President Obama’s Subtle Support for Anti-Police Street Demonstrations

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

Only the Arctic cold spell gripping the nation, the State of the Union Address (Obama didn’t want demonstrators to detract), and the facts presented in the Justice Department Report as a result of FBI Agents’ investigating of the Ferguson shooting, temporarily halted the nationally controlled anti-Police street demonstrations after over 6 months. The Justice Department report, submitted by FBI Agents tasked with the investigation, concluded that the white Police Officer’s shooting of Michael Brown was justified and in self-defense; the report failed to mention Eric Holder’s continued unjustified inflammatory racial bias. Although Holder’s Justice Department finally agreed with the Ferguson Grand Jury’s decision, the rioters in Ferguson this past Friday, stated they still did not have any knowledge of the Justice Department Report.

Fifteen minutes after the Ferguson Grand Jury decision acquitted a white Police Officer in Ferguson, MO for shooting a black criminal in self-defense, the nation witnessed Obama on a nationally televised address making inappropriate and subtle comments that fueled the violent street demonstration that erupted followed his comments on TV. Yet President Obama refuses to do a televised address to the nation to present the facts that the shooting was in self-defense, that would have calmed down the radical and Communist demonstrators to “cease and desist” and that the raised hands gesture never happened. The demonstrations continue, even this over this past week, resulting in two white Police Officers ambushed in an assassination attempt, because of the false narrative by President Obama, Attorney General Holder, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, NYC Mayor De Blasio, and the left of center liberal media establishment who continue to cover up the truth.

For them to correct the false narrative they previously publicized repeatedly on national news networks, and tamper down incendiary racial bias being promoted in street demonstrations against Police Officers——that the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Gardener were in fact justified, and were not motivated by white Police Officers with a racial animus toward black youth, would reveal their true racial animus over the last 6 months.

Obama, who is in a unique position to defuse the racial lies promulgated nationally for the last 6 months, that there is an epidemic of white Police Officers killing black youth by saying they are untrue, is still being supported so Obama’s radical supporters, anarchists, progressives, Socialists, Marxists, and Communists being bused in by Soros to keep anti-Police street demonstrations alive. Since the white Police Officer has been cleared by the Ferguson Grand Jury and Holder’s Justice Department, Obama, in order to maintain some degree of credibility, Obama is now telling his supporters in speeches around the nation, that the white Police Officer who was accused of an unjustified shooting, then cleared by Holder’s Justice Department, is subtly indicating that the white Police Officer somehow got away with the shooting of an innocent black youth, because he had a skillful defense team, insinuating that the white Police Officer was really still guilty. Obama’s refusal to inform street demonstrators that there was no racial animus in the Ferguson shooting continues to intentionally racially divide the nation, with the intent of Socializing/federalizing local and state police departments.

Facts do count, and the facts are that in Ferguson, MO, Michael Brown, viciously beat an elderly black man, committed a strong armed robbery of a petite black female shopkeeper, beat & tried to disarm a much smaller white Police Officer who was sitting in his patrol car, and then charged that same Police Officer a second time, that in his being shot in self-defense by the white Police Office. Obama honored that habitual black felon by dispatching a large White House delegation to his funeral in Ferguson, but Obama refused to send a large White House delegation to the funeral of Prime Minister Margret Thatcher like all other NATO and Commonwealth Allies had done.

President Obama has still not informed his followers that there was no racial component that led to the death of the two blacks felons, Michael Brown in Ferguson, and Eric Gardener in Staten Island, NY, who both had long criminal records. That they were both resisting lawful arrests by Police Officers in the streets, and ultimately their resistance to a lawful arrest led to a deadly force confrontation with Police Officers doing their jobs. Unfortunately, the press will continue to report the resistance of felons to lawful arrests by Police Officers in the streets, with resultant deadly force being used against the resisting party.

President Obama, AG Holder, and minority leaders have not been instructing fatherless minority youth involved in criminal activities, not to resist a lawful arrest orders by Police Officers in the street.

The anti-Police demonstrations have been supported since August 2014 by Radical leftists, progressives, the Communist Party USA, the Occupy Wall Street Organization, many of George Soros funded Socialist front groups like Missourians Organizing For Reform, the New Black Panther Party (who have been involved in terrorist training in Castro’ Cuba), the Weatherman Underground, and the New York Communities For Change (an ACORN renamed group) have been stoking the racial bias. They will continue to look for other Police shootings to get the radicals to continue demonstrating. The shooting of two white Police Officers in Ferguson this past week by a black felon and street demonstrator, is the direct result of the lies that were told over the last 6 months about Brown’s shooting.

The above listed organizations and individuals have been whipping demonstrators into a frenzy, and encouraging the premeditated and nationally coordinated street demonstrators, against Police Officers and the U.S. Justice System. There is a long term ulterior motive by the Obama administration, and that is to federalize state and local police forces. The Obama administration is responsible for encouraging the employment of Communist style propaganda techniques to broad brush white Police Officers as racist who are intent on harassing and killing blacks. They have been demanding that all Police Officers be retrained, and when that has occurred, they employed the Justice Department to enforce rules, that eventually take control of the police department leadership, with the threat of penalties if the police force is not retrained and hobbled by federal regulations.

The anti-Police Officer rhetoric turned deadly in Ferguson when 4 black youth beat a white man to death with hammers, then a black crowd of demonstrators in Ferguson beat a white women on the following day, and the following day an elderly white man trying to enter his car with an oxygen tank required to help him breath with, was beaten with his oxygen tank, and was run over with his own car (the left of center liberal media establishment covered up those atrocities by black demonstrators in wolf packs against innocent white victims in Ferguson). The emotionally charged protests against Police Officers in New York City also turned violent when black demonstrators in the street repeatedly chanted “What do you want? “Dead cops” and the demonstrators severally beat two white NYPD Detectives.

In the most recent national polls, 53% of Americans believe that the nation is embroiled in the worst racial strife that has existed in the Republic 60 years. It is a fact that 14% of the nation is made up of blacks, yet blacks commit 47% of all crimes in the United States. According to FBI statistics, blacks are 6 times more likely, as non-blacks, to kill Police Officers. Until the flagrant criminal activities perpetrated by black criminals ceases, Police Officers will have to enter minority communities to protect innocent black victims seeking police protection, and the tension between Police Officers and black criminal elements in black communities, will continue, The relatives of black criminals, black radical leaders, and elected black politicians will continue to blame white Police Officers for conflicts, when they are usually only responding to cries for help from innocent black victims in black communities; the story that Police Officers are only trying to do their job to “protect and defend” is seldom included in press releases.

On January 6,2015, two white New York City Police Officers who had responded to a robbery attempt, were ambushed and assassinated by a black convict with a long criminal record, who was also a radical black nationalist follower of Islam. The black convict with a long criminal record, had become inflamed by the ongoing street demonstrations in Ferguson, traveled to New York City, with the intent of assassinating members of New York’s “Thin Blue Line”, subsequently, Officer Rafael Ramos, NYPD and Officer Wenjian Liu, NYPD were gunned down by him. Obama has yet to make one single comment on national television about the tragedy of the assassination like the comments he made 15 minutes after the Grand Jury decision in Ferguson, MO, and Obama did not send a large White House delegation to the funerals of the two assassinated New York City Police Officers, like he sent to the funeral of Michael Brown in Ferguson.

By appointing Al Sharpton as the Presidential Adviser on “Race Relations,” and meeting with Sharpton in the White House over 80 times; while Sharpton was repeatedly degraded and lying about Police Officers, Obama kept the anti-Police Officer street demonstrations and racial strife alive. Malik Zulu Shabazz, the former leader of the New Black Panther Party, said the radical group will “build up an army” in 2015 to combat Police Officers, and he predicted coming events “that are gonna seem tragic to white America, may even shock our own consciences” including the killing of Police Officers. The above orchestrated threats against Police Officers further adds to the monumental damage the Obama administration has created in the fabric of the Republic, damage that will require Patriotic Americans to unravel once Obama is no longer in office.

Pam Key from reports:

On this week’s episode of the official broadcast of the New Black Panthers Party’s “Black Power Radio,” the former national chairman of the New Black Panther Party and current national president of Black Lawyers for Justice,  Malik Zulu Shabazz said 2015 is the time to “build up that army” and go “to the gun range.”

“And Mister Malcolm X, he consistently teaches us self defense,” Shabazz said. “The most honorable Elijah Muhammad continuously teaches us self defense. The honorable Marcus Mosiah Garvey teaches us self defense, and  we know, our leader and our teacher the honorable Khalid Abdul Muhammad teaches us self defense. What am I saying? Right now it’s time to build up that army. Right now it’s time for us to build up those corps, those troops. It’s time to get strong. It’s time for lifting weights and working out and  going to the gun range and all of that.”

There is no sinister national epidemic of white police officers harassing and killing black youth. There is a national epidemic of innocent blacks being murdered, once every 4 hours, by black criminals (2245 blacks killed by blacks annually).

Police Officers are the last line of defense between criminal elements bent on taking advantage of law abiding black and white citizens. In 2014, there were 15 ambush assassination attempts nationally against Police Officers, and nine successful assassinations of Police Officers in New York, Missouri, California, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, etc. In 2014, 114 Police Officer were killed in the line of duty.

We honor the dedicated members of the “Thin Blue Line” who have been assassinated by criminals whipped up into a frenzy by public comments of the aforementioned elected officials and minority leaders, that the fiery rhetoric of the left of center liberal media establishment continues to distort. We encourage all Americans to disregard the lies being promulgated by the Obama administration about white Police Officers and their attempt to trash the profession of law Enforcement, so they can try to federalize local and state police departments; “Support Your Local Law Enforcement Officers.”

Why Florida needs to legalize concealed carry on campus: A rape survivor’s compelling argument

The Florida legislature is considering bills in both houses to allow students with a concealed carry permit to bring their gun on campus. Educators have a responsibility to keep their students safe while on campus. Students currently give up their unalienable rights to defend themselves while on a school campus. Making college and K-12 school campuses gun free zones puts safety on the back burner and self defense impossible.

In November 2014 three Florida State University students were shot on campus by a lone gunman. One of the wounded students was a military veteran and holder of a Florida concealed carry permit. He was unarmed because current Florida law prevented him from carrying while on campus.

The following are excerpts from an op-ed by Amanda Collins titled “Counterpoint: A rape survivor argues why we need guns on campus.” Amanda writes:

Across the country, legislators are debating the right of law-abiding concealed carry permit holders to legally carry firearms onto university campuses.

Just the other day, I was asked “Why do you need a firearm on campus? What’s so threatening about becoming educated?” Here’s my answer: Eight years ago, during my junior year at the University of Nevada-Reno, I was raped in the parking garage only feet away from the campus police office.

As this stranger raped me while holding a pistol to my temple, I could see the police cruisers parked for the night, and I knew no one was coming to help me. Eventually the man who raped me, James Biela, was caught. He was tried and convicted for not only raping me at gun point in a gun-free zone, but also raping two other women and murdering Brianna Denison. So, I ask, “How does rendering me defenseless protect you against a violent crime?”
At the time of my attack, I had obtained my Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permit for the personal choice of not wanting to be a defenseless target. In Nevada, permit holders are not allowed to carry firearms on campuses. As a law-abiding citizen, I left my firearm at home, which means that the law that is meant to ensure my safety only guaranteed the criminal an unmatched victim.

I still wonder what would have been different if I’d been carrying my weapon that night. But here’s the truth: Had I been carrying my firearm, I would have been able to stop the attack. Not only that, but two other rapes would have been prevented and three young lives would have been saved, including my own.

Any survivor of rape can understand that the young woman I was walking into the parking garage that night was not the same woman who left. My life has never been the same after my attack. Legalized campus carry would have saved my family, who happens to be the collateral damage in my story, and me a great deal of untold torment.

My case is a perfect example that despite law enforcement’s best efforts to ensure our safety, they are unable to be everywhere at once. All I wanted was a chance to effectively defend myself. The choice to participate in one’s own defense should be left to the individual. That choice should not be mandated by the government. As a law-abiding citizen, I should not have to hand over my safety to a third party. Laws that prohibit campus carry turn women like me into victims by stripping away our Second Amendment rights.

Unfortunately, legislators opposed to campus carry are more intimidated by law-abiding citizens like me sitting in class with a legal firearm, than the rapist waiting for me in the parking garage. Most people are unaware that one in four women will be raped while attending college and one-third of them occur on the campus they attend.

Read more.

EDITORS NOTE: Amanda Collins’ op-ed is a response submitted through the National Rifle Association to a Feb. 24 column, “More Guns on campus is not the answer to sexual assault,” by Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a Michael Bloomberg funded anti-gun organization.

Free Speech Victory in Philly!

AFLC_logo_final-w-Register-Mark-for-websiteWhy should a municipality run an advertisement on a bus that says Islamic Jew-hatred is in the Koran? Why, because they have to, that’s why! At least that’s what Rob Muise of the American Freedom Law Center explains as today’s featured guest.

In addition to a stunning victory in Philadelphia Rob gets us up to date on the Bible Believer’s case from Dearborn Arab Festival where Christians were attacked and stoned by Muslim jihadis…and the police sided with the Muslims!


Oh, by the way, Tom Trento is back and he is wearing protection!

Obama’s Attacks on Religion in America

Americans tend to take the liberties spelled out in the Bill of Rights for granted. This is especially true of freedom of religion in which the First Amendment protects “the free exercise thereof” while at the same time prohibiting “an establishment of religion” to ensure that neither a state nor the federal government can stipulate a specific religion as the “official” one.

The earliest Americans came here to avoid persecution for their beliefs and created a nation in which tolerance of other faiths was an established virtue.

All of the major religions of the world condemn homosexuality and prohibit same-sex marriage. While homosexuality has gained a measure of tolerance in America many if not most Americans do not accept same-sex marriage as a “right” that can be found in the U.S. Constitution.

In the March 9 edition of the National Review, one news item noted that “The sheer brazenness of President Obama’s dissembling on gay marriage—confirmed by David Axelrod in a new book—might gall even the most hard-bitten of cynics.”

“Obama, Axelrod writes, ‘was in favor of same-sex marriages during the first presidential campaign, even as (he) publicly said he only supported civil unions, not full marriages’, but he could not admit as much for fear of losing black churchgoers. Thus it was confirmed that the ‘change’ candidate had fallen back on a ‘sacred’ religious belief he claimed to be representing, in furtherance of a policy that he now openly describes as a ‘civil right.’ There is a word for this sort of conduct. But it is not ‘hope’.”

The word is “liar”, but after six years of Obama, anyone paying any attention knows that he lies routinely and constantly no matter what the topic may be.

He lied repeatedly to secure support for the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare. Passed into law by Democratic Party votes—no Republicans voted for it—the so-called contraceptive mandate has created many problems for Christians and others who are pro-life. In a similar fashion, many people of faith oppose same-sex marriage.

Cover - Religious Freedom in AmericaA new book, “Religious Freedom in America: Constitutional Roots and Contemporary Challenges”, edited by Allen D. Hertzke of the University of Oklahoma’s Institute for the American Constitutional Heritage, calls religion “an exceedingly messy area of constitutional law…because the boundaries of religion, state, and society are complex and ever shifting.”

For most Americans there is no shift in their view of marriage as a sacred rite exclusively between a man and woman. One can read the Old and New Testaments from start to finish and find no justification for same-sex marriage. From its earliest days civilization throughout the world has never deemed same-sex marriage lawful, but Americans are being told by its courts that the Constitution does.

The Founders who wrote the Constitution would be astonished to learn this.

As Mary Nussbaum wrote in the Summer 2009 edition of Dissent, “Government plays a key role in all three aspects of marriage. It confers and administers benefits. It seems, at least, to operate as an agent of recognition or the granting of dignity. And it forms alliances with religious bodies.”

“Clergy are always among those entitled to perform legally binding marriages. Religions may refuse to marry people who are eligible for state marriage and they may also agree to marry people who are ineligible for state marriage. But much of the officially sanctioned marrying currently done in the United States is done on religious premises by religious personnel. What they are solemnizing (when there is a license granted by the state) is, however, not only a religious ritual, but also a public rite of passage, the entry into a privileged civic status.” (Emphasis added)

When the Defense of Marriage Act was being debated, Sen. Richard Byrd (D-WVA) said:

“[T]hroughout the annals of human experience, in dozens of civilizations and cultures of varying value systems, humanity has discovered that the permanent relationship between men and women is a keystone to the stability, strength, and health of human society—a relationship worthy of legal recognition and judicial protection.” (Emphasis added)

That is what’s at stake. Homosexuals have been offered “civil unions” granting them access to the government benefits that “marriage” provides, but they have regarded this as stigmatizing and degrading. They have insisted that society change and, for most who hold a strong religious faith, that is impossible for the reasons stated by Sen. Byrd.

AA - catholic-weddingMs. Nussbaum concludes saying, “The future of marriage looks, in one way, a lot like its past. People will continue to unite, form families, have children, and, sometimes, split up. What the Constitution dictates, however, is that whatever the state decides to do in this area will be done on a basis of equality. Government cannot exclude any group of citizens from the civil benefits or the expressive dignities of marriage without a compelling public interest.”

So, the 14th Amendment that guarantees the “equal protection of the law” will encompass the demand that citizens of the same sex can marry even if religions and those who see this as a threat to a well-ordered society disagree.

Religions in America, many of whom administer charities, maintain colleges and universities, and serve people of all faiths have encountered a world of problems following the passage of ObamaCare. They are also being challenged in schools and academia, and being told that any form of public prayer is unacceptable.

Here are just a few examples:

  • In 2006, Boston’s Catholic Charities shut down its historical adoption program after the State of Massachusetts refused their “conscience accommodation” in its licensing requirements. The same year, Morristown, New York began prosecuting Amish home-builders for code violations.
  • In 2009, the U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission ruled that Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina violated discrimination laws by not offering birth control in its health plan coverage. A family court in Laconia, New Hampshire ordered a Christian mother to stop home schooling her daughter because she “appeared to reflect her mother’s rigidity on questions of faith.”
  • In 2010, the Catholic Charities of Washington, D.C., shut down its foster care program because of mandates that violated church teaching. The following year three Illinois diocese adoption and foster care programs were shut down.
  • In 2011 Alabama law made it illegal for churches to serve undocumented immigrants, including baptisms, hearing confessions, anointing the sick, giving marriage counseling and providing Sunday school, Bible studies, or even providing Alcoholics Anonymous a place to meet.
  • In 2012 through 2014, facing huge fines for violating religious principles, more than 300 religious institutions and businesses filed lawsuits against the Health and Human Services contraceptive mandate.

As Hertzke noted, “A key measure of a free society, in sum, is the extent to which people are not forced to choose between sacred duties and citizenship privileges or obligations. This is what makes religious freedom foundational to the American constitutional order.”

In 1993 Congress seemed to have agreed. It passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which states that “government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a restrictive means of furthering” a “compelling government interest.” It was signed into law by President Clinton. Four years later, the Supreme Court struck down its core in Boerne v. Flores. It ruled that RFRA was unconstitutional when applied to state and local governments, but upheld it when applied to the federal government.

Issues such as ObamaCare’s contraception mandate and same-sex marriage raise vital questions about individual religious faith and the government’s right to determine societal standards.

The question of whether religion in America is losing the battle for historical and traditional moral standards is one that affects people of faith and the society as a whole.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama’s military: Navy chaplain forced to fight for his career because of Christian beliefs

Loretta Lynch Should Not be Confirmed

The United States Senate is bound by law not to confirm Loretta Lynch to be our next Attorney General (AG).

Lynch is the current U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, which includes Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and Long Island. Last November, President Obama nominated her to replace current Attorney General Eric Holder.

While her legal background is impressive, that’s not the point. In her recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee she disqualified herself from being confirmed as the next Attorney General.

The United States Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer for the federal government and, as the head of the Justice Department, considered to be part of the President’s Cabinet. The US Attorney General is nominated by the President, but then confirmed by the US Senate. There is no set term of office; the US Attorney general serves at the pleasure of the President.

The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested.

The Attorney General is the only cabinet department head that is not given the title secretary.
As the chief law enforcement officer in the U.S., the AG is “sworn” to uphold and enforce all the laws of the U.S. Here is the oath she would have to take if she is confirmed by the Senate: I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.’

In all my years of working in politics, I have never seen a nominee say on the record that they support violating the very laws they would be sworn to uphold.

Here is a question asked of Lynch by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL): “Who has more right to a job in this country, a lawful immigrant who is here—a green card holder or a citizen or a person who entered the country unlawfully?”

Lynch’s response is stunning: “I believe that the right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here… and certainly, if someone is here — regardless of status — I would prefer that they be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace.”

U.S. law makes it illegal to work in the country if you are not authorized by a green card or some other work permit.

How can anyone, Democratic or Republican, justify voting to confirm someone who said on the record that she supports illegal activity? But, of course Republicans will cave in and vote for her simply because she is Black and they don’t want to be labeled as a racist.

Voting against her nomination has nothing to do with Lynch’s skin color and everything to do with the rule of law. This administration, more than any other in history, has picked and chose which laws they will obey strictly on the basis of whether they agreed with the law or not.

If Republicans are too squeamish to block Lynch’s nomination strictly based on her stated unwillingness to uphold and enforce the laws on the books, let me provide another rationale for her rejection.

Obama’s proposed amnesty is a clear violation of the separation of powers—executive, judicial, and legislative. If Obama doesn’t like our current immigration laws, only Congress can change them. But, Obama has chosen to ignore the laws he disagrees with by signing executive orders; and Republicans in Congress have done nothing but feign perfunctory anger.

Republicans have, yet again, another opportunity to stand in opposition to Obama based on the core principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers; and I am afraid, yet again, they are going to cave.

Florida Legislature begins 2015 Session with Introduction of Motorcycle Friendly Bills

The Florida Legislature started its 2015 session this week with the introduction of 10 bills aimed at distracted driving and two pieces of right-of-way legislation designed to protect vulnerable road users.

S.B. 908, introduced by Sen. Thad Altman (R-Cape Canaveral), would require all motorists, when passing vulnerable road users, provide a distance of at least 3 feet between the vehicle and the vulnerable road user. It also would require all accident reports to include information in the official report if a right-of-way violation led to a crash between a motorist and a vulnerable road user.

Under S.B. 908, if a motorist caused bodily injury to a vulnerable road user, the motorist would be required to pay a fine of up to $2,000 and would face a suspension of driving privileges for six months.

S.B. 1376, introduced by Sen. Greg Evers (R-Pensacola), would require that any motorist who commits a moving violation that causes serious bodily injury to a vulnerable user be required to pay at least a $1,500 fine, serve a minimum of 30 days of house arrest and attend a driver improvement course.

A vulnerable road user is defined under Florida law s. 316.027 as:

  1.  A pedestrian, including a person actually engaged in work upon a highway, or in work upon utility facilities along a highway, or engaged in the provision of emergency services within the right-of-way;
  2.  A person operating a bicycle, motorcycle, scooter, or moped lawfully on the roadway;
  3. A person riding an animal; or
  4. A person lawfully operating on a public right-of-way, crosswalk, or shoulder of the roadway:
  • a. A farm tractor or similar vehicle designed primarily for farm use;
  • b. A skateboard, roller skates, or in-line skates;
  • c. A horse-drawn carriage;
  • d. An electric personal assistive mobility device; or
  • e. A wheelchair.

Additionally, legislators in Florida have introduced ten bills to reduce distracted driving. H.B. 1, H.B. 9, H.B. 17, H.B. 191, H.B. 1313, S.B. 192, S.B. 246, S.B. 270, S.B. 492 and S.B. 1022 would all limit cellphone use by drivers.

“With nearly 80 percent of crashes involving some form of distraction, the AMA supports legislation that provides an incentive for motor vehicle operators to focus their attention on driving,” said Wayne Allard, AMA vice president of government relations. “The text any driver wants to send is not worth hurting a motorcyclist.”

For more information on the bills please visit the AMA’s Florida state legislative page.

Please visit the AMA’s distracted driving position statement for more information on the topic.

John Boehner violating the Term Limits provision of the Ohio State Constitution

John Boehner is in Congress illegally, at least according to the Ohio Constitution.

Boehner has been in the U.S. Congress since 1991, after serving as an Ohio State Representative. Consider that Boehner has been serving since 1991 and that according to the U.S. Constitution, each representative’s term is two years before needing to be re-elected. Boehner has served over two decades and two dozen terms consecutively in office.

So, is there anything illegal about Boehner occupying the office of a federal representative that long? Yes, there is.

According to the Ohio State Constitution, Article V, Section 8

Term limits for U.S. senators and representatives
No person shall hold the office of United States Senator from Ohio for a period longer that two successive terms of six years. No person shall hold the office of United States Representative from Ohio for a period longer than four successive terms of two years. Terms shall be considered successive unless separated by a period of four or more years. Only terms beginning on or after January 1, 1993 shall be considered in determining an individual’s eligibility to hold office.

Tim Brown from Freedom Outpost reports:

So what’s the problem? As usual, the federal courts stepped in and overstepped their bounds. In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton to uphold an Arkansas Supreme Court’s decision that struck down Arkansas’ term limit provisions of federal representatives. The vote was 5-4.

In what had to be one of the most un-American and tyrannical portions of the majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, “The right to choose representatives belongs not to the states, but to the people.” He then added that members of Congress “owe their allegiance to the people, and not to the states.”

Do you see that? The people are not considered the people of the states. This is so backwards it isn’t even funny.

Justice Clarence Thomas understood properly and rebutted the majority position writing, “The Federal Government’s powers are limited and enumerated… the ultimate source of the Constitution’s authority is the consent of the people of each individual state, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the nation as a whole.”

Read more.

Perhaps it is time for Republican Executive Committees (REC’s) across the great state of Ohio to start drawing up letters of censure against John Boehner for refusing to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and for failing to uphold the policies, procedures and principles of the Republican Party and the State Constitution of Ohio.

RELATED ARTICLE: House Republicans weigh coup against Boehner after series of political defeats

Preventing Voter Fraud by Illegal Aliens and Fighting Radical Islamic Terrorists in the U.S.

While the worldwide Radical Islamic Terrorist threat has continued to grow over the last 6 years, the Obama administration has intentionally and systematically violated the 9/11 Commission Report on how to protect the nation from another terrorists attack.  Obama has been dismantling the U.S. Immigration System by violating Federal Immigration Laws previously passed by many Congresses, has illegally ordered all ICE and Border Patrol Agents to violate their regulations by ordering them to cease interior enforcement,  has ordered them to cease the deportation of Illegal Aliens, and has refused to secure the wide open southern border, through which Radical Islamic Terrorists have been entering the U.S. unimpeded for 6 years.

Over and above the 1 million “legal” immigrants welcomed into the U.S. each year, Obama has brought in an additional 7 million Muslim Illegal Aliens through the UN Muslim Refugee Program (accepting more Muslim refugees than all the nations in the world added together have accepted collectively), and Obama has put those Illegal Aliens on a fast track to become U.S. citizens.  Obama has continued to violate Federal Immigration Laws, by refusing to have Intelligent Analysts investigate the backgrounds of Muslim Refugees to determine if they have any Radical Islamic Terrorists ties.  Over 150 of those fast tracked new American citizens from the Middle East have departed with their new U.S. passports to train and fight with ISIL.

Obama has been intentionally overloading the US Immigration System to the breaking point, the agency is at the point where CBP Inspectors can no longer properly process the one million legal immigrants allowed entry each year, while at the same time controlling and deporting 31 million Illegal Aliens (7 million Muslim Illegal Alien refugees, an estimated 4 million Illegal Aliens who have casually walked across the wide open southern border over the past 6 years (estimated at 700,000+ /year), and the 20+ million Illegal Aliens already residing in the United State (for 15 years, every year, the left of center liberal media establishment, the Obama administration, and La Raza have continued to promulgate the bold faced lie that the number of Illegal Aliens in the US has remained static at 11 million, each year for the past 15 straight years).

During the last two national elections “Voter Fraud” has become the single most destructive threat to the viability of the Republic, and to the honest and fair election of US Presidents.   That well-orchestrated  “Voter Fraud” effort perpetrated by agents of the Obama administration are Unions and the follow on organizations, that changed their names from ACORN to different names in each of the 50 states.  Those perpetrators of “Voter Fraud” have been funded every year for the last 6 years by the Department of Health Education and Welfare under the guise of funding them to register low income Americans to vote (it was reported by press and media that in 2012, a total of 7 million people voted in two different states).   To prevent the rampant “Voter Fraud” perpetrated by the Obama administration, we encourage all American citizens to contact their Congressional Representatives in the US House of Representatives and in the US Senate, and demand that they co-sponsor a very simple bill in both Houses of Congress, with the following simple provision:

“If any individual, who is not already a U.S. citizen, EVER votes illegally, then that individual will be permanently prevented from ever applying for and becoming a United States citizen, and/or if it is determined that any US Citizen previously illegally voted in any U.S. election, prior to gaining their US citizenship, then that person’s US citizenship will be legally revoked for perpetrating “Voter Fraud” in violation of the provisions of this bill.”

American citizens should also ask their Congressional Representatives to ask the U.S. Senate and U.S. House Intelligence Committees to hold hearings on the threat posed by Radical Islamic Terrorists to the National Security interests of the United States.  Those unimpeded hearings, free from the “Political Correctness’ forced upon American citizens by the Obama administration for the last 6 years, would reveal the cover-up that has been perpetrated by the left of center liberal media establishment in support of the Obama administration’s deceitful policies, refusing to allow the U.S. Armed Forces, the U.S. Intelligence Agencies, the FBI, and the CIA from identifying Radical Islamic Terrorists as the primary threat to the Republic..

Congressional hearing would reveal the treacherous nature of the threat posed to Christians and Jews by Radical Islamic Terrorist who have already illegally gained entry into the United States over the last 6 years.  The Congressional hearings will also expose the true nature of the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood to the National Security interests of the Republic.  The Muslim Brotherhood created Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Al Q’ieda, the Taliban, Ansar Al-Sharia, The Islamic State (ISIL), ISIS, and hundreds of copycat Radical Islamic Terrorist organizations throughout the world, who have been attacking and killing members of the US Armed Forces for the last 36 years.

When the facts revealed in Congressional testimony about the threat posed by Radical Islamic Terrorists are fully understood by the general public, facts that have been covered up by the Obama administration and the left of center liberal media establishment for 6 years, the majority of American citizens, regardless of political parties, will oppose the threat.  Americans will also join together to oppose bureaucrats appointed to positions of leadership in government by the Obama administration, bureaucrats who for 6 years who have been intentionally and flagrantly “Violating provisions of the U.S. Constitution, “Violating Freedom of Speech”, “Violating Freedom of Religion” “Violating the Voting Rights Act of the United States,” and who have been “Violating Federal Immigration Laws passed by previous U.S. Congresses.

If you watch the below video, you will hear an important and intelligent presentation by former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich, outlining the deadly threat posed by Radical Islamic Terrorists to the United States, terrorists who have been easily entering the United States for the last 6 years, because of the Obama administration’s violation of Federal Immigration Laws.

We encourage readers to forward the link to this column to those who would support efforts to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, to protect the “Voting Rights” of every American citizens, and to guarantee the “Inalienable Rights” provided to all American citizens by the Founding Fathers.


House Broken: Boehner Rolls over on DHS Funding

‘A Strategy Doomed to Failure’: Conservatives Fault GOP Leadership After Homeland Security Funding Fight

U.S. Senate Fully Funds Obama’s Executive Amnesty

RELATED AUDIO: Mark Levin interviews Sue Payne on Feb. 26, 2015. The clip sheds light on the White House strategy with regards to “amnesty” and introduces terms like “White House Task Force on New Americans”, “Receiving Communities” and “Emerging Immigrant Communities”.

Coalition of African-American Pastors Honors Justice Roy Moore for His Principled Stand for Marriage

On March 4th, 2015, the Coalition of African American Pastors (CAAP) announced that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore would receive their first ever “Letter from Birmingham Jail Courage Award” in recognition of Justice Moore’s principled stand in defense of traditional marriage.

The group was moved to honor Chief Justice Moore following his defense of Alabama’s statutory and constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Moore’s actions were based on the fact that the federal court does not have the power to redefine marriage in direct opposition to legal tradition and the clearly expressed will of the people. His courage and conviction persuaded CAAP that Chief Moore was the ideal honoree for the inaugural presentation of an award inspired by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous letter.

“Chief Justice Moore is an example for all of us,” stated Rev. William Owens, President of CAAP. “By making a principled and persuasive stand for marriage, Chief Justice Moore has singled himself out as someone who is ready to defend our most cherished values and help lead this new civil rights movement. By his words and courageous actions, he has helped preserve marriage, the family, justice, and the spirit of democracy. This is what it means to be a ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail Courage Award’ recipient. We hope that his example inspires others to take similar action to defend marriage in their own communities.”

The group announced that they plan to present the Letter from Birmingham Jail Courage Award to Justice Moore in a special ceremony in April.

Fred Barbash from the Washington Post reports:

The Alabama Supreme Court ordered a halt Tuesday to same-sex marriages in the state despite a U.S. Supreme Court order allowing them to proceed. The ruling capped a wild month of confusion and resistance in Alabama following a January decision by a U.S. district court invalidating Alabama’s ban on gay marriage.

The Alabama justices were defiant. “As it has done for approximately two centuries,” the court said, “Alabama law allows for ‘marriage’ between only one man and one woman.” Alabama judges have a duty “not to issue any marriage license contrary to this law. Nothing in the United States Constitution alters or overrides this duty.”

Seven things an Alabama probate judge wants you to know about same-sex marriage

Congress has no problem holding these men to a term limit, but refuses to limit itself by Nick Tomboulides

I bet you didn’t know that most members of Congress do support term limits. The catch is, these limits apply only to the president’s tenure – not their own careers.

Under Article V of the Constitution, Congress has the power to introduce and vote on any constitutional amendment, which is then brought before the states for ratification. It’s the same method Congress used to add eight-year presidential term limits to the Constitution in 1947-1951.

That also means Congress is empowered – at any time – to pass an amendment bill to REPEAL presidential term limits. It never happens. Though Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) routinely introduces such a bill, it gets about as much momentum (read: none) as silly proposals to change the flag or create a national jaywalking database.

The dismal support for a repeal of presidential limits can only be read one way: as Congress endorsing the idea of term limits and honoring the public’s high approval for it. But this places America’s ruling class in a tough predicament. How can legislators claim with a straight face that the president should be term-limited but they should get to stay in office forever?

Think about it. All of the flimsy arguments legislators make against term limits on themselves also apply to the president. While Rep. Serrano may be more in disagreement with U.S. Term Limits than any other legislator, we have great respect for his logical consistency. The same can’t be said for his colleagues, who hypocritically oppose term limits on their own jobs while simultaneously upholding them on the president.

Perhaps they all want to be president someday, which would necessitate the job opening up on a regular basis. Well, that’s how teachers, firefighters, small business owners and ordinary Americans feel about Congress. They too would like to serve someday, but they sense that a cabal of unaccountable insiders has taken over, callously refusing to let go out of fear it cannot find a better job.

Contact your member of Congress and tell them you’re sick and tired of the double standard. Tell them “Since you support term limits on the President, you should be consistent by working to enact them on your own office.”


“Term Limits is known as the largest grassroots movement in American history, and US Term Limits (USTL) was, and still is, the leader of that movement”

Term limits have been placed on 15 state legislatures, eight of the ten largest cities in America adopted term limits for their city councils and/or mayor, and 37 states place term limits on their constitutional officers.

USTL stands up against government malpractice. We are the voice of the American citizen. We want a government of the people, by the people, and for the people- not a ruling class who care more about deals to benefit themselves, than their constituents.

We have worked tirelessly with citizens all across the nation, helping them better understand why term limits are a necessary government reform, and how to implement that vision from your town council, to Congress.

Do You Have the Civil Disobedience App?

You might be downloading tomorrow’s law by MAX BORDERS…

If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth — certainly the machine will wear out… but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn. 

 Henry David Thoreau

In the peer-to-peer revolution, the most important elections will happen outside the voting booth. And the most important laws won’t be written by lawmakers.

Consider this: The first time you hopped into a Lyft or an Uber, there was probably, at the very least, a legal gray area associated with that trip. And yet, in your bones, didn’t you think that what you were doing was just, even if it wasn’t yet clearly legal?

If you felt that way, I suspect you weren’t alone.

Today, ridesharing apps are operating in most major cities around the country. And municipalities are having to play catch-up because the people have built massive constituencies around these new services.

This is just one example of what Princeton political scientist James C. Scott calls “Irish democracy,” where people simply stop paying attention to some rule (or ruler) because it has outlived its usefulness.

One need not have an actual conspiracy to achieve the practical effects of a conspiracy. More regimes have been brought, piecemeal, to their knees by what was once called “Irish Democracy,” the silent, dogged resistance, withdrawal, and truculence of millions of ordinary people, than by revolutionary vanguards or rioting mobs.

Now, let’s be clear: the right rules are good things. Laws are like our social operating system, and we need them. But we don’t need all of them, much less all of them to stick around forever. And like our operating systems, our laws need updating. Shouldn’t legal updates happen not by waiting around on politicians but in real time?

“But Max,” you might be thinking. “What about the rule of law? You have to change the law through legitimate processes.”

And that’s not unreasonable. After all, we don’t want mob rule, and we don’t want just anyone to be able to change the law willy-nilly — especially those laws that cover our basic rights and freedoms. There is an important distinction, however, between justice and law, one that’s never easy to unpack. But Henry David Thoreau said it well, when he wrote,

Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them?

Today’s peer-to-peer civil disobedience is tomorrow’s emergent law.

In other words, the way the best law has always come about is not through a few wise rulers getting together and writing up statutes; rather, it emerges among people interacting with each other and wanting to avoid conflict. When peaceful people are engaging in peaceful activity, they want to keep it that way. And when people find new and creative ways to interact peacefully, old laws can be obstructions.

So as we engage in peer-to-peer civil disobedience, we are making choices that are leading to the emergence of new law, however slowly and clumsily it follows on. This is a beautiful process, because it requires not the permission of rulers, but rather the assent of peer communities. It is rather like democracy on steroids, except we don’t have to send our prayers up through the voting booth in November.

Legal theorist Bruce Benson calls this future law the “Law Merchant.” He describes matters thus:

A Law Merchant evolves whenever commerce emerges. Practices that facilitated emergence of commerce in medieval Europe were replayed in colonial America, and they are being replayed in Eastern Europe, Eastern Asia, Latin America, and cyberspace. Law Merchant arrangements also support “underground” economic activity when states constrain above-ground market development.

It might be a while before we evolve away from our outmoded system of sending politicians to capitals to make statutes. And the issue of lawmakers playing catch-up with emergent systems may be awkward and kludgy for a while. But when we think that the purpose of law is to help people interact peacefully, peer-to-peer civil disobedience might be a necessary ingredient in reweaving the law for the sake of human flourishing.


Max Borders is the editor of The Freeman and director of content for FEE. He is also cofounder of the event experience Voice & Exit and author of Superwealth: Why we should stop worrying about the gap between rich and poor.

Hamas-linked CAIR to sue FBI over death of friend of Boston Marathon jihadi

The Associated Press reported in March 2014 that according to an official report on the incident, the FBI agent who shot Todashev was “justified” in doing so, as “Todashev, a mixed martial arts fighter, flipped a coffee table in the air, knocking down the FBI agent and causing a bloody gash on the agent’s head. Todashev then ran past the two officers, into the kitchen and returned with a pole — a long metal handle of a broom or mop — that he pointed at the Massachusetts officer, the report said.”

This is just yet another attempt by the Hamas-linked terror organization CAIR to stymie counter-terror efforts.

Note also that AP once again calls Hamas-linked CAIR a “civil rights group,” and doesn’t see fit to mention its unsavory links to Hamas, the jihad terror convictions of several of its former officials, etc.

“Civil Rights Group To Sue FBI For $30M Over Chechen Man’s Death,” by Mike Schneider, the Associated Press, March 2, 2015:

ORLANDO, Fla. Leaders of a civil rights group said Monday that they plan to sue the FBI for $30 million on behalf of the family of a Chechen man who was fatally shot while being questioned about a Boston Marathon bombing suspect.

The Council of American-Islamic Relations Florida filed a notice stating its intention to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the FBI over the death of Ibragim Todashev.

CAIR officials said they hope the lawsuit forces the FBI to change aspects of its hiring practices, where it interrogates people and how it investigates its agents, who are rare disciplined for such shootings. They said the agent who shot Todashev was sued for police brutality before he was hired by the FBI, and that Todashev should have been questioned in a controlled environment, rather than his apartment.

“The organization hopes that the suit will bring justice for the Todashev family,” said Ali Kurnaz, a spokesman for CAIR Florida. “It is a point of American pride that no authority is above the law. We have the freedom to question our government and hold our law enforcement accountable.”

FBI spokesman Paul Bresson refused to comment.

Todashev was killed at his Orlando, Florida, apartment about a month after the April 15, 2013, marathon bombings. FBI agents were interviewing Todashev as they looked into the background of bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Todashev and Tsarnaev had been friends through mixed-martial arts circles when Todashev lived in Boston.

Prosecutors in the State Attorney’s Office in Orlando investigated the shooting and decided not to file charges.

They said in a report that Todashev had been cooperative with investigators but he became agitated as he wrote a statement about his role in the 2011 killings of three men in Waltham, Massachusetts. In that case, three men were found in an apartment with their necks slit and their bodies reportedly covered with marijuana. One of the victims was a boxer and Tsarnaev’s friend.

Friends of the men have said they presumed the killings were drug-related, but police never confirmed that and the investigation is ongoing….


Kansas Muslim “well on his way” to becoming jihad terrorist before FBI sting

Virginia Muslim on Most Wanted Terrorist list detained in Somalia

UK Muslim “human rights campaigner” caught on video backing jihad

New York Post recommends that Obama tell still more soothing falsehoods about Islam

Justice for the Wultz Family and Other American Victims of Terrorism

You may have read Roger Cohen’s op-ed in the Sunday New York Times, “Did Israel put Money over Justice?”  Cohen recounts the dilemma facing Yekutiel “Tuly” and Sharon Wultz in Florida. They were confronted with the Israeli government denial of a deposition by a former Shin Bet agent in a New York federal court case. The case involves the laundering of Iranian funds through the Bank of China (BOC) to pay for the attack that mortally wounded their teen age son, Danny in Tel Aviv in April 2006. That testimony would be key to implementing a federal court determination of liability of the BOC in the attack that resulted in the death of Danny Wultz.

Cohen seeks to blame the impasse on Israeli PM Netanyahu, because the release of the former Shin Bet agent to provide testimony, previously approved by the Israeli government, was reversed in 2013.  Allegedly that was down so as not to jeopardize a burgeoning economic relationship between Israel and the People Republic of China. Cohen does not address whether the reversal by the Israeli government might have been attributable to Israel security echelon concerns that such testimony might reveal valued agents and networks monitoring Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists backed by Iran. The BOC wants to avoid the precedent in the Jordanian-based Arab Bank case decision involving 300 victims of the terrorist group, Hamas. That decision in September 2014 held a financial institution liable involving illicit banking relations with terrorist groups and financiers.


Daniel Wultz comes home to America.

Tuly Wultz is the father of the late Danny, who was mortally wounded by a Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) suicide bomber at a Tel Aviv Shawarma stand in April 2006.  The United West sponsored a presentation in March 2010 that heard from two fathers of terrorism victims.  Tuly Wultz, a former IDF special operations officer, and David Beamer, father of Todd, one of 9/11 passengers on Flight 93, discussed the emotional loss of their sons to terrorism. In Tuly’s case he tried to shield Danny from the blast, causing significant injuries to himself as well.  Tom Trento of the United West let me preview a video interview with both Tuly and Sharon (Cantor) Wultz at their home in Florida in 2008.  They had established a foundation in Danny’s name to inform people about Islamic terrorism that took the life of their son who succumbed to his injuries after a 27 day ordeal.  We chronicled the course of their federal case, Wultz v. Bank of China Ltd., 979 F. Supp. 2d 479 – 2013 brought by the Wultz family against the Bank of China (BOC). The case was brought to hold the BOC liable for laundering Iranian funds for the PIJ.  Those funds were used to pay for the attack and also provided compensation to the Palestinian terrorist’s family for the loss of their son, whom they venerated as a Shahid, martyr, for his heinous act.  The Israeli government held back testimony by a former Shin Bet agent, who could have provided testimony in a deposition in connection with the federal court award in excess of $330 million as compensation. See: Florida family’s Anti-Terrorism case: Israeli intelligence expert barred from testifying in U.S. – Watchdog Wire – Florida.

Cohen uses the plight of the Wultzs as a thinly veiled attack on Israel PM Netanyahu. He tried to make the connection between the latter’s opening to China for economic reasons allegedly blocking ‘justice’ in the Wultz case.  Based on the BOC counsel replies in the Wultz case, and given the Arab Bank case decision, the evidence from the former Shin Bet agent could be material.  Unfortunately, we find this NYT Op Ed column by Cohen to be exploitative of the Wultz’s predicament.  We also want to see justice done.  But not at the expense of partisan politics conveyed by Cohen and comments from Democrat National Committee head, Rep. Deborah Wasserman Schultz. It is not lost on us that this NYT op ed was published, the weekend prior to  PM  Netanyahu’s looming speech before a Joint Session of Congress on March 3rd. That is the day before the Jewish festival of Purim, laden with ancient Persian existential threats to Jews. What to do about it?

The Wultz case was brought under the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1990 affording the rights of American victims like Danny Wultz and others to file cases in US courts. That law formed the legal basis for the recent decision by New York Federal court Judge George B. Daniels in a $218 million award that established the liability of both the Palestinian Authority and the PLO. That case was brought by the Israel Law Center (Shurat Ha Din and the US law firm of Arnold and Porter) on behalf of a group of 33 Americans killed or severely injured during the Second Intifada, over the period from 2002 to 2004. See: Landmark Victory In New York Federal Court for U.S. Victims of Palestinian Terror.  Then there was the Iran 9/11 Links case in 2011 brought by a widow and the families of  9/11 victims, Fiona Havlish et al., v. Sheik Usamah bin-Muhammad bin-Laden et al..  See: Federal Judge to Rule On Iran Involvement with 9/11 Attack. Judge B. Daniels also presided in the Havlish case decision and award against Iran.

We would suggest the following approach might be considered to achieve justice in the Wultz matter.  The proposal would be to obtain a ruling that would enable the former Shin Bet agent to be deposed to produce an evidential record, subject to court release.  It would also address the equitable division of liability between the BOC and the Islamic Republic of Iran to fund the award. The extent of the BOC liability would reflect the precedent of the Arab Bank decision currently under appeal before the US Second Circuit Court in Manhattan. Further, the proposed ruling might impound the equitable amount of an adjudicated economic payment to the Wultz’s from Iranian assets retained by the Office of Foreign Asset Control of The Treasury under US sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program.

That possible solution might have a derivative benefit. It could also set a precedent  for the Havlish, et. al.  matter, as well. We might possibly see amicus filings by the counsel in the Havlish matter.  The Wultz family has retained as counsel, nationally prominent litigation firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.  Counsel for the Wultzs could make the proposed filings before federal Judge Shira Scheindlin in the Manhattan Federal Southern District Court along with a supporting  affidavit from the legal representatives of the State of Israel enabling the former Shin Bet agent to be deposed. That evidentiary record could be sealed by court order and released upon petition at a later date.  Only the Wultz counsel and the legal representatives of the State of Israel are best able to see whether this proposal has merit to render justice in this languishing case. If feasible, it might set a precedent for the Havlish, and other matters brought in US courts under the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1990.


Tuly Wultz speech at AIPAC.

What is troubling about these cases brought under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1990 is the lack of proactive efforts by the Justice and Treasury Departments. It is unseemly that victims like the Wultzs, the 9/11 families, the American victims of the Second Intifada and Hamas  are not supported in their pursuit of justice. Dr. Rich Swier, publisher of the eponymous e-magazine, who has also met Tuly Wultz said:

The Wultz family deserves justice and closure. The U.S. government must act to protect its citizens from attack, but once that attack takes place, everything must be done to bring the terrorists to justice and provide recompense to the family. While Tully’s son Daniel cannot be replaced, this case can add enormously to the non-profit established in Daniel’s name to help others. Justice cannot be served until Iran is punished, monetarily, for its crime against the Wultzs and so many others.

School Retaliates Against Teacher for anti-Common Core Facebook Post — Federal Lawsuit Filed

Deborah Vailes has been teaching junior high in Louisiana’s Rapides Parish School District for the past twelve years.  She is passionate about helping special needs children become better readers.  Little did she know that an early morning post critical of the Common Core Curriculum on her personal Facebook page would lead to disciplinary action, suppression of her right to free speech, retaliation from school officials, and possible loss of her job.

As a result, the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan has filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Louisiana on behalf of Deborah Vailes against the Rapides Parish School District and the principal of Pineville Junior High School, Dr. Dana Nolan.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commenting on the reason for the lawsuit, stated: “Public school students have become ‘guinea pigs’ in a vast untested educational experiment dictated by the Federal Government. Our Constitution never envisioned federal control over education.  But sadly, most states have voluntarily abdicated their responsibilities over education for federal dollars. Their decision will prove disastrous, not only for public education, but also for the freedom guaranteed by our Constitution.  Debbie Vailes’ uncompromising love for her students prompted her to speak out.  And her voice should not be silenced by a tyrannical principal.”


On September 23, 2014, at approximately by 5:58 AM, Debora Vailes re-posted on her personal Facebook page a photograph of a little girl crying because of the shortcomings of Common Core.  Later that day, her school principal, Dr. Dana Nolan, after discovering the post, gave Deborah Vailes her first written reprimand and ordered her to refrain from expressing any opinion about public education on social media and to remove her anti-Common Core post from the social media site – ASAP. (The school district refers to written reprimands as a “documented conferences.”)  Dr. Nolan further informed Deborah that she could not to discuss her opinion in public – on any social media or any public forum.

Two days later, Dr. Nolan held a mandatory faculty meeting of the Pineville Junior high school. She informed the faculty at the meeting that Deborah Vailes was reprimanded due to posting a negative opinion about Common Core on Facebook.  Dr. Nolan warned the faculty not to share their personal opinions or speak-out in any way.  After hearing about the Principal’s gag order, Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, issued an executive order that teachers were to be afforded the same constitutional guarantees afforded to all citizens. However, his executive order did not deter the Defendant, Dr. Nolan, from continuing her vendetta against Deborah Vailes.

Before Vailes posted her Facebook criticism of Common Core, she had a stellar personnel record; she had never received a reprimand.  Since her public criticism, she has received three additional written reprimands. School administrators are now constantly visiting her class, when before her criticism of Common Core, such visits were rare.  Dr. Nolan has stripped Debbie Vailes of her responsibilities, and placed her in a job category which, according to Vailes’ colleagues, will be eliminated at the end of the school year resulting in her termination.

TMLC Senior Trial Counsel Erin Mersino and Alexandria, Louisiana attorney, Theodore D. Vicknair are representing Deborah Vailes.   Mersino stated “Accepting employment in the public sector does not mean a total loss of First Amendment freedom.  Public employees may readily comment on matters of public concern, such as the Common Core Curriculum, and do so free from any retaliation from their employer.  What the School District and Principal are doing to Debbie Vailes is blatantly wrong.”

 Click here to read TMLC’s entire Complaint

 Difficulties with Common Core State Standards

Common Core State Standards (“Common Core”) are national standards in education promoted and funded by the U.S. Department of Education.  The National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers together established Common Core as a set of academic standards to be used in common across all states. These standards replace the existing state standards in the applicable academic areas.

Although Common Core has been adopted by 43 states (including Louisiana), its implementation has caused an uproar from caring parents, grandparents and educators alike. According to an October 2014 Gallup poll, 62% of teachers are frustrated with the Common Core State Standards.

Adding to the frustration is the fact that the Common Core Standards were untested prior to their implementation.  They were implemented without any prior research being conducted on their efficacy, resulting in standards that at best reflect guesswork. Many child development experts have decried even the creation of the standards without input from classroom teachers or early childhood professionals.

Compounding the anger over the standards themselves was the overwhelming emphasis on standardized testing. The Common Core State Standards require so much testing, that teachers can only teach to the test.

Moreover, Common Core’s method for teaching math over-complicates and adds numerous seemingly illogical steps to solving math problems.

Many parents and teachers have also expressed concern over the English Standards set by the Common Core. The reading selections considered to be representative examples of what students should be reading, feature incest, rape and drug use, as well as far left political viewpoints.

Coalition of African-American Pastors: Biased SCOTUS Justices must Recuse Themselves from Same-Sex Marriage Case

Rev. Williams Owens, President and Founder of the Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP) called on Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and Kagan to recuse themselves from the same-sex marriage case to be heard by the Court this session, citing their stated bias. In order to preserve the integrity of the Court, CAAP also announced its intention of launching a petition campaign that would bring attention to the Justice’s lack of impartiality.

The move sprung from public comments made by Justice Ginsburg regarding her conviction that that American public would accept a ruling for same-sex marriage as well as actions by both Ginsburg and Kagan that confirm their biased position on the issue. Both Justices have performed same-sex weddings.

“A Justice of the Supreme Court is called on to avoid the appearance of bias—especially on a highly controversial and sensitive issue that is currently before the Court,” stated Rev. William Owens, President of the Coalition of African American Pastors. “And yet, both Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan have taken a public stance in favor of same-sex marriage, even going so far as to officiate at a same-sex wedding.”

“Not only is this a breach of ethics, but it calls into question the integrity of the Court and the supposed balance that the judicial branch is meant to provide in Constitutional interpretation,” Rev. Owens continued. “It is beyond objectionable that no action has yet been taken to ensure that the case will be adjudicated fairly. And so it falls to us, the people, to take action. CAAP is launching a petition urging Justices Kagan and Ginsburg remove themselves from decision-making on this issue and prevent a crisis brought on by the taint of a biased judiciary.”

“The Court has shown willingness in the past to insert itself in matters that are more properly the domain of the voters,” he said. “For a case that promises to dramatically affect the future of family, religious freedom, and much more, there cannot be any question of political bias on the part of the judges involved. We ask that Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan disqualify themselves from involvement in this case or that the Chief Justice Roberts takes the action needed to protect the integrity of the Court.”


Former Federal Judge Says: “U.S. Supreme Court Justices who Performed Same Sex Marriages Should Recuse or Be Impeached”

Roy Moore: Two U.S. Supreme Court Justices Should Abstain from Gay Marriage Vote

EDITORS NOTE: Reverend Owens noted that members of the public are welcome to sign the petition on the CAAP website at