FLORIDA: Cop suspended for liking his wife’s social media posts criticizing Tlaib and Omar

/in , , , , , /by

Lost in the fracas here is the fact that what Annabelle Lima-Taub wrote is largely true. Tlaib really is demonstrably an anti-Semite who is friendly with several open supporters of jihad terror. See, for example, all the evidence here and here. That she might “blow up Capitol Hill” is hyperbole, but of course J. C. Jimenez never for a moment considered the possibility that Anabelle Lima-Taub may actually have been on to something, or that Ilhan Omar really might be a hatemonger and that Rashida Tlaib may really be an anti-Semite who is sympathetic to jihad terror groups and jihadis themselves. And no establishment media journalist would dare ask Tlaib or Omar themselves for a statement on their obvious closeness to anti-Semites and supporters of the jihad against Israel. Establishment media journalists only ask tough questions to those who dissent from the Leftist agenda, not to those who support that agenda.

Pablo Lima should immediately be reinstated, and Jimenez should apologize to him. But that would require this to be a sane world.

“Bay Harbor Islands cop suspended for social media post on wife’s anti-Muslim comments,” by Aaron Leibowitz, Miami Herald, January 16, 2020:

The husband of a Hallandale Beach commissioner who was condemned for anti-Muslim comments was placed on administrative leave by the Bay Harbor Islands police department Thursday for social media posts appearing to show support for his wife’s views.

Pablo Lima, a corporal in Bay Harbor Islands and a former vice president of the Miami-Dade police union, submitted an application Tuesday to become the town’s next police chief.

On Thursday morning, after the Miami Herald asked town officials about comments and posts that Lima “liked” on Facebook and Instagram, the department placed him on paid leave and opened an internal affairs investigation.

“The content of the social media posts that were brought to our attention are not consistent with our Town’s values and policies,” Town Manager J.C. Jimenez said in a statement. “Corporal Pablo Lima is currently on administrative leave pending the outcome of an internal affairs investigation. State law prohibits us from discussing details of an open internal affairs investigation.”…

In January 2019, the Hallandale Beach City Commission voted 3-2 to condemn Commissioner Anabelle Lima-Taub for a Facebook post saying that Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, the first Palestinian-American woman elected to the U.S. Congress, might become “a martyr and blow up Capitol Hill.”

The post was denounced as hate speech by numerous Muslim and Jewish human rights organizations, but Lima-Taub remained unapologetic, saying Tlaib’s support for boycotting Israel equated her with terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

The day of the commission vote, dozens of supporters of Lima-Taub held Israeli flags and signs calling Tlaib a terrorist outside Hallandale Beach City Hall. The group included people with a wide range of politics, including those who support Israel and denounce the boycott movement against it, and far-right Internet personality and conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer.

On Jan. 30, 2019, one week after the vote to condemn the Israeli-born Lima-Taub, Pablo Lima shared a story on his Facebook page from WLRN.org titled, “Why A Hallandale Beach Panel Condemned A Commissioner For Anti-Islamic Language.”

Lima proceeded to “like” five comments showing support for Lima-Taub, including multiple comments that appeared to espouse anti-Muslim sentiments. One comment that Lima “liked” included the line: “This [piece of s—] took her oath on the Koran.”

“Screw these liberal commisioners and mayor,” the comment said. “When will these politicians grow some cohones and start supporting America and it’s Americans. They talk about [Lima-Taub] being a racist and spewing hate. These [expletive] forget that this muslim [Tlaib] supports the people who flew planes into our NY twin towers and killed over 5000 people and more dying from exposure still 18 years later.”

The comment continued: “This [piece of s—] took her oath on the Koran. She openly hates Jews and talks about how they should all die or be killed. Remind me again why you would not support Lima-Talib [Lima-Taub]?”

Lima also “liked” comments on the post that said: “I applaud her”; “Complete BS….”; and “free speach fk them.”

Another comment that Lima “liked” said: “But Talib [Tlaib] gets to spew her hatred of Jews and others not of the Islamic faith and it’s ok not to defend yourself ? I’m with the commissioner, awaiting the next terrorist plot to open eyes again only when something happens.”

Lima did not post any comments below the Facebook post himself.

The Herald also made Bay Harbor Islands officials aware of an Instagram post by Lima-Taub that was “liked” by Lima’s personal account.

In a post on Sept. 11, 2019, Lima-Taub quoted a statement by U.S. Rep Ilhan Omar ⁠— one of the first two Muslim women to serve in Congress, along with Tlaib ⁠— that “some people did something” in the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

Lima-Taub, using her Instagram account “@theroguecommissioner,” called Omar a “hate monger” and said the United States was “founded on Judeo-Christian values.”

“#NeverForget #911 ‘Some people did something,’ as per America’s vitriolic hate monger, @repilhan!” Lima-Taub wrote. “Those 19 Jihadi terrorists massacred over 3,000 innocent men and women, encroached on our constitutional rights and caused several billion in loss to dollars with the deliberate action to destabilize our economic stability.

“This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and we must never let the deaths of those who perished on 9/11 be in vain.”…

The Bay Harbor Islands police department’s social media policy prohibits any speech that “ridicules, maligns, disparages, or otherwise expresses bias against any gender, race, religion, or any protected class of individuals.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Britain Commits Suicide to Avoid Being Called Racist

Khamenei says Islamic Republic of Iran is “religious democracy” that is “image of resistance” to “highway bully” US

Islamic Republic of Iran: MP offers “$3 million reward in cash to whoever kills Trump”

RELATED AUDIO: Robert Spencer on Iran in context

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Media’s Shameful Depiction of Pro-Second Amendment Protests in Virginia

/in , , , , , , , /by

It’s the tea party all over again.

Way back in 2009 the press, followed by a gaggle of left-wing commentators and politicians, did a number on tea party protests, often portraying them—with little evidence—as driven by racist rage against President Barack Obama rather than principled opposition to his administration’s policies.

These same tactics were on full display Monday in the coverage of pro-Second Amendment protests that took place in Richmond, Virginia.

The protests were a response to the gun control policies of Gov. Ralph Northam and the state’s Legislature, which is now controlled by Democrats.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

Northam called for a “state of emergency” in response to the protest, and numerous media outlets predicted it would be marked by “hate” and violence, and overall would be a menacing and sordid affair.

Jim Geraghty at National Review gave an excellent rundown of the most absurd headlines and statements from various national media outlets.

NBC reporter Ben Collins said in a now-deleted tweet on Sunday that the gathering in Richmond would be a “white supremacist” rally.

MSNBC anchor Craig Melvin said of the rally on Monday: “Right now thousands of gun-rights activists, white nationalists, militia groups—all swarming the Virginia state capitol in Richmond.”

But no violence took place, and it appears that only one person was arrested for violating an anti-mask prohibition put in place by the governor.

Pretty impressive, given that the crowd reached an estimated size of 20,000 on a very cold day.

Though there were some reports that racist groups were planning to attend and infiltrate the event, there was little sign of them when it took place, if it took place at all.

It seems the protesters were aware of how they were being portrayed.

Tristan Justice, who covered the protest, wrote for The Federalist:

Dozens of protesters throughout the rally were sure to remind the public that Northam wore blackface, carrying signs of the Virginia governor’s infamous high school yearbook photo showcasing Democrats’ double-standard regarding racism.

Some media commentators claimed that the pro-Second Amendment demonstrators were insulting Martin Luther King Jr. by holding the event on a holiday celebrating his legacy.

Rev. Al Sharpton even said on MSNBC said that this was putting “salt in the wound” of King’s legacy.

He then doubled down, saying the protesters getting in the way of MLK Day celebrations “are in effect canceling them to have their event. That in and of itself is symbolic of a country that seems to be bent on accommodating the wrong side of the equation of peaceful coexistence and racial justice and fairness.”

King was indeed nonviolent, as the protests were, but to claim that being in favor of gun rights is an affront to his legacy is absurd.

In fact, the right to bear arms was often an essential element to black civil rights, especially when local authorities were doing little to protect black citizens from violence.

Ida B. Wells, one of the founders of the NAACP, once said in 1892—a year in which a massive number of lynchings of black Americans took place—that “a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.”

To that very point, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a 2018 interview with “The View” that she saw firearm ownership as essential when growing up.

“Let me tell you why I’m a defender of the Second Amendment,” Rice said. “I was a little girl growing up in Birmingham, Alabama, in the late ’50s, early ’60s. There was no way that Bull Connor and the Birmingham police were going to protect you.”

“I’m sure if Bull Connor had known where those guns were, he would have rounded them up,” she said. “So I don’t favor some things like gun registration.”

The bottom line is that associating the right to bear arms with anti-black racism is out of step with modern history. It was, in fact, an essential component of the civil rights movement.

The fact remains that the Richmond event on Martin Luther King Jr. Day was a large, entirely peaceful demonstration in defense of a right protected by the Constitution. That seems like a pretty solid justification for a protest.

Contrast all of this coverage and commentary with, for instance, the way media outlets treated the Women’s March protests, which also occurred over Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend.

Though many noted the waning interest in these mostly anti-Trump protests, little attention was given to the movement’s troubling ties to anti-Semitism. Any mention of this association—if it was mentioned at all—was buried in the story, not slapped in the headline.

Whether the difference in coverage between the two events was the result of willful bias or the simple cultural norms of those who work in elite media—or both—the fact is, it was obvious and noticeable.

Just like with the tea party movement and even the annual March for Life, America’s national media seems hopelessly biased and one-sided.

COMMENTARY BY

Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is a contributor to The Daily Signal and co-host of The Right Side of History podcast. Send an email to Jarrett. He is also the author of the new book, “The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America’s Past.” Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Senate Impeachment Trial: 8 Things You Need to Know

/in , , , , , , /by

The House of Representatives has chosen members to participate in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, and they have presented the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

This is only the third impeachment trial of a president in our nation’s history, with the others occurring in 1868 for Andrew Johnson and 1999 for Bill Clinton.

Here are eight things you need to know as the Senate prepares to begin Trump’s impeachment trial.

1. When Will the Trial Begin, and How Long Will It Last?

Senate President Pro Tempore Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, administered the oath Thursday to Chief Justice John Roberts, who will preside over the trial.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

Roberts, in turn, administered the oath to all senators. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced that the trial itself will begin at 1 p.m. Tuesday.

The Clinton impeachment took five weeks, and Johnson’s lasted 11 weeks. The Senate’s impeachment trial rules, adopted in 1986, mandate that the trial should begin at noon and last until the Senate decides to adjourn, Monday through Saturday, “until final judgment shall be rendered.”

2. What Happens at the Trial?

An impeachment trial is not like a run-of-the-mill trial, but it does have some similarities. House managers will act as the prosecution, presenting the case for impeachment to the senators, whose role is a combination of judge and jury.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced the seven members of the House who will serve as the managers, including Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.

A team of lawyers will put on the president’s defense, including White House counsel Pat Cipollone; Trump’s personal attorney, Jay Sekulow; and former independent counsel Ken Starr, whose investigation into the Whitewater controversy led to Clinton’s impeachment.

Roberts will preside over the trial, consistent with Article 3, Section 6 of the Constitution, although it is mostly a ceremonial role.

After presiding over Clinton’s impeachment trial, then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist said, “I took a leaf out of [Gilbert and Sullivan’s comic opera] ‘Iolanthe’ … ‘I did nothing in particular, and did it very well.’”

When the trial begins, the Senate will adopt a resolution establishing the specific timetable, including the time allotted for each side to present its case, senators to ask questions, and the Senate to consider motions.

At that point, if the Senate follows the general pattern of the Clinton trial, the Senate will vote on a motion to dismiss the impeachment and, if that motion fails, on whether additional witnesses or evidence should be considered.

During Johnson’s impeachment trial, the prosecution and defense called a total of 41 witnesses. During the Clinton trial, three witnesses provided videotaped testimony.

McConnell and several other Senate Republicans have indicated they think the Senate should rely on transcripts of the testimony of witnesses who appeared before the House, while Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and several other Democrats have demanded that witnesses be called to testify.

3. Does the President Have to Appear Before the Senate?

No. While the Senate does issue a summons to the individual being tried, its impeachment trial rules allow for an appearance by the defendant or by his attorney.

The Senate tried, unsuccessfully, to force Johnson to appear for his impeachment trial. The New York Times published an account of how Chief Justice Salmon Chase asked the Senate sergeant-at-arms to summon the president.

“In a loud voice, and amid the stillness of the whole chamber, he called three times, ‘Andrew Johnson, Andrew Johnson, Andrew Johnson!’” but instead the president’s legal team, including Attorney General Henry Stanbery (who resigned the day before) and former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Curtis, arrived.

Clinton likewise did not appear before the Senate during his trial.

Trump previously indicated he would “strongly consider” testifying or providing a written statement to the House during its impeachment inquiry, but that didn’t happen. Odds are, Trump won’t be present at the Senate trial.

4. What Are the Rules the Senators Will Follow?

Senators are not required to employ a specific standard of proof. During the 1986 impeachment trial of U.S. District Judge Harry E. Claiborne, he made a motion to designate “beyond a reasonable doubt”—the standard in criminal trials—as the standard for his trial.

After the presiding officer ruled that “the question of standard of evidence is for each senator to decide individually,” the Senate voted 75 to 17 against establishing a mandatory standard.

Similarly, the rules of evidence used in criminal trials do not apply in an impeachment trial. The Senate’s impeachment trial rules state that the Senate’s presiding officer has the authority to rule on questions of evidence.

Any senator, however, may ask that the full Senate vote on such matters. That reflects the Constitution’s assignment to the Senate of “the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”

5. Can Senators Be Disqualified for Showing Bias?

Senators have taken an oath to “do impartial justice, according to the Constitution and laws” in all things pertaining to the impeachment trial.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the minority whip, argued that some senators have already failed to meet the “independent and dignified” standard the Constitution envisioned.

There have already been calls for the House managers to move to disqualify senators whose impartiality is in question. There is no basis in the Constitution, Senate rules, or history for such an attempt.

The only qualification for participating in a Senate impeachment trial is to be a senator.

6. What Happens After the Trial?

While the trial itself will be open to the public, the Senate’s deliberations after its conclusion will not be.

The Senate will then come back into public session to vote on each article of impeachment. Senate impeachment trial rules say that the Senate must vote on each article in its entirety, and the Constitution requires the vote of “two-thirds of the [senators] present” for conviction.

Removal from office is automatic upon conviction, and the Senate may vote separately whether to disqualify the defendant from serving in any other federal office.

The Constitution explicitly provides, however, that these consequences by the Senate do not, if the defendant’s conduct is also criminal, prevent “Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

7. If the Vote Fails in the Senate, Can the President Be Retried?

In theory, he likely could be retried in the future. Although neither the Constitution nor Senate rules address this issue, and no precedent exists for it, a few legal scholars, such as former Obama administration official Neal Katyal, have pointed out that the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to impeachment proceedings.

A retrial on the same charges, however, would seem highly unlikely, and such a retrial would certainly run counter to the general principle of double jeopardy that someone cannot be tried twice for the same offense.

What is more plausible and likely is that the House would introduce new articles of impeachment, which it could do.

8. Will the Senate Conduct Other Business During the Trial, and Will It Interfere With the Supreme Court’s Work?

Senate committees may hold hearings in the morning of each trial day, but doing any business such as sending bills, nominations, or other matters to the full Senate would require the consent of all senators.

The Senate impeachment rules provide that the chamber must suspend its legislative and executive business while the trial is under way.

The trial should not affect the Supreme Court’s oral argument schedule. The court has arguments scheduled Tuesday and Wednesday, but those will conclude by 11 a.m.

The court won’t meet again for arguments until Feb. 24. Aside from taking up some of Roberts’ time in the afternoon, the trial is unlikely to otherwise affect the court.

COLUMN BY

Thomas Jipping

Thomas Jipping is deputy director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: @TomJipping,

Elizabeth Slattery

Elizabeth Slattery writes about the proper role of the courts, judicial nominations, and the Constitution as a legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research. She hosts SCOTUS101, a podcast about everything that’s happening at the Supreme Court. Twitter: @EHSlattery.

RELATED ARTICLES:

House’s Prosecutors Supported Impeachment Well Before Trump’s Ukraine Call

Impeachment Diary Day 1: Battle Lines Drawn

Republicans Vote Down Chuck Schumer’s Amendment Requesting White House Documents

RELATED VIDEO: Marsha Blackburn: Senate can only review, not expand Impeachment

A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

PODCAST: ‘Pro-Life Is Pro-Woman’ — What to Expect From 2020 March for Life

/in , , , , , , , , /by

“Life Empowers: Pro-life Is Pro-Woman” is the theme of this year’s March for Life, set to take place Friday in the nation’s capital. Since 1974, the March for Life has gathered to remember the lives lost since the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion, and to remind America that each life has value.

Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life, joins The Daily Signal Podcast to discuss what to expect at this year’s march and where the pro-life movement as a whole is headed in 2020. Listen to the podcast or read the lightly edited transcript below.

Virginia Allen: I am joined by the president of March for Life, Jeanne Mancini. Jeanne, thank you so much for being with me today.

Jeanne Mancini: Thanks so much for having me, Virginia.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

Allen: Now, March for Life began in January of 1974, one year after the passage of Roe v. Wade. March for Life really started out just as a small, peaceful demonstration, but it quickly grew into the world’s largest pro-life event. The 2020 march is taking place on Jan. 24 in Washington, D.C. Can you share with us what the theme is that you all chose for this year’s march?

Mancini: I’d love to and if it’s OK, I’ll just give a little bit of backdrop that every year we do a lot of thinking and discerning about the appropriate theme because with the March for Life being the only place where all of the different pro-life groups come together annually, it’s an awesome springboard to message, essentially, about what we think are the most cutting edge, most pressing issues in building a culture of life.

Themes in past years have included adoption and nubile decision. Another year, in fact, last year, we had pro-life as pro-science and really delved into the science behind embryology and some of the wonderful neonatal surgeries available, etc.

This year our theme is “Life Empowers: Pro-Life Is Pro-Woman.” And, of course, this is the year where we celebrate the centennial anniversary of the 19th Amendment, which created a woman’s right to vote.

So it’s a great opportunity to go back and look at the suffragist, the early feminist, the early female leaders who recognize the inherent dignity of women and the inherent dignity of the unborn. We’re not at odds with each other and they had a really good understanding about that.

We’re having a lot of fun with this theme and we’re excited to be able to talk about that more next week.

Allen: Absolutely. Now, who is speaking at this year’s march?

Mancini: We’ve got a great, great, great lineup and stay tuned because there are more announcements to be made even tomorrow.

Legislatively, we will welcome to the stage Representative Chris Smith, as well as state Representative, state Senator, as of yesterday, Katrina Jackson.

Chris Smith is very well-known. He’s from New Jersey and just a stalwart on our issues.

Katrina Jackson as well is very interesting because she’s one of the few pro-life Democrats and, in particular, we’re so interested to have her this year because she was the author of the bill in Louisiana related to abortion clinic regulations that then became a law. And now will go before the Supreme Court in March. And so it’ll be very interesting to hear from Senator Jackson.

So those are some of our legislative speakers and there’s a few more to be there.

We have Claire Culwell and Melissa Ohden. They both have these incredibly inspiring stories. They both survived abortion, essentially. And their lives are such witnesses and so they’re going to share their stories. And, of course, we’ll link that very much to the born-alive discharge petition in the House.

Right now we’ve got Jim Daly from Focus on the Family, Marjorie Dannenfelser, head of Susan B. Anthony List—a good year for Marjorie to speak with the theme. Another wonderful woman, she’s a pro-life leader in New Mexico, Lisa Martinez.

We also have a local pastor, David Platt from McLean Bible Church, a very well-known church here in the D.C. area. He will be doing our closing prayer.

And, like I said, we’ve got a few more announcements. And I should say our favorite speaker, at least when we do our surveys after the March for Life, is almost always the young person that speaks because, of course, by and large the participants in the March for Life are young people.

Our one specific designated young person who’s speaking this year is Catalina Scheider Galiñanes. And she is from Oakcrest, a school in Vienna, Virginia. She’s going to speak about why she’s pro-life.

Allen: Wow. So many amazing speakers. I really look forward myself to hearing many of them at the event on the 24th.

People come to March for Life in Washington, D.C., from states all across America. What is that message or motivation that you are really hoping that marchers will take with them back to their home states and their communities?

Mancini: The March for Life is very interesting in that it’s a place to come and witness and testify to the beautiful inherent dignity of the unborn person. And yet, ironically, for those of us who participate in the march every year, it’s an opportunity for our own hearts and minds to be changed even more about this issue.

I’ll just give you a quick example of that … I know I’m kind of backing my way into the answer here, but I had a family member come and participate from out West last year and it was the first time he had come and he’s always been pro-life, but it was quite a sacrifice to come.

He and his wife and one of his children came and had a really beautiful time. I think … his eyes were opened to the significance of the issue and perhaps his heart was changed even more in the direction of life.

And while he had a very busy schedule last year with having kind of a … I guess you could say a break from work for a few months as he was changing to a new job. This year, he’s again coming because he realized how important it is and it’s like, again, his own experience was changed and he wants to do more in his local community.

So what I would say is that the March for Life, again, while it’s a moment to testify and to give witness in the public square about the unborn, it also changes our own hearts.

Our deepest hope as those of us who pull this event together is that marchers go back home and make a difference in their local community. Because if it’s just one day that we’re coming together and are really [having a] motivating and exciting day, then we’re not doing our job. The job is really recognizing that we each have a role to play in building a culture of life and to do that in the area where we are planted.

Allen: Speaking of working in that area where you’re planted, you all have also launched a number of marches across America in different cities. Why did you feel that it was important to not just have the national march but also to have marches in states across America?

Mancini: Well, a few years ago as a pro-life organization in D.C,. we found that we were being tapped to do all things and there was a bit of … mission creep even within the organization, not terribly so, but it allowed for some reflection.

After some time I think we were all a little bit burned out and it gave us an opportunity to really look interiorly as well as look up to God and really think about why was the March created and what do we bring to the pro-life movement and to building a culture of life that no other pro-life group brings.

So, what can we do better and more of to end abortion, to change hearts and minds so that abortion is unthinkable in our country? And simultaneously, if you were to ask us, “What is the single thing that you get the most calls about or the most questions about?” It was to help groups start marches in their states and in their local areas.

We didn’t really have the bandwidth to do that well. I mean, we had sort of a very informal toolkit and we take calls and try to give technical assistance, but for the most part, we weren’t really staffed up to be able to help groups do that in a powerful way. So all of that led to a lot of soul-searching and deep discernment with the board.

We decided to try as a beta test, a state march program. So our first state march was in Virginia last year and it was in April and we brought out over 7,000 people for it. And we’re the lead story on the Richmond Times-Dispatch, which is the local Richmond paper. And for so many reasons, it was a huge success and we didn’t quite anticipate that it would be as big of a success as it was.

So this year we’ll have a second march in Virginia on Feb. 13. We’ll also have a march in Pennsylvania. That’s on May 18. And a march in Hartford, Connecticut, on April 15. Stay tuned for more announcements.

Allen: That’s so exciting. I do want to take just a moment to ask you to share a little bit about your own pro-life journey and how you got connected with March for Life.

Mancini: Oh, well, thank you for asking that. Well, let’s see. I grew up in a Catholic family and social justice and just understanding human dignity was something that was ingrained in my understanding of life and the most important things of life. …

I was 1 of 5. So we loved life, my family, and definitely lived in a way that was very respectful of life. …

After college, I did a volunteer corps, I did something called the Jesuit Volunteer Corps. I worked with young people that were in a crisis setting. They were in a youth crisis shelter.

They were being moved either from a situation that wasn’t safe for them to be in or they’d been found on the streets. And there was a long-term search for more of a permanent home, whether that was going to be foster care or a residential treatment center or what have you.

So my time working with those young people was very informative and I grappled a lot with the deeper questions about would it be better if some of these lives hadn’t been born? Is it unfair to bring some lives into the world when there’s such a difficult scenario and such heavy crosses that these people carry that nobody’s ever really meant to carry?

Anyways, I did a lot of sort of introspection and I came out on the other side really recognizing that every life is a gift. And I guess realizing with humility, who am I to judge the value of someone’s life because they’ve had some hard things happen to them?

And then along the way I’ve had different experiences, obviously, in life. For certain one experience [that] weighs heavily on my heart is two people very close to me when I was in college decided to have an abortion and they didn’t tell me before, they told me after. And then in some cases it was a long time after.

Just hearing the pain that they underwent was so sad and even this terrible guilt that they were experiencing. Of course, there’s always hope and healing.

And I should say that to anyone listening to your podcast, anyone who’s been involved in abortion, there’s so many wonderful groups and people to speak with to find hope and healing after having been involved in abortion.

But I just realized personally through these people who were close to me that women deserve so much better than abortion.

It was just a lived experience of what I’d always believed but I thought in a very sad reality in these situations. So, along the way there have been many different I guess you could say epiphanies throughout my life.

And you asked how I ended up getting to the March for Life. So this is a very long-winded way of answering that. But I guess about 10 or 11 years ago, I was working with Family Research Council and I was their pro-life spokesperson and just loved that job. It was so fun and I got to do a lot of policy analysis, which is really what I love to do.

So, a few years into that job, I was asked to join the board of the March for Life. And I did expecting just to be a board member for a period of time. But I never really made it to my first board meeting without a major happening. And that was that the founder of the March for Life, Nellie Gray, passed away before I went to my first board meeting.

So my first board meeting was an emergency board meeting where we were coming up with a plan for how we were going to continue the march.

In a short-term capacity, I and another board member, Patrick Kelly, took on the leadership and we thought we’d we had our plans for how that was going to happen and here I am seven and a half years later, still working with the March for Life. And lots has changed over that time. But it’s just been a big blessing.

Allen: Certainly. That’s so neat just to hear that background and your story and kind of see how all those pieces came together. It’s really, really neat.

Mancini: Thank you.

Allen: Increasingly, unfortunately, we are seeing an attitude among the pro-choice movement. It is really not only pro-abortion but advocates flaunting abortion. And you know, we see this through the Shout Your Abortion movement, examples like actress Michelle Williams during her award acceptance speech at the Golden Globes. We could go on and on, but what should the response of pro-lifers be to this really blatantly pro-abortion rhetoric?

Mancini: I think a couple things. One is to just have great confidence in what we believe. So, to remember that reality is not arbitrary and that calling something a certain name or saying that something shouldn’t have stigma or shame or what have you doesn’t make it so.

Abortion—whatever you’re going to call it, if you’re going to shout it, if you’re going to tell your story about it, etc.—always takes the life of one and most frequently wounds the life of another. So calling it something different doesn’t change that reality.

So I think just to A, recognize that. And then B—this might sound a little counterintuitive based on what I just said—to take a very merciful approach.

I mean, look, we are in a culture of what I would describe as the walking wounded because so many women and men have been involved in abortion and that very much impacts their response to these kinds of things. There’s so much woundedness around it. And so I think approaching any conversations about this topic with a lot of mercy and love and tenderness is critical.

And … I feel that we don’t ever have to twist someone’s arm behind their back to agree with us because we should have so much confidence.

Life is inherently beautiful and the pro-life message is so positive and attractive. So we really just need to show it for what it is instead of twisting someone’s arm behind their back if they don’t agree with us.

Conversely, the more that we understand about the abortion industry and even abortion procedures, it’s dark. I mean, it’s really, really dark. So to the extent that we can show that reality for what it is as well, and certainly try to prevent people from any kind of pain and loss of life. I think that’s important too.

Allen: President [Donald] Trump is often referred to as the most pro-life president in history. Looking back at his first three years in office, what, to you, are some of the most notable pro-life victories of his administration?

Mancini: Oh, that’s a great question. In terms of really creating pro-life policy, I would agree he has done more for the pro-life movement than any president when it comes to enacting policy.

Because of my job, I have to just start by talking about the March for Life. Prior to the Trump administration, we never had a president or vice president of the United States come to the march. In fact, a speech writer once told me, and this was a former speech writer, that presidents were counseled to go to Camp David around the time of the March for Life because they didn’t want to be photoed with some graphic images or something like that.

So … there’s almost been a real fear at top levels to associate with something this important. And we’ve seen the opposite from this White House. And it’s been incredible.

I will never, ever, ever forget one week after being inaugurated, there was the vice president in person at the March for Life and Kellyanne Conway, who ran a successful campaign. And that was, again, the first time.

It was a historic moment because it was the first time ever in the history of a March [for Life] that a standing vice president had come and spoken in person.

Then the following year, President Trump addressed the marchers about a mile away from the rally. So he was in the Rose Garden and there were a couple hundred young people there in the Rose Garden with him on big jumbotrons at the rally’s site. We broadcast that live and that was very exciting.

Last year, again, we had Mrs. [Karen] Pence and the vice president. So it’s just been incredible to have that level of support from the administration.

But in terms of amazing policies that they’ve enacted—gosh, there’s been so much. One of my personal favorites is the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy that had been formerly called the Mexico City policy, but that’s been reinstated and broadened.

Another favorite, of course, would be Supreme Court appointments, nominations and confirmations of both Justice [Neil] Gorsuch and [Justice Brett] Kavanaugh.

And then all of the excellent judicial nominations that are going to be at the appeals court and the district court, I think there have been over 218 of those. I don’t have the number right in front of me, but it’s high.

Returning Title 10 funding decisions to the state, launching an investigation into Planned Parenthood. I mean, again and again, there have been so many really, really great things.

Allen: Yeah. And just earlier this month, over 200 members of Congress signed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade.

Of course, like you mentioned, we’ve seen all of these great new policies and legislation come out of the Trump administration. Also … 2019 did see some really devastating pro-choice legislation pushed forward. So what do you think we can expect in 2020?

Mancini: That’s a great question. Well, I think that some of the things that we need to think about are, first of all, the election. And the March for Life doesn’t endorse candidates, but we do educate. And I think that elections matter.

I know having worked in the Office of the Secretary at HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] and seeing all of the policies change—I was there during the Bush administration and then in the beginning of the Obama administration—I just have to say the pro-life vote makes such a difference.

So, elections matter and to prepare well for the election ahead because it’s going to be a big year. That’s one thing.

I know that something that we are very much focusing on at the March for Life this year is the born-alive discharge petition and just the born-alive troops.

You mentioned that there have been so many extreme laws enacted at the state, though. Of course, Illinois now passed the Reproductive Act, which makes it sort of the most pro-abortion state in our country. New York, of course, did last year. Vermont passed another similar law.

Essentially, it’s just so critical that we’re aware of these kinds of things and that we do as much as we possibly can to message on the truth about things like the born-alive discharge petition or born-alive bills at the level of the state by the ERA, etc., etc. …

You asked the question and it’s a little hard to know [what to expect this year]. The elections are in front of us. We have a mixed Senate and House, so it’s hard to pass the federal legislation right now. And then in the states there’s all sorts of different things happening.

So to fight the extreme stuff, especially in places like Virginia, my own home state, and we’re seeing the ERA [Equal Rights Amendment] is going to get voted on soon there, but to continue as much as we possibly can to pass good pro-life legislation, for example, the Born-Alive [Abortion Survivors Protection] Act, which any person with common sense would agree with.

Allen: And you recently co-authored a commentary for The Daily Signal titled “Early Feminists Were Right About Unborn Human Life.” Can you tell us a little bit more about these American suffragists?

Mancini: I would love to. To the best of my knowledge, I don’t think that there is even one suffragist who was pro-abortion.

So we’ve got some fantastic quotes from, for example, Alice Paul, who called abortion the ultimate exploitation of women. Elizabeth Cady Stanton was very strong in her views on this. Of course, Susan B. Anthony, etc.

But these early female pioneers, again, knew that a woman’s capacity for fertility and motherhood wasn’t a liability, but that it was a beautiful thing. I think they saw men and women as being equal in dignity but different not having to do away with the part of them that can make them mothers.

So it’s wonderful to look back and to see sort of this first wave of feminists and where they were coming from and their understanding of these kinds of issues. And then to see sort of where things are today and how far we’ve gotten from that.

For any of your listeners who have an interest in that, I cannot highly recommend enough coming to our conference the day before the March for Life.

Our keynote is one of my favorite speakers, especially on this topic. Erika Bachiochi—she’s a pro-life feminist and a legal scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. And she’s got so much to say about this and herself has a tremendous testimony and story of coming from a more pro-abortion feminist perspective to where she is today.

And then we have a stellar lineup of panelists, very much speaking to different nuances about this. Sue Ellen Browder will be speaking, she’s an author, she wrote a wonderful book called “Subverted.” Now she’s got a book coming out called “Sex and the Catholic Feminist.” She’s essentially going to go into this question that you just asked me, what the early suffragettes said and a history of that. She’ll read quotes and papers, etc.

We also have Christina Francis, OB-GYN, who’s the chairman of the board of AAPLOG, the American Association of Pro-life OB-GYNs, and she’s going to talk about the consequences of abortion and especially the physiological consequences.

We also have Mary McCluskey, who works with Project Rachel Ministry on helping women and men who regret having been involved in abortion. And then Brandi Swindell, who’s the founder and CEO of Stanton Healthcare—named after Elizabeth Cady Stanton, of course, an early suffragist.

So I highly recommend coming in and hearing about our theme.

Allen: And how can our listeners find out more about the march that’s happening in D.C. and then the state marches that are going to be taking place throughout this year?

Mancini: Well, follow us on all of our different mediums on social media, and check us out particularly on our website at marchforlife.org, and you can count down the hours, like you mentioned, Virginia, right at the beginning.

Allen: Yeah. Thank you so much, Jeanne. We just really appreciate your time.

Mancini: Thanks for having me. It’s been a pleasure.

PODCAST BY

Virginia Allen

Virginia Allen is a contributor to The Daily Signal. Send an email to Virginia. Twitter: @Virginia_Allen5.

RELATED ARTICLES:

President Donald Trump to attend March for Life on Friday

President Donald Trump Declares January 22nd “National Sanctity of Human Life Day”

Problematic Women: Teen Vogue Shouts the Merits of Abortion

Faith, Family, Football: Why Patriots Tight End Benjamin Watson Champions Life

‘Birth Mommy’: Why This Woman Gave Her Child Up for Adoption

A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Sidney Powell Files Motion Withdrawing General Flynn’s Guilty Plea

/in , , , /by

VIDEO: Hannity: The moment of truth on General Flynn

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”  – Thomas Jefferson

“There is no more dangerous menace to civilization than a government of incompetent, corrupt, or vile men.” –  Ludwig von Mises

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims, but accomplices.”  – Eric Arthur Blair, nom de plume George Orwell, Author of 1984

During Black History Month in February of 1998, national radio host Roger Fredinburg interviewed attorney Fred D. Gray author of The Tuskegee Syphilis Study.  After the truth was revealed when the U.S. Public Health Service study ended in 1972, attorney Gray represented the approximately 20 survivors led by Charlie Pollard in a lawsuit against the government.

The Tuskegee Syphilis experiment has been compared to the experiments on Jewish people by the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (Nazis).  Most of the Tuskegee experiment men died, their wives were infected as well as children during childbirth. Even after penicillin was available to cure them, the men were purposely not treated.

Roger Fredinburg asked attorney Gray why the compensation from the lawsuit was so small, and his answer was telling.  He said, “You can’t expect proper remuneration when the judge hearing the case works for the people you are suing.”  I’ll never forget Gray’s poignant statement and Roger’s long pause of dismay.

We have another diabolical and evil situation, not by the U.S. Health Department, but by the federal government’s intelligence community.  The DOJ knows Lt. General Michael Flynn is innocent of lying, but they have purposely set out to destroy the man.

Attorney Sidney Powell

Forty-eight years after Tuskegee, we are watching another gigantic battle against the federal government and the case is being heard by Federal District Court Judge, Emmet Gael Sullivan who receives his paycheck from his employer, the federal government.

Sidney Powell, a skilled and powerful attorney, is the author of Licensed to Lie, a book exposing the corruption of justice in the Department of InJustice.  It was Judge Sullivan who actually restored faith in the rule of law when he commenced criminal contempt proceedings against the original prosecution team in the case against Senator Ted Stevens, a highly decorated WWII veteran.  He ordered an independent investigation of the Department of Justice, which revealed its corrupted prosecution of Stevens who lost his Senate seat when the prosecution failed to give the defense exculpatory Brady evidence that would have cleared the Senator of any wrongdoing.

In that trial, the prosecutors, the same group of people who were on Mueller’s team, suborned perjury from the star witness against Ted Stevens, the contractor…a home repair guy. They got Ted Stevens kicked out of the Senate for supposedly accepting a kickback of $150,000 for a remodeling job at his house that he didn’t pay for, in exchange for what Ted Stevens could do for the contractor as a Senator. That’s what the Senator was charged with, right before his next election.

Judge Emmet Sullivan found out about this and he raised Cain with these prosecutors. He overturned the conviction of Ted Stevens after Stevens was gone from the Senate.  Sullivan lambasted the misconduct of the Department’s “Public Integrity Section” lawyers in the Stevens prosecution, saying, “In nearly 25 years on the bench, I’ve never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I’ve seen in this case.” By the time Judge Sullivan uncovered the flagrant misconduct, he was livid.

Eric Holder was the U.S. Attorney General in the Obama administration at the time of Steven’s trial.  Mr. Holder was compelled to dismiss the Stevens indictment because, among other violations, the Department had concealed the horrible record of its key witness, including his involvement in sex-trafficking of minors and subornation of perjury. That same witness had testified in two previous prosecutions of politicians in Alaska.

The Enron Case

In the Enron case, the same prosecutors destroyed the innocent, Andrew Weissmann was in the midst of this.  Convicted of conduct that was actually lawful were Merrill Lynch employees and the 89-year-old accounting firm, Arthur Anderson, whose 85,000 employees lost their jobs because of corrupt government prosecutors.  There is no remedy for a wrongful prosecution. Prosecutions and imprisonment cost millions of dollars, and a concocted crime, over-reaching prosecution, and the conviction of an innocent person serve no one.

Those corrupt prosecutors were not fired or disbarred, they were promoted, just like Lon Horiuchi who shot and killed Randy Weaver’s wife, and wounded both Randy and his friend Kevin Harris.  Randy’s 14-year-old son, Sam and his dog were killed the previous day after an encounter with federal marshals.  This tragedy happened in 1992 when William Barr was still the attorney general for the George H. W. Bush administration.

Innocence Project’s work speaks to the ravages of wrongful convictions.  For in-depth information, please read Sidney Powell’s many articles in the Observer.  If you haven’t read Licensed to Lie, please buy a copy; it reads like a thriller fiction novel.  And her new book, Conviction Machine: Standing Up to Federal Prosecutorial Abuse will be out in February.  You can pre-order this magnificent book documenting abuse.

General Flynn’s Former Attorney

In December of 2018, Judge Sullivan made it clear to all that he hadn’t done any homework on the Lt. General Michael Flynn case when he called this highly decorated intelligence officer and military hero a traitor.  We were appalled.  Attorney Sidney Powell was in the courtroom with the Flynn family and was horrified.

At the time, the General’s attorney was still Rob Kelner, partner of Covington & Burling LLP.  The DOJ’s Trisha Anderson went to work for Covington in September of 2018 while they were representing the General.  We don’t know if the information that Anderson was a key player in the counter intelligence investigation in Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign was disclosed to Michael Flynn.  Trisha Anderson was the number two attorney at the agency’s Office of General Counsel despite having no specific experience in counter intelligence before coming to the FBI.  She told members of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committee that she was one of only about ten who had known about the Trump-Russia investigation prior to its official opening.

Anderson had read all of the FBI’s 302 forms (comments written by FBI agents of their interviews) detailing information that the author of the Steele dossier, former British spy, Christopher Steele, had provided to a high-ranking justice official, Bruce Ohr.  She also signed off on authorization to spy on former Trump campaign official, Carter Page.  This indicates a conflict of interest for the firm and questions whether General Flynn was notified.

The General’s original plea is tainted for many reasons…General Flynn never lied to anyone, and then there’s the conflict of interest with his previous attorneys, and now the move to withdraw his plea of guilty because the government has engaged in bad faith and vindictive conduct, and has breached the plea agreement pursuant to which he has cooperated for two years.  Sidney Powell rightfully has filed the motion to withdraw General Flynn’s original plea.

Countless exculpatory documents were requested by attorney Sidney Powell from the DOJ’s FBI, and Judge Sullivan demanded them.  Yet, none were forthcoming and the judge allowed the lack of exculpatory evidence from the FBI to remain hidden. It has even been reported that dirty cop, FBI agent Joe Pientka and his wife are being hidden. Joe was involved with everything corrupt involving the Russia Collusion Hoax and his wife is an attorney for a company involved with Fusion GPS.

Why is the FBI allowed to hide exculpatory evidence and not respond to Judge Sullivan’s order?  Where the hell is AG Barr?  Where the hell is FBI Director Christopher Wray?  And why the hell hasn’t the Judge seen to it that his orders were followed?  The buck stops with President Trump…he is in charge of the DOJ.

Conclusion

At January’s Phyllis Schlafly Gathering of Eagles in St. Louis, we heard from attorney Sidney Powell with an update.  They are working feverishly to gather all information to secure the withdrawal of the General’s guilty plea before their next appearance in front of Judge Emmet Sullivan in late February.  This magnificent gathering was highlighted by many superb speakers, but when Sidney Powell spoke to us via video, she told us that they now had one of the original 302s of the FBIs interview with Michael Flynn on January 24, 2017.  That 302 shows that Michael Flynn never lied to the FBI.  We already knew that, but now there is more documented in-hand proof.

She also told us what she needed, and that is for a million folks to give two to five dollars to the Michael Flynn Legal Defense Fund, to help free this innocent man from the clutches of the corrupt and vindictive Department of Justice.   Please help this innocent veteran who has given his life to protect and defend America.  And pray for Sidney Powell, and General Flynn’s entire family.

© All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Dershowitz lays out a defense of Trump and more . . .

/in , , , , , , /by

GUESTS AND TOPICS

ADAM ANDRZEJEWSKI

Adam Andrzejewski CEO & Founder of OpenTheBooks.com the world’s largest private database of government spending. Adam is a senior contributor at Forbes Opinion and frequent radio and tv opinion commenter.

Topic: California’s High Tech Debacle

REAGAN MCCARTHY

Reagan McCarthy is the Web Editor at Townhall.com and an alumna of The Pennsylvania State University where she studied Political Science and Broadcast Journalism. While at Penn State Reagan served as the President of the Penn State College Republicans and the Executive Director for the Pennsylvania Federation of College Republicans. Raegan’s articles have also been published by the Washington Examiner.

TOPIC: Court Throws Out Climate Change Lawsuit

ANN STONE

Ann Stone has worked in over 500 campaigns as everything from precinct worker to campaign manager. Most of her work has been in political organizing, public advocacy, communications, strategy and fundraising. In 1992 she was chosen as one of the Women Who Changed Politics in America by Campaigns and Elections Magazine. In 2012 she was named as one of the 21 Leaders for the Twenty First Century by Women’s eNews. Ann has appeared on numerous television programs ranging from Good Morning America, the Today Show, Nightline, Larry King, PBS News Hour, To The Contrary, a variety of shows on CNN to shows like Comedy Central, MTV and Politically Incorrect.

TOPIC: Alan Dershowitz lays out a defense of Trump

New SF DA, Son of Terrorists, Fires Anti-Gang Prosecutors

/in , , , , , /by

Newly-installed San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin fired seven key felony prosecutors last Friday despite campaign promises to clean up violent crime in the city, according to Breitbart News.

“It should not come as a surprise to anybody that a newly-elected official would want to make staff changes,” said Boudin, who had run specifically against adding “gang enhancements” to prosecutions, arguing that they disproportionately affected minority defendants. He had also campaigned against prosecuting “quality-of-life” crimes such as public urination, and said he would “decriminalize” homelessness.

One of the fired attorneys said, “I think the impact on morale is going to be devastating.”

Boudin, the son of two Weather Underground terrorists, is a proud socialist who wants to imprison ICE agents and who claims that the American criminal justice system is utterly racist. In San Francisco, that makes you a shoo-in for public office.

Chesa Boudin

17 Known Connections

Boudin’s campaign for DA was vigorously endorsed by such notables as Angela Davis, Linda Sarsour, Black Lives Matter activist Shaun King, the radical Chicago District Attorney Kim Foxx, and Senator Bernie Sanders. When Boudin was elected in November 2019, Sanders tweeted: “Now is the moment to fundamentally transform our racist and broken criminal justice system by ending mass incarceration, the failed war on drugs and the criminalization of poverty. Congratulations @chesaboudin on your historic victory!”

Boudin says he is “proud” to identify openly as a socialist: “When we were kids, socialism was a bad word associated with dictatorships. What we’ve seen over the last five or so years, in large part thanks to Bernie Sanders and all the grassroots organizing that’s gone into making him a national political leader, is that socialism has become something that even mainstream progressives identify with. It means things like universal health care, quality public education for everyone, great housing for everyone.”

To learn more, click on the profile link here.

Search our constantly growing database of the left and its Agendas.

RELATED ARTICLE: San Francisco DA Touts Progressive Ambitions for Already Troubled City

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Pronoun Throw Down

/in , , , , , , /by

“Refreshingly sane.” It’s not everyday those two words are used to describe the circuit courts. But, then again, it’s not every day — at least anymore — that those circuit courts are packed with liberal activists. Thanks to the White House, one in every four circuit judges is now a Donald Trump appointee, who respects the boundaries of the constitution. And after seeing the kind of transgender pronoun insanity being debated in Kyle Duncan’s court, conservatives couldn’t be more grateful.

His name is Norman Varner — but he’d rather everyone call him Katherine Jett. “I am a woman,” he insisted, “and not referring to me as such leads me to feel that I am being discriminated against based on my gender identity. I am a woman,” he repeated. “Can I not be referred to as one?” Norman, who’s been convicted on child pornography charges, wants to have his 2012 records changed to match his preferred name. That question was essentially thrown out on a technicality. But the real debate — his insistence that the court use female pronouns — has captured the public’s attention.

And why not? It’s playing out in schools, places of business, even sports. Teachers like Peter Vlaming have been fired for refusing to use a biologically incorrect pronoun. It’s no wonder Varner’s “Motion to Use Female Pronouns When Addressing Appellant” has taken center stage.

“Congress,” Kyle Duncan wrote in the 2-1 decision against Varner, “has said nothing to prohibit courts from referring to litigants according to their biological sex [instead of their] subjective gender identity.” If anything, he points out, the “convention” is and continues to be a “courtesy.”

Secondly, he went on, if a court were forced to use the preferred pronouns of litigants, “it could raise delicate questions about judicial impartiality…” After all, he points out, this subject — sex and gender identity — is increasingly being raised before the courts. “In cases like these, a court may have the most benign motives in honoring a party’s request to be addressed with pronouns matching his ‘deeply felt, inherent sense of [his] gender.’ Yet in doing so, the court may unintentionally convey its tacit approval of the litigant’s underlying legal position.”

Last, but certainly not least, Duncan explained, indulging these gender fantasies “may well turn out to be more complex than [they] appear.” There are literally dozens of pronouns that judges would have to learn — one university’s guide, he noted, has more than 45 possibilities. “When local governments have sought to enforce pronoun usage, they have had to make refined distinctions based on matters such as the types of allowable pronouns and the intent of the ‘misgendering’ offender. Courts would have to do the same. We decline to enlist the federal judiciary in this quixotic undertaking.”

Hats off to Kyle Duncan for refusing to play along with this dangerous game. “This is an attack on basic language … Human biology and reproduction are binary, and grammar follows that basic truth,” PJ Media’s Tyler O’Neil argues. “In an era of confusion, this ruling is a welcome moment of sanity.” One that wouldn’t be possible without the president and Senate’s commitment to the courts. It’s just another example of how Trump’s judges, all 187 of them, are taking back the bench for common sense.

Tony Perkins’s Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

RELATED ARTICLES

‘I’m Afraid Too… but Aren’t We Supposed to Fix This?’

Trump Celebrates Freedom in Grant Style

EDITORS NOTE: The FRC Action column is republished with permission. © All rights Reserved.

The Case That Could Upset Roe v. Wade

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

In March 2020, the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of Louisiana’s new abortion law, which requires that physicians doing abortions have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic.

Under the leadership of House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, an amicus—”friend of the court”—brief supporting the law was just filed, signed by 207 members of Congress, 39 senators, and 168 House members.

A press release from Scalise summarizes the arguments made and lists a number of conservative organizations supporting the brief, one of which is my organization—the Center for Urban Renewal and Education.

What makes this filing particularly interesting is not just the sheer volume of congressional signatories—almost 40% of the Senate and House combined—it’s also the fact that it goes further than just arguing support for the constitutionality of the Louisiana law to suggest that the widespread confusion regarding abortion law ties directly to the confusing basic premises under which abortion was found constitutional in the 1973 Roe v. Wade and the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decisions.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

The brief urges the Supreme Court to cast new scrutiny on these two landmark decisions that have defined the abortion legal landscape.

Asking the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade is provocative, to say the least. But it is also courageous and on target.

How can we possibly function as a nation when an issue as critical as abortion defies consensus as to its constitutional pedigree as well as its morality?

Can there be any better evidence of this confusion than recalling the famous interchange in August 2008 when Pastor Rick Warren asked then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?”

Obama, a Harvard-educated lawyer who would go on to be twice elected president, replied lamely, “answering that question … is above my pay grade.”

Yet despite his candor about his inability to clarify the biological and legal status of the unborn child, he didn’t hesitate to be the first sitting American president to address the national meeting of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, and tell them, “God bless you.”

There is a well-known expression from the world of computing that says, “garbage in, garbage out.”

Faulty premises will produce faulty results and output.

This is a pretty good summary of what has been happening to American culture since the Roe v. Wade decision. Once sanctity of life and its legal protections became ambiguous, our entire culture began to unravel.

The percentage of American adults married since Roe v. Wade has dropped by one-third. The percentage of children in households with married parents is down 15%, and the percentage of babies born to unwed mothers up over 300%.

The last decade, according the Census Bureau, is estimated to have the slowest 10-year growth in the U.S. population since the first census was taken in 1790.

The Census Bureau forecasts that by 2034, for the first time, there will be more Americans over age 65 than under 18.

And, of course, we cannot overlook the damage our national soul has incurred by looking away as 61,628,584 babies have been destroyed in the womb since 1973, as the Guttmacher Institute reports.

In the latest Gallup polling, 49% identified as pro-life and 46% as pro-choice. Fifty percent say abortion is “morally wrong,” and 42% say it is “morally acceptable.”

For the 47th time, hundreds of thousands will arrive in Washington for the March for Life, noting the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, Jan. 22, 1973.

There is growing appreciation for the notion that what’s driving a sense that something is wrong in our nation is ambiguity regarding the sanctity of life.

Let’s pray that the court heeds these 207 members of Congress and starts rethinking the Roe v. Wade decision.

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

Star Parker

Star Parker is a columnist for The Daily Signal and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: The Wind Is Shifting Behind the Pro-Life Cause

A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Michigan AG Dana Nessel’s Tyrannical Tactics to Suppress Religious Belief in Traditional Marriage

/in , , , , , , , /by

ANN ARBOR, MI—Watching, listening, tracking, and compiling secret dossiers on dissidents until they are finally accused and prosecuted—these are the police-state tactics one might associate with an authoritarian regime in a World War II movie.

Yet, these are the very methods the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) has found are being used by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel acting in concert with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

On February 19, 2019, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a notorious and discredited radical left-wing anti-Christian organization, published its annual Hate Map report which listed 31“hate” groups operating in Michigan in 2018.  Listed in that group as “ANTI-LGBT” was Church Militant, a nonprofit Michigan-based religious media organization which advocates traditional Catholic belief that marriage as instituted by God is for one man and one woman.

Three days later, on February 22, 2019, a disturbing joint news release by Attorney General Nessel and the Director of the Michigan Department of Civil Rights was issued referencing and linking to SPLC’s Hate Map. The joint release contained Nessel’s promise to establish a hate-crimes unit to fight against hate crimes and hate groups which have been allowed to proliferate in Michigan.

Nessel’s spokeswoman, Kelly Rossman-McKinney, noted that SPLC is a good place to start when investigating hate and bias.

The Director of the Civil Rights Department told a Detroit News reporter that the Department is creating a database which would document hate and bias incidents that don’t rise to the level of a crime or civil infraction.

Additional damning evidence of AG Nessl’s hostility toward traditional marriage was provided by the findings of Chief Judge Robert Jonker of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. In a published 2019 legal opinion, Buck v. Gordon, Judge Jonker found that Nessel attempted to stop St. Vincent Catholic Charities from performing adoption and foster placement services because it professed the Catholic belief on marriage. Judge Jonker said that past statements by Nessel “raise a strong inference of hostility toward a religious viewpoint.”

Jonker concluded that “St. Vincent was targeted based on its religious belief, and it was Defendant Nessel who targeted it.”

Concerned that AG Nessel is continuing to weaponize the Attorney General’s Office to suppress religious beliefs in traditional marriage by threats of investigation and prosecution, the Thomas More Law Center, a national nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a request for records under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Using sham excuses, Nessel refused to supply crucial records that would shed light on her use of her law enforcement powers to target organizations that opposed her personal ideology supporting same-sex marriage.

TMLC filed a lawsuit in the Michigan Court of Claims on January 9, 2020, against Nessel for her refusal to comply with Michigan’s FOIA.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of TMLC, which represents Church Militant and its Founder and President Michael Voris, commented: “This lawsuit is about the right of the people to know what their public officials are doing. We believe that Attorney General Nessel targeted Church Militant because of its stance on traditional marriage as she had done in the case involving St. Vincent.”

Continued Thompson: “The combination of actions by the Attorney General Nessel, the Department of Civil Rights and the Southern Poverty Law Center have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and religion not only of Church Militant, but every religious group in Michigan that stands for traditional marriage.”

Astonishingly, Nessel’s office admitted in its response to Thomas More Law Center’s FOIA request that:

  • It had no policies in place to safeguard the constitutional rights of individuals who committed no crime but are being investigated for espousing traditional marriage.
  • It has no clear definitions of “bias incidents” or “hate crimes” against LGBT persons that are backed up by Michigan statutes or court decisions.
  •  The AG’s Office failed in its FOIA response to provide any clear policies or parameters governing the prosecution of hate crimes. Nor does it have a clear definition of what constitutes a “hate group.”

Without policies to adequately guide the actions of the Hate Crime Unit, it is free to roam about launching secret investigations against any organization based solely on the fact that it supports traditional marriage.

Consequently, it was easy for the Attorney General’s Office to claim that Church Militant was under investigation to avoid turning over records and to escape public scrutiny.

“Nessel has single-handedly turned the Attorney General’s Office into an instrument of thought control by intimidation, using its law enforcement powers to police the speech of Michigan residents.

“One of her primary goals is to suppress the religious definition of marriage that does not conform to her opinions on same-sex marriage,” Thompson said.

Church Militant, headquartered in Ferndale, Michigan, reports on current events around the world from a Catholic perspective. Defending the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman has always been a major theme of its video broadcasts and written reports, which are viewed by millions of people throughout the world via its website and YouTube channel.

Click here to read TMLC’s full complaint.

RELATED ARTICLES:

A SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT – Thomas More Law Center Uncovers Taxpayer-funded Islamic Propaganda Forced on Teachers

Cardinal Raymond Burke Endorses Thomas More Law Center For Its Important Service Restoring Christian Culture

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Is Petitioned to Rehear the Federal Refugee Resettlement Opinion ‘Painfully’ at Odds with Supreme Court Precedent

What Teaching in China Taught Me About Religious Freedom

EDITORS NOTE: This Thomas More Law Center column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Rape of Men — Sinaga, Jezebel and Feminists.

/in , , , , , , /by

(These are my views as a woman living in England, on how the culture and spirit of my country has changed over 50 years.   Why the country does not feel protected or strong any more, how it has lost, and is losing it values and decency, and how we are daily losing our free speech.)

One can barely want to even imagine what it must be like for a man to wake up from a drug induced stupor and discover the sheer horror of finding themselves being raped by another man.

Adult male rape is something we just don’t think happens; we just don’t want to; and amidst many reports of physical abuse between men and women, reports of male rape committed by men are of course rarely reported.   There is a certain silence and a stigma and an understandable embarrassment which surrounds male on male rape and it silences men from reporting the crime.   It is very unlikely you would see a Me-Too campaign specifically for men who have been raped.

However, last week, a news report briefly appeared in the UK highlighting this abuse.  It appeared amidst the major headlines of the taking out of Qasem Soleimani, and also the apparent ‘crisis’ surrounding the Royal Family in relation to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (Harry and Meghan) who wish to step down from royal duties?

Reynhard Sinaga, aged 36, from Manchester, UK, but originally from Indonesia, was sentenced to life imprisonment for raping up to 195 men.  He has been labelled as the UK’s most prolific rapist.

Most of his victims were targeted in the early hours outside Manchester nightclubs by Sinaga, who, it is reported, posed as a ‘good Samaritan’ assisting men who had been separated from their friends.    But after luring them to an apartment nearby, he would then drug and rape them.

Despite our perceptions that adult male rape is committed against homosexual men, in this case the majority of the rapes committed by Sinaga were intentionally targeted against heterosexual men.  Why would that be, other than despite Sinaga being homosexual himself, he had a particular hatred towards the heterosexual man and believed he could change them?

Sinaga had also filmed up to 195 rapes that he had committed.   He derived pleasure from watching himself.  It is reported that the victims who were approached and then interviewed by the police in relation to the films that they discovered on Sinaga’s iphone, had not reported the incident, but that they had all been severely traumatised and that one is known to have attempted suicide unable to tell his family and friends about his terrible ordeal.

In researching the story I also discovered that in some of the articles written about Sinaga he is identified as being ‘Christian’ or ‘Catholic’.   This was quite a change from the usual and more recent reporting of rape gangs who have targeted children in the UK, where assailants have been described as descending from certain continents or countries rather than being identified as having a certain religion.  The use of the word Samaritan was also unashamedly used in some of the reports.

It was like a multiple rape implying ‘Christianity’ is somehow linked to this one man’s evil nature, whereas, Christianity most certainly admonishes all un-natural vices and never encourages sodomy.

The Rise of Narcissism and the Jezebel Spirit

Is there any connection between narcissism and some of our current headlines?

The number of people now researching narcissism on the internet and the effects that this is possibly having on their relationships is reportedly growing.

Has an ‘all about me’ epidemic taken place which stems from social media encouraged self aggrandizement?

Has feminism, with its attack on all things which it considers patriarchal played a part in ushering in a narcisstic spirit which in religious terms is also called the Jezebel spirit?

Whilst the term narcissism should not be thrown around unthinkingly or mistaken for a genuine need for some sort of attention due to insecurity or rejection, narcissism is indeed a spirit which takes and displaces the identity of another to feed its very own sense of self worth regardless of the consequences on the other person.   A true narcissist is never completely satisfied, and has no remorse that it has robbed or hurt another.

The narcissist views others as servants.   It wants the essence and the life force of its victim to feed its own ego.

Covertly, it has many ways of disguising itself, sometimes even hiding behind religion or humanitarian efforts in order to be viewed as a noble person.

Surely, we are familiar with a very liberal agenda which despite the pitfalls of obvious wrongs, elevates its own sense of self worth in taking a moral high-ground to get its own way or state a case.  Some Hollywood acceptance speeches may be an example of the points I make.

Strange to hear such actors/actresses label President Trump as an unstable narcissist and in the same breath apologize to Iran for the death of Qasem Soleimani, who was a known terrorist?

The attack on the family, on gender, the elderly and the un-born, may possibly stem from Jezebel, whose spirit can live in both female and male.

Destruction was and is her ultimate goal.

Chad’s and Stacey’s Dilemma

In a recent article printed in 2018, for The Verge, an author writes candidly about the intentional killing of women.    The article entitled “The internet is enabling a community of men who want to kill women. They need to be stopped’ referred to the Toronto massacre by Alek Minassian, who indiscriminately drove into people killing 10 and injuring 15, and also cited 22 year old Elliot Rodger, of the Isla Vista massacre who in 2014 killed 6 people and injured 14 others before killing himself.   You can read the article here.

It is reported that both men were part of an online ‘incel’ community where men openly express their hatred of women based on their rejection by them.

The incel community (men who are involuntarily celibate) however hates all people, both men and women, and in incel speak, the Chad’s are considered to be men who are successful with women, and Stacey’s are women who reject incel’s.  Interestingly it is reported that Elliot Rodger referred to himself as an alpha male in    a transcript known as Elliot Rodgers Retribution.

In both of the above massacre’s both men and women were killed.  From the transcript, Elliot’s mental health stemmed from loneliness, rejection and hatred towards mankind. He blamed this upon women for his hatred, and also viewed himself as a superior god above the rest of mankind.

Defending the Realm

In a recent article by The Spectator, entitled “Why People who hate Brexit love Megxit” by Brendan O’Neill, referring to Harry and Meghan’s exit, writes:

“My mum, like many others, is shocked at how they have treated Harry’s gran. Reports that the Queen is alarmed and pained by the couple’s decision to bugger off to Canada has irritated huge numbers of people.

I have to say I smiled at this, and how the reference to the abandonment of your gran causes alarm.  It is certainly a female trait that a mother or grandmother may view the actions of their sons or grandchildren as abandonment, although in this instance, in my opinion, it may be that there could be concern about the demise of Harry’s very own personality, which we are slowly watching change?

This Evil Poison – Hatred

The feminization and the hatred of men is witnessed most prominently against the figure of Jesus Christ, and whether you are a believer in him or not, the attack on his character indicates an assault which should be very evident to both men and women alike.  Why is that?

His image has been desecrated to such an extent that we now have a Christ who is totally dependent on his mother, a Christ who was married, a Christ who is gay, and a Christ who wears high heels, indicating he was transgender!  His name is thrown around as a curse word by some who may never know him and the reverence and respect that they would give to other, more dominant gods of other religions, does not diminish the Christian faith but exposes a certain hypocrisy and a very evident weakness

The recent Netflix showing of ‘The First Temptation of Christ’ by comedy group Porta dos Fundos which depicts a gay Jesus bringing his boyfriend home to meet his family, is just one of the many weak attacks made against mankind and the Christian faith.

Whilst Porta dos Fundos were receiving their accolades around the world, persecuted Christians in Middle Eastern countries are being raped and killed daily for following Christianity.  Maybe, gone with be the laughter when such persecution reaches home.

Understanding the part we play in destroying men should be a humbling and revealing experience.   Forgiveness and understanding towards our fallen natures whilst acknowledging that evil is real and needs exposing, and at times ‘destroyed’ for our own protection takes strength.

The emphasis on the rape of men in all it’s many forms, without the mention of the rape of women, will reveal an annoyance in many people’s minds, but it shouldn’t.  Equality needs revising.   It should be a catalyst to show that hatred is really at the root cause of all of our problems.  Everyone suffers.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Who is Reynhard Sinaga? UK’s worst rapist who attacked as many as 195 men

Reynhard Sinaga: How the ‘evil sexual predator’ spent years targeting vulnerable young men

Transcript of the disturbing video ‘Elliot Rodger’s Retribution’

Elliot Rodger: How misogynist killer became ‘incel hero’

Florida: Iranian Muslim found on bridge with knives and $22,000 in cash

/in , , , , , /by

Probably just a circus performer. Relax, you greasy Islamophobe.

“Police release name of Iranian national found with knives on Flagler Memorial Bridge,” WPTV, January 10, 2020 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

PALM BEACH, Fla. — Palm Beach police are investigating after they say a man believed to be an Iranian national was found with several knives on the Flagler Memorial Bridge on Friday.

According to Palm Beach police, a citizen called about a suspicious person in Bradley Park.

Police said the man, later identified as Masoud Yareilzoleh, had no known address and was detained by officers. The police department said he was released from custody later in the day on Friday.

Yareilzoleh’s car was found at Palm Beach International Airport. Authorities said the vehicle was searched and cleared. It’s unknown why his car was at the airport.

In addition to the knives, police said Yareilzoleh had $22,000 in cash on him when he was detained….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Arizona: Man screaming “Allahu akbar, I have a bomb” threatens family, attacks cop

21 Saudi Muslim military students removed from US training program, 17 had jihadi or anti-American material

Attorney General Barr says Pensacola jihad murderer was motivated by “jihadist ideology”

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: DHS Strategy on Human Trafficking Aims to Put Issue Front and Center

/in , , , , , , /by

Americans need to be talking more about the problem of human trafficking in order to successfully combat it, the nation’s acting homeland security secretary says.

“We as Americans, again, are not talking enough about this issue,” Chad Wolf said during an event Wednesday at The Heritage Foundation, adding:

Let me make myself clear. In 2018, the U.S. National Human Trafficking Hotline reported nearly 11000 cases of human trafficking that same year. One of our essential partners in the nation’s clearinghouse, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, received more than 18.4 million reports of online child sexual exploitation and abuse. That’s over 50,000 reports per day.

Wolf assumed office in November as acting secretary of  the Department of Homeland Security.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

He told his Heritage audience that the department’s launching of a comprehensive plan—called the Strategy to Combat Human Trafficking, the Importation of Goods Produced with Forced Labor, and Child Sexual Exploitation—meant ultimately to end the scourge of such practices.

Wolf said the strategy is built around five pillars: prevention, protection, prosecution, partnership, and enabling DHS.

“The strategy establishes ‘victims first’ as a DHS-wide policy,” he said.

“As a department, we’re going to continue to balance our law enforcement responsibilities with victim assistance specialists from Immigration and Customs Enforcement immediately attending to the needs of victims. The strategy directs us to train law enforcement to be trauma-informed and survivor-informed and understanding the victims of these crimes have experienced horrors that are sometimes unspeakable.”

The strategy also calls for expanding ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations Victim Assistance Program.

A big part of the new strategy is working with tech companies to eradicate sexual abuse and human trafficking online, Wolf said.

“Our science and technology director will be developing new analytical software [and] digital forensic tools to address these crimes, such as those that begin to develop investigations of livestream abuse,” Wolf said.

The acting DHS secretary defined livestream abuse as when “children [are] forced to appear in front of a web-connected camera to be subjected to sexual abuse, which is then livestreamed over the internet.”

“As you can imagine,” Wolf said, “the nature of livestreaming of abuse makes it difficult for law enforcement to identify a victim.”

In order to respond to such crimes, he said, DHS is going to incorporate training on how to spot livestream abuse cases so they can be investigated and added to the agency’s advanced cybertraining.

It is important to collaborate with tech companies to make it easier to find and bring down human traffickers, Wolf said.

“Currently, when tech companies hand over information on child sexual exploitation for use by investigators, it’s often unreadable and unusable,”  he said. “This inhibits our law enforcement reaching children in danger quickly. Moving forward, we continue to partner with tech companies to find solutions to format that information as best as possible by law enforcement officers.”

Wolf also said that combatting human trafficking takes a toll on the officers who work on such cases day in and day out:

Imagine sitting behind a computer for eight or more hours a day, viewing child sexual abuse material, searching for clues to identify victims so that law enforcement can rescue children in serious danger.

Imagine being that officer [who] uncovers a group of workers living in slave-like conditions in a shed. Imagine the horrors that these individuals go through. This strategy is going to ensure that we place the health and well-being of our employees first.

COLUMN BY

Rachel del Guidice

Rachel del Guidice is a congressional reporter for The Daily Signal. She is a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville, Forge Leadership Network, and The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program. Send an email to Rachel. Twitter: @LRacheldG.

A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Barr’s DOJ Seeks Six Months in Prison for General Flynn

/in , , , , /by

“Governments don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking.  That is against their interests.  They want obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork, and just dumb enough to passively accept it.” –  George Carlin

“The people are the ultimate guardians of their own liberties. In every government on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption and degeneracy … Every government will degenerate when trusted to the rulers of the people alone.” –  President Thomas Jefferson

“Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot long exist and liberty does not exist in the absence of morality.” –  Edmund Burke

The public perception is that no subsequent investigations and actions can fully offset the fact that the Justice Department (FBI, CIA, State Department et.al.) is corrupt beyond repair and that they have been trained and used as weapons in partisan political battles. Attorney General William Barr made sure Robert Mueller’s investigation, a la Andrew Weissmann, ran its course and destroyed several Trump supporters and patriots.  Barr also made sure he protected Rod Rosenstein over a full disclosure in the Michael Flynn case.  Rosenstein offered to wear a wire while speaking to Trump in the Oval Office.

Government Corruption

Apparently, there is no justice for criminal elements who have leaked confidential government information to the democrat-controlled press and lied to Congress and the mainstream media.  Neither is their justice for treasonous acts which allowed foreign nations to gather classified information via an illegal server.  Former Obama administration American intelligence officials were known to have purposely lied and yet the five-year statute of limitations on federal crimes was allowed to expire. FBI agents and their wives/paramours were more than happy to promote the fraudulent Christopher Steele dossier.  FBI agents were fired, but way too many remain.  Even former Republican Senators went out of their way to defame our elected President.

“Solemn” and “prayerful,” the socialist House Democrats feign a reluctance to impeach Donald Trump while conducting a ruthless campaign to disenfranchise the 63 million people who voted for him in 2016 and to destroy those who publicly promoted him. In spite of their newfound adoration of our Constitution, they attribute Mr. Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton to America’s archaic electoral process.

And the Republicans, with their global interventionism and Federal subsidies are hardly more respectful of constitutionality than are the Democrats.  Just last week, Republicans Matt Gaetz (FL), Thomas Massie (KY) and Francis Rooney (FL) joined House Democrats in a resolution to limit President Trump’s Iran War Powers.  Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) supported this unconstitutional resolution.  And Senator Chuck Grassley is working to limit President Trump’s tariff powers.

Where is Justice?

What has happened to Lt. General Michael Flynn illustrates the dangers of big government agencies in league with big media.  The FBI logo on the door is, “Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity.”  So where is justice?

Lest we forget, Obama weaponized the IRS, DOJ, CIA and FBI against his non-supporters, decimated our military, forced Obamacare on US citizens, gave us Common Core, ruined our economy and fanned the smoldering embers of racism.

Is it any wonder those who rallied support for Donald Trump were the first to be targeted by Robert Mueller’s Russian collusion witch hunt?  Obama’s FBI targeted General Flynn, President Trump’s new National Security Advisor.  The three-star General had spent 33 years in intelligence and was the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency when he was fired by Obama for criticism of the President’s national security policies.

Railroading the Innocent

Former FBI Director Comey openly admitted he made the decision to send agents to the White House to interview Trump’s new National Security Advisor, General Flynn on January 24, 2017 regarding his phone call with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. He enlisted his Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe who essentially laid a trap for Flynn when he lied to him about the reason for a meeting with FBI agents Peter Strzok and Joseph Pientka at the White House.

White House officials had spent the earlier part of the week with the FBI overseeing training and security measures associated with their new roles so it was no surprise to Flynn that McCabe had called wanting to send over a couple agents to speak with him.

Michael Flynn was well into the “interview” when he discovered he was being interrogated without having been given the opportunity to have his attorney present. Both agents stated that Flynn had not lied to them about his phone call with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.  In later testimony to Congress, both McCabe and Comey indicated that Flynn had not lied to the agents.

Flynn had asked senior members of the transition team about what, if anything should be communicated to Kislyak about Obama’s recent sanctions on Russia.  He was directed to ask Moscow “not to escalate the situation and only respond … in a reciprocal manner.”  It was a reasonable and measured approach which did nothing to undermine Obama’s sanctions, but sought to limit a harsh response by Russia, and it worked.

It’s a shame that the General never had his day in court.  He would likely have won the case against him.

Obama’s DOJ

Andrew McCabe’s animus toward Flynn was well known.  In 2014, General Flynn backed up a sexual discrimination charge brought by former FBI Supervisory Agent Robyn Gritz against Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe.  Former agent Gritz also submitted a letter directly to Judge Emmet Sullivan on behalf of General Flynn when his original attorneys refused to do so.

Then too, McCabe’s choice of agents to interrogate General Flynn was telling.  Agent Pientka was Bruce Ohr’s handler.  Ohr’s immediate supervisor was Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.  Ohr is a major player in the conspiracy against President Trump and his wife Nellie Ohr, who worked for Fusion GPS, did the research on General Flynn and collaborated with Christopher Steele on the infamous dossier.  Agent Peter Strzok and his paramour Lisa Page, McCabe’s chief legal counsel, loathed Donald Trump and were Never-Trump Democrat partisans.

Yes, the FBI improperly charged General Flynn, and the House Intelligence Committee that found Michael Flynn innocent also found that Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, likely lied to them.  But no charges were made.

Page and Strzok worked closely at the heart of the “small group” activity carrying out the orders passed down from Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, James Comey and Andrew McCabe.  Lynch and Yates broke all protocols, and ran a back-channel with Strzok to VP Pence’s office.  Yet they cleared him of any wrong doing until Robert Mueller appeared.

Acting AG Sally Yates, an Obama holdover along with other senior officials, was eager to trap the General in a lie.  They had the transcript of Flynn’s phone call to the Russian Ambassador.  When asked by VP Pence if he had discussed the recent Obama sanctions against Russia, Flynn said the subject may have come up, but it was not discussed. Pence opined this to media. Yates called White House Counsel, Don McGahn and said that Flynn had been compromised because of discrepancies between the White House public narrative and Flynn’s phone call.

The military intelligence hero who had never lied to agents about the Kislyak phone call, was told by the Obama holdovers that the transcript showed he lied. If the General’s recollection of the phone call is inconsistent with the transcript, it is not a crime. Establishment politicians, VP Pence and Chief of Staff Priebus, went to the President and General Flynn was forced to resign.

Flynn, it was later found, had not lied under oath.  An intelligence officer who saw the transcript of the call said there was no wrongdoing on the part of NSA Flynn.

The General’s interactions with members and representatives of foreign governments were lawful and consistent with what other presidential transition teams had done.  The FBI and DOJ misinterpreted the law and misused their authority to entrap Flynn during an investigation that was without factual merit or legal justification.  The special counsel then pursued Flynn relentlessly, even though he had done nothing wrong.

Guilty Plea

After continued harassment by the FBI and Mueller’s gang, Flynn pleaded guilty on December 1, 2017.  Although he previously insisted he had done nothing wrong and had broken no laws, he finally surrendered under the emotional and monetary pressures. His guilty plea was limited to one charge was also done in order to protect his son from Mueller’s typical modus operandi of targeting innocent family members.  Government prosecutors can harass, intimidate, persecute, and break almost anyone, even an innocent person and drive them to financial ruin. Brutal tactics by overzealous prosecutors are, sadly, endemic in the halls of justice.

Flynn appeared before FISA court Judge Rudolph Contreras who shortly thereafter recused himself.  Contreras was replaced in December of 2017 by Clinton appointee, Judge Emmet Sullivan.

Sidney Powell was in Judge Emmet Sullivan’s courtroom on December 18, 2018, when General Flynn appeared with his attorney, Rob Kelner, partner of Covington & Burling LLP. The prosecution had stated that Flynn had fully cooperated and answered queries by Mueller’s special counsel in over 90 hours of questioning.  They recommended probation and no jail time. The visceral verbal attacks by Sullivan against Flynn were staggering.  In a vicious diatribe, Sullivan actually called the 33-year intelligence officer a traitor…it was obvious he was not privy to the DOJ game plan to destroy Flynn.

Attorney Sidney Powell

Sidney Powell became General Michael Flynn’s attorney in June of 2019. Her web timeline tells the full story.  Flynn has been waiting for exculpation for nearly three years. Attorney Powell has made it clear that the government has been hiding evidence for more than two years that would clear Michael Flynn of charges.  Sidney still does not have a copy of the transcript or recording of General Flynn’s phone call to the Russian Ambassador.

On September 26, 2019, Powell was on the Lou Dobbs program. She stated that before General Flynn left the White House, there was a memo dated January 30th exonerating him from being “an agent of Russia,” that also cleared him of the Logan Act which they knew was preposterous, and they had cleared him of lying to the FBI agents, so there was no reason for him to have left the White House, but they didn’t tell the President that!  Powell subsequently asked the DOJ for 40 different categories of evidence.  She has never received even one piece.

When Powell became Flynn’s lawyer, she wrote a nine-page letter to AG Barr outlining the entire case and asking for listed Brady/Giglio exculpatory evidence.  Yet, she has received nothing.  Read her letter!

Mueller Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack

In late 2018, Obama donor Brandon Van Grack, Mueller’s Flynn prosecutor, was attempting to hide the “small group” deliberations within the FBI. Van Grack apparently did not want the court to know Andrew McCabe was involved in shaping how the Flynn-302 was written. He claimed the FD-302 report “inadvertently” had a header saying “DRAFT DOCUMENT/DELIBERATIVE MATERIAL.” However, there was a deliberative process in place, seemingly all about how to best position the narrative, as seen in the Feb. 14 Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messages.

The Michael Flynn FD-302 was officially entered into the record on February 15th, 2017, per the report. The interview took place on January 24th, 2017. The FD-302 was drafted on January 24th, and then later edited, shaped, and ultimately approved by McCabe, on February 14th, then entered into the official record twenty-two days later on February 15th.

The government actually refused to produce the original January 24th, 2017 302 reports by the FBI agents of their interview with National Security Advisor Flynn, along with every other exculpatory document requested by Sidney Powell.

It was a deliberatively deceptive document from the outset. The Feb 15th, 2017 date was the day after McCabe approved it. Federal prosecutors found themselves forced to admit that for nearly three years, they had wrongly identified the authors of the handwritten notes taken by the FBI agents during their January 24, 2017, interview of then-National Security Advisor Flynn. Prosecutors had told defense counsel (and the court) that the notes written by Peter Strzok had been compiled by FBI Agent Joe Pientka, and those taken by Pientka had been written by Strzok.

This embarrassing mea culpa surely should have added strength to Powell’s plea for access to other withheld evidence. After all, if federal prosecutors made such a basic blunder concerning key evidence, what other mistakes lay buried in the undisclosed evidence?

Prosecutorial Revenge

May 17th, 2017, Robert Mueller was assigned as Special Counsel. Then, the FD-302 report was re-entered on May 31st, 2017, removing the header; paving the way for Mueller’s team to use the content therein. Flynn didn’t lie; but the McCabe crew jumped on the opportunity to frame a lose/lose. Either Flynn accepts a version of the 302 report where he lied; or, Flynn has to take the position that Vice President Mike Pence lied to the nation in the CBS Face The Nation interview.  Link

Van Grack seems to be deep into corruption involving the Michael Flynn case according to Joe diGenova.  And Van Grack has apparently committed many false and fraudulent activities in efforts to indict General Flynn.

The Deep State still rules, and they hate the man who knows all about their corruption.

On January 7, 2020, Federal prosecutors said that Michael Flynn should serve up to six months in prison for lying to the FBI, a stark reversal from December 2018, when the government said that the former national security adviser should serve no jail time because he provided “substantial assistance” in multiple investigations.  They are angry that Sidney Powell has exposed their corruption against Michael Flynn.

Prosecutors asserted in a court filing that Flynn failed to “complete his cooperation” agreement by trying to “thwart the efforts” of prosecutors handling the case of his former business partner, Bijan Rafiekian. Van Grack is claiming Flynn’s assistance in the Special Counsel investigation was “never substantial.”  Hogwash! They’ve reversed their previous statements of Dec. 18, 2018.

According to Mike Flynn’s brother Joseph Flynn, General Flynn went through 19 sessions with Mueller’s special counsel team and approximately 90 hours of tortuous interviews.  Judge Sullivan has set Flynn’s sentencing date for January 28 after rejecting Sidney Powell’s request for Brady Material. Exculpatory evidence is being denied by the DOJ, and the Clinton appointed judge is accommodating the Deep State.

Conclusion

Lt. General Michael T. Flynn (retired) has been railroaded into a plea of guilt that never occurred.  This honorable patriotic intelligence soldier would never purposely lie to anyone.  He is faithful to God, family and country, and always has been.  The attack on this brilliant veteran has been purposeful because he knows the corruption in the intelligence community.  Pray for him and his family and please, help him with his legal expenses by sending donations to https://mikeflynndefensefund.org/.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED: US v Flynn – Motion to Withdraw | Plea | Plea Bargain

VIDEO: 25 Years of Trump?

/in , , , , , /by

catholicvote published the below YouTube video titled 25 Years of Trump? stating:

President Trump has already quietly built a legacy….

© All rights reserved.