Loading a New Database of Defensive Gun Use

For well over a year, The Daily Signal has published a monthly series highlighting lawful gun owners who used their firearms to protect their liberties, lives, or livelihoods.

Although these articles recount just a dozen or so stories each month, the incidents are selected from hundreds of other, similar examples.

Those defensive gun uses are worth highlighting, too. That’s why The Heritage Foundation is introducing its Defensive Gun Use Database, an interactive map featuring all of the news accounts from police reports that we couldn’t fit into installments of the monthly series.

What’s the Defensive Gun Use Database?

The database features an interactive map that allows users to locate instances of defensive gun use in their own states and cities.


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 >>


Clicking on a specific dot on the map provides the user with an instant breakdown of important information about the incident of defensive gun use that the dot represents.

For example, users can see the date and location of the defensive gun use, what type of firearm was involved, and the context in which the gun was used—including to defend against a home invasion, armed robbery, or domestic violence).

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost all major studies on defensive gun use have found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. Researchers have good reason to believe, however, that most defensive gun uses aren’t reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets.

For this reason, the Defensive Gun Use Database isn’t meant to be a comprehensive list of all such incidents occurring in the United States. Such a database would be nearly impossible to compile.

Instead, this database features only cases that could be discovered and verified through public sources, and where the evidence indicates no wrongdoing on the part of the gun owner.

Why Is This Database Important?

Despite the limitations on data, the Defensive Gun Use Database is an incredibly important tool because these confirmed cases help prove that the “good guy with a gun” is not a myth. Rather, lawful gun owners clearly play an integral role in promoting public safety and protecting individual rights.

As the database proves, every single day lawful gun owners use their firearms to defend themselves and others against criminals when the government simply could not get there in time.

These gun owners are not vigilantes who went looking for trouble. They did not intentionally place themselves in dangerous situations. Many of them even fail to fit the caricature of “typical gun owner.”

They are young mothers defending their children from home invaders.

They are disabled individuals whose firepower enabled them to stand toe-to-toe with criminals who thought they had the advantage.

They are abused women who protected themselves from violent ex-lovers who came to exact revenge.

They are elderly men outnumbered by would-be thieves who believed they picked an easy target.

They’re our mothers, daughters, brothers, and sons. They’re our neighbors, friends, and co-workers. They’re working jobs and living lives in our neighborhoods.

In short, the Defensive Gun Use Database and map provide powerful answers to the common question: “Why would any rational, law-abiding American ever need to own a gun or carry it in public?”

What Can We Expect in the Future?

First, The Daily Signal will continue to publish our monthly series of articles on defensive gun uses. The database will not replace the series, but instead will provide an opportunity for readers to dive deeper into stories we don’t highlight.

Second, the database will keep growing as we update it to include new or newly verified instances of defensive gun use. We also hope to expand the database to include defensive gun uses that occurred in years predating our series.

Finally, our goal is to create a mechanism for readers to send us reports about instances we may have missed or that occurred to them and can be verified independently.

The public rollout of Heritage’s Defensive Gun Use Database is just the beginning.

COMMENTARY BY

Amy Swearer is a senior legal policy analyst at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. 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.

Trump Backs DOJ Move to Safeguard Constitutional Rights Amid COVID-19 Crisis



President Donald Trump seemed supportive of Attorney General William Barr’s directive to protect the individual rights of citizens against the potential encroachment by state or local governments.

Asked in the Rose Garden press briefing Monday if the administration would bring lawsuits against states, Trump left the door open.

“It would depend on the circumstances of the state. Some states are perhaps a little early. Some states are a little bit late,” Trump said when asked if the administration would sue states or cities.


When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out. Learn more here.

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 Daily Signal first reported Monday that Barr directed federal prosecutors across the country to be on the lookout during the COVID-19 crisis to ensure that state and local governments do not overreach, stating in a memorandum, “the Constitution is not suspended in times of crisis.”

Trump said he read about the memorandum.

“Frankly, the attorney general doesn’t want to have rights taken away,” Trump said. “There are some people not allowed to open up a store. They are going to lose their livelihood. By the way, that causes death also. … The fact that people aren’t allowed to have their freedom causes tremendous amounts of problems, including death.”

Trump administration officials also announced they expected testing for the coronavirus to nearly double in the coming weeks. As of now, 5.4 million Americans have been tested for the disease.

Adm. Brett Giroir, the assistant secretary of health and human services, explained the eight phases blueprint to dramatically expand testing.

The first phase was to build the foundation for diagnostic testing, then mobilize the private sector to develop tests. Next, the Food and Drug Administration issued emergency use authorizations—relaxing regulations—for the private sector to develop tests.

The fourth phase was to galvanize commercial and research laboratories to ramp up testing capacity, followed by facilitating state efforts to utilize all available testing capabilities.

“The FDA has issued 67 emergency use authorizations, which is far outpacing anything that has been done or could have ever been imagined. Galvanizing the research communities in commercial labs—the reason why we are here with ACLA labs, having done about 3 million tests, is because of that day when it was galvanized by the president and the vice president,” Giroir said.

The sixth step was to identify and expand public- and private-sector testing, then strengthen the testing supply chain. The eighth phase was to coordinate with governors and to support testing plans and rapid response programs.

“It was enhancing the production capacity of a small company in Maine called Puritan that you’ll hear a whole lot more about that is sort of the swab provider for the country, but also because of the FDA actions and the actions of the scientific community, [is] being able to broaden the types to spin polyester so U.S. cotton can come in and start delivering within the next couple of weeks 3 million swabs per week of a different type,” the admiral said.

“Whereas we started small with commercial testing partners, you see now that we have 73 of these 2.0 sites, going to 110. Very importantly, this demonstrated the model,” the admiral continued. “And 68% of those sites are in communities of moderate or high social vulnerability and 22% are in the highest social vulnerability communities so that we can make sure the testing gets where it needs to be.”

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLES:

AG Barr Directs Federal Prosecutors to Protect ‘Civil Liberties’ During COVID-19

Why the Development of a COVID-19 Vaccine Will Take a While

How Close Is US to Herd Immunity for COVID-19? What the Numbers Show

Doctor Turned Senator Who Predicted Pandemic Outlines Steps America Needs to Now Take

RELATED VIDEO: Another worthy Tucker clip on obedience to irrational authority


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.

How to Fight for Child Safety Online at the Federal Level Right Now

Suppose an online technology platform’s lack of safety features and irresponsible policies allowed a sexual predator to have access to your child in order to sexually abuse and exploit them. In this tragic scenario, you can’t bring a civil lawsuit against that online technology platform because Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act prevents them from being held liable in any way.

It’s why a company like Pornhub is protected from being hit by a civil lawsuit after it came to light that dozens of videos featuring the rape of a 15-year-old sex trafficking victim were being hosted publicly on its site. It’s why companies like Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok (among others) aren’t being slammed with civil lawsuits even though sexual predators are able to get direct access to minors via technology platforms that lack appropriate safety features. It’s why Facebook isn’t concerned about legal repercussions stemming from the fact that a National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) investigation found 9x more instances of child sexual exploitation on its platform than Facebook itself reported finding.

The National Center on Sexual Exploitation is continuing our policy work on these issues, calling for Congress and local governments to include online safety in any legislation and announcements during this difficult period.

We’ve endorsed and actually helped to shape the EARN IT bill in the U.S. Congress that has great potential to provide online safety for children like Leo.

Because of the carte blanche legal immunity that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act currently grants, technology companies have no legal incentive to prevent predators from grooming, recruiting, and trafficking children online. As a result, countless children have fallen victim to child abusers on online platforms with seemingly innocent intentions, like Leo and his wish to chat with friends while playing games online.

The EARN IT Act provides crucial incentives to technology companies by making their current gift of immunity conditional based on a demonstration that they are actively working to prevent online sexual exploitation of minors AND child sexual abuse material.  This is a game-changer!

Congress has an overriding interest in protecting the safety of citizens from profound harm and EARN IT offers that much-needed protection in the digital space.

We’re working hard to make sure Congress hears the research that shows the harm, listens to the stories of the children harmed, and acts on this critical piece of legislation soon.

This effort cannot happen without your help. Right now, we’re mobilizing our team, meeting remotely with key officials, and campaigning hard for the EARN IT bill to move forward.

Will you help us in this important effort with a tax-deductible donation of $50, $100, or $500? When you do your gift will be matched dollar for dollar by a generous anonymous donor and will ensure that Congress hears your voice and passes this incredibly important legislation to protect the innocent.

EARN IT has the capability to protect and prevent the online exploitation that is happening every day because it requires the tech companies to put children first!  This is especially critical in this time of increased online activity by children across the world.

We know you are passionate about helping keep children safe from the online dangers, especially during this time of increased online activity. You can make a difference today in the lives of our children!

© All rights reserved.

President Trump, Please Pardon Roger Stone Now!

“Equal and exact justice to all men…freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of the person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected—these principles form the bright constellation that has gone before us.” – Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural address, 1801

“Justice is indiscriminately due to all, without regard to numbers, wealth, or rank.” –  John Jay

“Natural liberty is a gift of the beneficent Creator to the whole human race; and that civil liberty is founded in that and cannot be wrested from any people, without the most manifest violation of justice.” – Alexander Hamilton


While all of us in this twilight zone of totalitarianism wonder if and when things will ever get back to normal, Roger Stone is facing 40 months in prison starting May 1st, 2020.  Literally, this would be a death sentence for the 67-year-old with respiratory problems.  Here is the nightmare of the entire prosecution up until his conviction by a leftist jury.

We need to help Stone by doing two things, supporting his legal defense fund and by using social media and tweeting President Trump to pardon him before he enters prison to save him from certain death.

Stone is a veteran Republican Strategist, New York Times Bestselling author, pundit and longtime consultant to the Trump Organization. Mr. Stone is the grandmaster of 10 Republican Presidential campaigns including his seminal role in Donald Trump’s political emergence. This is detailed in the recent PBS Documentary series on Donald Trump as well as in the award-winning Netflix Documentary “Get Me Roger Stone.” He also served as chairman of Donald Trump’s Presidential Exploratory Committee in 2000 and 2012.

Mueller’s Last Prosecution

In February of 2019, Roger’s home in Florida was raided by the FBI, or as Kitty Werthmann called it, the Gestapo.  Roger stated, “A pre-dawn raid stormed my house with greater force than was used to take down terrorists or drug lords and terrorized my wife and my dogs. It was unconscionable.”  All this for a bunch of process crimes that in the entire history of our country, are rarely charged.

An intensive two-year multi-million-dollar investigation into Stone by the Special Counsel began in 2017.  They turned up no evidence of Russian collusion, no collaboration with Wikileaks, and no evidence that Roger Stone had advance notice of the source or content of any of the Wikileaks disclosures, including the e-mails of John Podesta before their release.  Mueller indicted Roger Stone for lying to Congress.

Stone was ultimately charged with lying to Congress and one count of witness tampering. His contrived indictment was crafted by Mueller Deputy Andrew Weissman.

Robert Mueller was allowed to “Judge Shop” for an Obama judge…and he came up with Amy Berman Jackson who also presided over the case of former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort. Jackson had Manafort incarcerated prior to and during his trial, even in solitary confinement for nine months, despite the fact that he hadn’t been convicted of any crime.  A motion for a change of judge was requested by Stone’s attorneys, but denied.

Mueller used legal trickery to ensure that Jackson got Stone’s case by falsely claiming that his case was tied to the unproven case against the alleged Russian hackers, but the trial revealed no such link!

Judge Amy Berman Jackson

Judge Jackson is a liberal activist Judge who dismissed the wrongful death lawsuit in Benghazi against Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the suit by the Catholic Church challenging Obamacare’s requirement that employers provide free coverage for contraception and abortion. Jackson’s decision on the Catholic Church was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Jackson immediately issued a gag order on Stone, knowing that his living was made by public speaking.  Although such orders infringe on the First Amendment rights of the persons gagged and (sometimes) of the media, the judges issuing and upholding them claim they are necessary to preserve parties’ rights to a fair trial.

The U.S. Supreme Court expressly approved gag orders on trial participants in the 1966 liberal Warren Court in Sheppard v. Maxwell.  (This is the same court who took prayer out of school in 1962, and destroyed states’ rights regarding slander and libel in the 1964 NYTs v Sullivan case.) In this case, the media wasn’t gagged, but Stone’s ability to defend himself in public and to earn a living certainly was.

Jackson not only gagged Roger from defending himself, she also repeatedly personally attacked him from the bench and then rejected a motion to recuse herself accusing his lawyers of a “publicity stunt.”

Like so many others who supported Donald Trump for President, Roger ended up railroaded via a false prosecution.

During the sham trial, Judge Jackson ruled for the prosecution and against Stone’s lawyers on every motion in the case save one. It was reported that the Judge would smirk and roll her eyes at the jury whenever Stone’s lawyers were speaking in court.

Roger was found guilty, his exculpatory evidence was disallowed, and he was sentenced to seven plus years in prison by an overzealous prosecution team.

Four career DOJ prosecutors, abruptly resigned from their posts on Tuesday, February 10th, 2020 in an apparent dramatic protest just hours after senior leaders at the DOJ said they would take the extraordinary step of effectively overruling the prosecutors’ judgment by seeking a lesser sentence for President Trump’s former adviser Roger Stone.

The Deep State Set Up

There are many in the Deep State who want Roger Stone eliminated, and for many reasons.  The mere fact that Roger is a decades long friend of Donald Trump is enough to want him destroyed.

But they’d also like payback for Stone’s magnificent research in two books, “The Clinton’s War on Women,” which was the definitive expose on Bill, Hillary and Chelsea.  It not only detailed Bill Clinton’s serial sexual assaults on multiple women, but Hillary’s role in intimidating, bullying and silencing them.

Stone was the first person to expose the Epstein-Clinton connection in his book documenting Bill Clinton’s 28 flights to the convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s private Island and Epstein’s role in the founding of the Clinton Foundation.

His other book, one I couldn’t put down, superbly unmasked the entire Bush dynasty, “Jeb, and the Bush Crime Family,” (original title).  Both books exposed the corruption of these two powerful families.  Remember the Bushes openly admitted they voted for Hillary.

And just who oversaw Stone’s case for the Office of Special Counsel?  It was Jeannie Rhee, who represented Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation in the e-mail case and who gave the maximum contribution to Hillary’s campaigns in 2008 and 2016 as well as Obama in 2008. Rhee has no experience as a prosecutor and came out of Mueller’s office and has since returned.

The Stacked Liberal DC Jury

The trial was held in Washington DC.  A venue change was denied despite DC being 99 percent Democrat. Not one republican, veteran or Trump supporter was on the jury.

Former Memphis City Schools Board President, Tomeka Hart revealed that she was the foreperson of the jury that convicted former Trump adviser Roger Stone on obstruction charges, and soon afterward, her history of Democratic activism and a string of her anti-Trump, left-wing social media posts came to light.

Hart even posted specifically about the Stone case before she was selected to sit on the jury, as she retweeted an argument mocking those who considered Stone’s dramatic arrest in a predawn raid by a federal tactical team to be excessive force. She also suggested President Trump and his supporters are racists and praised the investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, which ultimately led to Stone’s prosecution.

Meanwhile, it emerged that U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson had denied a defense request to strike a potential juror who was an Obama-era press official with admitted anti-Trump views and whose husband worked at the same Justice Department division that handled the probe leading to Stone’s arrest. And, another Stone juror, Seth Cousins, donated to former Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke and other progressive causes, federal election records reviewed by Fox News show.

The revelations came as President Trump has called the handling of Stone’s prosecution “ridiculous” and a demonstrably unfair “insult to our country.”

How did a federal court judge ever allow a far-left wing activist to sit on a case where a close Trump associate faced trial?  Because there is no justice for anyone who supports Donald Trump.

Justice Denied

Judge Amy Berman Jackson denied a request for a new trial made by Roger Stone following his conviction on charges related to the Russia investigation.  The Stone prosecution is a disgrace, it’s lawless, and it was rigged from the beginning.

Judge Jackson called nearly all jurors back for a hearing, a highly unusual move, after Stone’s attorneys also alleged misconduct after some jurors spoke out publicly following the case.

In her 81-page memorandum, Judge Jackson said the lawyers had not proved the forewoman was biased or that any jurors acted inappropriately. She included details of their juror questionnaires in her explanation.

“The assumption underlying the motion – that one can infer from the juror’s opinions about the President that she could not fairly consider the evidence against the defendant – is not supported by any facts or data and it is contrary to controlling legal precedent,” she wrote in denying the new trial. “The motion is a tower of indignation, but at the end of the day, there is little of substance holding it up.”

The Double Standard

Hillary Clinton’s criminal email investigation was dropped by AG Bill Barr early on in his appointment. To most Americans this was a travesty of justice for a woman who allowed foreign nations to easily gain access to classified American information. Truly, her actions were treasonous.

The DOJ later revealed that it would be closing its investigation of Andrew McCabe, the FBI’s former deputy director, over his false statements to investigators probing an unauthorized leak that McCabe had orchestrated. McCabe was fired in March 2018, shortly after a blistering Justice Department inspector general report concluded that he repeatedly and blatantly lied, or as the Bureau lexicon puts it, “lacked candor” when questioned, including under oath.

And late last August, 2019, the U.S. Justice Department had decided not to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey despite an internal investigation that found he improperly leaked information to the news media.

How about Brennan, Clapper, Strzok, Page, Rosenstein, Bruce and Nellie Ohr, and even Robert Mueller himself…all of them lied to Congress…no prosecutions!

Because of this Chinese virus, Michael Avenatti has been temporarily freed from a federal jail in New York City to ride out the coronavirus at a friend’s house in Los Angeles. Avenatti is awaiting a June sentencing after he was convicted of trying to extort $25 million from sportswear giant Nike. He also faces criminal trials in New York of defrauding Stormy Daniels and in Los Angeles of cheating clients and others of millions of dollars.

The federal Bureau of Prisons has notified Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s former personal attorney, that he will be released early from prison due to the coronavirus pandemic.

And Paul Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign manager, who is 71 years old, has requested to serve the rest of his federal prison sentence at home due to risks presented by the coronavirus outbreak.  But I highly doubt this man will be released, since he supported President Trump.

Thousands of criminals have been released by state governors and city mayors, and we’re not just talking drug crimes, we’re talking rapists and murderers…a 26 year old murdered again the very day he was released.  Another man, 77 years old, thought too old to murder again, did just that, he murdered a mother and her twin sons.

These criminals are released to protect them from contracting Covid-19, and they prey on our shuttered society, yet Roger Stone is bound for prison…where is justice???

Conclusion

If Roger Stone is forced into prison, he will most likely die there.  He needs a pardon prior to presenting himself for incarceration.  And please people, don’t write and tell me that Trump will pardon him after he’s re-elected or even after he loses the election.  That will be too late for Roger, he will die in prison.  The same goes for Paul Manafort.  Trump could have pardoned Manafort’s federal charges and helped him out.

A judge last December 2019, dismissed New York state criminal charges filed against Paul Manafort. The dismissal was a blow to Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., who had brought the case against Manafort right after he was sentenced to a federal prison term earlier in 2019.  Manafort was not in court for the hearing in Manhattan. He suffered a medical issue at the federal prison in Pennsylvania where he is serving his 7½-year term.

Get these men out of prison, don’t let them die behind bars. The DOJ attack on anyone who supported Trump is obvious while the most corrupt within the Deep State are walking free.

Please use social media to ask President Trump to pardon Roger Stone before he spends one minute in a prison.

P.S.  These times of totalitarian control restricting our civil rights has cost so many.  One of them is NewsWithViews.  Donations we used to count on are understandably not there.  This website brings more truth to America than most, and we need your help to stay alive.  So many of us are struggling today, but if you can even spare a few dollars, you will help keep us alive and bringing you daily updates that you won’t find on cable news.  Please help us…and donate here.  Thank you, and Lord bless you!

© All rights reserved.

VIDEO: New York mosque still open for daily prayers while churches across the US face mandatory shutdowns

If you’re surprised, maybe you’ve been asleep for the last 20 years.

“New York mosque still open for daily prayers while churches across the country face mandatory shutdowns,” by Paul Shiver, The Blaze, April 20, 2020:

A mosque in New York is reportedly still open for daily prayers amid the coronavirus pandemic that has forced Christian churches across the country to close their doors and cancel their in-person gatherings.

While churchgoers in many states have been criticized and even punished for continuing to gather, that same level of scrutiny has apparently not been leveled at the Mosque of Jesus, Son of Mary in Syracuse, New York.

What are the details?

Despite the state’s executive order, which broadly bans all “non-essential gatherings of individuals of any size for any reason,” neighborhood Muslims are still allowed gather together in the mosque’s prayer room for calls to prayer throughout the week.

“About 10 worshippers in masks are allowed in at a time, though rarely do that many show up. They stand far apart from each other as they follow a prayer leader standing on a plastic-covered prayer rug,” a Syracuse.com report notes. (Though in a video of one of the prayers, it appears that the worshippers are not at least 6 feet away, as the Centers for Disease Control recommends).

While it should be noted that the mosque has gone to great lengths to limit attendees’ exposure to the virus by covering the prayer room in plastic and installing a special ventilation system, it is unclear as to how that exempts the mosque from the government mandate.

Yet instead of facing criticism for continuing to gather, the mosque was commended by the news outlet for its efforts to “keep the faith” during the pandemic, especially as the Muslim holy month of Ramadan approaches….

Over the past few weeks, churchgoers in many states have been prohibited from gathering and, in many cases, have been punished for doing so despite government orders.

In Mississippi, some churchgoers received $500 fines for sitting in their vehicles in a church parking lot listening to a radio broadcast of the service. In Kentucky, nails were allegedly scattered at the parking lot entrances to prevent people from attending the Easter service. A northern California county even outlawed singing during church livestreams unless people are in a home.

In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio threatened to “permanently” shut down churches and synagogues if they refused to comply with the government’s shelter-in-place order….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Sweden: Muslim migrant sexually assaults 12-year-old girl, is imprisoned and released, rapes other 12-year-old girl

UK: Muslim beats policewoman, punching her so hard that she falls and continuing attack as she lies on the ground

Pakistan: Christians facing starvation for refusing to convert to Islam

Pakistan: Amid coronavirus, government launches “Islam friendly” action plan to keep mosques open for Ramadan

The Economist Blames Israel for the Parlous State of Gaza’s Health-Care System

RELATED VIDEO: Is Islam Globally Waxing or Waning?

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

Judicial Watch’s Campaign for Clean Elections

With the presidential race heating up, election integrity is back in the news. Cheaters gonna cheat and there’s lots of ways to steal an election—dirty voter rolls, mail-in voting, and “ballot harvesting” are three areas ripe for abuse.

Judicial Watch is the national leader in election integrity education and litigation. The very notion of voter fraud is steeped in partisan bickering, but Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton insists electoral abuse is not “a Right-Left issue” at all. The Right may be leading the fight on election fraud, but “if you’re a Leftist Democrat trying to take on an incumbent in a corrupt jurisdiction,” Fitton says, “voter fraud can keep you from gaining traction as well.”

Judicial Watch is cleaning up dirty voter rolls across the nation. States are required by the National Voter Registration Act to remove so-called “inactive voters” from registration rolls if they do not respond to an address confirmation notice and then fail to vote in the next two general federal elections. Many “inactive voters” do this because, well, they’re dead. Or they have moved away.

Why does this matter? Leaving the names of inactive voters on registration rolls creates opportunities for fraud, such as dead people voting or double voting. Critics argue that these concerns are overblown, but sometimes it only takes a few votes to swing an election.

And dirty voter roll numbers are not small. Here’s what we have uncovered:

In North Carolina, a Judicial Watch investigation revealed nearly one million inactive voters on its rolls. That’s about 17% percent of North Carolina’s total voter registration. Earlier this month, we sued North Carolina to clean up its act.

Last week in Maryland, a federal judge ordered Montgomery County to turn over its voter rolls to Judicial Watch for analysis. Judicial Watch asked for the rolls after it determined that county registrations had exceeded 100% of its age-eligible citizenry. Read more about the Maryland case here.

We uncovered 1.6 million inactive voters on California voting rolls. In 2017, we sued California and Los Angeles County to force a cleanup. Our investigation found that Los Angeles County had more voter registrations on its rolls than actual voting age citizens in the county, and that the entire state had a voter registration rate of 101% of age-eligible citizens. Last year, California capitulated, settling our lawsuit and agreeing to remove inactive voters from its rolls.

We’ve been working to clean up Ohio voting rolls since 2012. In 2018, a Supreme Court decision upheld an Ohio voter-roll cleanup that resulted from settlement of a Judicial Watch lawsuit. The lawsuit found that the number of people listed on voter registration rolls in three Ohio counties exceeded 100% of the total voting age population.

We took on Kentucky. Our investigation found that 48 Kentucky counties—40% of the state total—had more registered voters than citizens over the age of 18. Statewide, we noted, the registration rate was higher than 100% of its age-eligible population. We sued and won: a federal court directed Kentucky to clean up its rolls. Indiana also agreed to clean up its rolls after Judicial Watch launched an investigation.

In February, we announced that our investigation in Iowa found 18,000 extra names on voter rolls. Eight Iowa counties had more voter registrations than voting age citizens. “Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections,” Tom Fitton noted. Iowa was apoplectic, but offered no evidence that our count was incorrect.

And in a major new development, Judicial Watch announced in January that we found at least another 2.5 million extra names on voter rolls across the country. A Judicial Watch analysis of data released by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission found that there are 378 counties in the U.S. that have more voter registrations than citizens old enough to vote. The 378 counties had a combined 2.5 million extra registrants over the 100%-registered mark. We’ve notified 19 counties in five states—California, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Colorado, and Virginia—that we intended to sue unless they take steps to clean up their voter rolls. Stay tuned.

Meanwhile, for more on our efforts to clean up dirty voter rolls, here’s a discussion with Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch Election Integrity Initiative Director Bob Popper.

 COLUMN BY

MICAH MORRISON

Micah Morrison is chief investigative reporter for Judicial Watch. Follow him on Twitter @micah_morrison. Tips: mmorrison@judicialwatch.org.

Investigative Bulletin is published by Judicial Watch. Reprints and media inquiries: jfarrell@judicialwatch.org.

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

Judge Blocks Kansas From Limiting Attendance at Religious Services

A federal judge blocked Kansas from limiting attendance at religious services during the coronavirus pandemic Saturday.

Wichita U.S. District Judge John Broomes blocked an order from Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, limiting attendance at religious services to 10 people or fewer.

Broomes’ ruling prevents Kelly’s enforcement of the order as long as pastors and congregations observe social distancing, Politico reports. The decision will remain in effect until May 2.

Churches and religious activities appear to have been singled out among essential functions for stricter treatment,” the judge wrote in his order.

“This is not about religion,” the Kansas governor said in a statement following the decision. “This is about a public health crisis.”

The judge’s order still requires religious services to abide by social distancing recommendations, such as requiring people to stay 6 feet apart. Broomes also has a hearing scheduled for Thursday regarding a lawsuit filed by two churches and their pastors against Kelly, Politico reports.

News of Broomes’ ruling comes after Attorney General William Barr released a statement on religious practices and social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic saying that “even in times of emergency,” federal law prohibits religious discrimination.

“Thus, government may not impose special restrictions on religious activity that do not also apply to similar nonreligious activity,” Barr said.

“For example, if a government allows movie theaters, restaurants, concert halls, and other comparable places of assembly to remain open and unrestricted, it may not order houses of worship to close, limit their congregation size, or otherwise impede religious gatherings.”

He added: “Religious institutions must not be singled out for special burdens.”

Where states have not acted evenhandedly, they must have compelling reason to impose restrictions on places of worship, the attorney general said. They also must ensure that the restrictions are “narrowly tailored to advance its compelling interest.”

COLUMN BY: 

Mary Margaret Olohan

Mary Margaret Olohan is a reporter covering social issues for The Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @MaryMargOlohan.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Why COVID-19 Spitters Shouldn’t Be Prosecuted as Federal Terrorists

In COVID-19 Era, South Korea Remains America’s Steadfast Ally of Democracy

Watch Live: Trump’s Press Briefing on COVID-19

House Republicans Accuse Democrats of Exploiting Coronavirus Crisis to Push ‘Extreme’ Immigration Agenda

My Grandfather Escaped From Communist Romania. Here’s His Story.

RELATED VIDEO: President Says He Will Now Halt all Immigration (temporarily).

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Illinois: Muslim who slashed tires at churches and said ‘I don’t like Christians’ now tries to burn occupied church

“In November 2019, prosecutors said that El Hannouny slashed the tires of 19 cars in the parking lots of the First Baptist and Sts. Helen and Constantine churches. Upon his arrest, he told authorities that he damaged the cars because, “I don’t like Christians,” according to police. Hate crime charges were added in January, and he was released on a $10,000 I-bond with electronic monitoring.”

We see how well that worked. Officials did not and would never dare to address the root causes of El-Hannouny’s hatred, and so he was free to act upon it again. When arrested this time, he didn’t show any sign of remorse: “While El Hannouny was being processed, police said he started spitting at officers, reports said. El Hannouny also wrote a religious slur on the wall of his cell.” Yet he will soon be free again, and will almost certainly target yet another church.

“Man Accused of Trying To Burn Down Occupied Church,” by Lorraine Swanson, Patch, April 16, 2020 (thanks to the Geller Report):

PALOS HILLS, IL — A Palos Hills man already facing hate crime and criminal damage charges is now accused of trying to set fire to an occupied church, reports said. Osama E. El Hannouny, 25, appeared Wednesday before a Cook County judge on charges of arson, hate crimes, criminal damage to property, battery to a police officer and violation of bail bond.

In November 2019, prosecutors said that El Hannouny slashed the tires of 19 cars in the parking lots of the First Baptist and Sts. Helen and Constantine churches. Upon his arrest, he told authorities that he damaged the cars because, “I don’t like Christians,” according to police. Hate crime charges were added in January, and he was released on a $10,000 I-bond with electronic monitoring.

On April 14, police said El Hannouny used leaves to set fire to Sacred Heart Church, 8245 W. 111th St. According to the police report, El Hannouny was caught on video looking through the doors of the church building and noticing that it was occupied. Police said he made numerous trips to pile leaves near the gas main and air conditioning unit. El Hannouny allegedly set the leaves on fire, but firefighters quickly extinguished the flames.

While El Hannouny was being processed, police said he started spitting at officers, reports said. El Hannouny also wrote a religious slur on the wall of his cell, according to the report. El Hannouny allegedly scratched, bit and spit at police when they tried to stop him….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Afghanistan: Muslims shoot and kill six workers at US-run Bagram Airfield

Australia: Sunni Muslims who firebombed a Shi’ite mosque lose appeals against their terror convictions

Killing for Muhammad’s Honor: The Highest Expression of the Islamic Faith

Egypt: Muslims who targeted Christians for jihad massacre planned to strike under cover of coronavirus curfew

Tunisia: Two jihadis arrested for trying to infect police with coronavirus

Germany: Government pays $19,500 to jihad preacher who is classified as a threat and is already on welfare

PBS Backdating and Exaggerating the Muslim Presence in the U.S. (Part 1)

RELATED VIDEO: Corona Virus  – The Muslim Response.

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

How Can We Have Two Systems of Justice in This Country?

There should not be two standards of justice in this nation—a slap on the wrist for the politically correct who do wrong, while Gen. Michael Flynn’s whole life has been upended for allegedly lying to the FBI.

Flynn has lost his house, livelihood, and reputation. Meanwhile, in contrast, there is a high ranking FBI attorney who allegedly doctored an email to obtain a FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) warrant for raw political sabotage, who has yet to be punished.

Last week, Senator Charles Grassley (R) Iowa declassified some footnotes to a Justice Department inspector general report on the whole Russian-Trump collusion allegation.

Of course, this whole mess began with a dossier written by former British spy Christopher Steele. He alleged that the Trump campaign secretly received help from Russia, so that Trump might become president. All of this has been investigated ad nauseam and found to be false.

Writing over the weekend an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal (April 11-12, 2020), Sen. Ron Johnson, (R) Wisconsin, noted: “The Steele dossier already ranks as one of the dirtiest political tricks of all time.” The falsified Steele dossier became the pretext by which some FBI officials appear to have obtained FISA warrants.

How can this nation continue to have two standards of law and order? Two standards of judgment? Punishment of conservatives for alleged wrong-doing versus wrist-slapping of liberals for woeful violations of the law.

Consider the morality of this and then the legality.

High-ranking FBI officials allegedly lied to try to prevent a political opponent from winning the presidency. Then when he did win, they lied to derail his presidency.

Dr. Frank Wright, the president of D. James Kennedy Ministries, points out, “Lying has become so endemic in our time that many times when some politicians speak, it’s a given that some of what they say is not necessarily the truth—but rather it’s so-called spin. However, we’ve learned recently that there is serious deception among key government leaders—even in the FBI.”

Veteran journalist and author Robert Knight said to me in an interview for Christian television: “When I was growing up the FBI were the heroes….and now the FBI has grown into this enormous organization whose powers are far reaching, and whose powers could be abused if political partisans get a hold of it, which apparently is exactly what has happened.”

The Department of Justice is slowly examining some of the alleged crimes of bad actors, particularly in the FBI, but as of this writing, no concrete charges have been filed. The wheels of justice seem to be grinding awfully slow—and at least so far, in an unfair way—tilted to the ruling class.

Knight added, “I don’t recall anytime in American history where the FBI was used as a blunt political instrument. There’s a pattern of corruption here that’s far and deep. And Americans are wondering if anybody’s ever going to be punished for it.” Bob said these words in the summer of 2018. To my knowledge, no one involved on the left has yet been punished.

Jarrett Stepman of the Heritage Foundation comments: “It’s the idea that some men put themselves above the laws, and I think that’s what a lot of people see. Especially what happened with the FBI. Some agents thinking they had a right to try to overturn, essentially, the election by the American people.”

It’s against the Bible to have two separate standards of justice. And it’s against the Constitution.

In an interview for Christian television on the Judeo-Christian roots of America, Dr. Daniel Dreisbach of American University, outlined some of the ways the Bible influenced the U. S. Constitution. He told me, “Take, for example, something as simple as Article One, Section Eight, which authorizes Congress to ‘fix the standard of weights and measures.’”

Dreisbach continued, “Perhaps the greatest of the English Common Law Jurisprudence was a man by the name of Sir Edward Coke. He wrote a commentary on the Magna Charta. There’s a paragraph in Magna Charta, speaking to the necessity to fix standard weights and measures, and in his commentary, Sir Edward Coke, writing in the seventeenth century said, ‘This is an idea rooted in the Word of God.’”  Indeed, we can read about this in the book of Proverbs

The idea of standard weights and measures implies that you would do the honest thing for all your customers. God is a God of justice, and He hates dishonest dealings—one standard for one person, but a different standard for someone else.

This country cannot have two standards of justice—one for the politically correct ruling class and another for the rest of us “deplorables.” It’s unconstitutional. And more importantly, it’s unbiblical.

© All rights reserved.

Young Boy Groomed via Online Video Game System

You’ve heard the tragic stories of men, women, and children who have been abused and harmed by the current culture of rampant sexual exploitation.

But did you know that in these uncertain and confusing times of the COVID-19 pandemic gripping our nation and the larger global community, the threat of exploitation looms even larger?

I just heard a tragic story of a young boy who I will call Leo. That is not his real name but he and his story are very real. Leo was just 16-years-old when he was groomed and trafficked through what seemed like an innocent online video game system, one used by millions of American children. He wanted to connect with other players, and when the man who reached out to him acted like his friend, it seemed to both Leo and his parents to be just another way to talk to friends on the Internet.

But the reality was far worse! Men like Leo’s trafficker use and abuse mainstream platforms with children, like video games and other social media, in order to locate and abuse vulnerable victims.

When Leo decided to meet up with his online “friend,” traveling across state lines, he was shocked to discover the person on the other side of the screen was no friend, but rather a group of seven grown men who then trafficked and exploited the young boy.

Leo was used as a sex slave for over a year, trapped in a filthy trailer while the men spent their time trying to lure other victims. It wasn’t until another 17-year-old boy arrived, also groomed and lured through the video game platform, that Leo was finally released from his prison. The men were arrested for sex trafficking, but Leo’s life has been scarred forever from his experience.

It’s no secret or surprise that stories like Leo’s are happening all across the country. And thanks to supporters like you, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation has focused on the policies, education, and advocacy to bring awareness and solutions to these very issues.

We’ve even launched campaigns directly against the video game industry with Dirty Dozen List targets like Steam, the ultra-popular online gaming platform. Our wider #NotAGame project also targets sexual exploitation, violence, and abuse rampant in video games across all platforms.

These have been very successful projects in raising awareness, but tragedies like the one that happened to Leo are still occurring.

We know you care about not only helping boys like Leo as they recover from their abuse, but also about preventing future victims.

Our child protection projects urgently need funding right now not only because we are running short of cash for them but, as importantly, because these projects are gaining so much momentum.  We are changing the big companies that rely on our children for their success by convincing them to beef up their child-protection measures. I’m talking about companies like InstagramTikTokSnapchat and others that millions of children access every day.

Will you help us stop this scourge of online danger with a monthly donation?

Every amount can be used to make a big difference right now. We’ll turn your monthly donation, whatever you can afford, into advocacy with legislators and corporate executives as well as a means for getting crucial information and resources into the hands of parents so they can protect their children.

With children online more than ever during this period of social isolation and distance, the threat of online sexual exploitation is more pressing now than ever.

Help prevent further boys like Leo by funding these projects today!


PLEASE GIVE TODAY!


EDITORS NOTE: This National Center on Sexual Exploitation column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

While US Focuses on Corona, New Bill Threatens to End All Encrypted Apps

With all media eyes focused on the COVID-19 crisis, a bill that threatens to end the era of encrypted messaging is being proposed in the Senate.

The EARN IT Act (Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies) is a bipartisan effort to combat child sexual abuse material (CSAM) online.

Introduced by Senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal, the legislation would create a National Commission on Online Child Exploitation Prevention. The duty of the commission would be to set up “best practices” for tech companies to prevent child sexual exploitation.

Those “best practices” are yet to be determined. The commission would be composed of government and law enforcement officials, legal and technology experts, representatives from tech companies and former child exploitation victims.

The term “earn it” comes from the fact that, under the bill, tech companies would have to “earn” their exemption from liability which is now allowed to them under Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act.

Currently, under that exemption, tech companies generally have immunity from legal liability for how people use their platforms.

Under the EARN IT legislation, companies will have to “earn” this exemption by showing the commission that they are following the “best practices” possible to keep CSAM off their platforms.

As Associate Law Professor Alan Z. Rozenshtein explains,

“Because encryption can stymie attempts to prevent, investigate and prosecute child-exploitation offenses—and because Attorney General William Barr has criticized encryption on these grounds—internet-freedom advocates strongly criticized the draft as an attack on encryption.”

Wired Magazine called the legislation a “sneak attack on encryption,” and clarified why:

“Companies might not be able to earn their liability exemption while offering end-to-end encrypted services. This would put them in the position of either having to accept liability, undermine the protection of end-to-end encryption by adding a backdoor for law enforcement access, or avoid end-to-end encryption altogether.”

Proponents of EARN IT claim that the bill is a necessary pathway to fighting child pornography and exploitation online, as Rozenshtein writes,

“This is an issue with serious but uncertain costs and benefits on both sides [however] … the best thing to do is to build a good decision-making process by which to address the issue, and then to trust that this process will lead to the best decision that could reasonably be made amid immense complexity and uncertainty. That’s the most we can ever hope for when addressing hard policy problems in a democracy.” 

Those challenging the EARN IT Act argue that the bill is too far-reaching, and raises serious free speech and privacy concerns.

Others fear EARN IT gives the government broad and undefined powers that might eventually result in scanning the public’s online message — not to mention violate the right to privacy from unreasonable government searches guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

As Riana Pfefferkorn, associate director of surveillance and cybersecurity at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, notes:

“[W]hile it’s certainly a necessary, urgent, and desirable goal to combat the scourge of online child exploitation, there are still limits on what tech companies should do.

“Stepping up to fight CSAM should not mean wholesale converting their services into even more powerful surveillance tools for law enforcement than they already are.”

The New America’s Open Technology Institute, as part of a coalition of 25 civil society organizations, sent a letter to Senators Graham and Blumenthal, along with members of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. The letter expressed severe opposition to the EARN IT Act, adding that the legislation could:

  • Raise serious concerns about violation of First Amendment rights
  • Make it more difficult to combat the sexual exploitation of children online by jeopardizing the admissibility of evidence in child sexual abuse material cases, because it raises serious questions under the Fourth Amendment
  • Risk national security and privacy by threatening encryption

Questions to Evaluate the EARN IT Act

  1. Is disrupting pedophile networks worth potentially eliminating all online privacy?
  2. To what extent is privacy already compromised due to the Patriot Act and classified NSA collection programs?
  3. Wouldn’t criminal networks simply adapt, thus devastating the privacy of millions of Americans for nothing?
  4. How could a “back door” to encrypted communications be hacked or leveraged by domestic and foreign government interests?

EDITORS NOTE: This Clarion Project column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Potential for Fraud Is Why Mail-In Elections Should Be Dead Letter

Twice the usual number of suspects, including CNN’s combative Jim Acosta, have been criticizing President Donald Trump for the concerns he has raised about elections conducted entirely by mail.

As the president said in a tweet, we do need absentee ballots for “many senior citizens, military, and others who can’t get to the polls on Election Day.” But the president is right to be worried about elections conducted entirely by mail.

Absentee ballots are the tools of choice of election fraudsters because they are voted outside the supervision of election officials, making it easier to steal, forge, or alter them, as well as to intimidate voters.

Going entirely to by-mail elections would unwisely endanger the security and integrity of the election process, particularly if officials automatically mail absentee ballots to all registered voters without a signed, authenticated request from each voter.


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 >>


Voter registration rolls are notoriously inaccurate and out of date, containing the names of voters who are deceased, have moved, or otherwise have become ineligible.

Having thousands of ballots arriving in the mail for individuals who no longer reside at a registered address risks those ballots being stolen and voted.

Yet many liberals are pushing that very process.

The coronavirus bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., tried to pass would have forced states to mail absentee ballots to all registered voters, rather than allowing states to require a signed, absentee ballot request form that can be authenticated by election officials before a ballot is sent to the voter.

Opportunity for Fraud

The problem (and opportunity for fraud) this could cause is illustrated by something the president talked about at one of his news conferences; namely, the settlement that Judicial Watch obtained from Los Angeles and the state of California over their failure to maintain the accuracy of their voter registration rolls.

The state and LA agreed to remove from the rolls 1.5 million individuals who remained registered even though they no longer were eligible to vote. Imagine what would have happened if 1.5 million ballots were simply mailed out to all of those individuals to addresses where they no longer live.

Ballots are a valuable commodity. How many would have been voted anyway by fraudsters or vote harvesters collecting absentee ballots in neighborhoods throughout Los Angeles?

Just look at what happened in North Carolina in 2018 in the 9th Congressional District race, in which the result was overturned by the state election board because of illegal vote harvesting that included altering and forging absentee ballots.

All-mail jurisdictions such as Oregon like to brag about the supposed “security” of their systems, which consists of almost nothing other than a rapid, superficial signature comparison.

As Melody Rose, an assistant professor of political science at Portland State University, told the Los Angeles Times: “I don’t have much faith in that process. I can forge my husband’s signature perfectly.”

Rose conducted a survey of one county, Washington County, outside Portland. Five percent of registered voters admitted that other people marked their ballots, and 2.4% said someone else signed their ballots.

Rose suspected the actual number was higher, given that most people would not want to admit to being “party to a crime.” That would mean that tens of thousands of mail-in ballots are being cast in Oregon by individuals other than the registered voter.

Voter ID as Security

Trump was also right when he said we need voter ID laws as a basic security measure in voting. As for those who say there is no election fraud in the U.S. that we need be concerned about, they are wrong and the president is right.

As the U.S. Supreme Court said in 2008 when it upheld Indiana’s voter ID law:

flagrant examples of such fraud … have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists [including] Indiana’s own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor … demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real, but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.

The Heritage Foundation’s Election Fraud Database documents almost 1,300 proven instances of fraud, including numerous cases of absentee ballot fraud. That fraud often targets the most vulnerable voters, including the elderly and the poor.

The most recent batch of cases added to the database emphasize that the president’s concern over election integrity is not misplaced.

For example, Richard Davis was convicted of a felony in California after registering his four dogs to vote as Democrats over a four-year period. Davis said his goal was to draw attention to the flawed voter registration system in his state, and he did notify the local district attorney’s office of what he was doing.

Disregarding several warnings to stop those false registrations, and after registering his deceased father, too, Davis was charged and pleaded guilty to voter registration fraud.

He never submitted a fraudulent vote, but he could have done so easily using absentee ballots if he hadn’t told officials what he was doing, since his “signature” for his dogs would have been a match on all of the forms.

Or take Gustavo Araujo Lerma, an illegal alien from Mexico. He voted multiple times in elections in Sacramento, California, under a false identity.

Protecting the Marginalized

Another case out of California demonstrates how voter fraud often hurts the most marginalized individuals in communities.

Norman Hall was involved in a scheme with eight other individuals involving the homeless on Skid Row. According to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office, they “solicited hundreds of false and/or forged signatures on state ballot petitions and voter registration forms by offering homeless people $1 and/or cigarettes for their participation.”

The ballot petitions for which Hall and others gathered fraudulent signatures included calling for reducing jail time, changing the authority of the sheriff’s office, and increasing taxes on millionaires and other business owners.

Two other cases out of California include two individuals, Jentry and Bradley Jasperson, who forged the signatures of voters for a referendum initiative. They were each paid $5 per signature.

Another case from our newest batch features Frank Rabia, a City Council candidate in Hoboken, New Jersey, who bribed voters with $50 payments for mail-in ballots to support his candidacy.

Heritage’s Election Fraud Database has more than 60 instances of vote buying. Attempting to buy votes or signatures is entirely repugnant to the republic that America is so lucky to maintain. But purchasing votes is much easier with absentee or mail-in ballots.

The purchaser—such as Rabia—can see the voter’s absentee ballot in the voter’s home and ensure he is getting what he paid for. A purchaser can’t do that when a voter goes into the privacy of a voting booth.

Another new case we added to our database arises out of Espanola, New Mexico, where Laura Seeds and Dyon Herrera falsified absentee ballots in favor of Seeds’ husband, a Democratic candidate for City Council.

This is the same state where a lawsuit has been filed to require election officials to automatically mail absentee ballots to all registered voters in the upcoming election.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation pointed out in an amicus brief that it found more than 3,000 individuals registered multiple times in New Mexico; almost 1,700 registrants who are dead; 1,500 voters aged 100 or above (64 of whom are over 120 years old); and almost 200 individuals registered at commercial rather than residential addresses. All of these supposed voters would receive ballots automatically if the lawsuit were  successful.

These cases demonstrate that election fraud does occur and can compromise the integrity of the election process.

Not even the coronavirus can stop the upcoming presidential election, with the 2020 primaries already well underway. Soon enough, the general election will be upon us.

States should be doing everything they can to help everyone who is eligible to vote. But that doesn’t mean casting aside the safeguards in place to prevent elections from being stolen or compromised by administrative errors and fraud.

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: .

Kaitlynn Samalis-Aldrich

Kaitlynn Samalis-Aldrich is an administrative and research assistant at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.


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.

Serious Questions About Attorney General Bill Barr by J.W. Bryan

When Mr. Barr’s name first came up for consideration for the position of Attorney General of the United States, I thought at that time that maybe we could begin to bring a little justice for the American people. This meant that we’d finally have a genuine approach to dig into the treacherous and treasonous activities of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in its plot to impeach the President.

It also meant that “Justice for the American People” would bring truth to the surface exposing the diabolical anti-American activities of the traitorous members who now continue to be well entrenched into the operation of the DOJ. I hoped that it would be so completely exposed that the evidence of their guilt would be completely undeniable.

Lack of Justice

The American Dream was not forthcoming, for AG Bill Barr, instead of involving himself in exposing the corruption and many blatant treasonable activities by the democratic socialist forces, he took aim at such trivial subjects like anti-trust issues.

Barr and the DOJ spent time twiddling around with a pretext of something sinister and spurious concerning anti-trust violations, all of which were trivial.  He should have been looking into the concocted scheme to impeach the president.  But the anti-trust game presented an opportunity for a show-biz act to give the appearance that AG Barr was on the job and doing his duty.

The abundance of evidence of collusion between Russia, the Clintons and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was obvious.  All the false concocted charges against President Trump were simply an effort to impeach him.

According to Kelleigh Nelson in her NewsWithViews article of March 10, 2020, the “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele, on behalf of the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, formed an essential part of the Carter Page Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia, which according to her research, never existed, but on the contrary, Russian ties are all on the Democrat side.

She also wrote that Hillary and the DNC hired a foreign spy to concoct the fake dossier on candidate Trump. They gave that fake dossier to the Obama DOJ and FBI, and they knew the dossier was fake and politically motivated, but that didn’t stop them.

And I will add, of course, it didn’t stop them. They (all of them), maybe from Obama on down, knew how the script was to play-out.

They all believed that Donald Trump didn’t have a ghost of a chance of winning the 2016 Presidential election. But just in case he did they would go to plan B. This was the insurance policy spoken of between Strzok and Page just in case the unthinkable happened.

Here is how I think plan B was to be implemented although there is no documented proof that it ever existed. Nevertheless, anyone can put two and two together and see that it did.

Ultimate Goals

First of all, the ultimate goal is The Quest for World Government. We could call it the Agenda for World Government or the Conspiracy for World Government. Both of them are correct. In order to plan for a world government there must be an agenda, and since some of the agenda will be secretive, i.e., unknown to the general populace – this results in a conspiracy.

Since the conspiracy for global government is world-wide, it necessarily follows that certain world powers are going to be involved in the planning and implementation of their ultimate goals.

The Agenda has been in existence for the last 95 to 100 years and has slowly been implemented to near fruition. It was very important to the forces behind it, such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and all other worldly connections to it that nothing should happen to derail its progress.

Trump Seen as Impediment

The world powers viewed the possibility of Donald Trump being elected to the office of President of the United States as upsetting their time-table for the completion of their World Government agenda. To the globalists, someone like Donald Trump is the complete antithesis to the program of globalism instituted throughout government entities by their secret operatives.  Their goals have been temporarily short-circuited. It was imperative that those who support this agenda do their best to stop Trump.

The cabal reasoned that if Trump was elected it could result in the possibility of their Agenda being delayed by as much as 30 years, possibly more. So, just in case, plan B was to go into effect immediately.

Their plan B was involved Russia doing something technologically which could be interpreted as an attempt to give aid to Trump, thereby setting up the planned charge of collusion between Trump and Russia.

About two days before the Inauguration, suddenly Obama announced that the FBI claimed evidence had surfaced regarding Russia’s interference in the election.  Obama ordered the FBI to keep him posted concerning the findings.

Instincts tell us that Obama knew beforehand about this FBI report. This was the beginning of the script of Plan B.  What followed was practically lock-step with my vision of how Plan B’s implementation would play-out, although we didn’t see the inside sources planning impeachment via Russian born Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.

Everything covered by ‘fake news” was followed almost to a tee as to how I thought it would be. Since it is an integral part of the progressive, socialist, communist organizational apparatus, it can be expected to follow the ‘Leninist Principle.” Lenin knew that to the public, what the truth is doesn’t count, rather, what counts is what truth is thought to be. So, lies are parroted over and over as propaganda is reinforced.

A prime example of this would be the tactics used by the media in covering the controversy surrounding both the Senator McCarthy hearings and the Alger Hiss/ Whitaker Chambers issues.  Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy by M. Stanton Evans and Seeds of Treason by Ralph De Toledano are important historical documentations of communist spies and Senator McCarthy’s efforts to overthrow them.

Ignoring True Corruption

There were plenty of issues which AG Bill Barr could have dug into and exposed the truth of the treason and corruption that prevailed in the DOJ, FBI, DNC, and the Clintons hook-up with Russia.

The goal was convincing the public that the false collusion charges against President Trump were true, and he had somehow given aid and comfort to the enemy, and that Russia was paying him back by giving him helping him win the 2016 election.  The problem was how they were going to avoid the perception of guilt regarding the sale of 20 percent of our uranium to Russia by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others.  It was Hillary who was guilty of collusion and probably of treason.

Then there was the case of Lt. General Michael T. Flynn and many others the Special Counsel of Robert Mueller had targeted. They hoped to find something or coerce someone to compose something negative about the president that would aid them in their attack against him. In General Flynn’s case, since he knew as much as he did about what was going on in the military as well as in the intelligence community, their sole purpose was also to remove him from his position in the White House. In short, they didn’t want anyone who knew as much as he did to be close to the President.

Up to this point the globalist cabal inside our government had been successful in surrounding the President with advisors who would falsely advise him on such things as who he should put in various positions.  The transition team was originally headed by Chris Christie, but VP Pence replaced him. These advisors gave him false advice on trade deals like the USMCA.  The one man with knowledge of the corruption within the intelligence community had to be removed, and that was General Flynn.

I don’t believe the President would have ever agreed to the USMCA if he had known what it contained that would incrementally diminish our independence as a free nation.

Justice Fades with Barr

All this and much, much more should have been investigated by AG Barr and would have resulted in exposure which would have cast the light of truth on the corruption within the intel community…that alone would have changed America’s perception of how things are playing out in our country.

But the highly acclaimed AG Barr wasn’t looking for evidence of injustice. For he was put into position to cover-up any evidence that was unfavorable to the forces he represented; which were the same forces represented by Robert Mueller.  His stock-in trade, like that of Barr, was the cover-up and exoneration of villains, and where possible, punishment and prison for the victims. Both Barr and Mueller are good friends who have the same modus operandi which goes back for decades.

And so, alas, our hopes are beginning to fade concerning the possibility of truth and justice once more abounding in America. It reminded me of an old saying, God looked everywhere for justice – but he could find none.

It reminds me of an old poem about England by G. K. Chesterton, Elegy in a Country Courtyard that ends with, “they have no graves as yet.”

And so, it is with us, Alas, alas, for America — we have no justice as yet.

Conclusion

Yet, I cannot give up hope.  We’ve not reached the bottom yet. History is replete with the accounts of men that faced much drearier outlooks. I remember the story of Marine General Oliver P. Smith who saved 15,000 Marines.  He held a staff meeting prior to the First Marine Division’s jump-off from Hagaru, Korea to fight their way to safety and freedom. His statement was, “I want every man to understand that we are out-numbered 10 to 1 – surrounded by 100,000 Chinese – we must not let them escape.”

A famous photographer, David Douglas Duncan, that chose not to fly out with the wounded, but to come out with the Marines, said to a marine while on this epic trek, “If I were God and I asked you what would be your request, what would it be?” He said that the marine looked up at the sky for a few seconds and replied, “Give me tomorrow.”

Can we imagine things being so bad that we would only ask for tomorrow? Cheer up. We have much more to be thankful for than just tomorrow. I am convinced that God does not want us to give up, but that we must continue the fight even when there appears to be no hope.

So, let us be thankful to God that we still have the time to press-on. Together, “Even when the skies grow darker yet – and the sea rises Higher.”

Instagram became young girl’s prison of abuse

Maria* was 13 years old when she first got Instagram on her phone. She had her parent’s permission because Instagram is rated as appropriate for “Ages 12+.”

She loved sharing photos as well as “liking” and commenting on her friend’s images. She posted about being in Girl Scouts, babysitting her younger brother, and going to the lake with her friends.

It wasn’t long before strange men started reaching out to her in direct messages.

She mostly ignored them. But, one day, a direct message came in from someone who looked young and cute in his profile picture and who he said he went to school in the neighboring town. Maria accepted his direct message request and the two began DMing back and forth every day.

He was interested in learning everything about her, which was flattering, and he soon asked her to be his “girlfriend.” Even though she’d never met him in real life, she agreed because he made her feel loved.

It was shortly after that when he started soliciting her to send him sexually explicit images. At first Maria said no, but he kept asking and began making her feel guilty for saying no. Eventually she relented and sent him some sexually explicit images of herself.

And that day changed everything.

Instagram, the social media app that Maria had been so excited to use and share with her friends, became her virtual prison! 

You see, this “young and cute boy” that Maria had sent her sexually explicit images to was not a boy at all. He was an adult man who promptly used these graphic photos to blackmail Maria.  He threatened to send Maria’s sexually explicit photos to her parents and to all her classmates if she didn’t have sex with him and then with others. Maria felt trapped. Before she knew it she was a victim of sex trafficking and was being sold to one stranger after another.

This went on for three months, while she was still living in her parent’s home, until she finally gathered the courage to tell someone and get help.

No child should ever go through that trauma.

Unfortunately, as more children are spending time online while home from school due to the coronavirus pandemic, many are warning (including the FBI) that children are at increased risk of this kind of online sexual exploitation because there is now more “supply” of children to meet the “demand” of predators.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, law enforcement only had the capacity to rescue a few children at a time and safe houses only had a limited number of beds to help those children recover. Meanwhile exploiters have nearly limitless access to children through social media apps and are therefore able to abuse more girls like Maria than we’ll ever know.

But the National Center on Sexual Exploitation has an aggressive strategy to fight this scourge.

Our strategy is to prevent the abuse of girls like Maria in the first place by demanding and getting critical changes to corporate policies as well as advocating for legislation and best business practices that favor safety above mere profits. We have a long history of success with efforts like these thanks to your generous support, but the rapid advance of technology means our efforts and resources need to expand in kind.

This is your invitation to prevent the abuse and exploitation of a child who is just logging into Instagram for the first time today.

In light of this increased danger for children, we feel emboldened to ask you:

Can you afford a small monthly donation?

Every amount can be used to make a big difference right now. We’ll turn your monthly donation, whatever you can afford, into advocacy with legislators and corporate executives as well as a means for getting crucial information and resources into the hands of parents so they can protect their children.

Will you help children like Maria to survive this crisis?

*Name changed to protect the innocent.

© All rights reserved.

Notre Dame prof hails Islamic law, asks international law judges to consider “referring to parts of Sharia”

“Notre Dame’s Emilia Justyna Powell, an associate professor of political science and concurrent associate professor of law, an expert in both international law and the Islamic legal tradition, traveled to many Muslim-majority nations to research how the two systems work together in practice.”

Now Powell is on a mission to teach Westerners that Sharia is similar to international law and in some ways superior. For this dubious endeavor she is lavishly featured in the Notre Dame University newspaper. Powell’s canvassing for Sharia has led her to ask “some international court judges” if they “would ever consider referring to parts of the Sharia.”

Powell’s interest in researching Islamic law further is driven, in part, by the bias she sees toward Western law to the point of absolute exclusion of any facets of Islamic law in international law. In fact, some international court judges she interviewed were irritated when she asked if they would ever consider referring to parts of Sharia. “Out of all the religions of the world, we’ve contributed to a large-scale misunderstanding of their legal tradition,” Powell said. “Islamic law and international law share many more similarities than they are given credit for.”

Powell’s skewed view of the Sharia is deceptive, propagandistic and dangerous. There is no comparison between international law (which is democracy-based) and Sharia (which is authoritarian and discriminatory). The violence, human rights abuses and murders committed throughout history in the name of Islam are not an aberration. They are reflections of normative Islam, fully backed by Islamic jurisprudence, which teaches the murder of apostates and gays, the conquest and subjugation of infidels, and the inferiority of women, including the head coverings (Quran 24:31, Quran 33:59) about which Powell fallaciously rambles.  The arrogance displayed by Powell is also an affront to Muslim dissidents who face (and experience) imprisonment (and worse) for opposing the human rights abuses sanctioned by Islamic law. Powell’s potential influence on the young minds who must listen to her propaganda in the classroom is concerning. And she is not unique; in fact, in many colleges and universities today, she is the norm.

“Islamic law and international law share many similarities, Notre Dame Professor says,” by Colleen Sharkey, Notre Dame News, April 8, 2020:

The very term Sharia conjures negative images in the minds of many Westerners, in part due to its association with extremist groups. However, an in-depth look at Islamic law, as practiced in the vast majority of Muslim-majority countries, reveals that it is interpreted in different ways depending on the country, its culture and the very people conducting the interpretation.

Notre Dame’s Emilia Justyna Powell, an associate professor of political science and concurrent associate professor of law, an expert in both international law and the Islamic legal tradition, traveled to many Muslim-majority nations to research how the two systems work together in practice. Her findings were published earlier this year in the volume Islamic Law and International Law: Peaceful Resolution of Disputes.

Powell uses the differences in how women dress in various Muslim-majority countries as an analogy for the various interpretations of Sharia.

“A perfect visualization is women’s head coverings. The Taliban encourages women to cover top to bottom, not even showing the eyes. In Saudi Arabia, sometimes eyes are visible but not much else,” she said. “I was recently in Bahrain where I witnessed a new trend: Women are unzipping their abayas and you can see Western-influenced clothing underneath like jeans, ruffles and lace. Many women don’t wear the hijab scarf there and some only wear it halfway on. But who’s to say which is correct? Bahrain is no less Islamic than Saudi Arabia, for example, just different. People in all Muslim-majority countries interpret and, thus, practice the Muslim faith differently.”

International law itself is based on a broad set of norms agreed upon by people from many different nations and cultures. It is also heavily based on Western law which, itself, has deep roots in Christianity — a religion that originated at a time when Roman law was already well established. “Islam, on the other hand, had no a priori legal system to work with other than unwritten tribal customs,” Powell writes. And, while international law has moved to a more secular model, Islamic law remains based in the writings of the Quran and the sunna as well as ijma (judicial consensus) and qiyas (analogical reasoning).

“However, disconcerting the dissonance between the Islamic legal tradition and international law may appear, there are more similarities between these two legal systems than the policy world and the scholarship take into account,” she writes.

By its broad nature, international law allows for interpretation based on norms in individual countries. And many Muslim-majority states have their own declaration of human rights, she notes.

“Sometimes international law promotes the peaceful resolution of disputes, but does not give specific rules or cite specific laws for how to do so. Countries can mediate, peacefully, via negotiation in compliance with international law. Sometimes Muslim-majority countries will also sign international treaties but place restrictions on them — what are technically called ‘reservations.’”

For example, some Muslim-majority countries use reservations to remove “freedom of religion” clauses, because their religion is inextricably part of their culture, with the assumption (often part of the country’s own understanding of human rights) that many of their citizens are all Muslim. In this way, Powell says, they are complying with some international norms but allowing for their identity to remain intact.

Powell also examines how Muslim-majority nations in different geographical areas use Sharia and work within the international law framework. In general, Powell finds that if an ILS (Islamic Law State) country has a secular court system and their constitution mentions peaceful resolutions of disputes, they possess a more favorable attitude toward international courts.

“The Islamic milieu is not a monolith. In each of the ILS, secular law and Islamic law coalesce to create a unique legal framework. Every one of the ILS is different in how it negotiates the relationship between these two legal forces — the religious and the secular — along with their respective differences in socio-demographic and political characteristics. Historically, every one of the ILS has worked out its own unique answers to the question of the balance of Islamic law and secular law,” she writes.

The examples Powell gathered through interviews shed light on the cultural and religious lenses through which many Muslims view courts….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Taliban say coronavirus is “sent by Allah because of the sins of mankind,” demand medicine and aid from sinners

Tennessee: Man who stabbed and killed three women was “practicing Muslim,” no indication of mental illness

Muslim cleric says “hatred and hostility” toward Jews is “part of our faith”

UK: Former soldier charged with three terror offenses, held in prison for fighting AGAINST the Islamic State (ISIS)

Khamenei: “Fighting over toilet paper is the logical outcome of the philosophy that governs Western civilization”

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