a book, Pamela Geller tells her story – a story of courage in the face not only of the jihadist enemy but of a veritable army of apologists, appeasers, pacifists, whitewashers, self-styled “bridge-builders,” and assorted cowards, careerists, and sellouts. Armed only with the truth and a passionate love of American liberty, Geller has survived their smears and kept hope alive. It’s an inspiring story that I hope will encourage other freedom-lovers to stand up and be counted before it’s too late.” 

— Bruce Bawer, author of The Victims’ Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind.

Pamela Geller’s fascinating book is the vivid chronicle of a courageous woman who fought vigilantly and with fierceness, confronting dangers, threats and vile defamation, to preserve the American soul of freedom and democratic liberties. A most actual record of our perilous time.

—- Bat Ye’or, Historian, author of Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, and of Europe, Globalization and the Coming Universal Caliphate

“Pamela Geller is a towering hero of freedom. If free people survive into the next generation, which is by no means assured, Pamela Geller will be celebrated as one of those who stood against the tide of Leftism and Islamic supremacism when it was at its apogee. No proper history of the freedom of the human spirit in our darkening age can be written without including her.”

—- Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad.”

“Free-speech advocates who don’t make waves are not doing their jobs. Pamela Geller writes a guidebook here for Paladins of the First Amendment.”

—- Ambassador John Bolton

City Abruptly Eliminates Police Chief Finalist for Supporting Immigration Enforcement

A highly qualified and respected veteran law enforcement official with impressive credentials was precipitously eliminated as a finalist to be police chief in a U.S. city after officials discovered he endorsed immigration enforcement. Judicial Watch is investigating and has filed a public records request to obtain details about the troublesome case in which the support for the rule of law served as a disqualifier for a candidate hired to enforce the rule of law. It also marks yet another example nationwide of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness and the negative impact illegal immigration is having on taxpayers.

The unbelievable story involves the northern Colorado city of Ft. Collins’ search for a new police chief. Steve Henry, a former chief deputy for the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) in central Arizona applied for the position. The 55-year-old law enforcement veteran spent nearly two decades at PCSO, an agency with a $39 million budget that patrols a county the size of Connecticut. Henry is a U.S. Army veteran who obtained his undergraduate degree at Arizona State University and graduate degree at Northern Arizona University. He also holds a degree from the Harvard JFK School of Government and attended the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy. He has 23 years of continuous and stellar law enforcement service.

Henry was among 65 applicants for the Ft. Collins police chief job and was recently notified that he was one of six finalists. He was invited to travel to Ft. Collins to interview with city officials, specifically the city manager, who oversees the police chief. Henry’s offer was abruptly rescinded, according to a source closely involved with the selection process, because he publicly supported an Arizona law (SB1070) that makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. without proper documentation and bans “sanctuary city” policies. The measure also allows local law enforcement officers throughout the state to inquire about suspects’ immigration status. “Three of the top six candidates were dumped for a public stance on one issue or another,” Judicial Watch’s source said. “Political correctness is destroying America when a city government does not want a chief who supports the rule of law.” Judicial Watch reached out to Ft. Collins City Manager Darin Atteberry for comment but an assistant named Rachel left Judicial Watch a voice message saying Atteberry had “back-to-back meetings” for days and would not be available. Judicial Watch also sent Atteberry questions via electronic mail to his official city address (datteberry@fcgov.com) but he did not return them.

A California-based company called Ralph Anderson and Associates that provides cities, counties and state agencies with executive search and consulting services is handling the search for Ft. Collins police chief. The city hired the firm after its police chief resigned in May following a series of scandals, including the use of excessive force in several instances and a $425,000 settlement to two officers who claimed the department discriminated against them based on their race. The Ft. Collins Police Department has 327 employees, 213 of them sworn officers and an annual budget of $46.5 million. Nestled against the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, Ft. Collins is the state’s fourth largest city with a population of about 157,000. It’s home to Colorado State University, the state’s flagship public college, and local government supports offering illegal immigrants sanctuary. Ft. Collins Mayor Wade Troxell said in a local newspaper report that the city is an open, inclusive and friendly community and that “all people matter.” Members of the city council have consistently said they support diversity and want the city to be a welcoming place for all people.

Henry was informed by a Ralph Anderson and Associates official that he was eliminated as a candidate after the discovery of two news stories in which Henry was quoted supporting Arizona’s immigration control measure, SB1070. The Anderson and Associates official said the articles made Atteberry, the Ft. Collins city manager, leery about hiring Henry because, among other things, the city is a university town. With the city refusing to explain what happened, the chain of events indicates that a highly qualified candidate got eliminated from the final six police chief applicants due to his support for the rule of law. There was no crime, misconduct or character flaw on his part, just support in his capacity at Pinal County for Arizona’s commitment to assist federal law enforcement in an effort to secure borders and implement federal trespassing statutes. As for the Ft. Collins public officials, it never looks good when they dodge the hard questions involving questionable decisions.

VIDEO: Union Leaders Tried to Bully This California Teacher Into Silence. She Didn’t Give In.

Rebecca Friedrichs, a California school teacher, took her battle with unions to the Supreme Court last year.

Though the issue was unresolved due to a vacancy and split on the court, she has continued to carry on her fight against union leadership.

Friedrichs sat down with The Daily Signal to discuss how she ended up at the center of a major Supreme Court case and her ongoing battle to defend the First Amendment and schoolchildren.

She spoke about how she’s learned about union mentality and the tactics union leaders will use to intimidate teachers and shut down voices of opposition.

‘Children Should Come First’

The issue at stake in the Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association case was the First Amendment—specifically, whether public employees who didn’t want to join unions could be forced to pay what the union determines is a “fair share” toward collective bargaining, but in practice amounts to political activity.

Collective bargaining is the negotiation between an employer and a labor union’s members to determine wages and the conditions of employment.

Forced dues were allowed under an earlier decision, but in the 2015 case it appeared the court was heading in the direction of overturning that precedent.

But then, Justice Antonin Scalia died just before the case was to be decided, leaving the court split 4-4 in its final decision and leaving the case unresolved.

Now, two more cases dealing with public unions are on the horizon that could dramatically alter their ability to force nonmembers to pay. This would have a massive impact on the nature of public sector unions.

Regardless of how those legal decisions play out, the role of public unions will continue to be a hotly contested issue.

Though Friedrichs said it took a while to arrive at the conclusion that teacher union leadership was a problem, she learned early on that things weren’t quite right.

In an August Heritage Foundation panel, she said that another teacher in her school, whom she called “the witch,” was abusing children by “yanking” their arms and screaming at them.

Realizing this was a shock for Friedrichs, who had a hard time believing this behavior would be allowed to continue.

“I was naive enough to believe that I would walk into a school situation where all children were protected and where all teachers were like me—loved the children, did their best for the children,” she said.

“The No. 1 thing parents want is for their children to be safe and to get a good education,” Friedrichs said. “I don’t think that’s asking too much.”

But because of collective bargaining agreements, Friedrichs said, bad apples like the witch couldn’t lose their jobs.

This led to her questioning the motives of the teacher unions, and eventually the lawsuit she decided to file against her union—the California Teachers Association—25 years after she began teaching.

“It went from watching that abusive teacher. Then I became a teacher, found out I had to pay for representation fees, found out that my money was being used toward political causes with which I disagreed.”

She explained how, even though she wasn’t a member of the union, she still had to pay “agency shop” fees and contribute to what amounted to the union’s political advocacy.

Friedrichs witnessed this firsthand shortly after getting her teaching job. She said:

A few years into my career there was a voucher initiative in my state. I’m for vouchers, I believe in school choice. I was called a radical right-winger by my union rep because I dared to say, ‘No, thank you, I don’t want to be a phone banker and a boots-on-the-ground campaign worker to defeat vouchers.’

‘These Teachers Were All Terrified’

Friedrichs said she finally decided to join the California Teachers Association and become a representative since she was paying it anyway.

However, she quickly found that the union leadership didn’t like her or anyone else questioning its policies, and said the union engages in fact-free campaigns of intimidation to shut down opposing voices.

At an annual leadership conference, she said one teacher stood up and expressed concern over how the union was spending their money on overt political activity. That didn’t sit well with the union leadership.

“Those leaders on the stage and leaders in the room immediately … shut her down,” she said.

The union leaders suggested that their politics were the “correct” politics and insinuated that the teacher’s opposition was due to bigotry. They shut her down in such an extreme way that “the entire room went dead silent.”

“These teachers were all terrified,” Friedrichs said.

The union leaders use a variety of means to ensure that teachers tow the company line, Friedrichs said. They are told they will lose their jobs and will lose their pensions if they don’t support the unions.

“Teachers work in a culture of fear and [the teacher unions] use manipulation tactics, they isolate teachers like myself who dare to speak out,” she said.

While she encountered a lot of public hostility from the unions when she launched what would become a major Supreme Court case, she said she really didn’t blame her fellow teachers.

Many teachers privately supported her, but were afraid they would be attacked for publicly supporting a cause that conflicted with the desires of union leadership.

“It’s too dangerous to have a different thought if that thought doesn’t agree with union think,” Friedrichs said.

“If you agree with union think, you’re safe. If you say the opposite of union think, now you’re going to be bullied, shunned, isolated, labeled, whatever it takes to shut you up.”

‘It’s the Right Thing to Do’

When The Daily Signal asked Friedrichs why she decided to fight the teacher unions, she responded by saying that “it’s the right thing to do.”

Now that she is no longer involved in a Supreme Court case, she decided that she needed to take up her fight by other means.

“I can positively impact 32 children in a classroom, or I can positively impact every child across the country,” she said. “So I’ve decided to take a little bit of time out of the classroom and this year I served as a fellow to the State Policy Network.”

The State Policy Network, or SPN, is an organization that aids limited government, nonprofit groups at the state level.

She said SPN has given her a platform to take her message to diverse people around the country:

In that capacity I’ve had the opportunity to travel around the country, I’ve spoken to legislators, I’ve let them know that when the teacher union comes and is lobbying you, they are speaking on behalf of the teacher union leadership, they’re not speaking on behalf of me, and they’re not speaking on behalf of millions of teachers across this country who don’t agree with them.

If Americans want to battle back against the power of teacher unions, Friedrichs said, they can start by educating teachers and fellow citizens about the problem those unions cause.

Most of the time teachers only get one side of the story, she said.

“The key for average citizens and parents to start understanding is that it’s the union that’s creating a lot of these problems, and helping teachers understand that,” she said.

Though future Supreme Court cases may eventually curtail the power of public unions over their employees, union leaders are already planning a response.

In July, California passed a bill that requires newly-hired public employees to be given an exclusive orientation by the union that represents them, while taxpayers must foot the bill for their replacements—such as substitute teachers—during their time off work.

Some legislation might go ever further, Friedrichs said.

In the Friedrichs’ case, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that the unions are perhaps an entity of the government, which could mean that some states could create laws to tax citizens to make up for lost dues.

More blue states may follow with similar legislation if unions can no longer force people to pay up. This means that while the confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch may lead to Supreme Court rulings that will preserve Americans’ liberties, the debate over the power of public sector unions will continue.

Of the prospect that states will use tax dollars to compensate for lost union dues, Friedrichs simply said: “If they can get away with it, they will.”

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Jarrett. Twitter: 

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Rebecca Friedrichs who brought her fight against teacher unions to the Supreme Court. Today, she is finding other ways to protect the First Amendment rights of public employees who don’t want to join unions. (Photo: Jeff Malet SIPA/Newscom) Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

As Evidence of Election Fraud Emerges, the Media Wants to Keep You in the Dark

If you have no idea what happened at the second meeting of President Donald Trump’s Advisory Commission on Election Integrity in New Hampshire on Sept. 12, I’m not surprised.

Though a horde of reporters attended the meeting, almost all of the media stories that emerged from it simply repeated the progressive left’s mantra that the commission is a “sham.”

Almost no one covered the substantive and very concerning testimony of 10 expert witnesses on the problems that exist in our voter registration and election system.

The witnesses included academics, election lawyers, state election officials, data analysts, software experts, and computer scientists.

The existing and potential problems they exposed would give any American with any common sense and any concern for our democratic process cause for alarm.

The first panel included Andrew Smith of the University of New Hampshire, Kimball Brace of Election Data Services Inc., and John Lott. They testified about historical election turnout statistics and the effects of election integrity issues on voter confidence.

Lott also testified that his statistical analyses show that contrary to the narrative myth pushed by some, voter ID does not depress voter turnout. In fact, there is some evidence that it may increase turnout because it increases public confidence in elections.

Read the written testimony of witnesses who testified at the commission meeting.

In a second panel, Donald Palmer, the former chief election official in two states—Florida and Virginia—testified about the problems that exist in state voter registration systems.

He made a series of recommendations to improve the accuracy of voter rolls, including working toward “interoperability” of state voter lists so that states “can identify and remove duplicate registration of citizens who are registered to vote in more than one state.”

Robert Popper, a former Justice Department lawyer now with Judicial Watch, testified about the failure of the Justice Department to enforce the provisions of the National Voter Registration Act that require states to maintain the accuracy of their voter lists.

He said there has been a “pervasive failure by state and county officials” to comply with the National Voter Registration Act, and complained about the under-enforcement of state laws against voter fraud.

Ken Block of Simpatico Software Systems gave a stunning report on the comparison that his company did of voter registration and voter history data from 21 states. He discussed how difficult and expensive it was to get voter data from many states—data that is supposed to be freely available to the public.

According to Block, “the variability in access, quality, cost, and data provided impedes the ability to examine voter activity between states.”

Yet using an extremely conservative matching formula that included name, birthdate, and Social Security number, Block found approximately 8,500 voters who voted in two different states in the November 2016 election, including 200 couples who voted illegally together. He estimated that “there would be 40,000 duplicate votes if data from every state were available.”

Of those duplicate voters, 2,200 cast a ballot in Florida—four times George W. Bush’s margin of victory in 2000. His analysis “indicates a high likelihood [of] voter fraud” and that there is “likely much more to be found.”

As a member of the commission, I testified about The Heritage Foundation’s election fraud database. That non-comprehensive database has 1,071 examples of proven incidents of fraud ranging from one illegal vote to hundreds. It includes 938 criminal convictions, 43 civil penalties, and miscellaneous other cases.

Heritage is about to add another 19 cases to the database. This is likely just the tip of the iceberg, since many cases are never prosecuted and there is no central source for information on election fraud.

The commission also heard about a report published by Shawn Jasper, the Republican speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. That report stated that over 6,500 individuals in 2016 used an out-of-state driver’s license to take advantage of New Hampshire’s same-day registration law to register and vote on Election Day.

Despite a law that requires an individual with an out-of-state license to obtain a New Hampshire license within 60 days of establishing residency in the state, only 15.5 percent have done so.

Many have tried to explain this away be saying those voters must all have been college students living in New Hampshire. Perhaps that is true.

But it may also be true that voters from Massachusetts and other surrounding states decided to take advantage of New Hampshire’s law to cross the border and vote in a presidential and Senate race, which were decided by only 3,000 and 1,000 voters, respectively.

Of course, we won’t know the truth of what happened unless we do what should be done, and what the commission’s critics don’t want to be done: investigate these cases.

Finally, the commission heard from three computer experts—Andrew Appel of Princeton University, Ronald Rivest of MIT, and Harri Hursti of Nordic Innovation Labs. Their testimony about the ability of hackers to get into electronic voting equipment and just about every other device that uses the internet (and even those that don’t) was chilling.

As Appel stated, our challenge is to ensure that when voters go to the polls, they can “trust that their votes will be recorded accurately, counted accurately, and aggregated accurately.” He made a series of “technological and organization” recommendations for achieving that objective.

All in all, the Sept. 12 meeting, which was hosted by Bill Gardner, New Hampshire’s longtime Democratic secretary of state, was both informative and comprehensive. But anyone who didn’t attend would never know that based on the skimpy and biased coverage it received in the media.

The hearing is evidence of the good work the commission is already doing in bringing to light the problems we face in ensuring the integrity of our election process.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: According to a new report, over 6,500 individuals used an out-of-state driver’s license to register to vote in New Hampshire on Election Day last year. (Photo: iStock Photos) Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

VIDEO: Tom Fitton Discusses Judicial Watch’s Battles Against the Deep State

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton has never been more forceful — or eloquent — than he is in the video below. I wanted to be sure you didn’t miss the very latest edition of “Inside Judicial Watch.” In it, you’ll see Tom analyze the Deep State… the Clinton emails… the Mueller investigation — and much, much more!

Inside Judicial Watch: Tom Fitton Discusses JW’s Battles Against the Deep State

RELATED ARTICLE: Hillary Worries About “Dissing” Mexicans in G20 Shirt Gaffe, Tells Huma “I’m Sick of People Deciding What I Should Know”

VIDEO: The ‘Fringe’ begins eating its own, starting with Nancy Pelosi

In his remarks on the first anniversary of the Alliance for Progress on 13 March 1962, John F. Kennedy said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” Today, the Democrat Party has made peaceful revolution impossible and now it is they who are paying the price when it becomes violent. Democrats did not condemn the violence perpetrated by members of Occupy Wall Street (OWS). Instead Nancy Pelosi endorsed the OWS revolution.

In a Weekly Standard column titled “Pelosi on Occupy Wall Street Protesters: ‘God bless them’,” John McCormack wrote:

During a press conference Thursday afternoon, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi praised those participating in the “Occupy Wall Street” protests. “God bless them,” Pelosi said, “for their spontaneity. It’s independent … it’s young, it’s spontaneous, and it’s focused. And it’s going to be effective.”

Read more.

Occupy Wall Street then began breaking windows, literally.

Once you endorse a revolution it does become a more and more violent revolution. Watch Nancy Pelosi, a champion of open borders and amnesty, shouted down by illegal aliens (so called dreamers) in San Francisco, a sanctuary city, within California, a sanctuary state.

The Democrat Party, and then President Obama, failed to repair the broken windows beginning with the Occupy Oakland riots in California, which inextricably lead to the 2013 riots in Sanford, Florida, 2014 riots in Ferguson, Missouri and most recently the 2017 riots and death in Charlottesville, Virginia. Now we see the Democrats targeted by their own.

The Democrats have encouraged breaking windows, because “it has always been fun” so long as its the other party that gets hurt. Well now their party is being hurt.

Violence begets more violence: From Sanford, Florida to Ferguson, Missouri to San Francisco, California.

Ayn Rand wrote, “The hardest thing to explain is the glaring evidence which everybody has decided not to see.”

Pat Condell in a YouTube video titled “Europe is Killing Itself” states:

The progressive thing is to merge the two cultures the civilized one and the barbarous one. Of course they know civilized people will reject barbarism. Therefore civilized people need to be reeducated to believe that barbarianism is as valid as civilization and worthy of equal respect or you’ll be a criminal. Which is pretty much where we are now.”

In February then candidate Donald J. Trump at a rally in Iowa began reciting the lyrics to a Al Wilson song from 1969 entitled “The Snake.” Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats have taken in the snake and it has bitten them and they are going to die politically.

The snake cannot be satisfied with kindness. It must by its very nature bite the hand of those who took it in.

RELATED ARTICLE: 2020 Democratic Presidential Hopefuls: No Longer Friends of Israel

“The Snake” Lyrics

On her way to work one morning
Down the path along side the lake
A tender hearted woman saw a poor half frozen snake
His pretty colored skin had been all frosted with the dew
“Poor thing, ” she cried, “I’ll take you in and I’ll take care of you”
“Take me in tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman, ” sighed the snake

She wrapped him up all cozy in a comforter of silk
And laid him by her fireside with some honey and some milk
She hurried home from work that night and soon as she arrived
She found that pretty snake she’d taken to had been revived
“Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman, ” sighed the snake

She clutched him to her bosom, “You’re so beautiful, ” she cried
“But if I hadn’t brought you in by now you might have died”
She stroked his pretty skin again and kissed and held him tight
Instead of saying thanks, the snake gave her a vicious bite
“Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman, ” sighed the snake
“I saved you, ” cried the woman
“And you’ve bitten me, but why?
You know your bite is poisonous and now I’m going to die”
“Oh shut up, silly woman, ” said the reptile with a grin
“You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in
“Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman, ” sighed the snake

Written by Robert S. Kelly, Darian Morgan • Copyright © Universal Music Publishing Group

Likely Next Solicitor General Fought for Nuns, Against Disputed Obama Appointees

After racking up victories against the Obama administration before the Supreme Court, Noel Francisco is expected to be confirmed by the Senate to manage the Trump administration’s cases there.

“If you asked any conservative attorney in this town, they would put Noel in the top five legal minds,” @Curt_Levey says.

President Donald Trump nominated Francisco, who clerked for the late Justice Antonin Scalia and was a lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, to be his solicitor general.

A Senate committee approved the nomination four months ago. Democrats have stalled a final vote, but an end looks in sight.

While working in private practice for the Jones Day law firm, Francisco, 48, successfully argued before the Supreme Court against the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, winning a 9-0 decision.

He also gained a 4-4 tie at the high court after arguing for the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic order of nuns, against Obamacare’s mandate requiring employers to cover contraception and abortion-inducing drugs in employee health plans.

In another widely publicized case that made its way to the high court, Francisco helped overturn the conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican, on charges of public corruption.

The Supreme Court is set to begin hearing new cases Oct. 2. Some of the more high-profile cases concern the separation of powers, Trump’s “extreme vetting” order blocking immigration from certain failed states, and religious freedom.

“There are a number of very significant cases before the court and he is equal to the task for any cases before the Supreme Court,” John Malcolm, who heads the Institute for Constitutional Government at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “Noel Francisco is exceptionally bright and has impeccable character, and the nation will be well served to have him as solicitor general.”

Francisco, approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party line, 11-9 vote in June, is one of many Trump nominees whom Senate Democrats have managed to prevent from coming to a final floor vote.

Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director for the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative legal group, watched Francisco argue the NLRB v. Noel Canning case before the Supreme Court. The justices unanimously ruled the president could not make recess appointments—installing appointees without Senate confirmation—while the Senate was not officially in recess.

Severino said Francisco’s impressive record was on display in his actions as a litigator.

“This has been another shameful holdup by the Senate Democrats who dragged this nomination out much longer than necessary,” Severino told The Daily Signal. “Noel Francisco is very well-known attorney and a very skilled litigator.”

“I’m glad he’s on board,” she added, “but we are still moving at a pace of confirmation that it would take three terms to appoint all of this administration’s nominees.”

The U.S. solicitor general works in the Justice Department, charged with managing the defense of the federal government’s cases in front of the Supreme Court. In many cases, the solicitor general argues the case.

Francisco briefly served as acting solicitor general until Trump nominated him for the position in March. Jeffrey Wall, who has served as acting solicitor general, is set to take the office’s No. 2 slot upon Francisco’s confirmation.

Francisco grew up in Oswego, New York. Francisco received his law degree from the University of Chicago in 1996. He clerked for Judge J. Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit before clerking for Scalia at the Supreme Court.

Bush named Francisco as associate counsel to the president. He served in the White House from 2001 to 2003 before becoming deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department until 2005.

Francisco lives in Washington with his wife Cynthia and their two daughters, Caroline and Maggie.

“If you asked any conservative attorney in this town, they would put Noel in the top five legal minds,” said Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice and a legal affairs fellow with FreedomWorks, both conservative organizations.

“Given the resistance to Trump in the federal courts, almost everything could be dealt a blow by a district court somewhere, it’s important to have someone with executive branch experience, and it’s more important than ever for not only the country but for this administration,” Levey told The Daily Signal.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Noel Francisco, President Trump’s nominee for solicitor general, testifying on May 10 before the Senate Judiciary Committee. (Photo: Ron Sachs/DPA/Picture Alliance/Newscom). Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

I’m a Descendant of Holocaust Survivors. Why I’m Appalled at the Comparison of Christian Bakers to Nazis.

It’s November 1938, and the Nazis have confiscated a silk factory owned by the same Jewish family for over a decade, arresting the owner.

Fast forward to 2014, and a state official has compared a Colorado Christian baker to the same group that took away what belonged to the Jewish silk factory owner—the father of my grandmother’s cousin, Godofredo.

This in a country founded by people who fled religious persecution.

While America, the country that mostly turned away Jews fleeing Adolf Hitler, is thankfully not on a course to repeat the Holocaust’s atrocities, some of its citizens have taken to comparing matters of individual freedom—such as a baker refusing to make a same-sex wedding cake—to the actions that led to the deaths of 11 million people, including 6 million Jews and 1.5 million children.

Colorado Civil Rights Commissioner Diann Rice said, “Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.”

Especially as the grandson of Holocaust survivors, my message for Rice and for those who make religious liberty comparisons to the Shoah is simple: Stop it.

The late Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel, who survived the Holocaust, warned against comparisons like this. He said:

Only Auschwitz was Auschwitz. I went to Yugoslavia when reporters said that there was a Holocaust starting there. There was genocide, but not an Auschwitz. When you make a comparison to the Holocaust it works both ways, and soon people will say what happened in Auschwitz was “only what happened in Bosnia.”

Apply that logic to the case of Colorado baker Jack Phillips: Only Auschwitz was Auschwitz.

I went to Colorado where a baker refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. I personally think it’s a shame, but it’s a private business refusing to bake a cake for a purpose of which the owner doesn’t agree.

It was a denial, not an Auschwitz. When we make a comparison to the Holocaust, it works both ways, and soon people will say what happened in Auschwitz was “only what happened in a bakery.”

To cheapen the Holocaust by making such comparisons is to convolute and deny its atrocities.

The Holocaust, which only started with the discriminatory Nuremberg Laws only to end up in genocide, didn’t happen so much because of a hatred of a religion, but rather an explicit hatred for a people. This hatred extended to people who helped those the Nazis targeted, like the family who hid my only living grandmother when she was a child in France.

In fact, once Hitler took power, he sought to reduce Christianity’s influence on German society.

Rice’s comment was nothing but perverted and bigoted. I dare her to tell my living grandmother that what the Colorado baker did compares to the atrocities at Dachau, of which her late husband survived (his father perished there), and about which Phillips’ father wrote notes regarding the atrocities there and other places like Buchenwald, which he helped liberate.

Hypocritically, those on the left, like Rice, cite the plight of Jewish refugees during World War II as a reason for why the U.S. should take in refugees from war-torn places like Syria. Apparently they failed to learn about the Holocaust, which consisted of Jewish bakeries and other businesses being looted on Kristallnacht, or “Night of the Broken Glass,” let alone being sent to concentration camps.

(Important side note: Where is the outrage from the left over the atrocities in Rohingya, Darfur, Tibet, in Iraq against the Yazidis, and other persecuted groups in the Middle East? Those conflicts are severe compared to a bakery refusing to bake a same-sex wedding cake.)

Intolerance was part of the Holocaust. Blatant discrimination was part of the Holocaust. Concentration camps and gas chambers were part of the Holocaust. Death marches were part of the Holocaust. Indifference was part of the Holocaust.

Bakers refusing to bake same-sex wedding cakes were not part of the Holocaust. Rice seems indifferent to the magnitude of the Holocaust’s barbaric and sadistic acts, and instead chose to relate them to a baker who simply followed his conscience in declining to make a same-sex wedding cake.

Would Rice equate Phillips refusing to make a “divorce” cake to the Holocaust? Would Rice compare Phillips refusing to make Halloween-themed cakes to that of the Holocaust?

The famous psychologist Rollo May said, “The opposite of courage in our society isn’t cowardice. It’s conformity.”

It’s astonishing that America, which eventually admitted my surviving grandparents, is in 2017 a place where some are trying to coerce others to conform to an ideology, even if it conflicts with their personal beliefs.

In Nazi Germany, if you weren’t an Aryan as Hitler prescribed in “Mein Kampf,” you would perish. Is it somehow acceptable to compare this baker or anyone coerced by those with differing ideologies to the Nazis?

If we’re going to say “Never again,” let’s also say “No more.” No more false equivalences. No more hate. Conversing, not ostracizing, is the solution to bridge divisions between people.

Let’s judge people personally—not by their background, but rather by their character.

COMMENTARY BY

Jackson Richman is the Capital Commentary editor for Kol HaBirah, a Jewish newspaper in the greater Washington, D.C. area. Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of the sign above the entrance of the former Dachau concentration camp reads in German, “Work makes you free.” (Photo: Michael Dalder/Reuters/Newscom) Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

Hurricane Heroes

On Friday September 8, 2017 Governor Rick Scott issued a mandatory evacuation order for all residents of the barrier islands on the west coast of Florida where my husband and I live. We anxiously monitored the trajectory of Hurricane Irma and watched with horror as the colossal storm gathered strength and unexpectedly veered west. On Saturday morning we left everything behind and drove north toward safety.

The drive north on I-75 was a most extraordinary experience. The northbound lanes inched forward packed bumper-to-bumper with evacuees in passenger cars seeking safety away from the storm. In stark contrast the southbound lanes had convoys of trucks – power companies, EMS vehicles, tree companies, huge semis filled with supplies – all driving toward the deadly hurricane. It was a stunning polarity.

We drove north for fourteen hours and the convoys never ended – there were thousands of trucks. Men and women of all backgrounds, races, ethnicities and political perspectives sacrificing their personal safety and comfort in common cause to rebuild what Hurricane Irma was destroying. It made me cry. These Hurricane Heroes are authentic American heroes – men and women driving into a lethal hurricane to rebuild shattered lives. Real heroes are builders.

It was inspirational to witness their dedication and commitment and I am overwhelmed with gratitude and admiration for how these Hurricane Heroes choose to live their lives. Natural disasters have a remarkable unifying capacity. When the water recedes and the debris clears America has a choice. We can choose to be builders like the Hurricane Heroes or we can choose to be destroyers.

Weeks before Hurricane Irma devastated the Keys and slammed into the west coast of Florida the tabloid mainstream media became obsessed with the destruction of symbols of American history. It began with Confederate statues. The smashing and/or removing of statues offensive to the snowflakes who found them deeply disturbing was reported and debated incessantly. In a pathetic display of audacity left-wing liberals and anarchist dressed up in camouflage and black ski masks asserted themselves by destroying statues. Obama’s anti-American resistance “fighters” manifested their faux bravery by shattering inanimate objects! Their counterfeit bravery is laughable in the real world of bona fide American heroes. Fake heroes are destroyers.

It does not take courage to destroy a statue – any angry out-of-control adolescent can do that. Courage belongs to real heroes risking their own lives fulfilling their commitments to help others in need. It was extraordinary to witness such a remarkable display of bravery and watch mile after mile of America’s finest traveling south into harm’s way. Unlike the statue smashers and fake Hollywood glitterati who dress up in costumes and oppose fake enemies and fake obstacles and fake calamities in the movies they make – the Hurricane Heroes traveling south on I-75 are real life courageous American heroes. They deserve our deepest respect, admiration, and profound gratitude.

America has observed its proud traditions of lawful change and the peaceful transfer of power for 241 years. We vote with the expectation that the election outcome will be honored. Obama’s signature “resistance” movement is deeply destructive and anti-American because it defies our patriotic American traditions of lawfulness. Instead, it inspires lawlessness, anarchy, violence, and destruction. Any voter who did not support President Donald Trump has a four-year opportunity to help field a viable candidate to oppose him in 2020. Patriotic Americans do not try to overthrow the government – they respect the law and vote for change. Loyal Americans are builders not destroyers.

Fake heroes are like fake news – neither can compete in the real world of facts. When the boundaries between fact and fiction are blurred we end up with the Hollywood glitterati, like the statue smashers, actually taking themselves seriously as heroes. They have the audacity to lecture real people about gun control and illegal immigrants when they live in walled fortresses protected by armed guards.

My message to the costumed snowflake statue smashers and the hypocritical Hollywood glitterati is GROW UP! The country needs rational adults who live in objective reality to solve the catastrophic aftermath of Hurricane Irma and the devastating repercussions of eight anti-American years of Obama. The country needs real heroes committed to rebuilding the country willing to drive south into the storm not a bunch of costumed fake heroes pretending that acting is reality.

The extraordinary dedication of the Hurricane Heroes is inspirational and gives me hope that we can once again be whole and united as one American family if we reject fakery and destruction and concentrate on rebuilding the reality of America the beautiful.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Goudsmit Pundicity.

Judicial Crisis Network Launches Ad Against Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s ‘Religious Litmus Test’

The Judicial Crisis Network is launching ad campaigns against two Democratic senators who are blocking President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees.

The two campaigns are against Sens. Al Franken, D-Minn., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Franken is refusing to return the blue slip for Justice David Stras, nominated to serve on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. And Feinstein attacked Amy Barrett, nominated for the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, for her Catholic faith at a confirmation hearing Sept. 6.

“The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s a concern,” Feinstein said at thehearing in a phrase that made headlines.

Under Senate tradition, hearings aren’t held for a judicial nominee until his or her home state senators submit “blue slips” showing their consent to advancing the nomination.

The ad campaign attacking Franken was announced Wednesday and is running for two weeks in Minneapolis. The ad buy includes CNN and MSNBC. The ad campaign will also air digitally throughout the state.

“Franken is trying to block the Judiciary Committee from even reviewing Justice Stras’ sterling record, and his refusal to return the blue slip for Justice Stras is unacceptable,” said Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network.

“By not returning his blue slip, Sen. Franken is choosing Washington politics over the people of Minnesota.”

In a statement released Sept. 5, Franken attacked Trump for relying on conservative organizations, such as the Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation, for judicial nominees.

But as I have familiarized myself with Justice Stras’ record—not just his past decisions, but his professional experience and past statements—I have grown concerned that, if confirmed to the federal bench, Justice Stras would be a deeply conservative jurist in the mold of Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, justices who the nominee himself has identified as role models,” Franken said.

The ad campaign against Feinstein was announced Friday and is attacking what the organization is calling Feinstein’s “Religious Litmus Test.” The campaign will be digitally focused and starts Saturday. It will last for 10 days with a six-figure budget.

“This is going to be known as Feinstein’s Folly,” Severino said. “Her line of questioning reeked of ‘No Catholics Need Apply,’ while ignoring professor Barrett’s stellar qualifications, experience and fierce commitment to defending the Constitution. Feinstein was fundamentally at odds with our constitutional commitment to religious freedom, not to mention politically tone-deaf.”

Franken’s and Feinstein’s offices did not respond to a request for comment by publication deadline.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

Casey Ryan

Casey Ryan is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Sen. Dianne Feinstein who’s “line of questioning reeked of ‘No Catholics Need Apply,’” according to Carrie Severino of Judicial Crisis Network. (Photo: Joshua Roberts/Reuters/Newscom) Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

VIDEO: ‘Exposing the Deep State’

On Friday, Judicial Watch hosted an important expert panel discussion on the Deep State featuring an all-star lineup of participants, including Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Diana West (author of American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character), Judicial Watch’s own James Peterson, and Todd Shepherd of the Washington Examiner.

The panel explored not only how the Deep State operates, but the danger it poses to the nation as well.

VIDEO: I’m a T-Shirt Maker With Gay Customers and Gay Employees. I Still Was Sued.

In 2012, my promotional printing company, Hands on Originals, was approached by a customer to print a message that conflicted with my conscience. When I said no, they sued me.

Hi, my name is Blaine Adamson.

I got into the T-shirt printing business because I wanted to create Christian shirts that people would want to wear. Christian T-shirts at the time were so cheesy, they were so bad.

For all the years that I’ve been running my business, Hands on Originals, I’ve happily served and employed people of all backgrounds, of all walks of life.

That’s why it was hard in 2012 when a customer sued us after I politely declined to make T-shirts promoting the local pride festival. I was surprised because I work with and serve gay people. But I can’t print any message that goes against my faith, no matter who asks me to print it. And whenever I can’t print something, I always offer them to another local print shop.

As is the custom for T-shirt makers of all kinds, I’ve declined plenty of orders in the past. For example, I was once asked to make a shirt with Jesus on a bucket of chicken, with chicken coming out of the bucket. I didn’t feel right making that one. I’ve been asked to make a shirt promoting an adult film, one that promoted a strip club, and one or two that promoted violence. I couldn’t in good conscience print any of those shirts.

Another shirt we declined was a simple black shirt with white text that read, “Homosexuality is a sin.” I didn’t feel right making that one either. I don’t think that’s how Jesus would have handled the issue; Jesus would have balanced grace and truth.

I have gay customers and employ gay people. For example, we have printed materials for a local band called Mother Jane whose lead singer is a lesbian. That was never a problem for us because, as I said, we’ll work with everyone, but we can’t print all messages.

Shortly after our case started, two lesbian printers in New Jersey voiced their support for us because they didn’t want to be forced to print messages that would violate their consciences.

That’s why I was glad when a judge ruled that I had the freedom to decide which messages I wanted to promote. An appeals court also agreed. Unfortunately, though, the government has appealed again, this time asking the Kentucky Supreme Court to hear the case.

The bottom line, for me? I love designing T-shirts, and I’d be pretty crushed if I had to close down Hands On, especially after all the years of building the business, serving the community, and doing what I love.

All we are asking for is that the government not force us to promote messages against our convictions. Everyone should have that freedom.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.
Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.
The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.
Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.
Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.
You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.
Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

RELATED ARTICLE: Yale Ditches ‘Freshman’ for Gender-Neutral Term

EDITORS NOTE: Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

Clinton Emails Reveal Additional Mishandling of Classified Information, the IRS Scandal is Still a Scandal

Clinton Emails Reveal Additional Mishandling of Classified Information

We continue to accumulate details of the communications abuses in the Hillary Clinton State Department, but after you read the following report pause and consider the big picture. For four years the inner workings of her department were porous to prying eyes. Is it just a coincidence that Hillary Clinton’s diplomatic efforts so often failed?

This week we released 1,617 new pages of documents revealing numerous additional examples of classified information being transmitted through the unsecure, non-state.gov account of Huma Abedin, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, as well as many instances of Hillary Clinton donors receiving special favors from the State Department.

The documents included 97 email exchanges with Clinton not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to at least 627emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over, and further contradicting a statement by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails had been turned over to department.

The emails are the 20th production of documents obtained in response to a court order in a May 5, 2015, lawsuit we filed against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)). We sued after State failed to respond to a March 18, 2015, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking: “All emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013 using a non-‘state.gov‘ email address.”

On September 11, 2009, the highly sensitive name and email address of the person giving the classified Presidential Daily Brief was included in an email forwarded to Abedin’s unsecure email account by State Department official Dan Fogerty. The State Department produced many more Clinton and Abedin unsecured emails that were classified:

  • On April 16, 2009, Deputy Assistant Secretary Jeffrey Feltman sent to Abedin’s unsecure email account classified information about an unknown subject.
  • On June 18, 2009, Abedin sent classified information summarizing a June 18, 2009, “Middle East Breakfast” meeting between various senators, representatives and State Department officials, at which Deputy Secretary Jack Lew and George Mitchell briefed the congressmen with “an update on our discussions with the [Middle East] parties.”
  • On June 23, 2009, U.S. diplomat Martin Indyk, who had his security clearance suspended in 2000 for “possible sloppiness” in the handling of classified information, sent a memo containing classified information to Abedin’s unsecure email account. The memo, written for Clinton, pertained to Indyk’s discussions with top Israeli officials:
Could I ask you to review the memo below that I wrote yesterday on my return from Israel?  If you think it worthwhile, I’d be very grateful if you showed it to HRC (I have already shared it with Mitchell and Feltman). A confrontation with Bibi appears imminent.  I’ve never been one to shy away from that, as she may know.  But it has to be done carefully, and that doesn’t appear to be happening.  And I’m concerned that she will be tarred with the same brush if this leads to a bad end.  So I think she needs to make sure that the friction is productive.  I’ve made some suggestions at the end of the memo
  • On August 1, 2009, Abedin forwarded classified information from State Department official Richard Verma to her unsecure email account. The email from Senator Russ Feingold was sent to Hillary Clinton regarding her upcoming Africa trip.
  • On August 4, 2009, Assistant Secretary Jeffrey Feltman sent classified information about discussions with Kuwaiti officials to Abedin’s unsecure email account. Feltman noted that the Kuwaitis felt a lunch they had with Obama was “chilly.” The discussions concerned Guantanamo as well as Kuwait’s treatment of detainees.
  • On Sept 20, 2009, Abedin forwarded classified information to her unsecure email account. The email was from State Department official Esther Brimmer and concerned foreign leaders’ discussions regarding a UNESCO leadership appointment.
  • On November 1, 2009, U.S. Ambassador to the UAE Rick Olson sent classified information to Abedin’s unsecure email account. The email shows that Olsen was traveling with Hillary in the Middle East, and Abedin asked him to “work on a list of everything covered in the mbz [presumably Mohammed bin Zayed bin Sultan Al-Nahyan, the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi] meeting for Hillary.” Olson asks: “do you want it on this system (I can sanitize), or on the other system.” She replies: “This system easier. We are staying without class[ified] computers. Thx.”
  • On December 1, 2009, Abedin sent classified information about foreign military contributions to the Afghanistan war effort to her unsecure email account. The email originated with State official Sean Misko who wrote to Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan that he first “accidentally” sent it on the “high side” (secure) but was resending.
  • On December 25, 2009, Abedin sent to her unsecure email account classified information prepared by Deputy U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Francis Ricciardone concerning the Afghan elections.
  • On December 26, 2009, U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Carlos Pascual sent a memo to Clinton, which was found on Abedin’s unsecure email account. It contained extensive classified information involving U.S. and Mexican counter-drug operations in Mexico.
  • On March 22, 2010, Abedin forwarded to her unsecure email account classified information about a telephone conversation between President Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon.
  • On April 13, 2010, Abedin forwarded to her unsecure email account classified information from Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman regarding diplomatic discussions with the foreign ministers of Algeria and Morocco.
  • On May 24, 2010, Abedin forwarded to her unsecure email accountclassified information about the minutes of a State Department senior staff meeting regarding State Department officials’ meetings in Uganda.
  • Among Abedin’s unsecure email records is a document that is simply titled “NOTE” with the date September 12, 2010. The contents are entirely redacted as classified.
  • On January 28, 2011, Abedin sent Clinton an unsecure email containing classified information relating to a briefing White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gave.
  • On March 21, 2012, Clinton received a memo from State Department officials Joseph Yun and Derek Mitchell marked “Sensitive But Unclassified” and sent to Abedin’s unsecure email account. It contained classified information about elections in Burma.
  • Jake Sullivan emailed to Hillary’s unsecure email account classified information in which Sullivan discussed the content of conversations with UK Prime Minister Gordon regarding “the situation” in Northern Ireland. The date of this email is not included on the document.
  • On April 8, 2012, Abedin sent classified information to her unsecure email regarding a call sheet and an “Action Memo” for Clinton relating to a call with Malawi President Joyce Banda. On April 9, 2012, confidential assistant Monica Hanley again forwarded the classified information to Clinton’s unsecure email account.

Other emails contain sensitive information that was sent via Hillary Clinton’s unsecure email servers.

  • On August 18, 2009, Hanley provided Abedin with laptop and fob (a physical device that provides a login code) logins and passwords to log onto a laptop, as well as a secure State Department website at https://one.state.gov. Included were a PIN number and instructions on how to access her email from the secure State Department website. Abedin forwarded this information to her unsecure account.
(The FBI interviewed Hanley in its probe of Clinton’s email practices, and State’s Diplomatic Security staff reprimanded her after she left classified material behind in a Moscow hotel room. Hanley was the staffer tasked with finding BlackBerry phones for Clinton to use.)
  • On August 19, 2009, Hanley asked Abedin to call her and provide Abedin’s computer password so that she could download a UN document for Cheryl Mills from Abedin’s computer. Instead of calling Hanley, Abedin apparently provided the computer password in her unsecure reply email, saying, “Its [redacted].”
  • On April 17, 2009, Clinton aide Lona Valmoro emailed Clinton’s sensitive daily schedule for April 18 to various Clinton Foundation officials, including Doug Band, Terry Krinvic and Justin Cooper. She also forwarded Clinton’s daily schedule for July 16 to numerous Clinton Foundation officials. She did the same thing on September 8, 2009. She did so again on January 10, January 14 and April 11, 2010.
  • The details of Hillary’s arrival on November 18, 2009, in war-torn Kabul, Afghanistan, for the inauguration of President Karzai, were found on Abedin’s unsecure email account. Included were precise times of landing at Kabul Airport, the occupants of her vehicle, arrival and departure times at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, and meeting times with U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

The new documents show that Clinton donors frequently requested and received special favors from the State Department that were connected to the Clinton Foundation.

  • On July 14, 2009, Gordon Griffin, a XL Keystone lobbyist, sent an email to Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band, asking if Band could get him into a Council on Foreign Relations dinner at which Clinton was speaking. Band forwarded the email to Abedin, saying, “Can u get him in?” Abedin replied: “Yes will get him in.” Band was a top aide to President Bill Clinton and co-founder of Teneo. Griffin was a major donor to Hillary Clinton’s Senate and presidential campaigns.
  • On July 16, 2009, Zachary Schwartz asked Band for help getting visas to travel to Cuba for a film production crew from Shangri La Entertainment. Band forwarded the request to Abedin, telling her, “Please call zach asap on this. [Redacted.] Important.” Abedin responded, “I’ll call zach when we land in India.” Abedin concludes with “Enjoy. Cuba is complicated. Am sure you aren’t surprised to hear that.” Schwartz worked for Steve Bing, a mega-donor to the Clintons and owner of Shangri La Entertainment. Bing has reportedly donated $10-25 million to the Clinton Foundation and paid Bill Clinton personally $2.5 million a year to be an adviser to a green construction company Bing owned.
  • On September 11, 2009, Terrence Duffy, chairman of futures brokerage firm CME Group, a donor to the Clinton Foundation, asked Clinton to arrange “government appointments” for him in Singapore and Hong Kong. Clinton, using her HDR22@clintonmail.com address, forwarded the request to Abedin, “fyi.” Abedin responded to Duffy’s email, saying she would “follow up” with Duffy’s secretary, Joyce. Duffy gave $4,600 to Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign; CME Group paid Hillary $225,000 for a speaking fee and has donated between $5,001 and 10,000 to the Clinton Foundation.Abedin, using her huma@clintonmail.com address, later told Joyce, “Would like to get some more information and details so we can try to help.” Further along in the exchange, Joyce responds “We would also like some help in arranging meetings with some key govt officials in both locations, such as the Prime Minister of Singapore, and would appreciate any help you may be able to provide.”

On September 29, 2009, Abedin followed up with Duffy, telling him that “we are happy to assist with any and all meetings” and that she had “discussed you and your trip with our assistant secretary of state for east asia and pacific affairs,” suggesting that Duffy write the assistant secretary, Kurt Campbell. Duffy replied, “Thank you very much. I did connect with Kurt Campbell today.”

  • On May 5, 2010, major Clinton Global Initiative member, Clinton Foundation donor and real estate developer Eddie Trump forwarded to “Dougie” Band a request for assistance from Russian American Foundation Vice President Rina Kirshner to get the Russian American Foundation involved in a State Department program. Band forwarded the request to Abedin, saying, “Can we get this done/mtg set.” As Judicial Watch previously reported, the State Department doled out more than $260,000 to the Russian American Foundation for “public diplomacy.”
  • Major Clinton donor Bal Das, a New York financier who reportedly raised $300,000 for Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign, asked Abedin on November 11, 2009 if Hillary Clinton could address the Japan Society at its annual conference in 2010. Clinton did speak to the Japan Society’s annual conference in 2011.

The emails also provide insight on the inner workings of the Clinton State Department, in particular her engagement with her staff.

  • In a May 19, 2009, “Global Press Conference” memo, Clinton was given in advance the “proposed questions” of four of the seven foreign reporters. Examples include: “What is the Obama administration’s view of Australian PM Rudd’s proposal to form an Asia-Pacific Community” and “Why can’t American drones not find, detect and destroy the insurgency supply line?”
  • In a document entitled “HRC Pakistan Notes” prepared for Clinton by her staff, Clinton apparently had to be reminded about all her trips to Pakistan and of “stories that you have told/remember.” Her reminder instructions include: “You loved Faisal mosque, and it was especially meaningful to have CVC [Chelsea] with you.” And: “Your first Pakistani friend was in College. She introduced you to Pakistani food and clothes.” And: “You have had lots of Pakistani and Pakistani American friends over the years. From Chicago to California to Washington, DC, you have friends all over the country. They know how much you love Pakistani food …”
  • On February 12, 2010, Case Button, a Clinton speechwriter, asked Abedin if her mother, a professor at Dar Al Hekma, a women’s university in Saudi Arabia where Clinton held a town hall meeting, would be willing to give him advice on talking points he was preparing for Clinton. Abedin responded, “Talk to my mom for sure. She will have good points for you.” After reviewing Hillary’s draft remarks, Huma’s mother, Saleha Abedin, (a controversial Islamist activist), offered some advice: “Do not use the political terms such as ‘democracy/elections/freedom.’ Do not use the term ’empowerment of women’ instead say ‘enabling women’ Do not even mention driving for women! Don’t sound sympathetic to ‘women’s plight’ or be ‘patronizing’ as other visitors have done and made the students extremely annoyed. They rightly consider these as in-house issues …” No references to these issues appear in Clinton’s speech.

Abedin’s involvement in a major appointment at the State Department is controversial given that Abedin’s mother was an Islamist activist.

  • On July 24, 2009, Cheryl Mills forwarded to Abedin a CV for someone being considered for the position of Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. It had been sent to Mills from State Department recruiter Margaret Carpenter. Rather than forwarding the resume on to Clinton for her approval, Abedin simply responds to Mills: “I’m a hundred percent fine with him.”

Abedin also offered her opinion to Clinton on administration leaders: On January 21, 2011, while on a trip to Mexico, Abedin emailed Hillary that, “Biden is a disaster here.”

  • On February 20, 2012, Clinton expresses outrage over an apparent wardrobe miscommunication for a meeting in Mexico and sent an email to Abedin with the subject line “I’m venting.” Clinton admonished:

So, here I sit in the meeting surrounded by ever other person dressed in a white shirt provided by the Mexicans. Patricia is not wearing the exact style that all others are but her own white shirt. But, since no one ever told me about this, and instead assumed I didn’t need to know, I had no idea about any of this until I just walked into the large meeting in front of the entire press corps and I’m wearing a green top. So, what’s my answer when asked why I think I’m different than all my colleagues and why I’m dissing our hosts? I am sick of people deciding what I should know rather than giving me the info so I can make a decision. This really annoys me and I told Monica [Hanley] I just didn’t understand.

These emails show ‘what happened’ was that Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin obviously violated laws about the handling of classified information and turned the State Department into a pay for play tool for the corrupt Clinton Foundation. The clear and mounting evidence of pay for play and mishandling of classified information warrant a serious criminal investigation by an independent Trump Justice Department.

To read more about Huma Abedin’s emails, click here.

The IRS Scandal Is Still a Scandal

In a baffling move, President Trump’s Justice Department has decided not to prosecute Lois Lerner, former director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS, whose own emails place her at the heart of the politicization of the IRS for the targeting of conservative groups:

When we learned of this, I issued this statement:

I have zero confidence that the Justice Department did an adequate review of the IRS scandal. In fact, we’re still fighting the Justice Department and the IRS for records about this very scandal. Today’s decision comes as no surprise considering that the FBI collaborated with the IRS and is unlikely to investigate or prosecute itself. President Trump should order a complete review of the whole issue. Meanwhile, we await accountability for IRS Commissioner Koskinen, who still serves and should be drummed out of office.

Let’s review the history.

Judicial Watch released 294 pages of FBI “302” documents revealing top Washington IRS officials, including Lois Lerner and Holly Paz, knew the agency was specifically targeting “Tea Party” and other conservative organizations two full years before disclosing it to Congress and the public. An FBI 302 document contains detailed narratives of FBI agent investigations. The Obama Justice Department and FBI investigations into the Obama IRS scandal resulted in no criminal charges.

The FBI 302 documents confirm the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) 2013 report, which said, “Senior IRS officials knew that agents were targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny as early as 2011.” Lerner did not reveal the targeting until May 2013, in response to a planted question at an American Bar Association conference. The documents revealed that then-acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller actually wrote Lerner’s response: “They used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate.”

Our litigation forced the IRS first to say that emails belonging to Lerner were supposedly missing and later declare to the court that the emails were on IRS back-up systems. Lerner was one of the top officials responsible for the IRS’ targeting of President Obama’s political opponents.  Judicial Watch exposed various IRS record keeping problems:

  • In June 2014, the IRS claimed to have “lost” responsive emails belonging to Lerner and other IRS officials.
  • In July 2014 Judge Emmett Sullivan ordered the IRS to submit to the court a written declaration under oath about what happened to Lerner’s “lost” emails. The sworn declarations proved to be less than forthcoming.
  • In August 2014, Department of Justice attorneys for the IRS finally admitted Judicial Watch that Lerner’s emails, indeed all government computer records, are backed up by the federal government in case of a government-wide catastrophe. The IRS’ attorneys also disclosed that Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) was looking at several of these backup tapes.
  • In November 2014, the IRS told the court it had failed to search any of the IRS standard computer systems for the “missing” emails of Lerner and other IRS officials.
  • On February 26, 2015, TIGTA officials testified to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that it had received 744 backup tapes containing emails sent and received by Lerner.  This testimony showed that the IRS had falsely represented to both Congress, Judge Sullivan, and Judicial Watch that Lerner’s emails were irretrievably lost. The testimony also revealed that IRS officials responsible for responding to the document requests never asked for the backup tapes and that 424 backup tapes containing Lerner’s emails had been destroyed during the pendency of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit and Congressional investigations.
  • In June 2015, Judicial Watch forced the IRS to admit in a court filing that it was in possession of 6,400 “newly discovered” Lerner emails. Judge Emmet Sullivan ordered the IRS to provide answers on the status of the Lerner emails the IRS had previously declared lost. Judicial Watch raised questions about the IRS’ handling of the missing emails issue in a court filing, demanding answers about Lerner’s emails that had been recovered from the backup tapes.
  • In July 2015, U.S District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan threatened to hold John Koskinen, the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, and Justice Department attorneys in contempt of court after the IRS failed to produce status reports and recovered Lerner emails, as he had ordered on July 1, 2015.
  • Obama IRS Commissioner Koskinen was nearly impeached in September 2016 for misleading Congress on Lerner’s emails.

While Washington spins in circles trying to find election rigging on the part of Donald Trump, it closes its eyes to genuine election skullduggery.

Urban Myth: Crime Doesn’t Pay – California City Authorizes Stipends to Gang Members

Gang members profit through criminal enterprises in a variety of ways: drug, weapon and human trafficking; theft, robbery, intimidation and extortion, and various kinds of fraud. In a win-win for gangbangers, material gains from criminality in one California municipality will soon include government-sanctioned payola.

In a special meeting on August 29, the nine-member City Council of Sacramento unanimously agreed to allocate $1.5 million in funding and to move forward with a “gun-violence reduction strategy” that will include cash payments (“LifeMAP milestone allowances”) and paid vacations for the handful of gang members suspected of committing the majority of gang-related gun crimes in the city.

The report and funding agreement before the council indicate that the program, the “Peacemaker Fellowship,” is to be implemented by a group called Advance Peace. It proposes to reduce gang violence through “transformational opportunities to young adults identified as most likely to be” involved in “gun violence” and by ensuring “greater connectivity to culturally competent human, social, and economic opportunities” for these individuals. The details, as fleshed out during the council meeting, were that participants will be selected from a small group of gang members thought to be behind the “re-cyclical and retaliatory” gun crimes in the community. Among other things, program participants will be required to identify and commit to “LifeMAP goals” (academic aspirations, or more basic things like “getting a driver’s license or improving their relationship with their parents or their kids”). As part of “incentivizing achievement,” the program’s “touchpoints” include “Transformative Travel” and cash stipends for participants. The cost associated with each participant tops out at an estimated $30,000.

The four-year agreement requires the city to pay $500,000 over the course of two years, starting this year. Implementation will consist of two 18-month segments, with 50 participants in each segment. The expected “outcomes” listed in the report are a reduction in firearm assaults and firearm-related homicides by 50 percent” over the four years, “reduc[ing] by $26 million the government costs associated with gun violence,” and the dismantling of “gang war zones within and around the City.”

At the meeting, only one council member, Angelique Ashby, raised significant concerns with the agreement and the authorizing resolution. Among these deficiencies, she noted that out of the “many, many numbers” referenced in the proposal, including “$26 million in government savings,” there was “not one citation” to explain or substantiate these references. The agreement was “front loaded with the cash,” with all of the funding paid out in the first two years but with “zero outcomes” due until year three, meaning the city had no payments that it could withhold if there was a default in performance. More generally, nothing allowed the city to terminate the agreement if the benchmarks and goals weren’t met, which was complicated further by the fact that the goals (like an initial reduction of 20 percent in gun-related assaults and homicides) had no clearly defined baseline or starting point against which performance would be measured. The agreement start and end dates were left blank; the only “quantifiable dates” in the contract were the dates on which the payments by the city had to be made. Nowhere was there a requirement that the program be coordinated with local law enforcement or schools. And despite an assumption that Advance Peace was going to “match” the city funding with an equal amount, this obligation wasn’t documented in the agreement wording.

Determined to waste not a moment, the council rejected councilor Ashby’s request for a one-week delay to address these concerns, although it agreed to incorporate some changes. 

A much more fundamental problem – considering the whole premise is a reduction in gang-related violence – is that nothing in the agreement or resolution requires fellowship participants to make a commitment to forego violence and forsake their gang lifestyle as a condition of participation, or mandates withholding payments and other incentives from participants who commit violent crimes or are charged or convicted of criminal offenses. While fellowship participants will be evaluated for “new gun charges/arrests” as part of the overall benchmarking reports, this doesn’t extend to criminal charges more generally, or operate as a disqualification. A participant who is paid council-approved funds for accomplishing his “LifeMAP goal” of getting a driver’s license is under no agreement-imposed impediment against using that license to facilitate other criminal acts.  

One law enforcement official – Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones – points out the program may actually shield participants who commit crimes. “They do not engage in law enforcement at all, and I have been told that if they become aware of one of the participants committing crime, they will NOT notify law enforcement.”

This funding is not just “counter-intuitive,” it is simply wrong. Apart from the most obvious, glaring lack of anything in the agreement that conditions payments on “good behavior” and a repudiation of gang violence, the perception is this “incentivizing” is compensation for lawbreakers that weakens respect for the law and the criminal justice system. Heather MacDonald, the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, calls it “an absolute abdication of the law and of the moral authority of the law, and a perfect example of defining deviance down…I mean, you’re basically holding the state hostage.”

These misgivings might arguably be overlooked if there was some guarantee that the spending program significantly reduced gang violence over an appreciable period of time. City residents looking for assurances that their taxpayer funds are being spent wisely will find little in the Council Report. Its lengthy recital of statistics, percentages and cost savings omits, surprisingly, information on the merits and success of this and similar programs. The government bureaucracy may be just as well served, in terms of reducing gang crime and violence in Sacramento, by giving the same participants a bus ticket and $20,000 to stay out of the city. 

Residents who aren’t gang member fellowship recipients will have to wait and see. Unfortunately for them, at the same time that the Sacramento City Council embarks on this bold new program to assist “hard-to-reach” residents to escape crime and violence in their communities, lawmakers across the state continue their efforts to prevent law-abiding Californians from doing the same through the exercise of their Second Amendment rights (here and here and here).

Sarah Halimi’s killer suffered a bouffée délirante

The long-awaited psychiatric evaluation of Sarah Halimi’s killer, Kobili Traoré, was revealed in the media on September 13th. Forensic psychiatrist Daniel Zagury concludes that Traoré committed the crime under the influence of an “acute bouffée délirante” that altered but did not abolish his discernment. This psychopathological state was aggravated, according to doctor Zagury, by the consumption of cannabis, a total of 15 cigarettes. The voluntary drug intake somehow balances out the potential irresponsibility of some sort of temporary insanity in proportions that a judge will be trusted to decide. It is not incompatible with a criminal trial and, according to some reports, Kobili Traoré has already been transferred from a mental facility to the Fresnes prison.

On the night of 4-5 April, Kobili Traoré, a 27 year-old of Malian origin, burst in on Malian neighbors in a state of agitation. The neighbors took refuge in one room of their apartment and called the police. Hearing Traoré reciting Koranic verses, the police called for reinforcements. While they waited in the hallway, Traoré climbed over to the neighboring balcony, broke into the apartment of his Jewish neighbor Sarah Halimi, a retired physician who lived alone in the apartment upstairs from the Traore’s. Shouting allau akhbar and Koranic imprecations, he bashed and battered his victim with relentless fury and then threw her to her death from the 3rd floor balcony. By then, a heavily armed commando had arrived. Too late. Traoré was considered unfit for interrogation, placed in a mental health facility, and finally charged with voluntary manslaughter and sequestration. The aggravating circumstances of antisemitism were not added to the charges. 

A virtual media blackout of the horrific crime was followed by months of dim silence. And now we have a puzzling psychiatric evaluation that confirms the impression of a perverse cover up of a savage Islamic anti-Semitic torture/murder, a systematic refusal to confront the genocidal antisemitism that runs like a deep dark river in Arab-Muslim societies here in France, in Europe, in the countries of origin. How could armed policeman stand down as an enraged man was venting his fury on a defenseless woman? If the killer was possessed by an acute bouffée délirante, the police must have been paralyzed by a bouffée of delirious panic. They reportedly assumed that Traoré must be a terrorist… because he recited koranic verses. Therefore, it would be too dangerous to intervene before the arrival of commandos.

Why did it take more than five months to present this psychiatric evaluation that looks to the naked eye like a whitewash? One more whitewash in an endless series of evasions. Like pre-emptive jail breaks. It has nothing to do with Islam, the car rammer was mentally disturbed, the stabber was depressed by an impending divorce, the mass murderer at the wheel of the truck driving wasn’t even religious, the throat slitter had never read the koran.  

And now the enraged Muslim that batters his Jewish neighbor was a victim of an acute bouffée délirante. My search for the English equivalent of this fearsome psychic state came up with some curious specifics (in italics):

“A French term for a culture-bound symptom complex described in West Africa and Haiti, characterised by an abrupt onset of agitated and aggressive behaviour, confusion and psychomotor excitement.”

Bouffée délirante: an examination of its current status.

Johnson-Sabine EC, Mann AH, Jacoby RJ, Wood KH, Peron-Magnan P, Olié JP, Deniker P

Abstract

“Bouffée délirante is an historic and unique French diagnostic term for a short-lived psychosis. The key diagnostic features are acute, floridly psychotic symptoms with complete remission. Its use in a Paris hospital has been examined, and it appears that the term is declining in popularity. A case-controlled study indicated that the diagnosis is likely to be given to migrants on first admission. A re-diagnosis of case summaries indicated no particular correspondence of bouffée délirante to any one ICD category. However, the usefulness of having a special diagnostic term for psychosis with a good outcome is discussed.” 

What, then, distinguishes an acute bouffée délirante from chronic murderous hatred of Jews among other infidels?  If the latter is garden variety antisemitism then the former must be a sudden onset of savage antisemitism.

If I understand correctly, Doctor Daniel Zagury would or might agree with the above. Where most French media apparently picked up the story as it broke in le Figaro on September 13th, a regional newspaper, La Voix du Nord, saw fit to add further details from “sources close to the case.” “The heavy dose of cannabis could have triggered the acute bouffée délirante but, according to the expert, this would not be ‘incompatible with an antisemitic dimension’ of the crime. Doctor Zagury describes this bouffée délirante as a ‘polymorphous persecution complex with mystical, demonopathic thematics.’ Though the suspect’s antisemitism has not been established by the investigation, the psychiatric expert supposes that ‘common ordinary prejudice or shared representations were transformed into absolute conviction in the ‘state of delirious agitation.'”

Translated into normal language this would give the doctor’s opinion that ordinary everyday prejudices shared by the suspect’s milieu-the belief that Jews are evil, scheming, devious creatures that killed the prophet- were transformed into “absolute conviction,” in other words, an absolute certainty that the Jewish woman, Sarah Halimi was really, truly and absolutely Satan (shietan).

Daniel Zagury, who is a specialist in the evaluation of mass murderers, does not subscribe to the notion that jihadists are mentally deranged individuals that just happen to commit a certain type of crime. On the contrary, he believes that psychological factors are either rare or minor elements. His lifeline neighbors that of Doctor Sarah Halimi née Lucie Attal.  Born in France to Moroccan Jewish parents, Doctor Zagury spent the first ten years of his life in Morocco. He describes himself as a non-believer-Sarah Halimi became orthodox-who neither hides nor displays his Jewish identity-hers was obvious to the neighbors. “It has always been clear to me that being Jewish means standing in a lineage of history, culture, love, stubborn determination, and the commitment to transmission.” 

Dr. Zagury is 67. Sarah Halimi’s life ended at the age of 66.

Maître Jean-Alexandre Buchinger, counsel for Sarah Halimi’s adult children, takes note that the psychiatric evaluation concludes that Kobili Traoré is fit to stand trial. He has nevertheless filed a request for a second evaluation.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Family Security Matters.