Mueller Report Offers Path To Prosecute Hillary Clinton

Two years barking up the wrong tree may now provide the direction to the correct tree in which to find the quarry.

On May 17, 2017, Bob Mueller was appointed Special Counsel to the investigation on Russian interference. Last Friday, nearly two years after his appointment and following the assignment of 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, 2,800 subpoenas, nearly 500 search warrants, and interviews with approximately 500 witnesses, Mueller’s report was presented to Attorney General William Barr.

The resounding conclusion, predictably enough was that “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Wrong tree.

After approximately $25 million of expenditures, two years of incessant torture of a duly elected President of the United States, the harassment and arrest of individuals involved in President Donald J. Trump’s campaign and sphere for reasons not involving collusion, the investigation found what the American people already knew: The President of the United States won the 2016 election because he was fairly elected by the people of the United States over one of the worst presidential candidates in American history!

Oh, yes, and the Russians were trying to interfere with our election process.

Well, there’s front-page news! The Russians were trying to disrupt the American political process! From Soviet times until now. And their interference has almost always been aimed more at sowing discord and division in America while undermining American institutions. On this score, they were wildly successful in 2016 and going forward largely thanks to the irresponsible American media.

But hidden within the pages of AG Barr’s summary are key words that could signal the new direction of the Russian meddling investigation, and perhaps one that would be much more fruitful: “Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks.”

Right tree.

Admittedly, this too is information of which most informed observers were aware, but here, for the first time, is an official admission by a dedicated investigator that Hillary Clinton’s emails, and/or those of her associates, were hacked by nefarious, foreign actors — specifically the Russians.

How far does this intrusion into Clinton’s emails go? We don’t know. That is precisely the question that should lead any subsequent investigators to Clinton’s email habits and an evaluation of her email security practices, not just relating to campaign emails, but those regarding nationally sensitive information such as her activities as Secretary of State.

There is other fertile ground for investigations, i.e. how did the FBI go so far down the wrong rabbit hole, who should be held responsible, were laws broken or the FISA courts lied to and is the law enforcement organization still compromised after the departure one way or another of most of its top leaders? These are implications of the the Mueller report. President Trump spoke of this when he said he hopes the other side is investigated.

Those investigations could and should follow and be part of the direct admission of the Clinton email hacking by Russia and its impact on the election. Doing so, it it were to be pursued, creates the most visible threat to Clinton, and the most likely direction in which any future inquiry regarding Russian meddling will inevitably go.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Left’s Russian Collusion Hoax

Rep. Rashida Tlaib Pushes Democrats to Investigate Trump for ‘Impeachable Offenses’

EDITORS  NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission.

Duke University Ordered to Repay the Federal Government $112 Million for Grant Fraud

It looks like all involved are Americans (LOL! I am, after all, fair and balanced here at Frauds and Crooks!).

But, I’m bringing you this news for several reasons and first and foremost I want you to know that a whistleblower filed a lawsuit that provided information about how research data was being fudged (for years!) and has been awarded $33 million as a reward under the False Claims Act.

Good for him!

So keep an eye on possible opportunities for you to turn in someone or some institution that is defrauding Uncle Sam!  

The story that is all over the news this morning, involves the National Institutes of Health and the EPA, so the first thing I thought about was how much data involving global warming is being manipulated at the big universities that suck off the US Treasury.

And, in the wake of the Admissions scandal, it is one more example of how the average American is being suckered by elite universities.

From The Chronicle of Higher Education,

Duke to Pay $112.5 Million to Settle Scientific-Misconduct Lawsuit

Duke University will pay $112.5 million to settle a lawsuit over its alleged submission of falsified data to obtain $200 million in federal research grants.

The lawsuit, filed by a former lab analyst, Joseph Thomas, alleged that from 2006 to 2013 a research technician, Erin Potts-Kant, fabricated data that Duke used to get research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Thomas also alleged in the lawsuit, filed under the False Claims Act, that Duke covered up the fraud. The university said on Monday in a written statement that its officials discovered the possible fraud only in 2013, after Potts-Kant was fired for embezzlement. The university did not initially understand “the extent of her research misconduct.”

More here.

The US Justice Department press statement from yesterday is here.  This is one tiny bit of it involving the suit initially brought by Thomas,

The allegations were originally brought in a lawsuit filed by Joseph Thomas, a former Duke employee, under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit private individuals to sue on behalf of the government and share in any recovery.  The Act permits the government to intervene in and take over the whistleblower’s suit, or, as in this case, for the whistleblower to pursue the action on the government’s behalf.  Mr. Thomas will receive $33,750,000 from the settlement.

I told you about qui tam suits here in January.

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission.

U.S. Attorney General Barr: No Collusion, No Obstruction of Justice

United States Attorney General William P. Barr issued a synopsis (below) of the Mueller investigation to key members of Congress and to the American people.

The AG Barr’s synopsis Muller investigation found:

The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 US. presidential election. As the report states: [T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

AG Barr also addressed the obstruction of justice issue stating:

The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel’s office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel’s obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement in response to the Muller special counsel report summary made public by Attorney General Barr today:

The long, national nightmare is over and President Trump has been vindicated. The corruptly-created and constitutionally abusive Mueller investigation failed to find any evidence to support the big lie that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government.

We’re pleased that AG Barr rejected Mueller’s attempt to smear President Trump with obstruction of justice innuendo by concluding that no such charges could be credibly sustained. Frankly, Mueller never had a valid basis upon which to investigate President Trump for obstruction of justice.

Let’s be clear, neither Mueller, the Obama FBI, DOJ, CIA, State Department, nor the Deep State ever had a good-faith basis to pursue President Trump on Russia collusion. Russia collusion wasn’t just a hoax, it is a criminal abuse, which is why Judicial Watch has fought and will continue to fight for Russiagate documents in federal court.

The targeting of President Trump served to protect Hillary Clinton and her enablers/co-conspirators in Obama administration from prosecution. Attorney General Barr can begin restoring the credibility of the Justice Department by finally initiating a thorough investigation of the Clinton emails and related pay-to-play scandals and the abuses behind the targeting of President Trump.

BOTTOM LINE: No collusion, no obstruction of justice.

RELATED ARTICLE: Attorney General Sees No Case for Obstruction as Mueller Finds No Collusion With Russia

FULL TEXT

Washington, DC.
March 24, 2019

The Honorable Lindsey Graham
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
290 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC. 20510

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
United States House of Representatives
2132 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC. 20515

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC. 20510

The Honorable Doug Collins Ranking Member,
Committee on the Judiciary Ranking Member,
United States House of Representatives
1504 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC. 20515

Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:

As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, March 22, 2019, I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller and to inform you about the status of my initial review of the report he has prepared.

The Special Counsel’s Report

On Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to me a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions he has reached, as required by 28 CPR. This report is entitled “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation.

The report explains that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 US. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations. In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.

1

The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public. Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel’s report.

Russian Interference in the 2016 US. Presidential Election. The Special Counsel’s report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel’s investigation was whether any Americans including individuals associated with the Trump campaign joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 US. presidential election. As the report states: [T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

The Special Counsel’s investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not and that any US. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

The second element involved the Russian governments efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not and that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.


1 In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign coordinated with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined coordination as an agreement tacit or express between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.

2

Obstruction of Justice. The report’s second part addresses a number of actions by the President most of which have been the subject of public reporting that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a thorough factual investigation into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion one way or the other as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as difficult issues of law and fact concerning whether the President’s actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that while this report does not conclude that I the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

The Special Counsel’s decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the Investigation, the Special Counsel’s office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel’s obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president.

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference, and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President’s intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloging the President’s actions, many of which took place in public View, the report identities no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense.


2 See A Sitting President’s Amenability t0 Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222 (2000).

3

Status of the Department’s Review

The relevant regulations contemplate that the Special Counsel’s report will be a confidential report to the Attorney General. See Office of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038, , 3 37,040-41 (July 9, 1999).

As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel’s report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to latter[s] occurring before grand jury. Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6(e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e. g. 18 U.S.C. 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function.

Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6(e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6(e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

*          *          *

As I observed in my initial notification, the Special Counsel regulations provide that the Attorney General may determine that public release of notifications to your respective Committees would be in the public interest. 28 CPR. I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.

Sincerely,

William P. Barr
Attorney General

4

VIDEO: Finally, Justice For Dads

Finally, the fathers can stop the abortion!

Biggest Political Scandal in US History Conclusion No Collusion

So special counsel Robert Mueller concludes and submits his investigative report to the AG. The biggest political scandal in US history, conclusion no collusion and no further indictments (at least not against the President and his supportive allies). The subpoenas and indictments will now be served to all those who have engaged unlawfully in this unprecedented witch hunt. God bless you Mr. Trump. This is a pendulum shifting moment in the Trump presidency. What follows now will be earth shattering. The plan is unfolding as it should as we go from dark to light. Three things cannot long be hidden. The sun, the moon and the truth. Let the show begin.

Day of Reckoning

Alas! The day of reckoning is knocking on Mueller and Comey’s doors along with a really long list of other bad cops and co-conspirators. The media is further exposed and has not one shred of credibility. Many people will begin to awaken and join us in truth. All roads eventually will lead up to Clinton and Obama which we have all been waiting. The plan is unfolding as it should. Trust the plan. No one will escape justice under President Trump’s re-institution of the rule of law. They’re all in the soup and they are all going down. The precedent will now be set to help prevent this from ever happening again. The hammer of justice will show no mercy. Thank you Lord.

Trump Goes to War with the Deep State

President Trump is at war with the deep state. Check out my raw unedited and very recent interview which will be edited and up on INFOWARS any day now. This now begins a reversal of the false narrative as Trump goes to war with the deep state. For the next six years of the Trump presidency en route to MAGA and the resurrection of America, the evil treasonous acts of the deep state and its operatives across the globe will now come to light. The truth about the Mueller witch hunt, voter fraud and election theft, the 33,000 e-mail scandal, Benghazi, 911, the central banking system, pedophilia and so much more will be exposed for all the world to see as President Donald J. Trump gains global support.

We have now officially entered steps six, seven and eight on the scale of discovery and action.  The deep state and its pathetic puppets are shivering in their shorts and running for the hills. Things will get nasty. Truly, the battle has just begun. Buckle down as false flags will escalate as the desperate acts of the deep state will be shocking. We are fighting for the survival of our country and we are indeed winning. And as to the election of 2020 (should we have an election), just know that the Democrat party is gone and has been replaced with socialist-communists along with Sharia law focused terrorists.

Informed – Connected – Grounded

Read through my books and nearly 400 articles here on this website. Sign up for the JMC Report. I have a pretty good track record for over two decades. It’s either us or them. Mark my words. They are all going down. The global financial reset and the rule of law reset are the underlying policies of which our brilliant and brave President is operating. President Trump is restoring power to the people and re-directing the course for humanity. We are on God’s side. May the force remain with us.

Podcast: JMC Report

RELATED ARTICLES:

The American Media Destroyed Themselves over the Mueller Investigation

I Want to Be Investigated by the FBI By Alan M. Dershowitz – WSJ

Falsely Shouting FIRE in a Crowded Theater

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s opinion in the 1919 United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States held that speech that is dangerous AND false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.

Holmes wrote:

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting FIRE in a theater and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

Today the legal definition of free speech is, “The right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the government to avoid a clear and present danger) especially as guaranteed buy the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”

Members of Congress have a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. This means that Congress has a duty to protect America from the substantive evils of those attempting to replace our Constitution with religious supremacist Islamic sharia law.

The question is not, “Is it irrational to fear Islam?” The question is, “Is it irrational to fear Islamists?”

Islamists are sharia compliant Muslims who advocate or support Islamic militancy and/or Islamic fundamentalism. Islamists target any nonbeliever – Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and non-sharia compliant Muslims who are all considered infidels.

Islamic militancy is seen in jihadi terror attacks on soft targets – infidels in pizzerias, nightclubs, airports, on beaches, and in train stations. Islamic militancy is seen in organized military jihadist groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, and in their military attacks on infidels like the slaughter of Christians in South Sudan and the catastrophic September 11th attack on American soil. Islamic militancy is easily identified and must be resolutely opposed.

Islamic fundamentalism, the non-military component of Islamism, is far more insidious but has the same goal of replacing our Constitution with sharia law to “Make America Muslim” in its quest to establish a worldwide Islamic caliphate.

That brings us to Islamophobia – a term that has been successfully weaponized in America to silence any criticism or discussion of Islamism.

Islamophobia is defined as an unwarranted irrational fear of Islam, and an Islamophobe is an individual who experiences this fear. So, is it irrational to fear Islam? The question appears simple but its answer is complex.

Guns don’t kill people – people do. So it is with Islam. Islam doesn’t kill people – Islamists do. Who are these Islamists and is it irrational to fear them?

The Muslim Brotherhood represents Islamic fundamentalism in America. Its propaganda arm is the Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR). The singular objective of the Muslim Brotherhood was defined by its founder Hassan Al-Banna in Egypt in 1928. It was and continues to be the establishment of an Islamic caliphate that will make the world Muslim – including America.

Muslim fundamentalism requires strict adherence to religious supremacist sharia law. Islam is a replacement theology when practiced by sharia compliant Muslims because they only recognize the authority of religious sharia law – they do not recognize the authority of the United States Constitution.

Americans are being deliberately confused by politicians and the mainstream media still insisting that Islam is a religion like any other. It isn’t. Sharia compliant Muslims like Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib are Muslim fundamentalists whose objective is to make America Muslim. They do it with their votes and by screaming Islamophobia anytime they are criticized or exposed for their seditious views.

The recent suspension of Judge Jeanine Pirro for questioning the symbolism of Ilhan Omar’s hijab is a case in point. The Judge made her 3.9.19 opening remarks in response to several outrageous antisemitic comments made by Rep. Omar. Her infamous tweet, “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken people and help them see the evil doings of Israel,” expresses the anti-Israel bias and antisemitism of Omar’s Muslim Brotherhood affiliation. The flaccid response of the Democrat party that did not censure her by name was described by Steve Emerson as, “a watered-down resolution condemning multiple forms of bigotry after many on the left came to the defense of Omar.”

What is defensible about Ilhan Omar’s antisemitism? The Judge was asking if Omar’s hijab symbolized her adherence to antisemitic supremacist Islamic sharia law. It is a valid question.

In a free society where freedom of speech is only restricted by things like falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater, the response to the Judge’s legitimate and important question was absolutely stunning yet unsurprising.

The predictable shrieks of Islamophobia were echoed across the mainstream media and Muslim Brotherhood’s CAIR demanded the permanent removal of Judge Jeanine Pirro. Of course he did – Rep. Ilhan Omar fund-raises for CAIR. Judge Jeanine Pirro posed a threat to the Muslim Brotherhood as one of the few conservative voices still on the air questioning and exposing creeping sharia law in American society.

Islamophobia has become the politically correct metric that determines what is protected free speech. How did this happen? What about Oliver Wendell Holmes?

Accusations of Islamophobia made during Obama’s tenure became the bludgeon used to silence any oppositional voices to the Muslim Brotherhood’s advancing agenda of making America Muslim. Writers, journalists, politicians, and political analysts who began to identify the stealth jihad being waged against America by Islamists in suits were silenced by Obama and his gang. Just like the accusation of “Racist” was used to silence anyone questioning or criticizing the behavior of a black person, so is the accusation “Islamophobe” being used to silence anyone questioning or criticizing the behavior of a Muslim.

Here is the problem.

The accusation of Islamophobia concerns itself exclusively with the WHO and ignores the WHAT of behavior. The accusation of Islamophobia focuses on who is being accused and ignores what the person did. So, if a non-Muslim (Jeanine Pirro) questions the actions of a Muslim (Omar) wearing the symbol of sharia compliance (hijab), the non-Muslim is accused of Islamophobia and the meaning of the Muslim wearing the hijab is ignored.

Accusations of Islamophobia are powerful weapons being used to conceal the Muslim Brotherhood’s stealth civilizational jihad against America. This is how it works.

Judge Jeanine Pirro’s question about Omar’s hijab is the dangerous but also true speech that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes identified as protected free speech. Cunning accusations of Islamophobia are then used to deliberately silence the Judge and deprive her of the Constitutional rights that Congress is sworn to protect.

What can be done?

Americans must inform themselves and become aware of the Muslim Brotherhood’s propaganda arm CAIR and its powerful influence in Washington. The Washington swamp is infested with leftist creatures, Islamist creatures, and globalist creatures all relying on the swamp’s dark murky waters to stay concealed from public view. Most people are afraid of swamps and the dangerous creatures that inhabit them. The Washington swamp is unique – the creatures it protects are just human and the dangers it hides only require an informed public protected by free speech to be neutralized.

Falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater and accusations of Islamophobia are both dangerous and false. The Muslim Brotherhood poses a clear and present danger to the United States in its support for Islamic supremacy, Islamic militancy, Islamic fundamentalism, and their clearly stated objective to replace the U.S. Constitution with sharia law and make America Muslim.

So, is it irrational to fear Islamists?

Fear is the natural human response to danger and it is extremely rational to fear those who wish to destroy you. Once the threat is acknowledged and the decision made on how to protect oneself, fear is no longer necessary. The courage to confront the threat is what is required.

The Muslim Brotherhood and every one of its seditious organizations must be declared terrorist organizations and be expunged from American society.

What America needs now is the courage to confront the Muslim Brotherhood.

EDITORS NOTE: This Goudsmit Pundicity column is republished with permission.

Maryland/Virginia: Three of Five MS-13 Gang Members Arrested in Horrific Murder are ‘Refugees’

“Sadly, the American people pay for the rope to hang ourselves with by resettling these people as refugees.” – (Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review)

“The suspects allegedly stabbed the victim 100 times and set the body on fire.”

You probably heard something about this case in the days following the arrest last week of five gang members (New Americans!) for the murder of another gang member.

Maybe you didn’t pay attention because they were killing their own, but thanks to reader Joanne for directing me to this story yesterday by Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review where we learn that we actually supported these creeps with our tax dollars.

And, now of course your tax dollars—hundreds of thousands of dollars!—will be spent to try them in our courts and incarcerate them!

Editor: You should make it a point to read Horowitz’s work.  He gets his facts straight and knows the law.

Here is how Horowitz begins his sordid tale,

One of the biggest scams being perpetrated against the American people as part of this mass migration from Central America is the fact that we are treating those who engage in self-trafficking as victims of trafficking and those who commit heinous violence in our country as refugees from violence.

Nowhere is this more evident than with those who come here from Central America as teens by having their families pay to traffic them here, get resettled as refugees, and then join gangs and fuel violence in our cities greater than the violence in their home countries.

On Friday, police in Prince George’s County, Maryland, announced the arrest of five members of an MS-13 cell based in Fairfax County, Virginia, for the gruesome murder of a fellow gang member across the state line. The suspects allegedly stabbed the victim 100 times and set the body on fire, a hallmark of the Latin American gangs and cartels. All five suspects – Jose Ordonez-Zometa, 29; Jonathan Castillo Rivera, 20; Kevin Rodriguez Flores, 18; Cristhian Martinez Ramirez, 16; and Jose Hernandez-Garcia, 25 – are being charged with first-degree murder.

I’ve noticed a pattern of so many heinous crimes committed by young males from Central America and how many of them came in to the country as “unaccompanied alien children” several years ago. Under that rubric, we automatically treat them as refugees to be resettled, not illegal aliens to be deported. I reached out to ICE and was told that at least three of them were indeed resettled under the UAC program. Here is the information they sent out on the record:

Go to Conservative Review and read about each of the three ‘refugees.’  Then this…

Notice the common thread here? They were all released into the custody of other family here, most likely themselves illegal aliens who, based on what DHS officials have testified before Congress in recent years, most likely paid for them to be smuggled into the country.

Our laws aren’t broken. It’s our policies contorting the laws that are broken.

The relevant statute (Sec. 235(a) of the Wilberforce Act) authorizes the resettlement program only for those children who are 1) indeed children under 18; 2) have no parent or guardian present in the country; and 3) have been victims of “a severe form” of human trafficking. In the overwhelming majority of cases, these teens have legal guardians in America who themselves are here illegally. Yes: 80 percent of the UACs were settled with other illegal aliens, most often family members, and in almost all cases, they are self-trafficked, not victims of kidnapping. Thus, they are not unaccompanied.

Read it all! 

He goes on to explain that our crime rate is rising as more ‘unaccompanied children’ come here from Central America and the crime rate there drops—-because the criminals are coming here!

BTW, in addition to Central Americans, El Salvadorans like these gang members, Maryland has a large enclave of Salvadorans here on Temporary Protected Status. Many came here as well through the “Sanctuary movement” of a couple of decades ago.  Look for an upcoming post on “Sanctuary.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Somalis Stage Walkout at Amazon Fulfillment Center in Minnesota

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission.

Pro-Gun Senators Introduce Bill to Prohibit Discrimination in Financial Services

On March 14, pro-gun Sens. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced S. 821 the Freedom Financing Act, a bill to prohibit discrimination against the firearms industry in the provision of financial services.

We have long been reporting on how anti-gun activists are seeking to use access to financial services as a means to punish and suppress lawful firearm-related commerce.

First came Operation Choke Point, a supposed “anti-fraud” effort during the Obama administration that morphed into a campaign by federal regulators to intimidate banks and payment processers into refusing business with politically disfavored clients, including firearm-related businesses. That program was officially repudiated by the Trump Administration, but for some businesses, the damage had already been done.

Anti-gunners next turned directly to the financial service providers themselves, extorting them with “social justice” condemnation for “financing” mass shootings and insisting they drop their firearm industry clients or impose gun control-like conditions on doing business with them. Several national banks did just that.

Activist institutional investors in publicly-traded gun companies also tried to embarrass those companies with proxy actions designed to portray the businesses in a negative light. To date, those efforts have been largely unsuccessful.   The Freedom Financing Act aims to put a stop to this discrimination by ensuring that banks participating in certain federal programs – as well as credit card companies, credit unions, and users of the Automated Clearing House Network — cannot refuse business with law-abiding federal firearm licensees for political or “reputational” reasons.

More recently, anti-gun members of Congress have reverted to Choke Point-like tactics in a continuing effort to intimidate banks and marginalize law-abiding businesses in the firearm sector. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) went so far as to berate the president and CEO of Wells Fargo Bank during a public oversight hearing for refusing to buckle to the pressure of the anti-gun lobby’s demands.

“How bad does the mass shooting epidemic have to get before you will adopt common sense gun safety policies like other banks have done?” Maloney demanded to know.

To his credit, the Wells Fargo executive stood firm, replying, “We just don’t believe that it is a good idea to encourage banks to enforce legislation that doesn’t exist.”

The Freedom Financing Act aims to put a stop to this discrimination by ensuring that banks participating in certain federal programs – as well as credit card companies, credit unions, and users of the Automated Clearing House Network — cannot refuse business with law-abiding federal firearm licensees for political or “reputational” reasons.

It is important to keep in mind that the national banks targeted by this legislation owe their very existence in large part to government and taxpayer largesse. Among other things, they benefit from public bailouts and federally-subsidized loan programs, as well as from infrastructure financed or subsidized by the government.

Private businesses generally enjoy broad discretion in setting their own policies and objectives, as is appropriate in our free market system. But exclusionary politics in the financial services industries hearken back to some of the most shameful episodes in American history. They are rightfully condemned, and have long been rightfully prohibited in other contexts.

The NRA thanks Sens. Cramer and Kennedy for their leadership in this important effort and commends the bill for swift action by the Senate.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Illinois Court Throws Out Deerfield Gun Ban

U.S. Politicians Cheer New Zealand Gun Confiscation

Alaska State Commission for Human Rights Director Attacks Human’s Rights

Legacy Media Push New Zealand Gun Confiscation Using Lies about Australian Ban

NRA Praises Vermont Superior Court Decision on Magazine Bans

Grassroots Spotlight: NRA New Mexico FAL Couple — Fighting Bloomberg Gun Control

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission.

Shame on Bob Moser and all the Others who Kept the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Secrets (until now)

Who is Bob Moser you ask?

He is a writer at The New Yorker who tells us over a decade later what he learned about the frauds at the Southern Poverty Law Center when he worked there in the early 2000’s.

Moser told his story yesterday about how much of the staff (mostly former staff now!) was well aware of the hypocrisy of the organization that was driven more by a desire to make its leaders rich than doing good for the down and out.

I don’t know why he even wrote this article (clearing his conscious maybe), but I am glad he did.

What most outraged me was the fact that all of these employees he references knew what was going on, yet many stayed and worked there for a time with apparent total disregard for what their ‘good works’ could do to regular Americans who have opinions—people like me!

Frankly, the SPLC’s money-generating “hate-group list” puts my safety in jeopardy!

It is long, but the New Yorker story is a must-read and a must-send to everyone you know!

Here is how Moser begins,

The Reckoning of Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center

(How about a subtitle:  And the reckoning of all the gullible libs who worked there, saw the truth, and kept their mouths shut till now!)

In the days since the stunning dismissal of Morris Dees, the co-founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center, on March 14th, I’ve been thinking about the jokes my S.P.L.C. colleagues and I used to tell to keep ourselves sane. Walking to lunch past the center’s Maya Lin–designed memorial to civil-rights martyrs, we’d cast a glance at the inscription from Martin Luther King, Jr., etched into the black marble—“Until justice rolls down like waters”—and intone, in our deepest voices, “Until justice rolls down like dollars.”The Law Center had a way of turning idealists into cynics; like most liberals, our view of the S.P.L.C. before we arrived had been shaped by its oft-cited listings of U.S. hate groups, its reputation for winning cases against the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nations, and its stream of direct-mail pleas for money to keep the good work going. The mailers, in particular, painted a vivid picture of a scrappy band of intrepid attorneys and hate-group monitors, working under constant threat of death to fight hatred and injustice in the deepest heart of Dixie. When the S.P.L.C. hired me as a writer, in 2001, I figured I knew what to expect: long hours working with humble resources and a highly diverse bunch of super-dedicated colleagues. I felt self-righteous about the work before I’d even begun it.

The first surprise was the office itself.

Continue here.

Hate-group list was a masterstroke by Dees!

Then this after a lengthy discussion about how it was more about raking in money especially from gullible northerners who would read about the “hate groups” in stories written by biased and uninformed reporters.

By the time I touched down in Montgomery, the center had increased its staff and branched out considerably—adding an educational component called Teaching Tolerance and expanding its legal and intelligence operations to target a broad range of right-wing groups and injustices—but the basic formula perfected in the eighties remained the same. The annual hate-group list, which in 2018 included a thousand and twenty organizations, both small and large, remains a valuable resource for journalists and a masterstroke of Dees’s marketing talents; every year, when the center publishes it, mainstream outlets write about the “rising tide of hate” discovered by the S.P.L.C.’s researchers, and reporters frequently refer to the list when they write about the groups.

Read the whole article.

Then send it to every local newspaper that uses the annual “hate-group list.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission.

MOVIE REVIEW: ‘The Kid’ is about confession and trusting the good guy with a gun

Lionsgate Movies released the film “The Kid.” According to the Lionsgate Movies YouTube channel:

In this thrilling Western, a young boy, Rio (Jake Schur), is forced to go on the run across the American Southwest in a desperate attempt to save his sister (Leila George) from his villainous uncle (Chris Pratt). Along the way, he encounters Sheriff Pat Garrett (Ethan Hawke), on the hunt for the infamous outlaw Billy the Kid (Dane DeHaan). Rio finds himself increasingly entwined in the lives of these two legendary figures as the cat and mouse game of Billy the Kid’s final year of life plays out. Ultimately Rio is forced to choose which type of man he is going to become, the outlaw or the man of valor, and will use this self-realization in a final act to save his family.

If you are looking for a historically accurate film about Billy the Kid and Pat Garrett you will be disappointed. However, if you are looking for a positive moral messages this film is filled with them.

Watch the trailer:

The kid in this film is Rio. It is Rio who kills his abusive father and escapes his abusive uncle in order to go on a quest to save his sister. This is a western to be sure. It is in the older style of the good guy with a gun versus the bad guys with guns. There are no special effects in this film. It is gritty down to earth good guy versus bad guy film making with a twist. The plot twist is about sin, confession and redemption.

But more importantly is is about confessing ones sins, redemption and in the end an armed good kid killing bad guys with a gun. While the film tries to be politically correct, at times portraying some of the marshals as cruel, it gets past this with a morally redeeming message.

Three times Marshal Pat Garrett asks Rio to confess, three times Rio refuses. This reminded me of the three times Saint Peter disowned Jesus in Matthew 26:34-35:

34“Truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.”35 But Peter declared, “Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.” 

In the end Rio confesses to Marshal Pat Garrett that he killed his abusive father. Garrett joins Rio in his quest. This confession leads to the freeing of his sister and a new beginning to both of their lives.

Our hope, at the end of the film, is that Rio, like Saint Peter, leads of life filled with valor, love and redemption. But more importantly that Rio and his sister go on to live a lives of repentance for one’s past sins. Prophetic indeed.

Speech Righter: Trump Tackles College Censorship

Going to college is tough for any teenager. But for conservatives, it can be downright dangerous. These days, parents are sending their kids off to six-figure war zones, where even moderate speakers need armies of protection — if they’re allowed to speak at all. Christians brave enough to talk about their views are stigmatized if they’re lucky, and physically attacked if they’re not. We’ve wiped campuses clean of so many words, ideas, and values that an entire generation is leaving college completely unprepared for the cruel world from which higher education is “sparing” them.

Like a lot of parents, Donald Trump is fed up. College campuses are so toxically liberal today that conservatives have gotten everything from death threats to docked grades. We’ve watched Christians like Isabella Chow lose her student government sponsorship. Even a simple act like recruiting for a college club is an excuse to throw punches. That’s not education — it’s state-sponsored hazing. And this administration has decided to do something about it.

Today, the president had a warning for liberal incubators like Berkeley: shut down free speech and the government will shut down your federal funding. Under a new executive order, the penalties for schools censoring students will be, in Trump’s words “very costly.” “If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view – NO FEDERAL FUNDS?” the president tweeted. So far, no one has had the nerve to hit higher education where it hurts. But then, not everyone is President Trump.

Charlie Kirk, who heads the group Hayden Williams was attacked for promoting, thinks it’s about time someone stepped in and stopped the First Amendment’s death spiral on college campuses. But how, he wonders, will the liberal media take it? After all, they’re “an ideologically homogeneous group, need to thread the needle of wanting to appear to be in favor of free speech while arguing that the president requiring free speech is somehow dangerous. That isn’t easy…” After all, he points out:

“Burn an American flag on campus or stand on a bench and decry the Constitution as racist and you will be allowed to speak. Wear an American flag on your shirt or hand out copies of the Constitution and you will be accused of triggering and sent off to the campus equivalent of the broom closet, called ‘Free Speech Zones,’ in order to continue to express your thoughts.”

And that intolerance has never cut both ways. Liberals used to care about the free exchange of ideas — until theirs became impossible to defend. Now, they’ve decided they don’t want to try to win the debate. They want to stop the debate from taking place. After years of policing speech and punishing speakers, the Left’s brainwashing is paying off. Thirty-percent of college students think shouting down people like Ben Shapiro is acceptable. Another 10 percent said it was okay to use violence to stop students like Hayden. And where did these extremists-in-training learn how to bully conservatives? From their adult counterparts, of course. They’re just mirroring what they’ve seen from the leaders of “get-up-in-their-face,” “tell-them-they’re-not-welcome,” “we-kick-them” liberalism.

This new army of young radicals thinks they’re on the “morally righteous side” in this culture war, Hayden says, “and in order to win, they must silence any form of dissent.” Now, thanks to President Trump, that silence will hurt any college who encourages it. “For an industry that loves to preach against capitalism, they sure do love their money,” Kirk points out. “This will hopefully start to get their attention. Unlike their students, if they don’t like it, they are certainly free to speak out.”


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump’s Executive Order to Colleges: Protect Free Speech or Risk Billions in Federal Grants

The Sinister Side of the Gender War

A Day to Celebrate Life

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission.

Israel’s High Court–When Legality Loses its Legitimacy

In overturning a previous decision of the Knesset’s Central Elections Committee, the High Court took another giant step towards further undermining the already dwindling public confidence in the Israeli judiciary.


In Israel, the negative impact of the judicialization of politics on the Supreme Court’s legitimacy is already beginning to show its mark. Over the past decade, the public image of the Supreme Court as an autonomous and impartial arbiter has been increasingly eroded… [T]he court and its judges are increasingly viewed by a considerable portion of the Israeli public as pushing forward their own political agenda… – Prof. Ran Hirschl, Towards Juristocracy, Harvard University Press, 2004.

The public is further losing its faith in…the legal system, with only 36 percent of the Jewish public expressing confidence in the courts…– “Public’s faith in Israel’s justice system continues to plummet,” Haaretz, August 15, 2013.

A candidates’ list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset, and a person shall not be a candidate for election to the Knesset, if the objects or actions of the list or the actions of the person, expressly or by implication, include one of the following: 

  1. negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state;
  2. incitement to racism;
  3. support of armed struggle, by a hostile state or a terrorist organization, against the State of Israel. – Basic Law Knesset– Article 7A

This week, the High Court took another giant step towards further undermining the already dwindling public confidence in the Israeli judiciary.

Eroding confidence in judiciary

On Sunday (March 17) it overturned a previous decision by the Knesset’s Central Elections Committee, and ruled to prohibit the participation in the upcoming elections of the hardline Right-wing candidate, Dr Michael Ben Ari, while permitting that of the undisguisedly anti-Zionist list “Balad” and the self-professed anti-Zionist candidate, Ofer Cassif. In doing so, High Court once again underscored the growing divergence between the average man-in-the-street’s perception of common-sense and sense of justice, on the one hand, and many judicial rulings, on the other. But more on that a little later

Over the last two decades, there has been a dramatic erosion of the public’s faith in the Israeli judiciary, in general, and in the High Court, in particular. Thus, according to an ongoing study at Haifa University, the confidence of the Jewish population in court system plunged from 61% in 2003 to a mere 36% in 2013.

A later study found that, overall, public confidence in the High Court plummeted from 80% in 2000, to 61% in 2014, to just 49% in 2017. Commenting on these findings, Einav Schiff, of the mass circulation daily Yedioth Aharonot, wrote “This isn’t a slip or a drop, it’s a collapse.”

He warned: “Needless to say, the High Court’s image among the public cannot remain as it is now. Eventually, there will be a political constellation that could enable another constitutional revolution.”

“…crass and misguided interference in Israeli democracy”

Schiff’s diagnosis proved a prescient prognosis of Justice Minister Ayalet Shaked’s outraged reaction to the High Court’s decision, which she labelleda crass and misguided interference in the heart of Israeli democracy”, and pledged to revolutionize the method by which High Court judges are appointed. At the top of her list of planned measures was the elimination of the judicial appointments committee for the High Court, in which sitting justices have, in effect, veto power over new appointments to the High Court.

Instead, according to her proposed reform, justices would be appointed at the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, who would bring a candidate for approval by the cabinet and the Knesset, with a public hearing being conducted for High Court justices.

Clearly, if implemented, this measure could go some way towards addressing the kind of perceived disconnect, described by Prof. Hirschl in the introductory excerpt (see above), between the world views of the judiciary and the democratically elected bodies of government.

Elsewhere in his book, Hirschl articulates precisely the process of judicial override of decisions made by elected bodies, as reflected in the verdict to overrule the Knesset’s Central Elections Committee. He writes: “…political representatives of minority groups [such as the anti-Zionist Arab factions and their members – MS] have come to realize that political arrangements and public policies agreed upon in majoritarian decision-making arenas [such as the Knesset’s Central Election’s Committee—MS] are likely to be reviewed by an often hostile Supreme Court.

Clear contravention of the letter of the law

Clearly, the recent ruling of the High Court was the outcome of “minority political groups” inducing review—indeed, reversal—of “majoritarian decisions” by a contrary judicial body. But in several important aspects it was a particularly striking case of court intervention in the democratic process.

For while the rationale for barring the anti-Zionists candidates, Balad and Cassif, was, in effect, almost self-evident—and indeed un-denied by them, the rationale for barring the Right-wing candidate, Ben Ari,  was largely a matter of inferred interpretation, which was disputed by him.

Thus, the Balad platform openly rejects Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, explicitly declaring its aspirations to convert into it into a “state of all its citizens”—which, one might have thought—given stipulation of Article 7A (1) of the Basic Law: Knesset (see introductory excerpt above)—should, on its own, be enough to disqualify it from participation in the Knesset elections. Yet for some reason the Justices of the High Court chose to disregard the unequivocal letter of the law.

Moreover, with regard to Ofir Cassif, the candidate for the “non-Zionist” Hadash list, it is not only his blatant self-professed anti-Zionism that should have prevented his candidacy, but his support for armed conflict against Israel. Indeed, even the judges—or at least some of them—seem to acknowledge this.

Thus, when Justices Noam Sohlberg, David Mintz and Neal Hendel pressed Cassif’s attorney on Cassif’s statements approving attacks on IDF soldiers, he tried to rebut them by claiming his client was discussing the matter on an academic philosophical level and not on an operational one. In response, Justice Hendel retorted that it was unrealistic to expect average readers to understand Cassif’s articles as if he does not support armed conflict.

Arab enmity not Arab ethnicity

Yet despite these incontrovertible violations of Article 7A of Basic Law: Knesset, the High Court—almost inconceivably—overturned the Knesset Central Elections Committee decision, ruling that Cassif could participate in the upcoming elections.

However, when it came to the far Right candidate, Ben Ari, things were very different. Accused of racism because of his harsh denunciation of the Arab sector in Israel and his blanket allegation of pervasive lack of Arab loyalty to Israel as the nation-state of the Jews, Ben Ari explained that that his attitude was not determined by the Arabs’ ethnic origins but by the Arab’s political enmity to Israel. Indeed, this point was made by Ben-Ari’s representative who declared that his client had “no problem” with Arab Israelis who are loyal to the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people.

Without going in the debate of whether Ben-Ari—himself of Afghan-Iranian origins—were inappropriate or in poor taste, it does seem a bit of a stretch to brand them as racism—particularly as Ben-Ari has served in the Knesset previously (2009-13) without any charges of racist conduct being brought against him. Indeed, if charges of racism, a crime punishable by up to ten years imprisonment by Israeli law, could be substantiated, one can only wonder why Ben-Ari has not been prosecuted for them!

Yet, despite his denial of any racist intent in his recriminations against the Arab population, the High Court ruled to interpret Ben-Ari’s declarations as racism and to prohibit his participation in the elections, overturning the decision of the Knesset Central Elections Committee to permit it.

Saving the judiciary from itself

The High Court decision produced outrage among Right-wing Knesset members who vowed to take action to curtail judicial intervention in the decision-making process of elected bodies.

For example former Defense Minister of Yisrael Beitenu  fumed: “it is absurd that the court would intervene in decisions of the Central Election Committee, to allow Ben-Ari to run, and to ban those who hate Israel…I will propose a law in the next Knesset to ban the court from intervening in committee decisions. We will do everything we can to prevent the Arab fifth column from getting into the Knesset altogether.”

Echoing similar sentiments was the newly appointed head of the Jewish Home party, Rafi Peretz, who issued a statement saying: “In the State of Israel, there is democracy in appearance only. The judiciary has taken the  Right to choose for Israeli citizens in an unprecedented manner. Kassif and Tibi [who served for years as advisor to arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat] are in, but Ben Ari, a Zionist Jew whose sons serve in the IDF, is out.

The judicial system will disregard these rumblings at its peril. For when judicial rulings are overwhelmingly at odds with public perception of common sense and justice, it cannot but lose the very credibility imperative for it to function

Indeed, two talkbacks, on a well-trafficked news-site, reflect this danger:

Ahmed Tibi is a champion of Yasser Arafat, the worst mass murderer of Jews since Adolf Hitler. Disqualifying Ben-Ari and not Tibi exposes a very alarming anti-Jewish bias in the High Court.”—Jacob

…by approving [C]assif but banning Ben Ari, our esteemed judges just ensured more votes for the Right. Are they on the payroll of Bennett/Shaked campaign?–Alexander

High Court justices would be well advised to heed the caveat that when legality loses its legitimacy, the entire edifice of the rule of law is imperiled.

AUDIO: Tennessee and Government Lawyers Spar Over The Federal Refugee Resettlement Program

The Federal Government’s “Unconstitutional Compulsion.”

In a case with critical constitutional implications for the principles of federalism and state sovereignty, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments Tuesday morning on Tennessee’s challenge to the federal refugee resettlement program.

Attorney John Bursch appearing for the Thomas More Law Center, argued on behalf of Tennessee’s General Assembly, while DOJ attorney Samantha Lee Chaifetz argued for the Federal Government. Each side had 15 minutes to present its case. Mr. Bursch took 10 minutes for his initial presentation and reserved 5 minutes for rebuttal.

Both lawyers were peppered with questions by Judge Boggs. By the end, it still remained unclear whether the judges were leaning towards one side or the other.

However, I have linked below to the court-provided audio of the entire oral argument, so you can judge for yourself.  Also, separately linked is Mr. Bursch’s 5-minute rebuttal which counters the arguments made by the Federal Government.

Listed below are some salient quotes from Mr. Bursch’s argument to the 3-judge panel:

  • “When the Federal Government implements an exclusively federal program, it cannot commandeer state funds to pay for it under a threat that the Federal Government will cut 20% of a state’s budget if it does not comply. That is unconstitutional compulsion.”
  • “The Tennessee General Assembly is the institutional plaintiff asserting an institutional injury. It can’t satisfy its State Constitutional obligations under Article 2 Section 24 of the State Constitution to have a balanced state budget because the Federal Government can simply syphon off state funds from the Tennessee general program whenever it wants to by placing more refugees.” 
  • “The question is whether the Federal Government’s pressure has turned into compulsion or coercion or duress.
  • The only one telling the Tennessee legislature that it can’t defend its own interest is the Federal Government. The same Federal Government which can yank those 20% of the Medicaid funds, the 20% of the State budget, if we don’t comply.”
  • “The language the Supreme Court uses when the Federal Government uses funding mechanisms where pressure turns into compulsion, coercion, pressure, duress that’s when it violates this 10th amendment federalism principle.
  • “The Assembly members take an oath to uphold state and federal law at the time they go into office and if they would propose a statute with a plan that didn’t result in us paying for this federal program, we would be violating federal law.”

Click here to listen to the entire oral argument.
Click here to listen to John Bursch’s 5-minute rebuttal.

IMMIGRATION: The Big Lies

How the establishment media’s distortion of the truth undermines America.


The Third Reich’s principle of the “Big Lie” involved the frequent repetition of lies until they became perceived as the truth by the masses.

George Orwell noted, “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ”

In this era of “Fake News” those tactics are purposely wielded by “journalists” to mislead Americans.

On March 15, 2019, News Leader, a subsidiary of USA Today, published an infuriating opinion piece, “School owes apology for ICE agent talk at Kate Collins Middle: Our View.”

While the article noted that the ICE agent was invited to the school and limited his activities to simply addressing the students of that school to explain the mission of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), the mere presence of that federal agent at a public school was enough to set off the editors who wrote their hit piece.

The editors of the publication then spewed utter lies and false “facts” from beginning to end to justify their vitriolic attack on the agency that is charged with enforcing federal immigration laws.

Here is the opening salvo they fired against ICE:

If you were born in 1968 or before, you’ve spent most of your adult life in American without any awareness of ICE. Because it didn’t exist. There was no entity called U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It was only created in 2003.

Before that time, we had immigrations officials who dealt with cases of people overstaying their visa or being in the country illegally. We had the FBI to investigate criminal issues related to terrorism as it relates to trade, travel and immigration.

ICE is a modern creation, an experiment. It’s one we should regret.

To begin with, ICE is not an “experiment” but was created as an element of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which was itself created in the wake of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

Prior to the creation of the DHS, the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws was the domain of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which was ultimately split into multiple components after 9/11. I have argued in my articles and in testimony I provided at several congressional hearings that breaking the former INS into multiple agencies actually impeded the effective enforcement of our immigration laws.

Nevertheless, arrests of illegal aliens were commonplace for INS agents long before DHS was created through the passage and enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

In fact, I began my career with the former INS in October 1971 as an Immigration Inspector and I became an INS agent in 1975. We frequently and routinely arrested illegal aliens for both administrative as well as for criminal law violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Administrative law violations were addressed through the immigration hearings which could result in an alien being stripped of any lawful status they may have acquired and then deported from the United States.

Criminal law violations of the INA would lead to those defendants being charged with crimes the same way that drug traffickers, tax evaders, counterfeiters and bank robbers would be charged in federal court. While most of the defendants in the immigration prosecutions were aliens, United States citizens who violated those laws by smuggling aliens, engaging in fraud conspiracies or otherwise violated criminal provisions of the INA could and were also charged criminally.

The notion that prior to the creation of ICE that there was no immigration law enforcement is a huge, flaming lie. The article complains about how ICE agents raid factories. I cannot remember how many such factory raids I participated in back in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

The article then went on to detail several arrests by ICE agents of illegal aliens who were found with family members or in other such circumstances creating a false image to discredit and vilify the agents and turning criminal aliens into victims.

Those aliens were, in fact, wanted for involvement in felonies in the U.S. and Mexico.

Consider the case of Perla Morales-Luna, whose arrest by the Border Patrol was included in the editorial. The Washington Examiner posted an article about that arrest, “The ‘scandal’ of Perla Morales-Luna’s arrest is fake news” and included this tweet by the Border Patrol:

Perla Morales-Luna was identified as an organizer for a transnational criminal smuggling organization operating in East County, San Diego.  She was arrested as a result of a targeted operation on March 3, 2018, in National City for being in the country illegally.

The editorial also included a breathless account of the arrest of Joel Arrona-Lara by ICE agents. At the time of his arrest he was purportedly driving his pregnant wife to the hospital.

What the editorial failed to disclose is that Arrona-Lara is wanted in Mexico for his involvement in a homicide. Information about his situation was reported upon in a Los Angeles Times report, “Warrant confirms man detained while on way to hospital with pregnant wife is wanted for murder in Mexico.”

The editorial also referred to an outrageous ACLU piece, “Citizenship service conspired with ICE to ‘trap’ immigrants at visa interviews, ACLU says.”

This is yet another example of the application of “The Big Lie.” USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) is the division of the DHS charged with adjudicating more than 6 million applications for various immigration benefits. Prior to the creation of the DHS it was a component of the former INS.

Aliens who have criminal convictions or who enter the United States illegally after deportation are not eligible for immigration benefits but may be subject to criminal prosecution for concealing material facts in their applications and/or for other crimes such as unlawful reentry which carries a maximum of 20 years in prison. These aliens are also subject to deportation from the United States.

The best and safest place to take criminals into custody is at a federal building where they are not likely to be carrying firearms or other weapons.

In 1973 I was given a one-year temporary assignment to the unit that adjudicated applications for residency based on marriage to U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants. I worked closely with INS agents to develop fraud cases and, in fact, one of those cases led to the arrest and conviction of an immigration lawyer for arranging sham marriages between citizens of China who had jumped ship and married American women who, for the most part, were of Puerto Rican ancestry and engaged in prostitution.

A wide variety of government agencies on all levels seek the arrest and prosecution of those who file false applications.

It is important to note that  the official report 9/11 and Terrorist Travel warned, “Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud.”

The title of my recent article will serve as the summation for my commentary today: “The Truth About Immigration Can Unite All Americans.”

RELATED VIDEO: Over $100 Billion Sent To Other Countries In Remittances Not Taxed, Tucker Carlson Commentary.

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission.

VIDEO: West Virginia AG Sues Disgraced Bishop, Diocese Over Sex Abuse Cover-up

Suit alleges Bp. Michael Bransfield knowingly employed ‘credibly accused pedophiles’


CHARLESTON, W.Va. (ChurchMilitant.com) – In an unprecedented legal move, the state of West Virginia has filed suit against Catholic authorities over sex abuse cover-up.

On Tuesday, state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey announced a civil action against the diocese of Wheeling-Charleston and its disgraced former bishop, Michael J. Bransfield, for allegedly “deceiving consumers and claiming their schools were safe when they were employing credibly accused pedophiles.”

Diocesan officials are accused of violating West Virginia consumer protection laws by marketing Catholic schools as safe for children even as they “chose to cover up and conceal arguably criminal behavior of child sexual abuse.”

The announcement follows six months of investigation into whether “Catholic priests who were active or had been employed in West Virginia had been accused of sexually abusing children.”

Morrisey launched the inquiry in September after the Pennsylvania grand jury report revealed that 301 priests — including one who had worked in Wheeling-Charleston — were responsible for abusing more than 1,000 children across the Keystone State.

The suit notes that “although the state has not fully completed its investigation” — which it blamed in part on “the lack of cooperation from the Diocese” — justice officials have learned that Wheeling-Charleston “has engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices by failing to disclose to consumers of its educational and recreational services that it employed priests and laity who have sexually abused children, including an admitted abuser who the Diocese nevertheless allowed to work in a Catholic elementary school.”

According to the lawsuit, Wheeling-Charleston officials “knew of sexual abuse complaints against priests of the Diocese, but, did not disclose the conduct to criminal law authorities or to parents paying for educational or recreational services.”

The complaint alleges, for example, that after confessing to homosexually abusing a student at St. Joseph Preparatory Seminary High School in Vienna, Fr. Patrick Condron was sent away for “evaluation and treatment” at two different facilities. After these stints away, without notifying parents, the diocese reassigned Fr. Condron to Wheeling Catholic Elementary School, where he worked from 1998 to 2001.

“Parents who pay and entrust the Wheeling-Charleston Diocese and its schools to educate and care for their children deserve full transparency,” Morrisey said Tuesday. “Our investigation reveals a serious need for the diocese to enact policy changes that will better protect children, just as this lawsuit demonstrates our resolve to pursue every avenue to effectuate change as no one is above the law.”

Observers are suggesting West Virginia’s action could set a new precedent for combating clerical sex abuse.

“This is the most that we’ve seen so far in terms of prosecution, in terms of someone in the higher levels of the hierarchy,” said Marci Hamilton of CHILD USA. “This is the first time we’ve seen a comprehensive claim against a whole diocese and a bishop.”

Tuesday’s announcement is the latest in a barrage of bad news for Bp. Bransfield, who in September resigned in disgrace amid credible allegations he sexually harassed adult males.

After investigating the accusations, last week, Baltimore Abp. William Lori, apostolic administrator of Wheeling-Charleston, declared that Bransfield can no longer exercise his priestly function.

Bransfield is also being scrutinized over his close association with serial sexual predator Theodore McCarrick. The former West Virginia bishop was consecrated by McCarrick in 2005 and later served as president of the board of trustees for the Papal Foundation, a multi-million-dollar enterprise co-founded by McCarrick and wracked by scandal over its questionable grant making practices.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Texas Library Allows Sexual Predator at Drag Queen Story Time

Since Christ Is Our Foundation, Fundamentalism Is Love

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column with video is republished with permission.