Watch Project Veritas’ first feature video about the Teter v. Veritas trial.
Once upon a time, the Electoral College was not controversial. During the debates over ratifying the Constitution, Anti-Federalist opponents of ratification barely mentioned it. But by the mid-twentieth century, opponents of the Electoral College nearly convinced Congress to propose an amendment to scrap it. And today, more than a dozen states have joined in an attempt to hijack the Electoral College as a way to force a national popular vote for president.
What changed along the way? And does it matter? After all, the critics of the Electoral College simply want to elect the president the way we elect most other officials. Every state governor is chosen by a statewide popular vote. Why not a national popular vote for president?
Delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 asked themselves the same question, but then rejected a national popular vote along with several other possible modes of presidential election. The Virginia Plan—the first draft of what would become the new Constitution—called for “a National Executive . . . to be chosen by the National Legislature.” When the Constitutional Convention took up the issue for the first time, near the end of its first week of debate, Roger Sherman from Connecticut supported this parliamentary system of election, arguing that the national executive should be “absolutely dependent” on the legislature. Pennsylvania’s James Wilson, on the other hand, called for a popular election. Virginia’s George Mason thought a popular election “impracticable,” but hoped Wilson would “have time to digest it into his own form.” Another delegate suggested election by the Senate alone, and then the Convention adjourned for the day.
When they reconvened the next morning, Wilson had taken Mason’s advice. He presented a plan to create districts and hold popular elections to choose electors. Those electors would then vote for the executive—in other words, an electoral college. But with many details left out, and uncertainty remaining about the nature of the executive office, Wilson’s proposal was voted down. A week later, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts proposed election by state governors. This too was voted down, and a consensus began to build. Delegates did not support the Virginia Plan’s parliamentary model because they understood that an executive selected by Congress would become subservient to Congress. A similar result, they came to see, could be expected from assigning the selection to any body of politicians.
There were other oddball proposals that sought to salvage congressional selection—for instance, to have congressmen draw lots to form a group that would then choose the executive in secret. But by July 25, it was clear to James Madison that the choice was down to two forms of popular election: “The option before us,” he said, “[is] between an appointment by Electors chosen by the people—and an immediate appointment by the people.” Madison said he preferred popular election, but he recognized two legitimate concerns. First, people would tend toward supporting candidates from their own states, giving an advantage to larger states. Second, a few areas with higher concentrations of voters might come to dominate. Madison spoke positively of the idea of an electoral college, finding that “there would be very little opportunity for cabal, or corruption” in such a system.
By August 31, the Constitution was nearly finished—except for the process of electing the president. The question was put to a committee comprised of one delegate from each of the eleven states present at the Convention. That committee, which included Madison, created the Electoral College as we know it today. They presented the plan on September 4, and it was adopted with minor changes. It is found in Article II, Section 1:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.
Federal officials were prohibited from being electors. Electors were required to cast two ballots, and were prohibited from casting both ballots for candidates from their own state. A deadlock for president would be decided by the House of Representatives, with one vote per state. Following that, in case of a deadlock for vice president, the Senate would decide. Also under the original system, the runner up became vice president.
This last provision caused misery for President John Adams in 1796, when his nemesis, Thomas Jefferson, became his vice president. Four years later it nearly robbed Jefferson of the presidency when his unscrupulous running mate, Aaron Burr, tried to parlay an accidental deadlock into his own election by the House. The Twelfth Amendment, ratified in 1804, fixed all this by requiring electors to cast separate votes for president and vice president.
And there things stand, constitutionally at least. State legislatures have used their power to direct the manner of choosing electors in various ways: appointing them directly, holding elections by district, or holding statewide elections. Today, 48 states choose their presidential electors in a statewide, winner-take-all vote. Maine and Nebraska elect one elector based on each congressional district’s vote and the remaining two based on the statewide vote.
It is easy for Americans to forget that when we vote for president, we are really voting for electors who have pledged to support the candidate we favor. Civics education is not what it used to be. Also, perhaps, the Electoral College is a victim of its own success. Most of the time, it shapes American politics in ways that are beneficial but hard to see. Its effects become news only when a candidate and his or her political party lose a hard-fought and narrowly decided election.
So what are the beneficial effects of choosing our presidents through the Electoral College?
Under the Electoral College system, presidential elections are decentralized, taking place in the states. Although some see this as a flaw—U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren opposes the Electoral College expressly because she wants to increase federal power over elections—this decentralization has proven to be of great value.
For one thing, state boundaries serve a function analogous to that of watertight compartments on an ocean liner. Disputes over mistakes or fraud are contained within individual states. Illinois can recount its votes, for instance, without triggering a nationwide recount. This was an important factor in America’s messiest presidential election—which was not in 2000, but in 1876.
That year marked the first time a presidential candidate won the electoral vote while losing the popular vote. It was a time of organized suppression of black voters in the South, and there were fierce disputes over vote totals in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina. Each of those states sent Congress two sets of electoral vote totals, one favoring Republican Rutherford Hayes and the other Democrat Samuel Tilden. Just two days before Inauguration Day, Congress finished counting the votes—which included determining which votes to count—and declared Hayes the winner. Democrats proclaimed this “the fraud of the century,” and there is no way to be certain today—nor was there probably a way to be certain at the time—which candidate actually won. At the very least, the Electoral College contained these disputes within individual states so that Congress could endeavor to sort it out. And it is arguable that the Electoral College prevented a fraudulent result.
Four years later, the 1880 presidential election demonstrated another benefit of the Electoral College system: it can act to amplify the results of a presidential election. The popular vote margin that year was less than 10,000 votes—about one-tenth of one percent—yet Republican James Garfield won a resounding electoral victory, with 214 electoral votes to Democrat Winfield Hancock’s 155. There was no question who won, let alone any need for a recount. More recently, in 1992, the Electoral College boosted the legitimacy of Democrat Bill Clinton, who won with only 43 percent of the popular vote but received over 68 percent of the electoral vote.
But there is no doubt that the greatest benefit of the Electoral College is the powerful incentive it creates against regionalism. Here, the presidential elections of 1888 and 1892 are most instructive. In 1888, incumbent Democratic President Grover Cleveland lost reelection despite receiving a popular vote plurality. He won this plurality because he won by very large margins in the overwhelmingly Democratic South. He won Texas alone by 146,461 votes, for instance, whereas his national popular vote margin was only 94,530. Altogether he won in six southern states with margins greater than 30 percent, while only tiny Vermont delivered a victory percentage of that size for Republican Benjamin Harrison.
In other words, the Electoral College ensures that winning supermajorities in one region of the country is not sufficient to win the White House. After the Civil War, and especially after the end of Reconstruction, that meant that the Democratic Party had to appeal to interests outside the South to earn a majority in the Electoral College. And indeed, when Grover Cleveland ran again for president four years later in 1892, although he won by a smaller percentage of the popular vote, he won a resounding Electoral College majority by picking up New York, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and California in addition to winning the South.
Whether we see it or not today, the Electoral College continues to push parties and presidential candidates to build broad coalitions. Critics say that swing states get too much attention, leaving voters in so-called safe states feeling left out. But the legitimacy of a political party rests on all of those safe states—on places that the party has already won over, allowing it to reach farther out. In 2000, for instance, George W. Bush needed every state that he won—not just Florida—to become president. Of course, the Electoral College does put a premium on the states in which the parties are most evenly divided. But would it really be better if the path to the presidency primarily meant driving up the vote total in the deepest red or deepest blue states?
Also, swing states are the states most likely to have divided government. And if divided government is good for anything, it is accountability. So with the Electoral College system, when we do wind up with a razor-thin margin in an election, it is likely to happen in a state where both parties hold some power, rather than in a state controlled by one party.
Despite these benefits of the current system, opponents of the Electoral College maintain that it is unseemly for a candidate to win without receiving the most popular votes. As Hillary Clinton put it in 2000: “In a democracy, we should respect the will of the people, and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College.” Yet similar systems prevail around the world. In parliamentary systems, including Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom, prime ministers are elected by the legislature. This happens in Germany and India as well, which also have presidents who are elected by something similar to an electoral college. In none of these democratic systems is the national popular vote decisive.
More to the point, in our own political tradition, what matters most about every legislative body, from our state legislatures to the House of Representatives and the Senate, is which party holds the majority. That party elects the leadership and sets the agenda. In none of these representative chambers does the aggregate popular vote determine who is in charge. What matters is winning districts or states.
Nevertheless, there is a clamor of voices calling for an end to the Electoral College. Former Attorney General Eric Holder has declared it “a vestige of the past,” and Washington Governor Jay Inslee has labeled it an “archaic relic of a bygone age.” Almost as one, the current myriad of Democratic presidential hopefuls have called for abolishing the Electoral College.
Few if any of these Democrats likely realize how similar their party’s position is to what it was in the late nineteenth century, with California representing today what the South was for their forebears. The Golden State accounted for 10.4 percent of presidential votes cast in 2016, while the southern states (from South Carolina down to Florida and across to Texas) accounted for 10.6 percent of presidential votes cast in 1888. Grover Cleveland won those southern states by nearly 39 percent, while Hillary Clinton won California by 30 percent. But rather than following Cleveland’s example of building a broader national coalition that could win in the Electoral College, today’s Democrats would rather simply change the rules.
Anti-Electoral College amendments with bipartisan support in the 1950s and 1970s failed to receive the two-thirds votes in Congress they needed in order to be sent to the states for consideration. Likewise today, partisan amendments will not make it through Congress. Nor, if they did, could they win ratification among the states.
But there is a serious threat to the Electoral College. Until recently, it has gone mostly unnoticed, as it has made its way through various state legislatures. If it works according to its supporters’ intent, it would nullify the Electoral College by creating a de facto direct election for president.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, or NPV, takes advantage of the flexibility granted to state legislatures in the Constitution: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” The original intent of this was to allow state legislators to determine how best to represent their state in presidential elections. The electors represent the state—not just the legislature—even though the latter has power to direct the manner of appointment. By contrast, NPV supporters argue that this power allows state legislatures to ignore their state’s voters and appoint electors based on the national popular vote. This is what the compact would require states to do.
Of course, no state would do this unilaterally, so NPV has a “trigger”: it only takes effect if adopted by enough states to control 270 electoral votes—in other words, a majority that would control the outcome of presidential elections. So far, 14 states and the District of Columbia have signed on, with a total of 189 electoral votes.
Until this year, every state that had joined NPV was heavily Democratic: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The NPV campaign has struggled to win other Democratic states: Delaware only adopted it this year and it still has not passed in Oregon (though it may soon). Following the 2018 election, Democrats came into control of both the legislatures and the governorships in the purple states of Colorado and New Mexico, which have subsequently joined NPV.
NPV would have the same effect as abolishing the Electoral College. Fraud in one state would affect every state, and the only way to deal with it would be to give more power to the federal government. Elections that are especially close would require nationwide recounts. Candidates could win based on intense support from a narrow region or from big cities. NPV also carries its own unique risks: despite its name, the plan cannot actually create a national popular vote. Each state would still—at least for the time being—run its own elections. This means a patchwork of rules for everything from which candidates are on the ballot to how disputes are settled. NPV would also reward states with lax election laws—the higher the turnout, legal or not, the more power for that state. Finally, each NPV state would certify its own “national” vote total. But what would happen when there are charges of skullduggery? Would states really trust, with no power to verify, other state’s returns?
Uncertainty and litigation would likely follow. In fact, NPV is probably unconstitutional. For one thing, it ignores the Article I, Section 10 requirement that interstate compacts receive congressional consent. There is also the fact that the structure of the Electoral College clause of the Constitution implies there is some limit on the power of state legislatures to ignore the will of their state’s people.
One danger of all these attacks on the Electoral College is, of course, that we lose the state-by-state system designed by the Framers and its protections against regionalism and fraud. This would alter our politics in some obvious ways—shifting power toward urban centers, for example—but also in ways we cannot know in advance. Would an increase in presidents who win by small pluralities lead to a rise of splinter parties and spoiler candidates? Would fears of election fraud in places like Chicago and Broward County lead to demands for greater federal control over elections?
The more fundamental danger is that these attacks undermine the Constitution as a whole. Arguments that the Constitution is outmoded and that democracy is an end in itself are arguments that can just as easily be turned against any of the constitutional checks and balances that have preserved free government in America for well over two centuries. The measure of our fundamental law is not whether it actualizes the general will—that was the point of the French Revolution, not the American. The measure of our Constitution is whether it is effective at encouraging just, stable, and free government—government that protects the rights of its citizens.
The Electoral College is effective at doing this. We need to preserve it, and we need to help our fellow Americans understand why it matters.
RELATED ARTICLE: U. S. Electoral College, Official – What is the Electoral College?
EDITORS NOTE: This Hillsdale College lecture is republished with permission.
In this edition of “Judicial Watch On Issue,” Senior Attorney James Peterson explains the issue of illegal immigration & its impact on the United States.
This is news you aren’t going to see on cable TV or in the mainstream media. After a decade of legal wrangling, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) was finally facing a jury trial (to begin in September) in a case that alleged they had hired a phony lawyer to help clients with their immigration status among other legal matters.
A prospect of a public trial likely pushed the Muslim ‘rights’ organization to quietly settle the case in favor of the victims and their attorneys.
From the American Freedom Law Center (hat tip: Joanne),
CAIR Settles with Fraud Victims After Two Adverse Court Decisions
Washington, D.C. (June 4, 2019) — The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has settled a case originally filed 11 years ago in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The lawsuit against CAIR was brought by the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) on behalf of five victims of a massive fraud perpetrated by a CAIR lawyer, Morris Days.
CAIR’s decision to finally settle the case came only after two very adverse court decisions. The first decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed an earlier dismissal of the lawsuit brought by AFLC Co-Founders and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi and Robert J. Muise. The Court of Appeals’ decision, the second appeal in this long-standing case that had included allegations of criminal racketeering by CAIR, mandated that the federal district court permit the case to go to a jury trial, set for September 2019.
The second court decision was by the trial court which refused to dismiss the consumer fraud statute count, which meant that AFLC’s clients would receive attorney’s fees irrespective of the amount the jury awarded as long as the jury found CAIR liable. Given the aggressively fought litigation over the past decade, CAIR was looking at a possible judgment approaching one million dollars just for attorney’s fees.
It is thus no surprise that at a mediation conducted in the U.S. District Court in D.C. by U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey in late May, CAIR agreed to a settlement. As is often the case, the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement are confidential, but the plaintiffs’ lead lawyer, David Yerushalmi, remarked:
“Our clients are extremely happy with the settlement and, in fact, they are so happy, they have authorized me to declare publicly that they have no problem disclosing all of the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement if CAIR agrees. It is unlikely CAIR would agree, of course, because it is unlikely CAIR wants the public to learn the terms of the settlement.”
The lawsuit began after CAIR hired for its Virginia offices a fake lawyer, Morris Days, who defrauded dozens if not hundreds of CAIR clients. Once the fraud began to unravel, CAIR engaged in a massive cover-up, closing down the Virginia offices, firing the lawyer, and claiming to the CAIR victims that Days was not actually a CAIR lawyer. As alleged, CAIR knew of this fraud and purposefully conspired with Days to keep the CAIR clients from discovering that their legal matters were being mishandled or not handled at all.
This is the kind of news you need to get around to your social networks (assuming you haven’t been given the boot from facebook and twitter yet!) because otherwise this good news favoring the little guy will be lost.
RELATED ARTICLE: Bangladeshi Illegal Aliens Skyrocketing at the Southern Border
RELATED ARTICLE: DiNardo Accused of Mishandling Clerical Sexual Misconduct Case
Some of these bishops — in fact, most of the bishops in the United States — need to just play things straight (pun intended) and come right out with it — they are perfectly fine with homosexual men being priests.
As long as those men don’t get in “trouble” with the law, or do something that might get the diocese sued, or bad PR, then they are fine keeping their dirty little secrets.
And in the case of Buffalo Bishop Richard Malone, for example, he doesn’t even seem to care about the bad PR. Heck, he’s even left a priest in as pastor who forced oral sex on a 6-year-old, with witnesses, as we reported last summer.
You’ll remember Church Militant’s encounter with him last November in the Detroit airport asking him why that priest is still in ministry.
So if he’d do that, what’s the big deal about a little gay priest action going on with his seminary rector, right? Yep, Church Militant was one of the first to tell you a few months back that Malone’s seminary rector, Fr. Joseph Gatto, had made unwanted sexual advances on two men and had to be removed as a result.
In fact, sources in and out of the seminary system, as well as the official diocesan network, confirmed for us that Gatto would put prospective seminarians through a little homo test, trying to figure out if they would consent if and when the moment were to arrive.
Those who passed the test, in Gatto’s estimation, were accepted into seminary, but those who didn’t appear to go along with the homosexual agenda, he denied.
So after getting reported and it becoming public through local Buffalo media and Church Militant, Bishop Malone yanked him from the seminary and sent him away for “evaluation.”
This lot is always “evaluating.”
The results of the evaluation? Malone has stuck Gatto back in active ministry after determining that Gatto trying to ascertain which potential future priests he might be able to have sex with didn’t rise to the level requiring removal from the priesthood.
Think about that for a moment; stop and consider.
A seminary rector, exploring which young men who want to give their lives to the Church, testing to see which might welcome his homosexual advances, that kind of man is still OK to be a priest in the estimation of the bishop.
And for the record, all this is very public and very well known.
Kind of curious what his communications director, Kathy Spangler, thinks of all this personally.
Remember her, she’s the woman in the airport video who is trying to distract and block us from getting answers from Malone about covering up the abusive priest.
Kathy, question for you. Do you have a son? How about a nephew? How would you feel about that young man applying for seminary to Gatto and being felt out if he’s gay for future sexual advances?
Lest we think Malone is the only bishop totally down with gay men hanging around the priesthood, just take a quick flight from Buffalo to Detroit where Archbishop Allen Vigneron and his cronies in the chancery have known all about Fr. Larry Ventline for quite a while.
While not being one of the five priests actually arrested in the Michigan AG dragnet a week back here in Michigan, he was singled out nonetheless to have his counseling license in the state revoked.
The reason given — or rather, reasons?
He was mentally unfit to be a counselor, deceived the public into thinking he was more qualified and degreed than he actually is, had not kept up with his own important mental health sessions and, oh yeah, that he’d been accused of sodomizing a boy in the sacristy at least three times.
That’s all coming from the Michigan state attorney general.
But besides all that, even if — and it’s a big if — Archbishop Allen Vigneron had no knowledge of any of that he surely knew the worst-kept secret in his presbyterate that Fr. Ventline was a gay prostitute.
He routinely advertised his services as a masseuse in local gay bar magazines. He advertised that he would do the massage with or without clothes. And of course he got paid — $65 an hour was the fee.
Given the high number of homosexual priests in the archdiocese of Detroit, how could they not know? They all run in the same circles; they go to the same parties and all that.
But even more than that, when Vigneron was an auxiliary here, he, and every other auxiliary bishop as well as the papal nuncio, were sent the information about Ventline.
Of course nothing happened to him. In fact, Vigneron even gave him an official profile position as his personal spokesman on interfaith matters until the Vatican was notified again as recently as 2012.
And recall, as Church Militant reported just a couple years back, one Detroit priest actually complained to a senior chancery cleric that he was disgusted at the annual Detroit clergy Christmas party, when he was introduced to one priest’s boyfriend after another. The senior chancery cleric told him to keep it to himself.
But Ventline was so well ensconced in the gay scene in the archdiocese that he has publicly stated he even ran into former Detroit auxiliary John Nienstedt in a local gay bar just across the Detroit River in Canada.
Ventline says Nienstedt recognized him instantly and waved him off.
Not one bit of this any kind of secret. Articles were written about it back in the day. Many of the clergy knew all about him.
And yet, because he was gay, nothing happened to him. He was allowed to continue in active ministry right up until it all became too public just a couple years ago.
Of course, in the archdiocese of Detroit where Cardinal John Dearden ordained and consecrated gay men by the boatloads, none of this could be surprising.
Detroit was in a number of ways ground zero for the gay infiltration into the Church in the United States, and many of those men are still here in senior positions.
Others were and have been consecrated bishops and spread to other parts of the country, advancing the homosexual hive.
Here in the Detroit archdiocese, a group of mostly homosexual or homofriendly priests who call themselves the “Elephants in the Living Room” are well known by not only scores of other clergy as well as chancery officials.
They are also known explicitly by Archbishop Vigneron. According to the minutes from their own website, they have met in person with Vigneron and voiced their disagreement with Church teaching on nearly every point of moral teaching — homosexuality, contraception and so forth.
The minutes from the meeting reveal that Vigneron — and for the record, he too was ordained under Dearden — did hold to Church teaching with the Elephants but nonetheless allows these heretic homosexualists to remain in their pastorships and continue to deceive the faithful.
Some of these men are the ones who offer the local homosexual Mass which Vigneron refuses to shut down after more than 10 years as archbishop here, scared as is he is of them, as publicly revealed by his own seminary faculty member Dr. Mary Healy at a Q&A session following a conference last year.
At this point, not only here in Detroit, and Buffalo and many other places, some very pointed questions need to be asked.
First, why don’t the bishops just come out with it already and admit their dioceses have loads of homosexual men in their priest ranks? Any Catholic with a pulse who still cares knows it anyway.
Second, does that mean that the local bishop thinks homosexuality is OK? Is this why so very few have even made a peep about James Martin?
Third, if they do think and know all this, why are they being so secretive, trying so hard to keep it all under wraps?
Fourth, since you all do want to keep it under wraps, why is that? Is this why so many of you so detest Church Militant and others, calling us demonic and possessed, because we are calling you know what on you all?
The U.S. hierarchy is polluted up one side and down the other with homosexual men and those sympathetic to them and the agenda.
It’s why so many of them are so down with the Democrats and always pulling for them, pretending they care for the poor and immigrants and the climate.
They don’t give a rip about the poor; just look at how they live.
They don’t care about immigrants and the wall, most of them live behind walls the U.S. Army would have difficulty scaling.
And the climate issue is just the cause de jour, and they go along with it because that’s what their sodomy-embracing Democratic pals embrace.
Just come out with it already, gay bishops. Admit it all.
You cover up and lie about homosexual child rapists within the clergy because that truth is too close to the truth of the larger number of you and your priests who are active homosexuals, or at the very least sympathetic to it.
And why do you want it kept so secret? Because it’s hard to ask the laity for hundreds of millions of dollars if we know it’s going to support the gay lifestyle.
Pray these men will repent and dump this gay garbage now.
EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video is republished with permission.
Fort Lauderdale – Former Broward Sheriff’s Deputy Scot Peterson is facing 11 criminal charges – including child neglect, culpable negligence and perjury – in connection with his lack of response to the Feb. 14, 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Broward State Attorney Mike Satz announced Tuesday.
Following a 14-month investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, former Broward Sheriff’s Deputy Scot Peterson, 56, was arrested Tuesday on seven counts of child neglect, three counts of culpable negligence and one count of perjury. The investigation examined the actions of law enforcement during and following the Parkland school mass shooting.
Peterson will be booked into the Broward County Jail. His bond is set at $102,000. Under the terms of his bond, Peterson would be required to wear a GPS monitor, must surrender his passport and is banned from possessing any firearms while the case is pending.
If convicted, the 11 charges technically carry a maximum potential punishment of 96 ½ years in state prison.
Six of the seven child neglect charges are second-degree felonies and carry a maximum penalty of 15 years in state prison. The seventh child neglect charge is a third-degree felony (because the child was not severely injured) with a maximum penalty of five years in prison. The perjury charge is a first-degree misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of one year in jail. The three charges of culpable negligence are second-degree misdemeanors with a maximum penalty of 60 days in jail.
During the investigation, FDLE agents interviewed 184 witnesses, reviewed countless hours of video surveillance, and wrote 212 investigative reports, totaling more than 800 hours of investigation on the case to determine the actions of law enforcement as they responded to the February 14, 2018 school shooting. The investigation received the full cooperation and assistance from the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, Coral Springs Police Department and all other agencies that responded to the school shooting.
Assistant State Attorney Tim Donnelly is handling the case for the Broward State Attorney’s Office (17th Judicial Circuit).
Mexican drug cartels have headquarters throughout the United States and are one of the country’s greatest criminal, national security and public health threats, according to a veteran Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) senior agent pushing the federal government to designate them as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO).
“The Mexican cartels have left a trail of blood using intimidation and terrorist acts of ruthless violence,” said Derek S. Maltz, a narco-terror expert who helped establish the Counter Narco-Terrorism Operations Center (CNTOC) before retiring from the DEA. The CNTOC has busted many bigtime narco-terrorism operations, including a money laundering scheme that supported the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah.
“The cartels engage in beheadings, car bombings, dissolving humans in acid, mass murders, torture, bombings and political assassinations,” Maltz said. “Their actions are consistent with the behaviors of traditional terrorists and they have infiltrated the highest levels of the Mexican government with bribes and corruption.” The former DEA agent added that “Mexican drug cartels have utilized techniques which focus on mind manipulation and behavioral modification commonly utilized by organizations such as Al-Qaeda.”
The troubling details were delivered during recent testimony before the Ohio legislature, where Maltz made a powerful case for designating Mexican drug cartels as FTOs. Following a massive bust of the notorious Sinaloa Cartel in the Buckeye State, a resolution was introduced to get the federal government to make the change so that it may use “appropriate means to mitigate and eventually eliminate the operations of the cartels.”
Last week a criminal justice committee heard testimony as the resolution advances in the Ohio legislature. Maltz was a key expert witness, telling the panel that cartels “have major hubs in Southern California, Arizona, Chicago, Texas, New York and Atlanta” and have “expanded into South Florida.”
The resolution states that Transitional Criminal Organizations (TCO) based in Mexico (drug cartels) are responsible for the flow of opioids across the border into the United States and Ohio and that they are also responsible for the proliferation of human trafficking in the United States, particularly Ohio, as part and parcel of their drug trafficking operations.
The measure points out that drug cartels conduct operations on U.S. soil in furtherance of drug and human trafficking and that abuse of opioids and human trafficking are direct threats to the economy, well-being and overall vitality of the state of Ohio and its citizens. “The acting administrator of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, Uttam Dhillon, recently declared Mexican drug trafficking organizations are the biggest criminal threat the United States faces today,” the Ohio resolution states.
The measure further points out that the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes the U.S. Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, to designate an organization as an FTO when certain criteria are met. Drug cartels meet the criteria, Ohio lawmakers assert, because they are foreign in nature, engage in or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorism and threaten the security of American citizens and the national defense, foreign relations and economic interests of the United States.
Judicial Watch made parallel arguments in a White Paper published earlier this year. In it, Judicial Watch’s investigative team provides comprehensive documentation that Mexican drug cartels, notoriously sophisticated criminal operations, undoubtedly meet the U.S. government’s requirements to be designated FTOs.
The criteria for FTO designation require that organizations be foreign, engage in terrorism or terrorist activity or possess the capability and intent to do so and pose a threat to U.S. nationals or U.S. national security. Mexican drug cartels are inherently foreign, routinely commit criminal acts within the statutory definition of terrorism and arguably represent a more immediate and ongoing threat to U.S. national security than any of the currently-designated FTOs on the State Department list.
EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column is republished with permission.
Congress and courts have undermined border security – tariffs are a last resort.
On May 30, 2019 President Trump announced that he was contemplating imposing tariffs against Mexican imports to the United States to force Mexico to assist in securing the U.S./Mexican border. The very next day, CNN reported, “Trump threatens tariffs on Mexico over immigration” while USA Today reported, “US Chamber weighing lawsuit against White House over Trump tariffs.”
Trump is now seeking to impose tariffs on the goods from Mexico to gain control over the highly porous southern border of the United States, through which tonnage of deadly drugs and other contraband freely flow into the country and unknown hundreds of thousand of illegal aliens enter without inspection. Trump’s action is the direct result of the unwillingness of the “leaders” of both the Democratic and Republican parties to have provided the administration with the tools it clearly needs to end the crisis.
While a wall on the border would not, by itself, end the immigration crisis, it would represent an important element of what should be a secure immigration system that honors America’s tradition of welcoming more lawful immigrants than the rest of the world combined by making clear distinctions between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens.
More than a decade ago Congress voted to fund a fence on the southern border. However, that fence was never built. Other measures were never implemented either, but continual promises of the creation of massive amnesty programs have served to encourage millions of aspiring illegal aliens from around the world to head for our borders.
For decades politicians made statements about how our immigration laws must be enforced and our borders secured against the illegal and uninspected entry of aliens, while making certain never to implement the measures to actually achieve those commonsense and achievable goals.
Unfathomably, now members of the Democratic Party claim that the situation along that border does not constitute an emergency or a crisis.
The first step to solving a problem is to acknowledge that there is one.
Anyone who could take all of the facts surrounding the border situation and declare that there is no emergency has to be either a fool or insane, or for ulterior motives, is happy, indeed ecstatic with the current state of affairs. These are the Democrat politicians who call for the end of immigration law enforcement altogether and castigate ICE agents as thugs to justify promulgating “Sanctuary” policies that shield illegal aliens, including those who pose a clear and immediate threat to public safety, from ICE.
This has cost thousands of innocent victims their lives.
For these immoral politicians, victims of these criminal aliens are simply “speed bumps” on the road to immigration anarchy and the end of U.S. sovereignty.
Some members of both political parties have weighed in about their concerns that imposing tariffs on Mexican goods would hurt American consumers and hurt corporate profits as a justification for their strong opposition to the imposition of tariffs.
The threat of a lawsuit by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce should not come as a surprise. After all, the Chamber of Commerce has been a strident opponent of border security. In fact, I would suggest that the real reason for the chamber’s adamant opposition to the threat of the impassion of tariffs is not so much about the economic fallout from such a tariff, but the possibility that Mexico might finally act to help the United States secure its border against the massive onslaught of hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens that undermines national security, public safety, public health and the jobs and wages of American workers.
The greatest concern that the anti-American Chamber of Commerce has, and one I believe that is shared with the members of Congress who oppose the imposition of tariffs, is that Mexico might actually accede to President Trump’s demands that Mexico end the massive caravans of illegal aliens heading with sickening regularity to the U.S./Mexican border. One of the easiest ways for Mexico to do this would be to simply secure its southern border with Guatemala. It is a far smaller border than its northern border with the U.S. and would be highly effective.
I have testified at Congressional and state legislative hearings on immigration where the chamber of Commerce or other special interest groups with strong ties to the Chamber of Commerce also testified.
At those hearings I noted that the 9/11 Commission had made it clear that border security is national security and that the 9/11 terror attacks and other such attacks, both thwarted and those that were actually carried out, were only possible because of multiple failures of the immigration system, including failures to secure our borders.
In fact, the preface of the official report, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel – begins with the following paragraph:
It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.
Incredibly some of those witnesses not only scoffed at my concerns and the concerns and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, but confronted me after the hearings and told me that my calls for enhanced border security must stop. They complained that while I saw our borders as America’s first and last line of defense against international terrorists and transnational criminals, to them secure borders were a serious impediment to theirwealth!
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is far more fixated on head-counts on international airliners, ball parks and theaters than they are on body counts at the morgue! It also has friends in both political parties, particularly the Republican Party.
For all of these open-border advocates and immigration anarchists, our immigration system has morphed from being a system that protects national security, public safety, public health and the well-being of Americans into a delivery system of unparalleled efficiency that delivers an unlimited supply of exploitable foreign workers who can be coerced into working for substandard wages under illegally dangerous conditions.
Our immigration system also delivers an unlimited supply of foreign students and foreign tourists and, for the immigration lawyers in both political parties, of greatest concern, an unlimited supply of clients for immigration law firms.
This has not happened overnight, although any shred of integrity to the immigration system has been stripped away by politicians who lack integrity.
Indeed, I wrote about this in a recent article, “Caravan Of ‘Migrants’ – A Crisis Decades In The Making.”
Securing the U.S./Mexican border would interfere with a delivery system that is far more efficient than Fed-Ex and UPS combined.
For those who oppose the imposition of tariffs, put the blame where it belongs: on the U.S. Congress that has impeded, obstructed and hobbled any and all efforts at border security while Sanctuary Cities beckon illegal aliens.
EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
This is the politician who told German people that if they did not like Merkel’s mass immigration policies they should feel free to leave Germany. Apparently someone felt the same about him.
German district president found dead with gunshot wound — report
The president of the regional council of the central German city of Kassel was found dead in his garden early on Sunday morning.
A spokesman for Walter Lübcke’s party, the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU), confirmed the 65-year-old’s death late on Sunday.
Regional news outlet HNA reported that Lübcke had been found with a bullet wound in his head and that police had found no weapon at the scene.
State police did not comment on the HNA report. They said in a statement that they were investigating the matter.
Police helicopters circled above the deceased’s home as locals were interviewed by law enforcement officers, according to HNA.
The public prosecutor’s office in Kassel announced that they would release more details on Monday.
The CDU described the Lübcke as a “bridge builder” who never shied away from “telling it as it is.”
“Sometimes duplicity and treason are markers of the enemy, and sometimes, the failed intention of a masterful ally. But, nevertheless, as they burden you with a vexing brand of love, they become nothing more than the kiss of Judas, pressing a crown of thorns into your flesh.” – Addison Webster Moore
“Americans cannot comprehend how their fellow countrymen could not love their country. But the left’s anti-Americanism is intrinsic to their entire worldview. Liberals promote the right of Islamic fanatics for the same reason they promote the rights of adulterers, pornographers, abortionists, criminals, and Communists. They instinctively root for anarchy against civilization. The inevitable logic of the liberal position is to be for treason.” – Ann Coulter
“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever.” – Thomas Jefferson
Incrimination through innuendo is the rule today as I listened to the liar of truth, Robert Mueller. Truth is treason in the empire of lies and truth has now become the new hate speech. Mueller’s final words stood the “rule of law” and presumption of innocence on their heads.
Apparently, Mueller wanted President Trump to appoint him FBI director again and he was rejected. The very next day, Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller to investigate the bogus Russian collusion. Undoubtedly, President Trump knew that after 9/11, FBI Director Mueller purged the FBI training documents on Islamist terrorists and he acquiesced to the Muslim Brotherhood front group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Robert Mueller had joined Trump’s National Golf Club in Virginia and seventeen years later, Mueller claimed the family was not making full use of the membership, and he wanted a portion of his $15K back. The Club justifiably refused. Unbelievably, this is included in footnote 529 on page 80-81 of the Mueller report. No doubt Mueller had negative feelings for Donald Trump.
Deep State Revenge
After Attorney General (AG) Jeff Sessions recused himself from overseeing the Russian collusion debacle, Rod Rosenstein became the AG in charge of the investigation. He disregarded the criminal conduct requirement and authorized a broad and vague counterintelligence probe, directing the special counsel to investigate “any links” between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.
This was unprecedented and gave a blank check to Mueller and his gang of Hillary supporting democrat attorneys the right to go after anyone or anything related to President Trump.
After the nearly two-year investigation, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the Republican Deep State insider and hardcore Never Trumper, again put a knife in our President’s back.
Mueller’s actions made it clear he wanted to nail President Trump, he wanted him out of office, but there was no damning evidence.
Mueller’s eight-minute speech regarding the 448 page Two-Volume Special Counsel report contained these incriminating words, “And as set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” (Volume II of the Mueller report was the obstruction-of-justice investigation regarding President Trump’s actions and conduct during the entire spurious Russian collusion inquiry.)
AG Barr had specifically asked Mueller, “Is your reason for not charging Trump anything to do with the Office of Legal Counsel guidelines?” Barr said that Mueller told him three times, “No, that has nothing to do with it.” Barr is on record on two occasions saying that Mueller told him three times the Office of Legal Counsel guidelines have nothing to do with his decision not to indict the president or not to link the president to crimes.
Democrat Alan Dershowitz spelled it out in his recent Hill article. “Mueller went beyond the conclusion of his report and gave a political gift to Congressional democrats who are seeking to institute impeachment proceedings against President Trump. By implying that President Trump might have committed obstruction of justice, Mueller effectively invited Democrats to institute impeachment proceedings.”
Mueller failed to investigate the bogus dossier, FISA abuse, Obama’s spying on the Trump campaign, or the players involved. The intelligence community has proven themselves to be a venomous nest of traitorous vipers.
Spying and FISA Abuse
John Solomon reported over a year ago that spying on the Trump campaign occurred earlier than the summer of 2016. “It originated earlier, 1,700 miles away in London, when foreign figures contacted Trump campaign advisers and provided the FBI with hearsay allegations of Trump-Russia collusion, bureau documents and interviews of government insiders. These contacts in spring 2016, some from trusted intelligence sources, others from Hillary Clinton supporters, occurred well before FBI headquarters authorized an official counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016.”
Rep. Mark Meadows, (R-NC) said, “This new information begs the questions: Who were the informants working for, who were they reporting to and why has the DOJ and FBI gone to such great lengths to hide these contacts?”
Former Deputy Assistant AG Victoria Toensing and her husband, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Joe diGenova, were on Hannity on May 31st, along with a full panel of guests. Toensing said that there is evidence the Obama administration FISA abuse started as early as 2012, and the abuse goes all the way to the top.
Obama’s Illegal Surveillance
The Obama White House used the most sensitive intrusive surveillance systems of the NSA to spy on Americans. A ruling by FISA Court Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer finds that 85 percent of NSA database requests under FISA section 702 authority at the DOJ were illegal or non-compliant. Surveillance systems, including PRISM, were spying on thousands of Americans, including Donald Trump and those around him. (United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review Amicus Brief) Moreover, Collyer finds that the DOJ showed an appalling “lack of institutional candor.”
In April 2017, Judge Collyer found that unwarranted and illegal surveillance of American citizens was done by the highest reaches of the Obama Administration for at least 4 years, starting in 2012. (Secret court rebukes NSA for 5-year illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens – MAY 26, 2017). Moreover, James Comey authorized and allowed for limitless, continuous, unlawful, and warrant-less access by three Federal contractors. (Institutional Lack of Candor – FISA Violations January 24, 2018). Link
Judge Collyer found that its targets were American citizens and prominent Republicans and the abuse was continuous, frequently entering the same person’s name over a protracted period of time.
Collyer ruled that this information was shared and disseminated unlawfully to John Brennan and James Clapper. Brennan admitted that the CIA had hacked into the Senate Intelligence Committee’s computers. (Brennan, Clapper, and Comey were instrumental in infecting the DOJ and FBI with the Steele Dossier.)
Furthermore, information was disseminated within the Obama administration in violation of the 4th amendment, all under the authorization of James Comey. He knew it was illegal and he should be indicted for these and other crimes.
When they got caught, they fought back with treason by continuing to usurp the Constitution. Undermining the incoming President with the Russia hoax, trying to cover up their litany of crimes, and staging an attempted coup against Donald Trump.
They didn’t get away with it.
Admiral Mike Rogers
In the spring of 2016, the Director of the NSA, Admiral Mike Rogers, discovered that the NSA’s comprehensive database collecting all electronic communications in the United States was being searched by unauthorized FBI “contractors” and he moved to “cut off that access.” Link
If Admiral Mike Rogers hadn’t put a stop to the misuse of the NSA, none of this would have come to light. Former assistant Attorney General, John Carlin, tried to have Rogers fired for fear that the skullduggery would be exposed further, but he failed. Rogers visited candidate Trump shortly after his discovery to warn him that Trump Tower was “wiretapped.”
Stonewalling Classified Documents
In a Memorial Day radio interview, Joe diGenova told that FBI Director Christopher Wray, CIA Director Gina Haspel, and Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats have been stonewalling the release of classified documents to AG Barr prior to the President’s declassification. Take note that Dan Coats is a former Senator from Indiana and a close friend of VP Mike Pence who was in charge of the Trump transition team and recommended Coats.
AG Barr was fed up trying to get classified documents, so he went to the President and told him he could not get the answers the President requested. Twenty-four hours later, the President declassified the documents. The White House also instructed several agencies to cooperate with Barr’s inquiry, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Department, the State Department, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
The intelligence community is in full resistance to disclosing what they did during the campaign. There’s a full-scale war between AG Barr and another FBI director who thinks he’s James Comey. DiGenova said that Christopher Wray is an “unmitigated disaster,” and we are “watching the quintessential Washington power battle.” Devvy Kidd’s latest article on Wray fully agrees with diGenova.
DiGenova believes the Obama administration spying, exposed by Judge Rosemary Collyer, is a bigger scandal than the FBI’s Russian collusion coup. Shortly after the 2012 election, the Obama administration began their illegal accessing of the National Security Agency (NSA) database via 702 queries. And now, the FBI and CIA fear that since these disclosures have become publicly known, their powers may be cut back, FISA may be restricted and some additional people may go to prison.
AG Barr’s Investigators
Talk about the foxes in the hen house! CIA Director Gina Haspel, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, and FBI Director Chris Wray are all participating in the investigation, which Barr first announced publicly during a congressional hearing last month.
Dan Coats is a long-time establishment creature having served as an Indiana Congressman and Senator for a total of sixteen years.
FBI Director Chris Wray said that he does not consider court-approved FBI surveillance to be “spying” and said he has no evidence the FBI illegally monitored Trump’s campaign. This alone should worry AG William Barr.
According to Sam Faddis, former CIA Ops officer, and author of Beyond Repair: The Decline and Fall of the CIA, Trump’s CIA director, Gina Haspel, is a protégée of John Brennan. She was at his right hand during all the critical junctures. Haspel was the CIA’s London Section Chief during the time the Deep State was working with former MI6 agent, Christopher Steele, and couldn’t possibly have been in the dark about the attempt to subvert the election/presidency of Donald Trump. Although Trump called for the revocation of John Brennan’s secret security clearance, the Deep State has made sure that this has NOT happened as yet. Most likely, they’re waiting out his presidency to return to “business as usual.” Link
Remember John Huber, the missing appointee by Jeff Sessions? Fourteen months ago AG Sessions had asked Huber to look into issues related to the sale of Uranium One and allegations that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been improperly involved in the process, as well as broader claims of corruption at the Clinton Foundation. In a recent interview on CBS, Mr. Barr seemed to suggest that what evidence Huber found, if any, may soon be revealed. Barr also revealed that Inspector General Horowitz and John Durham have taken over most of Huber’s responsibilities.
One wonders with this cast of characters if we’ll ever see true justice.
As Gregg Jarrett stated on Fox News, Mueller’s actions were not only noxious, but patently unfair to Trump. The special counsel publicly besmirched the president with tales of suspicious behavior and turned our justice system on its head.
Lindsey Graham, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee needs to subpoena Robert Mueller. He should have staff lawyers ready to question him, just like the House committee wanted to do with Attorney General William Barr.
As a former long-time journalist, I like to sometimes write a straight news story based on the actual news and not leftist agitprop. If straightforward, honest, non-pack journalists were covering last week’s surprise press conference by Robert Mueller, this is how a news story might read.
Surprise Mueller Statement Questions Universal Presumption Of Innocence
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III broke from long-standing judicial tradition in the United States Wednesday when he laid out two tiers of jurisprudence when it comes to a basic presumption of innocence.
In a hastily called press conference announced just 90 minutes before it began, Mueller read an eight-minute prepared statement, in which he reiterated what was in his 448-page report he delivered to Attorney General William Barr earlier this month. He decline to answer any questions from the media and announced he would close the Special Counsel’s office and return to the private sector.
In the statement, Mueller reiterated his final report that a grand jury indicted Russian intelligence officers for using cyber techniques to interfere with the 2016 U.S. election, and that a private Russian entity ran a social media operation to further interfere with the election.
“These indictments contain allegations, and we are not commenting on the guilt or the innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty,” Mueller said, which aligns with long-standing American jurisprudence.
He also reiterated that his two-year investigation did not find that either President Trump or the Trump campaign conspired or colluded with Russia in these attempts, essentially clearing the President again on the point for which he was appointed Special Counsel.
The second part of the press conference, which restated the second part of his report, covered the obstruction of justice investigation that was launched during the Russian investigation. In this portion, Mueller appeared to apply a different standard in referring to President Trump, than when discussing the Russian operatives.
Mueller said: “…after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.”
This statement was seen by some to be a break from the presumption of innocence standard and the general practices of prosecutors who do not share negative information from an investigation if there are no charges.
Alan Dershowitz, former Harvard Law School professor and constitutional scholar, said he was deeply disturbed by Mueller’s statement and his apparent dismissiveness of the presumption of innocence standard.
“That was absolutely inappropriate for him to say. It was worse than anything that (former FBI Director James) Comey said when he exonerated Hillary Clinton and then said, but she engaged in extremely careless conduct,” Dershowitz said.
Comey was widely condemned by both Democrats and Republicans for laying out a criminal case publicly, but then not charging Clinton. That also seemed to be a step away from legal norms in the United States, but was not impacting the presumption of innocence standard.
“Everybody condemned that. This is much, much worse,” Dershowitz said.
Everything in this story is factually true, including Dershowitz’s quotes. There is, of course, much more that could be written on it. But you get the gist. There are so many news stories which could be written and covered entirely differently, without the leftist bias.
But the mainstream media would not even recognize this as a news story because their own biases are so ingrained in journalism itself that they are institutionally blind to them.
EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission.
Are we seeing a repeat of Germany 1933?
Jewish shop owners are hounded, threatened and run out of town. Their businesses are the targets of prolonged campaigns of intimidation, culminating in months of demonstrations at their doors with up to a thousand angry protesters at a time shooting red paint bombs and mutilated dolls at employees.
Owners of these businesses threatened with death and (real) bombings. The threats including their families.
Police refuse to step in, saying the protesters are behaving lawfully. In fact, a top politician supports and is listed as a patron of the organization behind the protests.
Germany 1933? Or the UK in 2019? Actually both.
Since we know how the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses which began in 1933 ended, let’s talk about what’s happening in today’s UK.
The Palestine Solidarity Campagin, of which Labour party head Jeremy Corbyn is a patron, has, in reality, been waging this campaign against Jewish businesses that sell Israeli products (both those originating from inside Israel proper as well as those made in the disputed territories) since 2001.
They have not only targeted Jewish businesses but also the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra at the Royal Albert Hall, an Israeli theater company at Shakespeare’s Globe and an Israeli LGBT event in London.
The group is prominent in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement against Israel, which has been deemed anti-Semitic at its core by the U.S. State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism.
Most recently, the group has forced shops selling Israeli cosmetics to close, like the one owned by UK citizen Nissan Ayalon, 33, who was forced to move his business three times, starting from scratch each time, before finally giving up and fleeing the country.
“Eventually, I lost faith in being able to make a life once again in Britain,” Ayalon said in a newly-released film called Hounded, which documents the on-going campaign of intimidation of Jews who sell products from Israel. “I just couldn’t keep moving to a new city every two years. I had a family to look after.”
The true litmus test of anti-Semitism is whether the actions are against Jews per se (biogtry) or simply making a political statement. The BDS movement holds Jews to a different standard than in similar conflicts worldwide. It is a clear case of anti-Semitism.
Moreover, it is a known fact that while the movement has created little damage to Israel, the movement significantly harms the Palestinian people (another litmus test of its real raison d’etre: anti-Semitism).
Businesses that are targeted in Israel and forced to close because of the movement are mainly located in the disputed territories, which are known for employing large numbers of Palestinians (and paying them at a higher rate than they would receive working for Palestinian companies.
These jobs not only benefit the individuals themselves but also translate to more tax income for the Palestinian Authority – not to mention the good will and peace building atmosphere these companies have been known to create among their Jewish and Palestinian workers.
But the story doesn’t end there (and if it did, it would be bad enough).
Germany’s interior minister and the Berlin mayor allowed the annual pro-Iranian/pro-Hezbollah Al-Quds (Jerusalem) Day rally to take place in Berlin. The purpose of the rally is traditionally to call for the destruction of the Jewish state.
The U.S. embassy in Germany tweeted, “Germany’s federal courts decided years ago that Hezbollah is a unified organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Symbols of Hezbollah are banned, why not the entire organization?”
Ironically, just days after the rally, Angela Merkel, Germany’s leader, said,
“There is to this day not a single synagogue, not a single daycare center for Jewish children, not a single school for Jewish children that does not need to be guarded by German policemen.”
The rally also came on the heels of an unprecedented report released by Germany’s domestic security agency about how anti-Semitism among the country’s Muslim population is a major problem in the country.
Not only has Merkel and her interior minister blatantly refused to ban the internationally-recognized terror group Hezbollah dedicated to the destruction of Jews, they have refused to even entertain the question.
Small wonder that every Jewish establishment in Germany needs police protection.
And now, due to our ability to connect halfway across the world with a simply click of a button, this phenomena can be spread throughout the globe.
In Australia, a Muslim doctor has been the target of an intimidating anti-Semitic campaign for working with a Jewish organization that helps sick Palestinian children obtain necessary and life-saving treatment in Israeli hospitals.
Dr. Jamal Rifi is a prominent figure in Sydney’s Shiite Muslim community from Lebanon. He has been recognized for his work in preventing the radicalization of young Muslims by ISIS. Yet, Rifi is now considered an “enemy” by pro-Iranian and pro-Hezbollah activists in his community.
He and his family have received death threats. He is afraid to go back to Lebanon to visit his mother for fear of being arrested and prosecuted by Lebanon’s Military Court.
Yet, is Rifi’s situation that much different than Germany’s (current) government-sanctioned anti-Semitism?
In 1933, Jewish businesses began to be targeted by Nazis. It was slow. In fact, the first boycott was a one-day affair. It progressed to a campaign of ever-increasing harassment until it culminated in systematic pillaging, forced transfer of ownership to Nazi Party activists, arrests and ultimately the murder of Jews who owned businesses (of which, in Berlin alone, there were 50,000).
I am not one of those people who think Nazi Germany can happen again. Many would call me naïve; others might call me unwarrantedly optimistic. Perhaps they are right.
But the world is different, certainly when it comes to what we are willing to tolerate and not.
The problem with this equation is the fact that our “tolerance” has become a double-edged sword.
In this case, we have extended our tolerance to Islamists, who, in the cases above, use Israel as the cover for their anti-Semitism. If anything is as dangerous in our time for Jews as it was in the 1930s in Germany, it is the pass Islamists are given when they play the Islamophobia card.
This is how our supreme value of “tolerance” has taken us off kilter.
We have seen this in America in response to the blatant displays of anti-Semitism from Congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. They have been handed a free pass from their own Democrat party.
If the Western world still has the will, they can call this out and stop it. If not, I will be changing my opinion. Because the one thing, unfortunately, that all those who exist on the extremes can agree on is hatred of Jews — historically and now.
As we promised you, Church Militant is going to be vigilant and relentless in exposing the filthy squalor into which many of the members of the hierarchy have descended.
And the point to keep uppermost in your mind is that this stuff — all of it — has been known and is still known by multiple bishops, chancery personnel, lawyers and Catholic media types who continue the cover-up.
It is of little significance, except from a criminal law standpoint, if what happened was two years ago or 20 years ago.
All of this filth stains the hands of the dozens of people who did it and covered it up as well as enabled it back in the day and still continue to enable it by refusing to come forward with what they know.
Many of the rats who were running around their chanceries back in the day are today bishops or auxiliary bishops who know many dark secrets and simply refuse to divulge them, especially their own role in the filthy business.
Take for example the case of Fr. Andrew Millar from the diocese of Rockville Center, New York back around the year 2000.
In May of that year, Millar was arrested for sodomizing a 15-year-old mentally disabled teenage boy in a bathroom at a popular beach on Long Island. In November of the same year, a finding of guilty got him a prison sentence of one to three years.
Now, here’s the hitch. Millar was roaming about and able to commit what detectives called a “crime of opportunity” because he was living near the beach in retirement at a Rockville Center parish.
The reason he was “retired” and living at the parish was because he had been stashed away there by then-Bishop James McHugh after Millar had been accused to the diocese of sexually abusing a different child — this one a 10-year-old boy.
McHugh did not tell the police he had a child molester on his hands; then shipped Millar off to the notorious St. Luke’s in Maryland for a few months; then brought him back to the diocese and “retired” him to the parish.
Eight months later, he got caught raping the 15-year-old boy by the boy’s father at the beach bathroom. The boy’s father chased him down and held Millar until the police arrived.
So why, you may reasonably ask, did the bishop “retire” him? Good question — to shuttle him away, hoping he wouldn’t rape any more boys in “retirement.”
And retirement here was key because as McHugh’s lawyer’s tried to assert in the civil suit which followed, since he was “retired,” he was no longer an “employee” of the diocese, so the diocese could not be held financially liable.
Yeah, you heard that right. If, Bp. McHugh reasoned, we could reclassify the rapist priest as a non-employee, then the diocese would be shielded from liability. You can’t make this stuff up. And as the saying goes, but wait, there’s more.
McHugh actually wrote a letter to Millar regarding his retirement and in that letter, McHugh, the bishop remember, knowing full well of the sexual assault against the 10-year-old, thanked Millar for his 41 years of “priestly goodness.”
Eight months later, Millar sodomized the mentally disabled teenage boy. And believe it or not, there’s actually more.
During the criminal trial, McHugh actually intervened on behalf of Millar who had been declared guilty and tried to have the court forgo a prison sentence and remand Millar over to the diocese, seemingly forgetting that Millar had already been under the authority of the diocese when he raped the boy that he was now facing sentencing for.
The bishop, through his attorneys, actually had the audacity to suggest to the court that Millar be handed over to the bishop who would then transfer him to a facility in the western United States where he could receive counseling.
The bishop never discussed that neither he nor the diocese have any jurisdiction in the western United States, nor that Millar would owe absolutely zero allegiance to the bishop since he was “retired.”
In short, Bp. McHugh intervened to have the rapist priest that by the way he knew had abused at least two boys, the case of the original boy not known by the court or law enforcement at the time of the sentencing, that would come out in the civil case, he intervened to have him go completely scot-free, unsupervised.
Now, to show the spiritual insanity of all this, there was at the same time this case with Millar was going on, another case with one of McHugh priests, a Fr. Murphy who had been arrested falsely for trespassing at an abortuary.
Father Murphy had, in fact, not trespassed at all but had to undergo the charge by the child-killers that are commonly hurled at prayer warriors in front of the killing centers.
Catholics directly petitioned McHugh and asked him if he would intervene in the case of Fr. Murphy, and the cold-blooded, hypocritical response of McHugh was, paraphrasing, “I will not intervene in a case I have not been invited to intervene in.”
So when it comes to protecting a known and convicted homopredator rapist, McHugh intervenes to try and get him released. But in the case of another one of his priests who had not broken the law, McHugh defers and hides behind proper decorum.
Pro-life clergy fighting abortion, drop dead. Sodomy performing priests raping teenage boys, yes.
McHugh went on to say that the request for him to do something in the Fr. Murphy abortion trespassing case was “abusive.”
Yet when the father of the 15-year-old mentally disturbed rape victim was made aware of McHugh’s letter to Millar thanking him for his “priestly goodness,” the father said he was furious about the bishop’s letter saying the entire incident “eats me up alive.”
Apparently, that doesn’t count as abusive because the bishop is allowed to dump on victims and cover-up crimes.
And by the way, just one more thing on the topic of covering up crimes, McHugh didn’t just intervene in Millar’s case knowing full well that he had sexually assaulted a 10-year-old prior to this case, he actually expressed in public, in no uncertain, clear as a bell terms, that this was for Fr. Millar the “first time to engage in such an act.”
Why not throw in perjury while you’re at it?
So who were the men and women, who were the priests, who were the lawyers working in the chancery at Rockville Center back in 2000? How do they sleep at night?
The judge in the case disregarded McHugh’s ridiculous intervention. Millar was shipped off to prison.
As for McHugh, three weeks after Millar went to prison, he died.
EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
Immigration law enforcement provides heavy artillery to fight transnational crime.
On May 26, 2019 the local radio station in New York, 1010 WINS reported, Nassau police union: Dozens more detectives needed to combat MS-13.
That report began with this excerpt:
NEW YORK (1010 WINS) – Two days after the body of a suspected MS-13 victim was discovered at Massapequa Preserve, Nassau PBA president James McDermott says gang units in the county are understaffed and ill-equipped to deal with the violent gang.
“Our gang unit is undermanned and not provided with the necessary resources to deal with this threat,” he said Sunday, speaking near the location where the body was discovered Friday.
The remains are believed to be from one of a number of people murdered by MS-13 several years ago.
In any battle, more “boots on the ground” can help to insure victory. Where the battle is against transnational criminals, it would be most helpful if those “boots” were worn by ICE agents.
What was not discussed in this article is how ICE agents can be of a huge assistance in effectively combatting MS-13 and other transnational gangs and how sanctuary policies have the exact opposite impact.
Indeed, effective immigration law enforcement can support law and assist enforcement efforts to combat gangs, human trafficking, prostitution drug trafficking and other serious crimes.
Years ago INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) agents worked in close cooperation with the NYPD. Back then I frequently participated in joint operations with the NYPD to shut down houses of prostitution. Many of the clients and prostitutes of these brothels were illegal aliens.
The police would arrest the prostitutes and their clients and we would lodge detainers or simply take them into custody. The word on the street was that illegal aliens might find themselves being deported by the INS agents. Business dropped and many of these locations were permanently shuttered.
Additionally, many times the prostitutes would cooperate with our efforts to identify human traffickers so that we could target the pernicious traffickers and ultimately dismantle their operations and bring them to justice.
It is obvious that ICE agents are empowered to arrest illegal aliens on administrative charges that result in the deportation of illegal aliens from the United States.
To this point, immigration anarchists frequently refer to immigration laws as “civil laws” minimizing the true importance of our nation’s immigration laws and the actual authority that ICE agents have.
What is seldom, if ever discussed, is that there are also criminal laws that are a part of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and violations of these laws carry serious prison sentences.
In fact, on May 13, 2019 The Washington Examiner published an opinion piece, Feds: Immigration top US crime, one-third of all sentencings that was based on the official report of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report and Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics that reported that immigration law violations accounted for 34.4% of all federal prosecutions and that 94.7% of immigration prosecutions resulted in prison sentences.
The 9/11 Commission determined that visa fraud and immigration fraud figured prominently in the ability of international terrorists to enter the United States and embed themselves as they went about their deadly preparation, and not only with the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 were concerned.
Visa fraud 18 U.S. Code § 1546 is an extremely serious crime and when it is committed in conjunction with terrorism exposes the alien who perpetrates that crime to a prison sentence of up to 25 years.
Visa fraud committed in conjunction with drug trafficking carries a maximum of 20 years in prison.
Human Trafficking/Alien Smuggling 8 U.S. Code § 1324 addresses crimes that relate to illegally bringing aliens into the and/or harboring, concealing, aiding, abetting, inducing and encouraging aliens to enter the United States illegally or to remain in the United States illegally and these crimes carry hefty jail sentences. In fact, if such activities lead to the death of any individual, the punishment, upon conviction, can be life in prison.
Re-entry After Deportation, 8 U.S. Code § 1326 carries a maximum of 20 years in prison if the alien in question meets the definition of an “aggravated felon.” (On a personal note, I worked with then-New York Senator Al D’Amato to first convince him of the need to change the law that had previously made no distinction about the criminal history of deported aliens who reentered the United States after being deported. Previously the maximum penalty was two years in prison. The twenty year maximum is intended to deter aliens from returning illegally to the United States.) Given the nature of this particular crime, it is all but impossible for an alien who has been deported and subsequently reentered illegally to deny that the charges are true.
While it may take years to put many criminal cases together and involve many agents and resources, the crime of unlawful reentry can be investigated and completed in just a few days. It is cost-effective and provides a huge hammer to combat criminal aliens who make a mockery of our borders and immigration laws.
Illegal aliens who are found in possession of ammunition or a firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, 18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(5) face up to ten years in prison. Again, this is a simple case to investigate and the jail sentence is significant.
Where all of these federal criminal charges are concerned, they will all ultimately also result in the deportation of the criminal aliens after they complete their prisons sentences.
The goal of law enforcement is to protect the property and lives of those who would fall prey to criminals. Prison sentences are established to accomplish a few commonsense objectives. First, to punish those who violate our laws, second to deter those who might contemplate violating our laws and finally to get dangerous criminals off of the streets of our towns and cities to separate them from those who would otherwise fall victim to their criminal behavior.
One of the challenges for law enforcement is the challenge presented by recidivists, that is, criminals who repeatedly commit crimes, get arrested and convicted, serve prison sentences only to return to the street to commit more crimes and hurt/kill more victims.
Prisons are often optimistically referred to as “Correctional Institutions” where the inmates are hopefully rehabilitated by addressing their sociopathic conduct through training, counseling and other such measures. Unfortunately, all too frequently these efforts fail.
Where criminal aliens are concerned, deporting such criminals provides a means of removing them permanently from the streets of American towns and cities. The severe penalty for unlawful reentry of such criminal aliens was intended to deter such aliens from returning to the United States. This deterrent factor would be far more effective if there were more ICE agents who could arrest such aliens so that more would be prosecuted.
Sanctuary cities have the precise opposite affect, encouraging aliens to run our borders and thus endanger the lives of innocent victims. It most be noted the most frequently those at greatest risk are the members of the immigrant communities where these criminal aliens live and ply their sociopathic “trades.”
Sanctuary policies shield and embolden the gangs and imperil innocent victims, often teenage immigrant children.
With “friends” like the politicians who create “Sanctuary” policies, or want to end ICE altogether, immigrants don’t need enemies!
EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission.
I moderated a Judicial Watch panel of experts this week to probing into the targeting of President Trump and the attacks on our Republican form of government through the illicit use of the spy agencies. The panel also discussed the corruption at the FBI, corrupt handling of the Clinton email investigation, the Obama administration’s hand in the Russia investigation hoax, the Mueller probe and other important topics.
It’s a sordid story, one we’ve fought to expose for three years.
With the collapse of the Mueller investigation, President Trump has been exonerated of the false accusations of collusion and obstruction with the Russians, the panel turned its attention to the politicization of Department of Justice and the intelligence community. This panel presentation is part of many efforts by your Judicial Watch to expose the full extent of Deep State attacks on our president and our republican form of government. Be sure to watch this special Judicial Watch video presentation, available here.
Here are a few highlights from my introduction of the panel:
- Judicial Watch has nearly 50 lawsuits to expose this most massive corruption scandal in American History.
- Without the pressure of these lawsuits, efforts to educate the American people on what has been going on would never take place otherwise.
- Congress obviously has been defanged because they’re part of the problem now. The administration is facing internal pressure not to release key information about the misconduct of the Obama administration. Frankly, there are Trump administration officials who have continued the effort to overthrow the president.
Here are highlights of what Carter Page and former Trump campaign advisor – one of the targets of Deep State crimes – had to say:
- All of the organizations on this panel, including Judicial Watch, were themselves illegally surveilled through the government’s collection of his communications with them.
- Page said what the government did against him were acts of terrorism because the statutory definition of “terrorism” is “acts that are dangerous to human life,” and he received countless death threats associated with government’s actions again him. What the government was doing to him, he contended, was really about intimidating and coercing an innocent civilian for illegal ends.
- Literally everything that was done against Page, he said, was an act in violation of the FBI’s official priorities: Protecting against terrorist attacks; protecting against foreign intelligence operations and espionage; protecting against cyber-based and high-tech crimes; combating public corruption at all levels; protecting civil rights.
Here are some highlights of what lawyer and former Justice Department official Victoria Toensing had to say:
- George Papadopoulos was pursued to his Greek Island vacation destination and was set up by a man calling himself Charles Tawil, supposedly doing business in Israel, who convinced Papadopoulos to go to Israel where he was given $10,000 in cash as part of the supposed business deal. Papadopoulos did not take the money with him back to the United States. But, when he landed at Dulles Airport in Washington, he was arrested by the FBI, put in shackles and thrown in jail but because he did not have the cash with him. The FBI “made up a crime” to charge him with.
- Why was Andrew Weissmann, then the Justice Department official in charge of the fraud section before he joined the Mueller team, briefed on the Trump Dossier when the matter was out of his portfolio?
- When then-head of the NSA, Admiral Mike Rogers, discovered all of the FISA court violations by the Obama administration since 2012, in April 2016, he cut off all access to NSA FISA material by FBI contractors. Is it then, Toensing asked, that the FBI suddenly started seeking FISA warrants on Carter Page and others directly from the FISA court?
Daily Caller News Foundation investigative reporter Chuck Ross said:
- James Comey and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch were discussing Carter Page in Spring 2016, before the FBI investigation Crossfire Hurricane kicked off.
- FBI informer Stefan Halper met with Page three weeks before the FBI investigation began.
- The Trump Dossier fueled the media narrative on Trump/Russia collusion.
Judicial Watch Director of Investigations and Research, Chris Farrell, observed:
- Attorney General Barr aptly and appropriately described what was going on by the Justice Department and FBI during the coup attempt as “spying.”
- The intelligence agencies were used in way that is “outrageously beyond the pale, like nothing else we’ve ever seen in the history of the United States Government.”
- The FBI and intelligence agencies were so far out of bounds that when what was going on is described as a coup, it is no exaggeration. It was a coup – an effort to unseat the president and destabilize his administration.
- This was very sophisticated, very well thought out, not just “lawfare” in the sense of using law enforcement and the legal system, department of justice – justice and FBI, but also the intelligence apparatus like we’ve never seen before.
As I said to the panelists, no one else in American history has been targeted like this president. That’s not a political statement; that’s a fact. It ought to be concerning to any American who wants a Republican form of government – as opposed to a government run by political appointees and bureaucrats who think they know better than the American people in terms of who gets to be president and how they exercise their power and authority. Stay tuned for more as your Judicial Watch continues to investigate the investigators.
EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch video and column is republished with permission.