VIDEOS: Some material on the DOJ IG report on FISA abuse

Posted by Eeyore

DOJ watchdog submits draft report on alleged FISA abuses to AG Barr

AG Barr has received draft report on FISA abuse allegations

Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz on prosecutors moving forward on charges against McCabe

© All rights reserved.

PODCAST: 152 Ways Trump Is Changing America

They call the Senate the “deliberative body” — and it’s been deliberate all right. This week, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had the honor of presiding over President Trump’s 150th (and 151st and 152nd) judicial confirmation hitting the milestone at record speed — and cementing this administration’s place as one of the most influential court-shapers in history.

It’s not a story the media will want to tell, but the impact that Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell have had on the courts is one of the greatest stories of the 45th presidency. The mark, which puts this administration ahead of Obama’s by more than 50 at this point, is astounding. It means, experts say, that by the end of his term, President Trump may have shaped as much as 30 percent of the bench — a historic legacy that will reverberate through America for generations to come.

McConnell, who has quietly plowed through the nominations at break-neck speed, is most proud of the kind of people Republicans have played a part in elevating. “[The judges] we’ve been nominating believe in the simple, quaint notion that maybe the judges ought to follow the law. I’m amazed that that’s controversial…” he said on Fox News. “We are making an important difference for the country that will last for a very long time and my motto for this Congress is: ‘leave no vacancy behind.'”

Thursday, on “Washington Watch,” Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) had nothing but praise for the president — not just for keeping his promise on the courts, but well surpassing it.

“It’s an amazing number. One hundred and fifty judges in just three years — less than three years. It’s really, really extraordinary. It’s a testament to this administration. President Trump took a pledge. He said, ‘I’m going to nominate conservative, pro-Constitution, pro-life judges to the bench. And he’s done exactly that… And given the history of what the courts have been used for by the Left… this is so significant. And it has generational impact.”

Still, Hawley said, there’s no reason to stop now. “There’s still a lot of work to do. There are still almost 100 open seats on the federal courts at all levels. That’s a bunch of seats. That’s a bunch of judges. We need to fill those with pro-Constitution men and women.” He believes, and we agree, that this is something that will matter for America and for our country — not just for the next two or three years, “but for the next 30 and 40 and 50.” President Trump is going to have the chance to appoint something like a quarter or a third of the entire federal judiciary.

“And… look, [the] judges in our country are extremely powerful. I mean, if you look around the world, we’re kind of an anomaly. Judges in the country have more power for better or for worse than in a lot of other places. So who sits on the bench for those lifetime appointments? Who makes decisions about what our Constitution means and how to interpret it?”

Someday, very soon, Americans will find out for themselves just how significant the president’s investment in the courts has been. Until then, we agree with Senator Hawley: keep it up!

[Begin listening at the 10:53 mark.]


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Lib Syncing on the 2020 Agenda

San Diego Library Renews Drag Fight

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission.

Survivors Debunk Massage Parlor Myths in ‘Defend Dignity’ Video

When someone thinks of prostitution, they may not think of the hundreds of illicit massage parlors—also known as “body rub parlours”—that exist across the world. Instead of working on the street or in a typical brothel, these sexually-oriented businesses operate like a typical massage parlor with one exception: the women there are paid for sex in addition to massages.

Often, these parlors act as mere fronts for the owners’ real money maker: the women whose bodies are sold in order to make a profit.

There are many myths that surround this form of sexual exploitation. In Defend Dignity’s latest video, survivors of body rub parlors discuss and debunk many of those myths in order to shed light on the reality of illicit massage parlors: they are a vehicle for sexual exploitation and trafficking across Canada, where Defend Dignity is located, and across the world.

Seven “popular” (read: pervasive) myths about illicit body rub/massage parlors are broken down here both in the video and in the text below.

Myth #1: Body rub parlors are a safe alternative to street work

Massage parlors are not, in fact, safe for the women who work in them. Survivors describe being hit, spit on, choked, kicked, and beaten. One woman was fined by the owner when she ended a session early after being threatened by a client. Drug use was common and needed for many of the women to get through the day. Another survivor was so scared she didn’t feel it was safe for her to show her face.

Myth #2: Body rubs help to empower women

For many of the women working within illicit massage parlors, their work was anything but empowering. A typical day often looked like this: the women line up for a new client and he’d pick one of them from the lineup like he was choosing a piece of meat. The owners hire women based on looks, and one woman described being made to get naked for the interview. A survivor said, “the owner had power. The buyers had power. I was powerless.”

Myth #3: Men need sex and where else are they going to get it?

This is a common myth among many proponents for commercial sexual exploitation. Not only is it degrading to women, but the belief is also degrading to men. Men are fully capable of controlling their desires, and unfettered access to women’s bodies is not a right. This myth is only a way to justify the rampant male sexual entitlement inherent to the nature of commercial sexual exploitation. As one survivor said: “If sexual exploitation is the fire, then demand is the fuel. Get rid of the fuel, and the fire goes out.”

Myth #4: Proper regulation, oversight, and security measures will make it safer for women

This is another common myth for those who believe legalizing prostitution in all its forms will allow for safer environments and policies for the women involved in prostitution. However, research is showing this is not the case in places like Amsterdam and Germany, where prostitution is legalized, and even in the United States where women report being beaten, controlled, and exploited even when the work is considered legal. “I was exploited sexually, psychologically,” a survivor explains. “How do you regulate that?”

Myth #5: Body rub parlors provide economic opportunity and choice for women because “they can leave whenever they want”

Women who are involved in prostitution are frequently from the most vulnerable populations of society and have very little choice. Many are groomed, manipulated, and even trafficked into prostitution and often end up in illicit massage parlors by no choice of their own. And once in the business of body rubs, it can be almost impossible to get out. Survivors reported being threatened by their owners, beaten, and having no other job opportunities, forcing them to stay even though they wanted nothing more than to leave.

Myth #6: Licensing body rub parlors reduces organized crime

In Canada, where these women were working in body rub parlors, they reported seeing “human trafficking, sex trafficking, drugs, I saw it all.” Another woman was brought over on a false student visa. Illicit massage parlors are just another point in the vast web of sexual exploitation, and no amount of licensing will change that fact.

Myth #7: These are legitimate businesses owned by legitimate people

If these places were legitimate businesses, they certainly wouldn’t be exploiting women for profit. The problem isn’t the massages. It’s the blatant disregard for the women’s human dignity. These weren’t massage parlors: they were brothels and the owners were pimps.

Massage parlors that sell sex are profiting off the exploitation of women and they further fuel the demand for prostitution. Legitimizing and normalizing these types of establishments only serves to fuel the web of exploitation, human trafficking, and suffering for countless women, children, and even men. It’s time to stop and ask the question the video poses: “Should we be helping exploiters get rich or should we be helping women transition out and shut down these havens of sexual exploitation?”

To learn more about Defend Dignity, visit their website here. To read more about NCOSE’s own efforts against demand, visit our project page here.

COLUMN BY

Sommer Porter

COPYWRITER

Sommer Porter is a recent graduate of Brigham Young University, earning her bachelor’s degree in Sociology with a minor in International Development. She is passionate about solving important world issues such as sexual exploitation through non-profit work and advocacy. She has worked with several non-profits, including spending three months conducting a program evaluation for an organization based in Bulgaria. She now works as a copywriter at the National Center on Sexual Exploitation and hopes to pursue a graduate degree in the future.

RELATED ARTICLES:

No, Hustlers is Not Empowering for Women

“I was the first woman to publicly accuse gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar. But I was also abused in my own church.”

The Research-backed Links Between Pornography and Child Sexual Abuse

EDITORS NOTE: This NCOSE column with video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Insurance Discrimination against Victims of Domestic Violence

Domestic violence is any form of abuse done by a perpetrator against another person in a household setting. They often manifest as verbal, physical, emotional, and sexual forms of violence. These acts of violence are usually committed by an intimate partner against the other person. In other cases, they can also be abuse towards children, parents, and the elderly.

Domestic Violence Victims Statistics in the USA

Domestic violence victims statistics in United States is more common than you think. In a minute, 24 individuals experience physical abuse, rape, or stalking by an intimate partner. That accounts for more than 12 million domestic violence victims in a single year. Reportedly, 4 out of 5 of these domestic violence victims are women.

In terms of physical violence, nearly 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men have been severely abused by an intimate partner. Also, almost half of both women and men have been psychologically abused by their intimate partner in their lifetime.

In terms of sexual violence, about 1 in 10 women have been raped by their partners. 81% of these women have reported significant impacts on their physical and mental health. Besides, about 1 in 71 men have been raped in their lifetime; and 35% of them reported similarly damaging impacts from the experience.

In terms of stalking and emotional distress, 1 in 6 women has been stalked in their lifetime. Of these women, two-thirds were stalked by a current or former partner. In contrast, 1 in 19 men have been stalked in their lifetime, and two-fifths of them were stalked by a partner or acquaintance. Many of them repeatedly receive unwanted calls and messages from their perpetrators.

Children likewise witness and experience domestic violence themselves. There is a child witness in 22% of domestic violence cases. 30-60% of abusive partners also abuse the children in the household.

Why is there Insurance Discrimination against Domestic Violence Victims?

These domestic violence victims’ statistics are relatively common. Many insurers of Medicaid plans have reported domestic violence as a reason for their insurance coverage. However, many insurance companies and employers deny, underwrite, exclude, or cancel the coverage for these domestic violence victims.

But why do insurance companies purposely deny claims to these victims of domestic violence? Let us delve in the different reasons insurers of Medicaid plans give as to why they invalidate the victims’ claims.

  1. Some insurers of Medicaid plans state that the victim makes a voluntary lifestyle choice. They argue that the victim has the choice to leave the perpetrator. However, a domestic violence attorney would rebut that domestic violence remains to be a crime. It is definitely not a lifestyle choice, as no one would choose to be abused.
  2. Some insurers of Medicaid plans argue that domestic violence is a risk factor that needs to be further assessed. They need to make sure that they give out affordable insurance. They would deny coverage to worthy claimants on the basis that this is the standard practice in the industry. However, a domestic violence attorney would argue that a person’s likelihood of being a victim should not be used to underwrite their insurance claims purposely.
  3. Some insurers of Medicaid plans may state that providing insurance to a victim grants the perpetrator to an incentive to kill and collect the policy for himself. They would argue that they could be sued for issuing a policy given the information from the domestic violence. However, they fail to realize that most perpetrators are after their assertion of dominance, and not for the money itself.

From the reasons provided above, it is clear that some insurers will do what they can to circumvent the insurance policies. Aside from knowing why they undermine the victims of domestic violence, we also need to understand how they can discriminate them.

Discriminatory practices against domestic violence victims

When applying for insurance, an individual needs a medical record, where the details of the domestic violence exist. These records are then documented in databases. The insurers can request to gain access to these databases as support for the domestic victim’s claims.

In effect, these insurance companies have the authority to penalize and harm the victims of domestic violence. For instance, they may underwrite the basis of the domestic victim’s past claims. In doing so, they would associate these prior claims as an underlying risk associated with the person and could purposely deny coverage based on abuse.

Another way that these insurance companies discriminate the domestic violence victims is through denial of the abuse-related claims. It may happen if the insurers find exclusions in the insurance policy for intentional acts, such as when a domestic perpetrator intentionally sets their house on fire to hurt the victim.

How to fight against discrimination

The government has undergone different actions to make insurance discrimination against domestic violence victims illegal. For instance, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) developed comprehensive four-model legislation to prohibit this discrimination. These four lines of insurance include acts against discrimination in health benefit plans, in disability insurance, in life insurance, and in property and causality insurance, all in favor of abused subjects.

Also, many states have adopted their own legislation that prevents discrimination against victims of domestic violence. Some of these policies vary among states. Likewise, the federal government took actions to encompass all lines of insurance, thus further cementing the model into actual policies that prohibit discrimination.

However, state and federal laws are not enough. Monitoring and implementing them with the help of domestic violence attorneys are a must. If the local state laws do not cover all forms of insurance, the domestic violence attorneys can advocate for legal reform. If there are violations with the insurance law, the domestic violence attorneys can report them and seek remedies.

The victims of domestic violence have suffered enough. In these ways, we can help them get their well-deserved insurance, and effectively fight the insurance discrimination against them.

AG William Barr, CIA Asset and Deep State Impresario

“So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.” –  Voltaire

“There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.” – Baron de Montesquieu

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent, we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” – George Washington


The Rule of Law, (no person or government is above the law) apparently doesn’t apply to members of the Deep State.  Attorneys Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing repeatedly tell Fox News that AG William Barr is cleaning up the intelligence community.  Barr has been at the job for seven months, and as of yet, no one has been charged.

While the many patriots who supported the election of Donald Trump have suffered immeasurably, those who colluded to destroy Trump’s chances of winning and then to frame him with the false Russia narrative, are still running free, writing books and being promoted on mainstream media.  And many of them are still in the AG’s office influencing his actions.

Diana West, author of American Betrayal and The Red Thread stated that when President Trump chose William Barr for his AG, her heart sank, and for good reason.

William Barr and Robert Mueller

Who suggested William Barr?  Why was Barr chosen, given his shocking and deeply criminal/cover-up kingpin background?  My guess would be the President’s closest advisors including the Vice President who was in charge of the Trump transition team.

The new head of the Justice Department has known and admired the president’s adversary, Robert Mueller, for 30 years, and President Trump seems fine with that.  Their relationship, which Barr described in public during his Senate confirmation hearing, is a reminder of the small size of Washington’s legal and law enforcement worlds.

Barr and Mueller first crossed paths at the Justice Department during the George H. W. Bush administration. When Barr served as attorney general under President George H. W. Bush in 1991 and 1992, Mueller was the assistant attorney general heading up the criminal division.  But the relationship goes further. Their wives are close friends who attend Bible study together, and Mueller attended the weddings of two of Barr’s daughters.

During his Senate confirmation hearing, Barr praised Mueller’s “distinguished record of public service” and said the special counsel’s probe is proper and should be allowed to proceed without interference. That’s a sharp contrast to the acting attorney general Barr replaced, Matthew Whitaker, who called Mueller’s appointment by his and Barr’s close friend, Rod Rosenstein, “ridiculous” and “a little fishy,” among other things.  Barr’s high praise for Mueller is the nucleus of my unease with the new AG.

Conservatives have long cited the bond between Mueller and Comey, whose firing by Trump prompted the special counsel’s appointment by Rod Rosenstein, as evidence that Mueller was hopelessly conflicted. And now Barr has failed to charge Comey who deliberately leaked government information to someone outside the Department of Justice (DOJ) in order to prompt a Special Counsel.

Robert Mueller’s modus operandi for the last 30 years hasn’t changed. Sidney Powell’s brilliant expose of the Deep State in her book, Licensed to Lie, exposed the core group of federal prosecutors who broke all the rules, made up crimes, hid evidence, and sent innocent people to prison.

Robert Mueller and his pit bull, Andrew Weissmann, a true villain, ran the cabal of narcissistic federal prosecutors who broke all the rules and rose to great power. This ilk of lying human debris was in charge of the efforts to destroy our duly elected President.  Both Congressman Louie Gohmert’s expose and Louisiana State Senator John Milkovich’s book, Robert Mueller Errand Boy for the New World Order, expose years of corruption and unconscionable conduct…conduct which should have resulted in their disbarment.

William Barr’s Father

William Barr’s father is Donald Barr, who was the headmaster at Dalton School in Manhattan which was founded by progressive educator, Helen Parkhurst who took her cues from developmental psychologist Jean Piaget and education reformers such as John Dewey and Horace Mann.  Jeffrey Epstein became a professor at the Dalton School.

Donald Barr also had a stint in the precursor to the CIA, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) during WWII.  Prior to that, he described himself as having a Marxist upbringing in terms of his own memoirs and ruminations on education.  He had a footnote on the dialectic and stated that as a child he enjoyed being a Marxist and reading Marx and Engels.

Barr wrote a book entitled, Who Pushed Humpty Dumpty? wherein he claimed to have three very strange radical leftist mentors in his life who migrated toward establishment mainstream status basically infiltrating old right conservatism just as did William F. Buckley and Irving Kristol.  Gordon Myrick, Ralph Lynton and Carlton Hayes were the mentors and Diana West is researching all three.

William Barr, CIA Operative

A strong case can be made that William Barr was as powerful and important a figure in the George H. W. Bush apparatus as any other, including Poppy Bush.  As the Attorney General (AG) from 1991 to 1993, Barr wreaked havoc, flaunted the rule of law, and proved himself to be one of the CIA/Deep State’s greatest and most ruthless champions and protectors.  Like father, like son.

  • Barr stonewalled and destroyed the Church Committee that investigated abuses by the CIA, National Security Agency (NSA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
  • Barr joined George H. W. Bush’s legal/intelligence team during Bush’s vice presidency (under President Ronald Reagan).  He rose from assistant attorney general to chief legal counsel to attorney general (1991) during the Bush 41 presidency.
  • Barr was a key player in the Iran-Contra operation, if not the most important member of the apparatus, simultaneously managing the operation while also “fixing” the legal end, ensuring that all of the operatives could do their jobs without fear of exposure or arrest.
  • In his attorney general confirmation, Barr vowed to “attack criminal organizations,” drug smugglers and money launderers. Sounds like hot air!  AG Barr would preserve, protect, cover up, and nurture the apparatus that he helped create, and use Justice Department power to escape punishment.
  • Barr stonewalled and stopped investigations into all Bush/Clinton and CIA crimes, including BCCI banks scandal and BNL CIA drug banking, the theft of Inslaw/PROMIS software, and all crimes of state committed by Bush.  More on this in the next article.
  • Barr left Washington, and went through the “rotating door” to the corporate world, where he took on numerous directorships and counsel positions for major companies. In 2007 and again from 2017, Barr was counsel for politically-connected international Chicago law firm Kirkland & Ellis. Among its other notable attorneys and alumni are Kenneth Starr, John Bolton, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and numerous Trump administration attorneys.  Kirkland and Ellis’s clients including sex trafficker/pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital.
  • Barr successfully advocated the pardon of six former White House aides, including those convicted of lying to Congress or withholding information during the investigation. The six-year probe centered around allegations that the Reagan administration had secretly sold weapons to Iran despite an arms embargo, then clandestinely funneled the proceeds to anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua.

Those pardoned were Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger; Elliott Abrams, former assistant secretary of state; Robert C. McFarlane, former national security adviser, and former CIA officials Clair E. George, Alan D. Fiers and Duane Clarridge. All were in President Ronald Reagan’s Administration.

Arkansas, Iran-Contra and Drugs

Compromised by Terry Reed is the true story of Bill Clinton’s sellout to the CIA.  The expose is Reed’s own eyewitness account.  He was a former CIA asset whose patriotism transformed him into a liability when he refused to turn a blind eye to the Agency’s drug trafficking. While helping the CIA set up its secret operations, he unwittingly compromised his family’s safety, ultimately forcing them to become fugitives.  Realizing that he witnessed the making of a counterfeit President and knew too much about its drug operations, the CIA set out to destroy Reed and his family.

Clinton’s political ambitions and his campaign pledge to create jobs for Arkansans led him to choose CIA support to help in his bid for the Presidency.  He permitted the CIA to use Arkansas factories to make untraceable weapons and he allowed CIA contract agents to train Contra pilots on rural airstrips in support of the war in Nicaragua, effectively evading the Congressional ban on military aid to the Contras.

Clinton split with many other state governments in sending a contingency of the Arkansas National Guard to Honduras to train the Nicaraguan Contras on how to overthrow their Sandinista government. Clinton would also discuss his first-hand knowledge of the operation with now-Trump administration Attorney General William Barr.  As a CIA operative, Barr became the Attorney General of the United States, not once, but twice.

In the 1980s, Terry Reed knew William Barr under a different alias as a CIA liaison to Reagan’s CIA Director William Casey in Arkansas.   Barr was supposed to be running a CIA cutout called Southern Air Transport.  Reed later saw William Barr become AG under Bush 41, and connected him to the man he knew as Robert Johnson.

Clinton’s secret was shared by then Vice President Bush who was also compromised by his involvement.  The Justice Departments of Reagan, Bush and Clinton orchestrated an ongoing cover-up in the Iran-Contra scandal.

The issue of notification of Congress about imminent clandestine activities was at the heart of the Iran-Contra scandal when President Ronald Reagan and CIA Director William Casey specifically ordered that lawmakers be kept in the dark about the infamous, covert arms-for-hostages deals with Iran.

Barr chastised Clinton for his sloppy handling of the delicate operation and his half-brother, Roger Clinton’s, very public fall from grace for cocaine use and then his pardon by Bill. He would later tell Clinton, according to ReedBill, you are Mr. Casey’s fair-haired boy … You and your state have been our greatest asset. Mr. Casey wanted me to pass on to you that unless you f*** up and do something stupid, you’re No. 1 on the short list for a shot at the job that you’ve always wanted. You and guys like you are the fathers of the new government. We are the new covenant.

Clinton was ultimately rewarded with the Presidency.

Attempts to investigate Clinton’s role in the Mena operations and the Iran-Contra affair were allegedly axed by Clinton’s own confidantes, who consistently denied he played a role in the scandal. According to the Wall Street Journal, former IRS investigator William Duncan teamed with Arkansas State Police Investigator Russell Welch in what became a decade-long battle to bring the matter to light. All of the nine separate state and federal probes into the affair failed.

Duncan would later say of the investigations, “[They] were interfered with and covered up, and the justice system was subverted,” and a 1992 memo from Duncan to high-ranking members of the attorney general’s staff notes that Duncan was instructed “to remove all files concerning the Mena investigation from the attorney general’s office.” The attorney general, serving under George H. W. Bush, at that time was William Barr.

Conclusion

In a previous article I asked who vets the nominees for President Trump’s administration?  Apparently, no one vets the administration candidates thoroughly. They use social media to see what the candidate has said about Trump.  Of course, the FBI should investigate every candidate, but the FBI is not trustworthy.

Stay tuned, there’s much more to come on AG Barr.

© All rights reserved.

Michelle Malkin: Sixty Reasons Why the U.S. Refugee Program is a Danger to Us!

Malkin’s timing is excellent because as I write this the Trump Administration is wrestling with an important legal requirement.  In the coming weeks they must decide how many refugees (if any!) will be admitted to the US in FY2020 which begins in 21 days!

Every year since the Refugee Act of 1980 was signed into law by Jimmy Carter, the President determines how many UN-selected refugees will be welcomed to a town near you.  Needless to say the refugee industry is in high gear putting pressure on the White House to get the numbers as high as they can (they are demanding 90,000) because the refugee contractors financial survival depends on high numbers!

Therefore, the timing of the release of Michelle Malkin’s new book couldn’t be better.

Here, at Breitbart, she pulls no punches and tells us about it and directs your attention to 60 reasons (60 Islamists we welcomed to become ‘new Americans’ while they came to do us harm.)

By the way, Trump can legally set the refugee ceiling for FY2020 at Zero!

Exclusive — Michelle Malkin: 60 Terrifying Reasons Trump Is Right to Reduce Refugees

Here are three facts that the most hysterical voices attacking the Trump administration’s proposal to radically reduce or freeze refugee admissions don’t want you to know:

1) They make billions of dollars off the federal refugee resettlement racket;

2) They are protected by the Open Borders Inc. media, which routinely whitewashes the gobsmacking financial self-interest of the “Let Them All In” leeches; and

3) They are never held accountable when untold numbers of the world’s most wretchedly violent and aggrieved refugees come here to sabotage the American Dream.

While left-wing religious groups, tax-exempt non-profits tied or allied to George Soros, and the amnesty-shilling Catholic Church scream “No hate, no fear, everyone is welcome here!” at the top of their lungs, American neighborhoods are being overrun by dangerous foreign criminals and jihad plotters.

David Miliband, president and CEO of International Rescue Committee, attacked the White House plan to slash refugee numbers from an Obama-era high of 100,000 to less than the current historic low of 30,000 as “inhumane.”

Is it because cutting the numbers would cut in to Miliband’s first-class travel and business lunch tabs? Malkin Truth-O-Meter: mostly likely true!

What Miliband neglects to mention in his diatribe against President Trump that his organization is one of 9 behemoth government contractors that works with the hostile United Nations and encrusted State Department social justice warriors to import thousands of new refugees every year with little input from the communities in which they are dumped. Miliband earns nearly a million-dollar salary*** and by one estimate, IRC has raked in nearly $900 million in refugee resettlement profits over the last decade. When you cut through the Statue of Liberty smokescreen of the open borders “charities,” the math is clear:

Reduced refugees means reduced cash flow.

Zero refugees means zero cash flow.

Why should taxpayers continue to see their hard-earned money siphoned away to feed the Trump Resistance Machine and Democrat Party’s Permanent Ruling Majority Project?

There are even more compelling reasons to throttle the refugee flow. According to the logic-twisting, ICE-doxxing cheerleaders at the New York Times, refugee reductions are the real threat to our nation because if we don’t keep importing hordes of Muslim translators from Iraq or Afghanistan, it would “undermine” our national security.

This is just plain ass-backwards.

Continue reading here to see the sixty reasons….

***And see my post here at RRW a few days ago about the push to admit more Iraqi and Afghan translators.   You will see the proof of Miliband’s obscene salary!

By the way, I am seeing a huge push by the contractors and their media lackeys to pressure the President at this very moment to agree to admit tens of thousands of UN-selected refugees to be your new neighbors.

***Alert***

Editor’s note:

In the near future, we will be moving ‘Frauds and Crooks’ to a new, secure hosting company. There will be times when the blog may be unavailable, but rest assured that we are not going away. Once we begin the move, it may take a few days to complete the move. Please be patient and check back.

In the meantime visit RRW by clicking here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Vortex — Spin Cycle

TRANSCRIPT

Not to harp on the scandals in Buffalo, because there are plenty of them going on in dioceses all over the country, but we’d like to draw your attention to something that occurred at the emergency press conference last week of Bp. Richard Malone.

Malone, you will recall, was secretly recorded by his priest secretary in a high-level meeting discussing the case of a homopredator priest sexually harassing a seminarian.

This was just the latest in a string of cases of neglect, deceit and cover-up involving Malone and how he runs his diocese.

The constant flood of accusations against him from within his own chancery has become almost a nightly topic on Buffalo’s local news stations, and no one single local reporter has done any more work on this case than Charlie Specht of WKBW.

Specht has not only reported on Malone and the corruption that follows in the wake of the lying, cheating bishop, he has also confronted him directly at press conferences.

Malone never comes off looking good when Charlie starts asking questions of him.

It was, in fact, Charlie who aired the secret audio recordings showing Malone, again, in a role of trying to cover up and spin the story of the priest in the most favorable light — if that’s possible — with a chief concern being how it would appear in the media.

So here’s the part you need to really be aware of because it goes right to the heart of everything Church Militant has been reporting for years — that too many of the bishops are liars and cheats and instead of actually trying to fix the problem, they do nothing but try to spin the issue.

In short, there is no real desire to reform anything because they really think, down deep, that there is nothing wrong.

To that end, they will not allow reporters or outfits that challenge their evil and wickedness like Church Militant, for example, to gain access and ask the tough questions.

And, if you need proof, video proof, of this tactic, here it is.

Malone’s communications handler, Kathy Spangler, sent out a note to local Buffalo meeting inviting only certain reporters to the emergency press conference.

Conspicuously absent from the list: Charlie Specht.

And as background, institutions never — repeat, never — contact media outlets for a press conference and tell them which reporters are allowed in.

The only reason that would be done is to prevent a specific reporter from asking searing, intelligent, probing questions that would instantly expose the evil.

At the press conference, this exact issue arose when a local reporter asked Malone point blank why he was trying to control who was allowed to attend and ask questions.

He of course deflects and lets it appear that it was Spangler’s decision — watch this exchange.

That is the most shameless display of spin control and, frankly, bull pucky you will ever hear.

Malone told Spangler that Specht was not to be allowed in, and she made up a cock and bull story about her innocently just inviting reporters she regularly worked with — and oh yeah, the room she chose was really small and not a lot of people would fit.

Kathy, stop lying.

In her deliberately manipulative invite she sent to Buffalo media, she gave the names of who was invited and then bluntly added, “No replacements permitted.”

That is the phrase that gives proof of her lie that she is inviting people she was familiar with and worked with.

Media outlets determine who goes and covers a story from their staff, not the sponsor of the press conference.

It would be much more honest for her to have just come out and said that Malone didn’t want Charlie Specht there and refuse to say why, although anyone with a detectable brain wave would have known why Malone doesn’t want Specht throwing out questions.

Bad bishops don’t want to be challenged. They don’t like being exposed. They don’t like their filth and double-dealing and machinations being exposed to the light of day.

That’s why Church Militant is never granted an interview by these men and it is also why the Catholic establishment media is.

The undynamic duo of Malone/Spangler is just further proof of the never-ending need for an independent Catholic Media.

And for the record, as a life-long reporter, you won’t hear this story reported in the Catholic establishment lapdog media because they aren’t real reporters and they don’t care.

Any real journalist would be outraged at this blatant attempt to control the message by excluding a hard-hitting reporter.

Even the fake news Luciferian media threw a hissy fit when Trump pulled the press credentials of CNN’s Jim Acosta a few months back.

The unaccountable hierarchy is simply out of control. They let homosexual men run the Church, they lie and cover it up, they refuse to tell the truth — and now they are blocking even secular media types from asking tough questions.

Good thing it’s not a massive, massive crisis.

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Levels and Layers They Are All Going Down

What we must come to understand is that this peaceful overthrow of the deep state and he shadow government has begun. Quite frankly, it began about three years ago but as of recent, with the Mueller witch hunt exposed for what it was, an illegal treasonous failed coup d’etat attempt against a duly elected and most popular President I might add, the hunters have now become the hunted. Many of us are beyond frustrated and ask why don’t we just arrest them. Some are more jaded and apathetic having been programmed over our lifetime to believe “they”, those in power, will never be held accountable. I am here to say, have faith, trust the plan. It is indeed unfolding as it should. They are all going down. It’s either us or them. We have reached steps 6, 7 and 8 on the scale of discovery and action. Wake up. Get others to wake up. Get with the program. This is for all the marbles!

Layers and Levels

IG report did not indict Comey. “No worries”, FISA will bring down the house. Stay tuned. For starters, just know that very thorough investigations are underway on many, many fronts. This goes far beyond investigating the investigators from the Mueller witch hunt. There is also the Epstein case. This too is well underway and this alone will bring down the house. Then there are scores and scores of other issues being addressed like re-opening the 911 investigation as bits of data are now coming out as I will write about soon. Meanwhile you can check out Military Alert as well as this article and this video. Not too mention that the state department has the 33,000 e-mails that Clinton bleached. Trump told us this at the Orlando rally in 2019 as well as other sources including Joe Degenova. We must also come to realize that the Global Financial Reset is also in motion and Trump has begun to reverse globalism. Learn more here in this weekly report. We will see the Federal Reserve and the IRS  in broad daylight after the Trump landslide election as Trump restores power to the power with perhaps a gold backed currency as the global economic and monetary systems are realigned. I can go on and on and on. Then there is eight years of President Don Jr. We do have a chance to resurrect America. But there are no guarantees.

Conclusion

This is America’s second revolution. It is an intel battle. Evil is being exposed. Truths are being revealed in the age of Trump transparency. We haven’t seen anything seen yet. Just know this. Bit by bit. Hour by hour, day by day, we are drawing in on them. They are panicking. They are desperate. They have NOTHING on Trump. Timing and optics. If you cannot see this yet, if you cannot see that we are hunting them down with the hammer of justice about to begin to fall, layer by layer and level by level, then you must seek new sources for content in the age of fake news. Get with the program. Oh and yes, in due time, we shall take down the Clinton’s and the Obama’s and so many in between. The Bush’s are already under control.

Brace yourself for your stable data to be shaken to the core, for your world to be rocked, as the disruptive uncomfortable truths are revealed and people are hauled away. Day by day, layer by layer, level by level. This swamp runs far deeper than you can fathom. Stay safe. Be prepared as this is a dangerous fight for our nations survival that will go on for some years to come. But know this. With God, Trump and we the people, we are winning. And so I ask you, when your children ask you “What were you doing when the global governance was being trust down the throat of America and the world, what will your answer be?” Freedom, it’s up to us. Get busy fighting the fight. Get busy living or get busty dying. WWG1WGA

Liberals Propose First Gun Grab Since Lexington and Concord

One wishes the media would stop using absurdly lazy phrases like “mandatory gun buybacks.” Unless the politician they’re talking about is in the business of selling firearms, it’s impossible for him to “buy back” anything. No government official — not Joe Biden, not Beto O’Rourke, not any of the candidates who now support “buyback” programs — has ever sold firearms.

What Democrats propose can be more accurately described as “the first American gun confiscation effort since Lexington and Concord,” or some variation on that theme. Although tax dollars will be meted out in an effort to incentivize volunteers, the policy is to confiscate AR-15s, the vast majority of which have been legally purchased by Americans who have undergone background checks and never used a gun for a criminal purpose.

The “mandatory gun buyback” exemplifies the impracticality and absurdity of do-somethingism. Democrats want to turn millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals overnight for refusing to adhere to a law that retroactively transforms the exercise of a constitutional right into a crime.

And they do it without any evidence that it would curtail rare mass shootings or save lives.

While national confiscation would be unprecedented in American history, we already possess hard evidence that bans of assault rifles don’t alter gun violence trends. Gun homicides continued to drop steeply after an “assault weapons” ban expired in 2004.

It’s also worth noting that in 2017, the last year of available FBI data, there was a near-historic low of 7,032 murders with handguns, and 403 by “rifles” of any kind, not only “assault weapons.” To put that in perspective, there were 1,591 knife homicides during that same span, 467 people killed with blunt objects, and another 696 with fists and kicking.

Although a number of Democrats now unequivocally support a “buyback,” no one has explained how the procedure will unfurl. What will the penalty be for ignoring the “buybacks”? Fines? Prison terms? Will local police be tasked with opening case files on the 100 million homes of suspected gun owners who are armed with hundreds of millions of firearms, or will it be the FBI?

Maybe Democrats will propose “paying back” family members and neighbors who snitch on gun owners? How else will they figure out who owns these AR-15s? There is no national tracking of sales.

Then again, many Democrats support “universal background checks,” which would necessitate a national database. So subsequent confiscations would be far easier, I suppose. (I can remember a time not very long ago when liberals accused a person of being a tin-foil-hatted nutter for merely suggesting that anyone had designs on their guns.)

It’s unclear to me if every candidate supports mandatory buybacks. Imprecision, after all, is the hallmark of gun control rhetoric. Of course a noncoercive “buyback” program wouldn’t work either because no patriotic American is going to sell his firearms under market value. If you pay gun owners more than market value, they will surely turn a profit and purchase new weapons.

The criminal class and deranged would-be mass shooters have absolutely no incentive to participate, anyway. But you knew that.

Then there is the little matter of constitutionality. I’ve noticed an uptick in gun grabbers — a phrase that’s no longer hyperbole — arguing that Americans don’t need AR-15s to hunt, as if it mattered.

Although ARs are used by hunters, I’m certain nothing in the Second Amendment mentions hunting, because the right of self-defense — an individual concern, as well as a collective one — has nothing to do with shooting deer and everything to do with protecting Americans from those who endeavor to strip them of their inalienable rights.

The District of Columbia v. Heller decision found that the Second Amendment protected weapons “in common use by law-abiding citizens.” The AR-15 clearly meets both criteria. It’s one of the most popular guns in America. Its semi-automatic mechanism is the same mechanism found in a majority of other legal firearms in the nation.

The arguments for a ban on “assault weapons” — a purposefully elastic phrase that allows the liberal legislator’s imagination to run wild — is centered on aesthetics, on the false claim that the AR is a “weapon of war,” and on the firearm tastes of a handful of deranged, sociopathic murderers.

Democrats and their allies like to mock these sorts of arguments as nothing more than semantics; mostly because they need to conflate and euphemize terms to make their arguments work. It’s how they generate favorable polling. I’m sure you’ve heard about the popularity of gun-control measures. But like “Medicare for All,” and other vaguely positive sounding policies, once voters learn what specifics entail, those numbers tend to settle along the usual partisan lines.

If you think you’re going to have overwhelming support for “mandatory gun buybacks” when people learn that you’re really talking about “the confiscation of 20 million guns,” you’re fooling yourself.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of “First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History With the Gun, From the Revolution to Today.” Twitter:.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Is Support For Gun Control Going Up Or Down Or Staying The Same?

Trump Meets With Lawmakers, Could Soon Announce Gun Control Plan

Dem Governors Push Trump, McConnell To Back Anti-Gun Measures

Have they lost their minds?

What San Francisco Got Wrong About the NRA and Its Definition of Domestic Terrorism


Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


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

News Flash: Legally Buying a Gun Isn’t So Easy After All

Earlier this month, an intrepid news reporter for Business Insider decided to see for herself how easy it was to get a gun from Walmart, even as gun control activists were calling on the retail giant to stop selling firearms. She then recounted her experience in an admirably straightforward article.

Spoiler alert: it didn’t work out so well for her or for gun control advocates who hope to convince Americans that guns are just too easy to get.

There’s a whole genre of gun control rhetoric centered around all the things that are supposedly more difficult to get or to do in America than buying a gun.

Barack Obama was a frequent practitioner of this trope, insisting guns were easier to get than computers, books, and even fresh vegetables.

One author went so far as to claim it was easier to buy a gun in America than to take a shower or to find toilet paper in a public bathroom.

Of course, America is a big country, and not everyone has the same experience buying guns from sea to shining sea. In New York City, for example, buying a firearm will take an eligible person many months and hundreds of dollars, apart from the price of the gun itself. In the nation’s capital, you can’t shop for firearms at all, because there are no stocking firearm dealers. And if you want to buy a gun in San Francisco, you’re just plain out of luck, as the local officialdom ran off the last dealer some time ago.

But Hayley Peterson conducted her investigation in Virginia, one of the more straightforward places to buy a gun. Virginia has stricter laws than the U.S. government for firearm purchases. But an eligible person who comes prepared to a gun shop can still hope to fill out a couple of forms, receive a timely answer from the Commonwealth’s “instant check” system, and leave with the firearm at least in the same day, if not considerably sooner.

Private businesses, however, may have their own policies that add additional time and complications to this process, as Ms. Peterson would soon discover.

Ms. Peterson was not being particularly choosy about the gun she wanted to buy. She understood that Walmart does not sell handguns or semi-automatic rifles. Her main criteria, it seems, was to find the most inexpensive gun she could.

Her first hurdle was that Walmart does not advertise its gun sales, and only some of its stores sell guns. In fact, Ms. Peterson learned that neither Walmart’s website nor even the corporate personnel who answered its telephones would provide information on which Walmart stores stock firearms. It took her hours and dozens of calls before she found a location that acknowledged it sold guns onsite.

When Ms. Peterson did find a Walmart stocking guns, the selection was limited. The guns were also locked behind glass and strung together with zips ties and a metal cable, so customers could not handle them without a sales associate’s assistance.

Ms. Peterson was able to inspect a gun on her first trip to Walmart. She did not get to complete her transaction, however, because a manager told her there was no one working that day who was authorized to sell firearms. Only select Walmart employees go through the enhanced vetting and special training necessary to be eligible to sell firearms.

Ms. Peterson returned to the same Walmart store two days later. This time there was an authorized seller on hand.

But before the reporter could even finish the paperwork, the employee had identified a problem. The address on Ms. Peterson’s driver’s license, which she was using as her official form of identification for the purchase, didn’t match her actual home address. Thus, Ms. Peterson would have to provide additional substantiation of her actual address for the transaction to proceed.

That’s the point at which the young reporter decided to abandon her attempt to buy a gun at Walmart.

Her assessment: “Overall, the experience left me with the impression that buying a gun at Walmart is more complicated than I expected, and that Walmart takes gun sales and security pretty seriously.”

Welcome to your first experience with American gun culture, Hayley Peterson. Complexity, security, and taking rules seriously are par for the course.

In fact, law-abiding gun owners have been routinely and patiently jumping through a variety of governmental and private sector hoops to exercise their right to keep and bear arms throughout modern history.

But when gun control proposals focus on the hoops for their own sake, rather than as safeguards against the diversion of guns for nefarious purposes, then it’s time for gun owners to take a stand in favor of their rights. With more and more gun control proponents admitting that what they really want is to keep guns away from everybody, law-abiding or not, and even take away the guns people already own, this is more necessary than ever.

As for Ms. Peterson, she didn’t get her gun, but she did produce an honest and revealing article.

And even we might admit that it’s easier to get a gun than to get honest reporting on firearms out of most of the “mainstream” media.

RELATED ARTICLES:

NASCAR Takes a Hard Left

The Texas Legislature Passed Ten Bills Protecting Your Second Amendment Rights During the 2019 Session. These Measures All Take Effect on September 1.

NRA Statement on Walmart’s Decision to Change Firearms Policy

California: Anti-Gun Legislation Passes Appropriations Committees and Heads to the Floor

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

How 50 Years of No-Fault Divorce Gave Us a Throwaway Culture

Fifty years ago this week, Ronald Reagan made what he later admitted was one of the worst mistakes of his political life: As governor of California, he signed a bill bringing no-fault divorce to his state.

California was the first state to take the plunge, but by no means the last. Reagan’s signature unleashed what became a national divorce revolution.

Within five years, 44 states would follow suit and pass some form of no-fault divorce.

Many lawmakers who pushed for it had fine intentions. At the time, the divorce regime had become a sham that made a mockery of the legal system. Because a judge had to find “fault” in one spouse to grant a divorce, spouses would often make phony allegations against each other, sometimes even working in tandem to fool a judge into granting them a divorce.

Obviously, this was a problem. Some lawyers called the trend “institutionalized perjury.” They thought it would be much better to lower the barriers to divorce and thus remove the incentive to make phony allegations.

Yet 50 years later, the perverse incentive to commit perjury seems utterly miniscule when compared with the wreckage that came from the divorce revolution.

The consequences of no-fault divorce are almost impossible to overstate. It was like dropping a nuclear bomb into our nation’s social ecosystem—the blast wave has hit millions of families, and the fallout is worse than we could have imagined.

The Blast Effect

As one might expect, the nation saw a spike in divorce rates following the enactment of no-fault divorce laws. Between 1960 and 1980, the divorce rate more than doubled and remained relatively steady into the 1990s.

Generation X was the first of the collateral damage. Roughly half of all children born to married parents in the 1970s saw their parents divorce, a massive increase from just 11% of kids born in the 1950s.

Two of those Gen Xers were named Tom DeLonge and Mark Hoppus. They later would become the lead singers and the guitarist and bassist, respectively, for the popular punk band Blink-182.

DeLonge and Hoppus were both born in the 1970s in Reagan’s California. By the early ‘90s, they had both felt the sting of their parents’ divorces.

Their song “Stay Together for the Kids” captured the cry of a generation reeling from divorce. The song’s original music video pictured a wrecking ball destroying a house—a visual metaphor for the chaos divorce brought to their homes.

DeLonge later explained: “You look at statistics that 50% of parents get divorced, and you’re going to get a pretty large group of kids who are pissed off and who don’t agree with what their parents have done.”

He added: “Is this a damaged generation? Yeah, I’d say so.”

And the damage continues. Each year, 1 million U.S. kids see their parents get divorced. Half of all children at some point will see their parents split. And the most common reason now given for divorce? Lack of commitment, at 75%.

In a positive sign, Gen Xers and millennials seem to have taken lessons from their parents and are getting divorced at lower rates. Between 2008 and 2016, the divorce rate actually dropped by 18%.

But this comes as fewer people are choosing to get married in the first place. Many millennials are choosing to cohabitate rather than get married—a path that leaves divorce off the table from the outset.

But ironically, cohabitation offers them less security than marriage. It may keep one’s options open and eliminate the legal hassle of a divorce, but it makes bailing on a committed relationship that much easier.

Defining Marriage Away

One hallmark of a healthy and stable country is that contracts are enforceable. If two people sign a contract, one person can’t just bail without paying the consequences.

A contract has to be binding on all parties. Otherwise, it’s worth nothing, and people will stop making contracts altogether.

No-fault divorce essentially made void the contract of marriage. It told either party that they could break their vows and get divorced on the basis of “irreconcilable differences.”

Those vows derive from what our society once understood marriage to be: a permanent reality that, once joined, takes on a transcendent quality that places it beyond the reach of any human whim. This transcendent vision of marriage was the basis of its legal recognition, and the children that resulted from the union made its stability all the more important.

But no-fault divorce cut ties with this vision. Marriage vows were reduced to mere poetry for a romantic ceremony and evacuated of any legal substance.

For all legal purposes, “as long as we both shall live” became “as long as one of us doesn’t change our minds on a dime.” Spouses could no longer depend on courts to enforce their marriage vows because, legally, marriage was now severed from those vows.

People often think of same-sex marriage as the great Rubicon moment that changed America’s view of marriage forever. That’s not true.

No-fault divorce is the original rupture in our view of marriage. Same-sex marriage was just the latest mutation to an institution long robbed of its original meaning.

Millennials are onto something when they reject marriage as it’s widely understood and practiced. They see it for the contradiction that it has become. Better to shack up and take no vows, they say, than to take vows that won’t be kept.

Reckoning With the Throwaway Culture

Easy divorce is part of what Pope Francis calls the “throwaway culture.” We throw away unwanted trash, unwanted babies, and unwanted spouses. Such is life in a culture that rejects the transcendent, the idea that we owe duties to each other by virtue of being human—and by virtue of our word.

This throwaway culture is the great cost of our contemporary religion, which is self-actualization. The creed of our day is that each person’s private happiness and self-actualization is the ultimate good. Kids, the unborn, and spouses we no longer love must bow the knee to our own personal quests for happiness.

But this contemporary vision shows signs of weakness.

For all our secular disenchantment, we still crave the transcendence and permanence offered by marriage as it was once understood. We long for bonds that don’t break.

Being spiritual creatures, we ache for solidarity, and we seek it, even if from 77-year-old politicians promising to “bring people together.”

No-fault divorce sent us looking for permanence and transcendence in all the wrong places. The irony is that while many of us decry the wreckage of divorce, it’s not clear we are willing to realign our values to rebuild what’s fallen apart.

For those who are willing, the solution is available: We must begin to prize fidelity in relationships over our ever-evolving desires for self-actualization.

Legal changes to reverse no-fault divorce should come as well, but above all, we need a culture that prizes fidelity—and shames infidelity. Spouses who seek a divorce for weak reasons need an obstacle in their path, one that isn’t just legal, but cultural. It should be socially costly to break our vows.

Fidelity is the only thing strong enough to rebuild the basic blocks of our society. It’s what the Bible calls “covenant faithfulness,” and in the long run, it’s the most beautiful life available to us.

It’s also the most rewarding, because self-centered happiness is a fool’s errand. We don’t ultimately find joy in creating our own reality, but in finding our rightful place within it.

Relational bonds are much more easily torn apart than melded from scratch and maintained. We live in the aftermath of 50 years of bond-fraying, and it now falls to us to rebuild.

It may be that in the 21st century, the most heroic act for a young American will be to play a small but faithful part in this rebuilding effort—to get married and cleave to one’s spouse, till death do they part.

COMMENTARY BY

Daniel Davis is the commentary editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcastSend an email to Daniel. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: How the Sexual Revolution Gave Us Identity Politics


Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


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

Crimes by Illegal Immigrants Widespread Across U.S.

The decision by a California appeals court Friday overturning the conviction of an illegal immigrant who shot and killed Kate Steinle in San Francisco in 2015 once again put the national spotlight on the serious problem of crimes committed by people in the U.S. illegally.

The appeals court in San Francisco overturned the conviction of Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate on a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Garcia-Zarate was earlier found not guilty of first- and second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, and assault with a semi-automatic weapon.

Garcia-Zarate said he unwittingly picked up a gun, which he said was wrapped in a T-shirt, and it fired accidentally. The appeals court overturned his conviction on the firearm possession charge because it said the judge at his trial failed to give the jury the option of finding him not guilty on the theory that he only possessed the gun for a moment.

Opponents of federal efforts to enforce the immigration laws enacted by Congress repeatedly claim that illegal immigrants are “less likely” to commit crimes than U.S. citizens—and thus represent no threat to public safety.

But that’s not true when it comes to federal crimes.

Noncitizens constitute only about 7% of the U.S. population. Yet the latest data from the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics reveals that noncitizens accounted for nearly two-thirds (64%) of all federal arrests in 2018. Just two decades earlier, only 37% of all federal arrests were noncitizens.

These arrests aren’t just for immigration crimes. Noncitizens accounted for 24% of all federal drug arrests, 25% of all federal property arrests, and 28% of all federal fraud arrests.

In 2018, a quarter of all federal drug arrests took place in the five judicial districts along the U.S.-Mexico border. This reflects the ongoing activities of Mexican drug cartels. Last year, Mexican citizens accounted for 40% of all federal arrests.

In fact, more Mexicans than U.S. citizens were arrested on charges of committing federal crimes in 2018.

Migrants from Central American countries are also accounting for a larger share of federal arrests, going from a negligible 1% of such arrests in 1998 to 20% today.

Critics will try to downplay the importance of the Justice Department’s report by pointing out that the majority of crimes in the United States are handled by prosecutors in state and local courts.

But even there the data is shocking.

A recent report from the Texas Department of Public Safety revealed that 297,000 noncitizens had been “booked into local Texas jails between June 1, 2011 and July 31, 2019.” So these are noncitizens who allegedly committed local crimes, not immigration violations.

The report noted that a little more than two-thirds (202,000) of those booked in Texas jails were later confirmed as illegal immigrants by the federal government.

According to the Texas report, over the course of their criminal careers those illegal immigrants were charged with committing 494,000 criminal offenses.

Some of these cases are still being prosecuted, but the report states that there have already been over 225,000 convictions. Those convictions represent: 500 homicides; 23,954 assaults; 8,070 burglaries; 297 kidnappings; 14,178 thefts; 2,026 robberies; 3,122 sexual assaults; 3,840 sexual offenses; 3,158 weapon charges; and tens of thousands of drug and obstruction charges

These statistics reveal the very real danger created by sanctuary policies. In nine self-declared sanctuary states and numerous sanctuary cities and counties, officials refuse to hand over criminals who are known to be in this country illegally after they have served their state or local sentences.

This refusal to cooperate with federal immigration officials suggests that state and local officials supporting the sanctuary movement believe it’s better to let these criminals return to their communities rather than being removed from this country.

Not all of their constituents would agree.

The Texas report is careful to note that it is not claiming “foreign nationals” commit “more crimes than other groups.” Whether that is true or not—and it is certainly true when it comes to federal crimes—is irrelevant.

What is highly relevant to the current debate about immigration policy is that the Texas report “identifies thousands of crimes that should not have occurred and thousands of victims that should not have been victimized because the perpetrators should not be here.”

We know that in Texas and around the country some individuals would be alive today—and their families would not be mourning their loss—if we had a secure border and an effective interior enforcement system.

Instead of trying to obstruct enforcement of our immigration laws, state and local officials should do everything they can to help the feds reduce the very real—and all too often fatal—dangers posed by criminal illegal immigrants.

One of the worst recent examples of a state official who refuses to help federal immigration authorities carry out their duties is North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper.

The Democratic governor recently vetoed a bill that would require local law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Cooper did so just days after Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents captured an illegal immigrant charged with first-degree rape and indecent liberties against a child.

The man arrested in that crime was on the loose because he had been released from custody by county officials, despite the existence of a federal detainer warrant for him.

Politicians who declare their jurisdictions to be sanctuaries for illegal immigrants who commit crimes are needlessly endangering their law-abiding citizens. That is shameful.

Originally published in Fox News

COMMENTARY BY

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

D.I.C. (Democrat Inspired Criminals): 6 suspects in brutal stabbing of Maryland man are MS-13 members in US illegally, ICE says – Fox News

Criminologists Mislead Us


Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


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

Rep. Omar Declares Support for Terrorist Financier’s Company in her native Somalia

A controversial Minnesota congresswoman known for racially inflammatory anti-Semitic views has publicly declared her support for a terrorist organization in her native Somalia. Democrat Ilhan Omar is demanding that a telecommunications company founded and operated by a renowned terrorist financier, receive protection from that country’s government and peacekeeping forces. An Israeli-based newspaper broke the story a few days ago, but the American mainstream media has been notably silent on the matter.

The company, Hormuud Telecommunications, was created and is operated by Ahmed Nur Ali Jim’ale, a chief financier of alShabaab, an east African-based jihadist group that serves as Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Somalia. In her social media account, Omar writes that Somalia’s government and peacekeeping forces need to protect Hormuud and the Somali telecom industry as they make enormous contributions to the economy and provide vital services. “During my visit to Somalia in 2011, I was surprised by the quick evolution of technology in Somalia,” Omar posts, indirectly praising the telecom firm with terrorist ties. The Israeli article includes the links to a pair of United Nations Security Council reports documenting Hormuud’s direct support for al-Shabaab.

According to the first U.N. report:

“Ali Ahmed Nur Jim’ale (Jim’ale) has served in leadership roles with the former Somali Council of Islamic Courts, also known as the Somali Islamic Courts Union, which was a radical-Islamist element. The most radical elements of the Somali Islamic Courts Union eventually formed the group known as alShabaab.” The document also identifies Jim’ale, a prominent businessman who controls Hormuud, as one of al-Shabab’s chief financiers. “Hormuud Telecommunications is a company identified as being one of the single largest financiers of al-Shabaab, which includes large lump sum payments to al-Shabaab in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and these payments toal-Shabaab were facilitated by Jim’ale,” the U.N. report says, adding that “Hormuud Telecommunications has provided key material and logistical support to al-Shabaab to include weapons, private fighters, and ammunition.”

The second U.N. Security Council report, published last year, links a terror attack that killed hundreds in 2017 to Hormuud. The event is described as the deadliest terror attack in Somalia’s history, carried out with a large vehicle-borne improvised explosive device. “Two employees of the principal Somali telecommunications provider, Hormuud Telecom Somalia Inc., were also prosecuted in connection with the attack, for facilitating the entry of the large vehicle-borne improvised explosive device through the Sinka Dheere checkpoint on the outskirts of Mogadishu,” according to the U.N. report.

Considering this documented history of terrorist activity, it’s outrageous that Hormuud is endorsed by a member of the United States Congress. Omar has been plagued by controversy since becoming one of the first—along with Michigan Democrat Rashida Tlaib—Muslim women elected to Congress. The mainstream media has praised the legislators for being part of a “historic freshmen class with more women and minorities than ever.” The reality is that there is more than enough credible information for the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to open criminal investigations into Omar. Back in July Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint with the U.S. House of Representatives Office of Congressional Ethics calling for a full investigation into potential crimes tied to allegations that Omar may have married her biological brother.

In the complaint Judicial Watch documents substantial, compelling and unrefuted evidence that Omar may have committed the following crimes in violation of both federal law and Minnesota state law: perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, state and federal tax fraud and federal student loan fraud. At the very least, such violations constitute a breach of the Code of Ethics for Government Service which subject officeholders to a higher standard.

RELATED ARTICLES:

AOC Shows Support for Antifa-Associated Protesters

Judicial Watch Files Complaint with Rhode Island Supreme Court against U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse for Unauthorized Practice of Law

Judicial Watch Gets Bruce Ohr FBI 302S

Ilhan Omar Asked for Protection of Somali Company Linked to Terror

RELATED VIDEO: FITTON: IT’S About Time the DOJ Prosecuted McCabe.

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

Comey and the De-class According to Plan

When you look up in the dictionary the words “Bad Cop” you see a picture of James Comey. I believe that Comey will be indicted, prosecuted, charged and justice will be served. Do not be swayed by the former FBI Director’s smug comments or by the fact that AG Barr has not YET, indicted Comey. I believe it is coming in the next phase of the de-class and all according to plan.

The DOJ and the President have barely begun. Remember, please, we are at war to resurrect America and restore power back to the people. This is an intelligence battle of which we are winning. The pendulum has now shifted. They have gone from being the hunters to the hunted. Team Trump is creating the awareness with the release of the IG report, that James Comey is as corrupt as they come. His behavior indicates that he believes he is above the law. Comey continues to further bury himself. He and others, are falling for the trap. FISA brings down the house. Get ready.

The IG Report

In this 79 page IG report, you will find that Comey violated FBI policies 25 times. This shows in part, that this was not an oversight nor an error, nor a coincidence. What it does indeed show is a series of premeditated and calculated moves, (violation of FBI policy), of a political agenda to remove a duly elected and most popular President in what turned out to be a failed illegal and treasonous coup d’ etatattempt which has come to be known as the Mueller witch hunt. And what is the punishment for treason? Have a look and listen here from President Trump. When you get to the video of the President got to marker 42:19 for the biggest news story of the century that never really made the news. It’s an intel battle. Timing and optics. Remember that. We are now winning this battle.

And remember, there are three things that cannot long be hidden. The sun, the moon, and the truth. This is the age of Trump transparency. We are winning. Stay the course. Trust the plan and remember, freedom, it’s up to us.

FLORIDA: Top 3 counties with the highest number of Red Flag Law gun confiscations — Polk, Pinellas, Broward

Since the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act went into effect, 2,380 risk protection orders have been issued across the state of Florida, according to data from the Florida Clerks of Court Operations Corporation. Polk County has issued the most of any county at 378, with Pinellas County close behind with 350. Broward County, home to Parkland, has issued 327, Volusia County has issued the next most with 173, then Miami-Dade County with 127 and Hillsborough County with 116.

In the Tampa Bay Times article ’Red flag’ laws all the rage after shootings. So what are they? reports:

In Florida, new gun restrictions were passed and signed into law in March 2018 that included a red flag provision. Florida’s red flag law can be used to prevent people who have been deemed a danger to themselves or others from having a firearm.

[ … ]
Law enforcement agencies can petition a court for a risk protection order if a person poses a significant threat to themselves or others by having a gun or ammunition.

The court must have a hearing on the petition within 14 days, during which the court can issue a temporary risk protection order. The temporary order would require the person to surrender all firearms and ammunition and ban them from buying or possessing guns.

If the court gives out a full risk protection order at the hearing, it can require people to surrender their guns and ammunition and prevent them from buying or possessing guns for a year. At the end of the order, the person appeals to a judge to determine whether the order should be extended in one year increments, according to Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Cpl. Jessica Mackesy.

If the order is dropped and the person wants their guns back, they can get them from the law enforcement agency that took them.

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLES:

President Trump in one tweet shows why ‘red flag’ laws are so very dangerous

Red Flag laws are a cover-up for the failures of government to see and act on real red flags

Red Flags Surrounding Red Flag Laws

Guns Prevent Thousands of Crimes Every Day, Research Shows

7 Reasons to Oppose Red Flag Guns Laws

Gun Rights Don’t Depend on Statistics

Response from Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL) on Gun Control/Red Flag Laws

Pelosi And Schumer Beat The Same Gun Control Drum Following Texas Shooting 

RELATED VIDEOS:

Short Video on Red Flag Laws

Red Flag Red Flags.