ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, on Friday (11/17/17), filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, the mayor, and several city employees to stop the City’s unconstitutional censorship, intimidation, and harassment of peaceful pro-life advocates. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Cities4Life, a Christian pro-life ministry, and its Executive Director, Daniel Parks, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.
For over a decade, Cities4Life volunteers have peacefully assembled outside of Charlotte’s busiest abortion facility to pray and provide faith-based pro-life counseling for mothers seeking an abortion. However, responding to pressure from pro-abortion groups, the City of Charlotte has recently acted to silence this pro-life message by using an ordinance that unconstitutionally discriminates against signs based upon their content. In July of this year, City officials began enforcing the ordinance in a discriminatory manner so as to target the activities of pro-life religious groups, but not those of pro-abortion organizations.
Since July, Daniel Parks has been issued at least 4 citations by the City alleging a violation of the ordinance.
Tyler Brooks, the TMLC attorney handling the case, commented: “The City of Charlotte and its code enforcement officials have used the City Code to violate the First Amendment by restricting Cities4Life’s use of signs, and therefore its speech, because they object to the content of those signs. Thus, despite their desire to exercise their constitutional rights and speak freely, Cities4Life and its volunteers have encountered unconstitutional censorship.”
Cities4Life, headquartered in Concord, North Carolina, has chapters in Nashville, Tennessee; Tampa Bay, Florida; and Lexington, Kentucky as well as other parts of the country. David Benham, of Benham Brothers fame, is Chairman of the Board and a major funder of Cities4Life. Cities4Life’s approach is peaceful, prayerful, and non-violent as it seeks to demonstrate the love of Jesus Christ, clearly seen in thisvideo (5 minutes).
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented: “This is the second pro-life lawsuit we’ve filed in the past month. Despite the many pro-life victories in recent years, pro-abortion forces, which control the government in many large cities, have waged a guerrilla war against courageous pro-life advocates, like Cities4Life, who are engaged on the front lines of the battle. Cities like Charlotte are using their law enforcement powers to silence the voice of these pro-life warriors.”
The complaint asks the federal court to declare the City’s ordinance unconstitutional and to permanently enjoin its enforcement.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/city-of-charlotte-logo-2.jpg360640Thomas More Law Centerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThomas More Law Center2017-11-24 19:48:002017-11-24 19:54:47Lawsuit filed to stop City of Charlotte, NC Silencing Pro-Life Prayer and Counseling
“Sanctuary” policies attract foreign drug traffickers, fugitives and terrorists.
The mission of the immigration elements of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is, in part, to protect America and Americans from aliens who pose a threat to national security and the safety and well-being of those who are in the United States. DHS is also charged with securing our nation’s borders, America’s first and last line of defense, to prevent contraband such as narcotics and illegal weapons from entering the United States.
Today, my commentary is predicated on news reports that in August 2017 the DEA and other law enforcement agencies, including the NYPD, conducted a field operation that resulted in the arrest of two Mexican citizens, Rogelio Alvarado-Robles and Blanca Flores-Solis, a middle-aged husband and wife from Mexico, and the seizure, pursuant to the execution of a search warrant, of 213 pounds of narcotics in their apartment in the fashionable Kew Gardens neighborhood of Queens New York.
On November 13, 2017 The Washington Post reported on this investigation (“Mexican traffickers making New York a hub for lucrative — and deadly — fentanyl”), appropriately filing the report under “National Security.”
We will delve into this case, but first I want to ask a simple question and then provide some background information to put things into proper perspective.
The NYPD consists of over 35,000 officers and has garnered the reputation, around the world, for being the most sophisticated, well-equipped and effective police department in America, if not the entire world.
Why then would a foreign drug trafficking organization move its operation into New York City?
I would suggest that the fact that the city is a self-declared “sanctuary” for illegal aliens plays a significant role in that decision.
I spent half of my career with the INS assigned to elements of the “War on Drugs.” Back in 1989, as a member of the Unified Intelligence Division of the DEA, I began tracking the arrest statistics for the DEA in New York and was startled to find that at least 60% of those arrested by the DEA Task Force in NYC for drug-related crimes were identified as “foreign born.”
Nevertheless many members of the United States Congress are adamantly opposed to the construction of a wall or other fortifications along the U.S./Mexican border, declaring that it would somehow stop commerce and that such a wall would be an affront to Mexico.
In point of fact, the wall President Trump is determined to construct would not block ports of entry into the United States, only make certain to funnel all traffic through ports of entry to stop the flow of illegal aliens and the criminals and potential terrorists among them from evading the vetting process conducted at ports of entry.
Furthermore, such fortifications would also go a long way to stopping the flood of contraband, particularly narcotics currently inundating the United States.
The proponents of open borders and immigration anarchy claim that sanctuary policies protect “immigrants” from immigration law enforcement authorities. Their position on border security and immigration law enforcement run in diametric opposition to the mission of the DHS.
In reality, lawful immigrants and temporary foreign visitors who abide by our laws need no protection from the the components agencies of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) who are charged with enforcing and administering our nation’s immigration laws.
Indeed, aliens who are lawfully admitted into the United States are admitted by CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors and aliens who are granted immigration benefits such as political asylum, lawful immigrant status and even United States citizenship are granted those benefits by Adjudications Officers of USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) a division of the DHS.
Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182 is the section of law that enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded from the United States and includes aliens who who suffer from dangerous communicable, diseases or extreme mental illness as are criminals, human rights violators, terrorists and spies. That law is utterly blind as to race, religion and/or ethnicity.
The media fosters the false narrative about immigration law enforcement by describing advocates for secure borders and effective immigration law enforcement as “Anti-Immigrant” while using the term “Pro-Immigrant” to describe immigration anarchists.
The use of misleading language is a tactic that undermines public understanding of critical issues and ultimately undermines our very democracy. In point of fact, The Road to Tyranny Is Paved with Language Censorship.
Having provided this background information, let’s go back to the seizure of that massive quantity of narcotics that included 141 pounds of pure fentanyl, making this the largest seizure of fentanyl in U.S. history.
Fentanyl is 50 times more potent than heroin.
In fact, according to the DEA, the fentanyl that was seized during this field operation could provide lethal doses to 32 million people.
In other words, according to the DEA, the quantity of fentanyl seized in that one apartment could kill roughly 10% of the entire population of the United States!
According that that Washington Post report Rogelio Alvarado-Robles and his wife Blanca Flores-Solis, had flown to New York City about a month before their arrest and that the couple had no criminal histories and carried no weapons but were described by law enforcement sources as one of the many Mexican “drug cartel emissaries” have turned New York City into their Northeast distributions hub that employs aliens from the Dominican Republic as their “sales teams” that move incredible quantities of drugs through the “Big Apple” to cities located in neighboring states.
The article also noted that this year more than 350 pounds of pure fentanyl has been seized in New York City, a ten-fold increase in the quantity of this deadly drug that was seized in 2016 and that last year more than 60,000 people died from drug overdoses in the United States, with a fivefold increase in deaths attributed to synthetic opioids as fentanyl as reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The Washington Post report includes this excerpt:
According to DEA intelligence gleaned from wiretaps, about 80 percent of the fentanyl seized in the New York area appears to be linked to Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel. The organization remains North America’s dominant trafficking group, even as its leader, Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, awaits trial in a maximum-security jail in Lower Manhattan.
Sinaloa’s smuggling machine has carried on without Guzman, meaning his legal defense may be funded in part with profits from fentanyl sales made just a few miles from his cell.
The Sinaloa group does not bother with retail-level commerce, according to the DEA. It uses New York to deliver large wholesale shipments to middlemen, typically local Dominican traffickers. Those groups distribute to markets in New England, Pennsylvania, Baltimore and other places where the opioid crisis is raging.
On September 18, 2017 the NYPD issued a press release about the investigation seizure of the record quantities of fentanyl that includes this excerpt about a terrifying trend:
These cases highlight the enormous amount of fentanyl surging through New York City, hitting the streets and escalating overdose deaths. According to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, fentanyl is driving a spike in fatal overdoses, which reached an all-time high of 1,374 deaths in New York City in 2016 – 46% more than in 2015. A dangerously strong synthetic opioid, fentanyl is approximately 50 times stronger than heroin and is increasingly found mixed into the city’s illicit narcotics supply.
Dead is dead. While the number of people dying of gunshots wounds in NYC is decreasing, the number of deaths attributable to drug overdoses is skyrocketing but, incredibly, there is no mention of the fact that the couple arrested were citizens of Mexico, that the narcotics were smuggled into the United States from Mexico or that aliens from the Dominican Republic were used as “salesmen” to market these drugs on street corners of New York City and other cities across the Northeast.
This should not, perhaps come as a surprise because New York City is a “Sanctuary City” that not only shields illegal aliens from detection by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) but also provides “municipal ID” to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens further enabling them to embed themselves in New York City.
Nearly five years ago the NY Times published an important and illuminating article, Roosevelt Avenue, a Corridor of Vice that reported on the nexus between illegal immigration, false identity documents and a variety of crimes including human trafficking, prostitution and narcotics.
Drug money bankrolls gangs and terror organizations. Drugs have a direct and indirect nexus to violent crime. Considering that most of the narcotics peddled in the United States is smuggled into the United States by aliens, it is beyond belief that any mayor of any city would turn his town or city into a magnet for aliens whose presence in the United States may undermine national security and public safety.
Mayors of “Sanctuary Cities” and governors of “Sanctuary States” must certainly be prime candidates for this “award.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Fentanyl-in-NYC.jpg360640Michael Cutlerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMichael Cutler2017-11-24 15:15:532017-11-24 15:18:25New York City: Hub for the Deadly Drug Trade
The Harvey Weinstein exposé has opened a can of worms. The news is filled on a daily basis about sexual abuse and harassment in the workplace. If the West were ruled by Sharia, however, it would likely not be in the news. First, under strict Sharia, women would not be in the workplace if men were there. No women, no groping.
Furthermore, there would be no rape to report. Why? Under Sharia, rape can only be proven if there are four male witnesses. If a man rapes a women in private, no witnesses, no problem. But wait. Can’t the woman report the crime? Yes she can, but in a Sharia court, her testimony has only half the value of a male witness. Result? No conviction.
There is another reason that there would be no news about sexual abuse in the workplace. Under Sharia, a woman is seen as the cause of the molestation. She is so attractive to a man that he can’t control himself. She is the perpetrator. The man is the victim.
Conclusion? Sharia could solve the problem of these news headlines, but at the cost of inhumanity towards women.
Totalitarian Islam
Mohammed practiced totalitarianism. All people around him had to submit to his demands. After Arabia submitted, Mohammed left Arabia and began his mission to have Sharia rule the world. Just as in the year 632, after Islam enters a society, over time, the society becomes totally Islamic. This is totalitarianism.
Judge blocks Trump’s effort to end sanctuary cities — the day after a border patrol agent is bludgeoned to death.
On Sunday, November 19, 2017 two United States Border Patrol agents were attacked and one of the agents, identified as 36 year-old Rogelio Martinez, died of massive injuries to his head and body, possibly caused by rocks. His partner, who has not yet been identified, was grievously injured but is expected to survive.
On November 20th CBS News and the Associated Press jointly reported on the attack which reportedly occurred about 110 miles southeast of El Paso Texas and 30 miles from the U.S. / Mexican border.
El Paso is directly across the U.S./Mexican border from Ciudad Juarez, one of the most violent cities in Mexico and has become synonymous with the deadly drug trade.
Meanwhile even as news reports about the deadly attack on members of the United States Border Patrol were being made public, on November 20, 2017 San Diego-Union Tribune reported, “Judge permanently blocks Trump order that cut funding to sanctuary cities.”
That disheartening and infuriating report began with this excerpt:
A federal judge has permanently blocked President Donald Trump‘s executive order to cut funding from cities that limit cooperation with U.S. immigration authorities.
U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick issued the ruling on Monday in lawsuits brought by two California counties, San Francisco and Santa Clara. Orrick said Trump cannot set new conditions on spending approved by Congress.
There is a clear nexus to these two events that has not been covered in the news.
Border Patrol Agent Rogelio Martinez was killed because he and his seriously injured partner were performing their sworn duties, protecting America and America by securing our dangerous border.
The individuals who attacked those valiant agents escaped and, for all we know, are presently hiding out in a city in the United States. It is likely that they would feel most secure in a Sanctuary City that will happily ignore that they are illegally present in the United States.
If, indeed the this the case, that city is harboring dangerous fugitives who have already demonstrated depraved contempt for human life and the laws of our nation.
Providing fugitives with sanctuary is a violation of law and constitutes a contradiction in terms, logic and morality and places others in that community at risk.
Our immigration laws deem harboring and shielding illegal aliens from detection and related crimes to be felonies. The statute of relevance to these crimes is Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses.
Consider this excerpt from that statute:
Harboring — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.
Encouraging/Inducing — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who — encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.
Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.
Illegal entry of aliens into the United States poses a direct threat to national security and public safety. The preface of the official report, “9/11 and Terrorist Travel – Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” begins with the following paragraph:
It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal.
Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.
Immigration anarchists have come to use deceptive language to obfuscate the truth about America’s borders and immigration laws.
Aliens who evade the inspection process conducted at ports of entry conducted by CBP (Customs and Border Protection) Inspectors are not vetted and their very presence in the United States is unknown to the DHS.
Such unlawful entries are properly described as Entry Without Inspection (EWI). However, in a turn of language that could have been produced by the fictional “Ministry of Truth” of George Orwell’s “1984,” immigration anarchists refer to such violations of our borders as “entering undocumented.”
This example of semantic artifice is as outrageous as it would be to describe a bank robber making an “undocumented withdrawal” of money from the bank that he robbed.
The terms “Sanctuary City” or “Sanctuary State” provide an additional example of manipulation of language to achieve political objectives.
Dictionaries define a “sanctuary” as a place of refuge or safety.
Sanctuary Cities should be referred to as “Magnets for criminals, fugitives and terrorists.”
America’s immigration laws were enacted to provide refuge and safety for all who live in the United States by preventing the entry of aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable diseases, suffer extreme mental illness are criminals, terrorists, spies, fugitives, members of violent gangs or otherwise pose a threat to national security and/or public safety.
Finally, our immigration laws were enacted to protect American workers from unfair competition foreign workers.
Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182 enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded and serve as the guide for CBP Inspectors at ports of entry. A review of that statute, which is comprehended within the Immigration and Nationality Act, will verify the foregoing.
Aliens who are lawfully admitted, either as immigrants or non-immigrants need no protection from immigration law enforcement authorities. Indeed, annually immigration officers admit approximately one million lawful immigrants and admit tens of millions of non-immigrants (temporary visitors). Our immigration officials naturalize hundreds of thousands of immigrants each year bestowing upon them the highest honor a nation may provide to an alien, citizenship.
America’s immigration laws are utterly and totally blind as to the superficial issues of race, religion and/or ethnicity.
Furthermore, illegal entry is considered a continuing offense. Generally when an individual commits a crime, the venue where the crime must be prosecuted is determined by the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. This is the case for violations of laws on the local, state or federal level. When a bank robber flees from the jurisdiction where the bank he/she robbed is located, that individual must be returned to the jurisdiction in which the robbery took place.
However, where illegal entry into the United States is concerned, the venue for prosecuting the crime is “where found.” This is because this violation of law is a continuing offense. An alien who runs our nation’s borders does not somehow gain lawful status by getting further from the border.
Immigration anarchists frequently (falsely claim) running the border is not a crime. In fact, aliens who have been convicted of committing serious crimes and have been previously deported may face up to 20 years in prison for unlawful reentry as established in Title 8 U.S.C. 1326.
Finally, one of the key issues identified in the 9/11 Commission Report and the report 9/11 and Terrorist Travel from which I quoted earlier, was the need for effective immigration law enforcement from within the interior of the United States.
Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.
Judge Orrick needs to read the 9/11 Commission Report and the United States Constitution, especially Article IV, Section 4 which states:
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Invasion has been defined in part as:
An incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity:
An unwelcome intrusion into another’s domain
The oath of office taken by law enforcement officers, judges and other officials make it clear that our Constitution and our laws must all be enforced. Our laws are not a menu from which those who take an oath of office can pick or choose as one might when ordering food in a restaurant.
Don’t say we didn’t warn you, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told Democrats at a rocky Senate Judiciary meeting last week. When Democrats blew up the 225-year-old judicial confirmation rules in 2013, Grassley said they’d regret it. Now, four years later, the Left is finding out just how right he was.
Sure, clearing the way for a simple majority to rubber-stamp the president’s judges seemed like a good idea at the time. But now that the shoe is on the other foot, liberals suddenly find themselves on the wrong side of the same process they manipulated. Donald Trump certainly doesn’t mind. He’s been filling bench vacancies at lightning speed, shattering records set in much less partisan times. Now, left without the only weapon that could stop a confirmation — the filibuster — Democrats are grasping for anything to put the brakes on this high-speed train of nominees.
What they’ve settled on is a century-old tradition born out of common courtesy: the blue slip. Dating back to 1917, if a president nominated someone to the Senate, committee chairmen would send an evaluation form of sorts to the person’s home-town senators. They could return it, signaling their willingness to hold a hearing, or withhold it — usually grinding the progress on that nomination to a halt.
Desperate for leverage, liberal senators like Al Franken (Minn.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), and Tammy Baldwin (Wisc.) have tried to use these blue slips as the obstructionist method du jour. There’s just one problem: the practice has never been an official Senate rule. Instead, it’s more of a gentlemanly agreement to give deference to the two leaders who may know the person in question best. So while senators have taken to withholding their blue slips in protest, there’s nothing stopping Senator Grassley from moving forward without them.
And on Thursday, he promised to do just that. The longtime conservative announced to his colleagues that his patience has officially run out. “As I’ve said all along, I won’t allow the blue slip process to be abused. I won’t allow senators to prevent a Committee hearing for political or ideological reasons… The Democrats seriously regret that they abolished the filibuster, as I warned them they would. But they can’t expect to use the blue slip courtesy in its place. That’s not what the blue slip is meant for.”
The tradition was never created, Grassley went on, to be a home-state veto. And after Thanksgiving, he refuses to treat it like one. When the Senate flies back from turkey day, the Iowa Republican has already announced his plan to move on Eighth and Fifth Circuit Court nominees David Stras and Kyle Duncan. “I’ll add that I’m less likely to proceed on a district court nominee who does not have two positive blue slips from home state. But circuit courts cover multiple states. There’s less reason to defer to the views of a single state’s senator for such nominees.”
For President Trump, Grassley has been a perfect partner in accomplishing what most voters agreed was one of their biggest priorities: reshaping the federal judiciary. “When the history books are written about the Trump administration, the legacy will be the men and women confirmed to the trial bench,” Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) explained. And when that happens, some of the credit will almost certainly belong to leaders like Chuck Grassley.
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/112117_grassley_770x400-e1511311745285.jpg368640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2017-11-21 19:49:252017-11-21 19:49:25Grassley Abandons Slip on Judges
President Donald Trump is renewing his demand that Congress fund a wall on the southern border after a U.S. Border Patrol agent was killed from injuries inccurred while working over the weekend in southwest Texas, while his partner was injured.
“Border Patrol officer killed at southern border, another badly hurt,” the president said in a tweet. “We will seek out and bring to justice those responsible. We will, and must, build the wall!”
Border Patrol Agent Rogelio Martinez, 36, and his partner were responding to “activity” in Van Horn, Texas. Martinez died and his partner, not named by officials or in news accounts, is reportedly hospitalized. News reports Monday morning said the government hasn’t confirmed what the agents were responding to.
The cause of death is not known. Jeanette Harper, with the FBI’s El Paso, Texas, office told the San Antonio Express-News: “They were not fired upon. There are so many different agencies working together that we need to come together and develop a timeline.”
“Earlier this morning, I was notified that Border Patrol Agent Rogelio Martinez died as a result of serious injuries suffered while on patrol in the Big Bend Sector of our southern border in Texas,” acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke said in a public statement. The Border Patrol is a division of the Department of Homeland Security.
Duke continued:
Agent Martinez was responding to activity while on patrol with another agent, who was also seriously injured. We are fully supporting the ongoing investigation to determine the cause of this tragic event. On behalf of the quarter of a million frontline officers and agents of DHS, my thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends of Agent Martinez and to the agent who is in serious condition.
Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.
Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.
The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.
Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.
Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.
You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.
Below, you will find an emotionally gripping video of U.S. Army Sgt. Joshua A. Berry, who was injured in the deadly 2009 terrorist attack at Fort Hood, Texas.
Judicial Watch today announced it filed a lawsuit on behalf of Howard M. Berry, the father of the late U.S. Army Sgt. Joshua A. Berry, against the Secretaries of Defense and Army to award the Purple Heart to Sgt. Berry for injuries sustained in the 2009 international terrorist attack at Fort Hood, Texas (Howard M. Berry v. Ryan D. McCarthy, Acting Secretary of the Army and James Mattis, Secretary of Defense (No. 1:17-cv-02112)).
U.S. Army Sgt. Joshua A. Berry (left)
Judicial Watch points out:
Following the Fort Hood attack, the Secretary of Defense declined to recognize the mass shooting as an international terrorist attack against the United States. Instead, the attack was characterized as “workplace violence.” As a result, active duty servicemembers injured in the attack were ineligible for the Purple Heart, among other awards and benefits.
In response, Congress enacted legislation in 2014 mandating that servicemembers killed or wounded in an attack targeting members of the armed forces and carried out by an individual in communication with and inspired or motivated by a foreign terrorist organization be eligible for the Purple Heart….
The new lawsuit describes how Sgt. Berry was injured during the Ft. Hood terrorist attack:
On November 5, 2009, U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan (“Hasan”) opened fire at Fort Hood, Texas, killing thirteen people and injuring more than 30 servicemembers and civilians. Sgt. Berry was among the servicemembers injured in the attack. Sgt. Berry was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 1st Battalion, 6th Field Artillery, at Fort Hood. He had deployed to Afghanistan for approximately a year in June 2008 and was at Fort Hood as part of a transition program following his return from deployment. He was one of the last soldiers awaiting redeployment to Fort Knox at the time of the attack.
The briefing room in Building 42004 had a set of metal double doors leading to the outside. In witness statements given to the U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Command (“CID”) and in a separate statement given to a Texas Ranger, Sgt. Berry estimated that Hasan fired 30-40 rounds outside Building 42004. Sgt. Berry told those around him to get down on the floor and stay away from the doors and windows. When Sgt. Berry heard gunshots hit the metal doors near him, he leaped over a desk to take cover and, in so doing, dislocated his left shoulder. He then heard Hasan trying to kick in the doors. According to a witness statement from another individual, Hasan fired three rounds at the briefing room doors.
Investigative photographs and sketches of the SRP center show the layout of buildings and the location of shell casings from the shots fired by Hasan. The photographs and sketches show a number of shell casings around the metal doors of the briefing room where Sgt. Berry was located during the shooting.
Following the attack, Sgt. Berry was admitted to the Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009, where his dislocated shoulder was surgically repaired.
The attending physician who admitted Sgt. Berry found that Sgt. Berry’s injury occurred during the mass shooting at the SRP center.
Sgt. Berry’s commander found the injury to have been incurred in the line of duty and documented that Sgt. Berry was a casualty of the mass shooting at the SRP center.
On November 6, 2009, Sgt. Berry was entered into the U.S. Army casualty reporting system with a diagnosis of shoulder dislocation as a result of the mass shooting at the SRP center.
A photograph of Sgt. Berry meeting with President Barack Obama at a November 10, 2009 memorial service at Fort Hood, included herewith as Exhibit A, shows Sgt. Berry’s left
arm in a sling.
By memorandum dated December 7, 2009, the Fort Hood Installation Adjutant General confirmed that Sgt. Berry’s shoulder dislocation occurred in the line of duty.
CID, the Texas Rangers, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted a joint investigation of the shooting and subsequently found probable cause to believe Hasan committed the offense of attempted murder when he fired at Sgt. Berry.
On May 2, 2011, a Physical Evaluation Board found Sgt. Berry unfit for continued military service due to post-traumatic stress disorder, the shoulder injury received in the Fort Hood shooting, and degenerative arthritis of the spine. It recommended a combined disability rating of 80%.
On May 31, 2011, Sgt. Berry was released from active duty and placed on the temporary disability retired list.
On February 13, 2013, Sgt. Berry committed suicide. He was 36 years old. Sgt. Berry is survived by Plaintiff and a now 7-year old daughter.
At his August 2013 court martial, Hasan admitted to being influenced by Anwar Awlaki, chief propagandist for the al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula terrorist group.
On February 6, 2015, the Secretary of the Army announced that the Fort Hood attack met the criteria for awards of the Purple Heart. In its review of the mass shooting, the Army found sufficient evidence to conclude Hasan “was in communication with the foreign terrorist organization before the attack,” and that his radicalization and subsequent acts could be considered to have been “inspired or motivated by the foreign terrorist organization.”
The U.S. Army Decorations Board denied Mr. Berry’s application, for a posthumous award of the Purple Heart to his son. In April 2015, the Army awarded the Purple Heart to 47 service members injured in the Fort Hood attack. Sgt. Berry was not among them.
On April 17, 2016, a three-member panel of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records recommended that all Army records concerning Sgt. Berry be corrected by awarding Sgt. Berry the Purple Heart. The panel found “[t]here is no question that [Sgt. Berry]’s injury met the basic medical criteria for award of the [Purple Heart].”
In the lawsuit, Judicial Watch asks the court to declare the Secretary of the Army’s October 28, 2016, decision to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with the law; to declare that the denial of Berry’s application was unsupported by evidence; and to prevent the Army from continuing to deny Sgt. Berry a Purple Heart.
“Sgt. Berry deserves the Purple Heart and the bureaucracy should stop obstructing his just cause,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Frankly, we can’t imagine that President Trump, President Obama or Secretary Mattis would disagree that Sgt. Berry should be posthumously awarded the Purple Heart for the injuries he sustained during the Ft. Hood attack.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/U.S.-Army-Sgt.-Joshua-A.-Berry.jpg355640Judicial Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJudicial Watch2017-11-20 17:11:242017-11-20 17:11:45The Forgotten Soldier: U.S. Army Sgt. Joshua A. Berry
The Trump administration is pointing to a large federal roundup of members of the violent gang MS-13 as vindication of increased enforcement efforts and reason to change the policy on unaccompanied minor illegal immigrants.
The Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security announced a joint effort that led to the arrest of 214 gang members and those involved with gang-related crime.
MS-13 is an international criminal gang that spread throughout Central America into the United States—in largely urban centers such as Los Angeles, Boston, New York City, and into Toronto, Canada. The organization’s motto is “mata, viola, controla,” which means, “kill, rape, control.”
Of the 214, just 16 were U.S. citizens while 198 were foreign nationals. Of the foreign nationals, only five were in the country legally. Among those arrested, 64 entered the country as unaccompanied alien children, but most are now adults, according to the Trump administration.
During a press conference Thursday announcing the arrests, Tom Homan, deputy director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, noted the 2008 law on unaccompanied minors does not allow them to be immediately returned to their country of origin.
“The agencies sent up a series of policy requests to the Hill to address a lot of issues to further control the border and illegal immigration,” Homan said. “Some of these policies are being exploited and used by criminal organizations. That’s why that’s one of the policy issues we asked Congress to look at and help us with.”
The multi-state, multi-federal agency program was called “Operation Raging Bull.”
The current law states that unaccompanied minors from countries other than Canada or Mexico aren’t subject to expedited removal, but the minors are promptly released into the United States upon arrival at the border. The Department of Homeland Security transfers custody to the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement within 72 hours. That office must promptly release the minor to relatives or other sponsors, according to the White House. In some cases, the sponsors were criminals who abused law.
Of the total immigration hearings for unaccompanied minors that came to the United States between 2014 and 2016, 12,977 cases out of 31,091 completed ended in removal, according to a Congressional Research Service report in January. Out of those removals, 11,528, or 89 percent, did not show up for their hearing to make their case against removal proceedings, and often remained in the country.
Also, more than half of the unaccompanied minors that came into the United States in 2014 and 2015 were 16 or 17 years old, according to the Government Accountability Office in a February 2016 report.
Out of the 214 arrested, 93 were charged with crimes including murder, aggravated robbery, racketeering, narcotics trafficking, narcotics possession, firearms offenses, domestic violence, assault, forgery, drunken driving, and illegal entry/re-entry. The remaining 121 were arrested on administrative immigration violations, according to the Justice Department.
“With more than 10,000 members across 40 states, MS-13 is one of the most dangerous criminal organizations in the United States today,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. “President Trump has ordered the Department of Justice to reduce crime and take down transnational criminal organizations, and we will be relentless in our pursuit of these objectives. That’s why I have ordered our drug trafficking task forces to use every law available to arrest, prosecute, convict, and defund MS-13. And we are getting results.”
Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.
Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.
The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.
Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.
Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.
You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Victor Fuentes, 20, of West Palm Beach, making his first appearance at the Palm Beach County jail. Law enforcement says he is part of the gang MS-13 and is facing two first-degree murder and two robbery with a firearm charges. (Photo: Damon Higgins/The Palm Beach Post /Newscom)
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Victor-Fuentes.jpg360640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2017-11-20 14:50:272017-11-20 14:50:27Trump Administration Cites MS-13 Arrest to Push Change in Minor Immigrant Law
On Friday, President Donald Trump announced the addition of five individuals to his outstanding list of potential candidates for a future Supreme Court vacancy.
As was the case with the lists Trump put out during his presidential campaign, these new additions to the list are conservative men and women who are committed to interpreting the Constitution according to its original public meaning.
While there are currently no vacancies on the Supreme Court, rumors abound that Justice Anthony Kennedy may retire in the near future. Here’s a look at the new names.
Amy Barrett
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit
Age: Approximately 45
Barrett, a former University of Notre Dame law professor, was recently confirmed to the 7th Circuit. After graduating from Rhodes College and Notre Dame Law School, Barrett clerked for Judge Laurence Silberman on the D.C. Circuit and Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.
She then worked in private practice (where she was part of the team that represented George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore) before starting her career in academia, teaching briefly at George Washington University and the University of Virginia before joining the Notre Dame Law faculty in 2002.
Barrett is a prolific writer, having published in leading law reviews across the country on topics including originalism, federal court jurisdiction, and the supervisory power of the Supreme Court.
In 2010, Chief Justice John Roberts appointed her to the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, where she served for six years.
At her confirmation hearing in September, Senate Democrats chided her for her writings as a law student in 1998 and asked inappropriate questions about her Catholic faith. But Barrett received robust bipartisan support from the legal community, including from Neal Katyal, a prominent liberal who served as President Barack Obama’s acting solicitor general.
Britt Grant
Justice, Supreme Court of Georgia
Age: Approximately 39
Appointed to Georgia’s highest court by Gov. Nathan Deal in 2016, Grant previously served as the state’s solicitor general and in other capacities in the state attorney general’s office. She also worked in the George W. Bush administration, serving on the Domestic Policy Council and the Office of Cabinet Affairs.
Grant began working at the White House weeks before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and after that horrific day, her mission became making government “as effective as it can be and as protective of liberty as it can be.”
Earlier in her career, she served as an aide to then-Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., on Capitol Hill, clerked for Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the D.C. Circuit, and worked in private practice at Kirkland & Ellis, one of the top appellate law firms in Washington, D.C.
She is a graduate of Stanford Law School and Wake Forest University.
In a letter recommending her appointment to the state’s high court, Kavanaugh praised Grant’s “superb” writing, which is “[o]ne of the most important duties” of judges. In her 11 months on the bench, she’s heard numerous cases and displayed her excellent writing abilities.
In a recent decision reinstating criminal charges against a woman who secretly filmed her boss in the nude, Grant wrote a special concurrence agreeing with the judgment but not the reasoning of the majority. The majority analogized a state law criminalizing “hostile intrusion or surveillance” by a private party with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. She explained, “[t]he statute cannot bear the weight that the Fourth Amendment puts on it when addressing the behavior of private parties and not of the government” and that it “addresses a privacy interest quite different than the one that we all share against government search and seizure.”
Brett Kavanaugh
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Age: 52
A former clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy and graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School, Kavanaugh worked as a senior associate counsel and assistant to President George W. Bush and as an associate independent counsel.
He was nominated to the D.C. Circuit in 2003 but not confirmed until 2006.
Former Attorney General William Barr stated that Kavanaugh “quickly established himself as one of the key outside lawyers I went to on some of my toughest legal issues. He has a keen intellect, exceptional analytical skills, and sound judgment. His writing is fluid and precise. I found that he was able to see all sides of an issue and appreciate the strengths and weakness of competing approaches. He was particularly effective in dealing with novel issues which required some original thinking.”
Kavanaugh recently delivered the annual Joseph Story Distinguished Lecture at Heritage—joining the ranks of Justice Clarence Thomas and many other renowned federal judges. He spoke eloquently about the judiciary’s essential role in maintaining the separation of powers.
Kevin Newsom, former all-star appellate lawyer, was confirmed to the 11th Circuit in August. After graduating from Samford University and Harvard Law School, Newsom clerked for Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain on the 9th Circuit and Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. He then worked in private practice before serving as Alabama’s solicitor general.
After five years of government service, Newsom went back to private practice where he became a partner at Birmingham’s Bradley Arant.
Before joining the bench, Newsom had an extensive Supreme Court practice, arguing four cases at the high court and authoring dozens of cert. petitions and amicus briefs. Newsom has won countless awards for his work, including the National Association of Attorneys General’s Best Brief Award four times.
He has argued more than 30 cases in federal appellate courts across the country as well as in Alabama’s appellate courts. In 2011, Roberts, the chief justice, appointed Newsom to the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules.
Patrick Wyrick
Justice, Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Age: 36
Patrick Wyrick is the youngest person on the Trump list, at 36 years old. Then again, Joseph Story was only 32 when he was nominated by President James Madison to serve as an associate justice to the Supreme Court, a position in which he served with great distinction for nearly 34 years.
Wyrick was appointed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court last February, after serving as the state’s solicitor general for six years.
As solicitor general, Wyrick argued cases before the Oklahoma Supreme Court, and also successfully argued Glossip v. Gross (a case challenging the constitutionality of lethal injection) before the U.S. Supreme Court.
A graduate of the University of Oklahoma and that school’s College of Law, Wyrick clerked for U.S. District Court Judge James Payne.
When Wyrick was nominated to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, then-State Attorney General Scott Pruitt described Wyrick as “a superb lawyer” and “a constitutional scholar well-versed in both state and federal law … ” He added that Wyrick’s “wisdom, compassion, and integrity are unparalleled among the many public servants with whom I’ve had the pleasure of working.”
In his short time on the bench, Wyrick has written some noteworthy opinions, including the majority opinion in a case striking down a fee that the Oklahoma Legislature imposed on cigarette companies for violating a provision in the Oklahoma Constitution that sets forth the procedures that must be followed before enacting a “revenue raising” measure.
Although young, Wyrick’s meteoric legal career could ultimately land him on the high court.
We commend the president for taking the utmost care in continuing to identify outstanding individuals to serve on all levels of the federal bench.
John G. Malcolm oversees The Heritage Foundation’s work to increase understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law as director of the think tank’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read his research. Twitter: @malcolm_john.
Elizabeth Slattery writes about the rule of law, the proper role of the courts, civil rights and equal protection, and the scope of constitutional provisions such as the Commerce Clause and the Recess Appointments Clause as a legal fellow in the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read her research. Twitter: @EHSlattery.
Tiffany Bates serves as legal policy analyst in the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: @TiffanyHBates.
A Note for our Readers:
Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.
Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.
The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.
Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.
Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.
You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-at-podium-1-e1511179638176.jpg379640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2017-11-20 07:06:052017-11-20 07:08:31Meet These 5 Stellar Conservatives Trump Just Added to His Supreme Court List
Being conservative isn’t a crime — but there are six Democrats in the U.S. House ready to treat it like one. Yesterday, against the advice of their own party leaders, a half-dozen liberals filed Articles of Impeachment against Donald Trump for a grab-bag of offenses. Ranging from the comic to the bizarre, Tennessee’s Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) outlined the case against the president (not very effectively, based on the reaction of most Washington insiders). Even the mainstream media, which has been calling for Trump’s head since January, collectively rolled its eyes at the news.
Hurting the press’s feelings, appointing conservative justices, and owning successful businesses are hardly the stuff of Watergate. Yet, Cohen insisted at a press conference with fellow conspirators Reps. Luis Gutierrez (Ill.), Al Green (Texas) and Adriano Espaillat (N.Y.), Marcia Fudge (Ohio), and John Yarmuth (Ky.), “We believe that President Trump has violated the Constitution.” Specifically, they charge Trump with obstructing justice, violating the Constitution’s foreign and domestic emoluments clauses, and undermining the federal judiciary and press.
Undermining the press, an incredulous Stephen Dinan asks in the Washington Times? How — “by being mean to it?” And since when is criticizing a court’s judgment an infringement on the judiciary? President Obama berated the Supreme Court justices to their face at his own State of the Union! Where were his Articles of Impeachment? And, as National Review explained earlier this year (and CNN agreed) on the bogus emoluments charge, “Trump’s opponents claim that every time… a foreign diplomat books a room in a Trump hotel or pays for a meal in a Trump restaurant, the Constitution is violated…. Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe all owned massive plantations and sold agricultural commodities in Europe. Undoubtedly, some of their customers were foreign governments, but no political opponent ever raised the specter that they were violating the foreign-emoluments clause.”
This is an unserious, petty, and self-destructive campaign for Democrats. But don’t take my word for it — take theirs. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been against this witch hunt since May. “What are the facts?” she asked CNN’s Chris Cuomo. “If you don’t have that case, you’re just participating in more hearsay.” This week, she could only shake her head. Impeachment, she told reporters, “is not someplace I think we should go.” The party’s minority whip, Rep. Steny Hoyer (R-Md.), was equally concerned. “Do we disagree with [Trump’s] policies? We do. But disagreeing with the policies is not enough to overturn an election, a free and fair election,” he admitted with uncharacteristic rationality. “There are a large number of Democrats that believe this president ought to be impeached,” he went on. “We’ve just a made a judgment that the facts aren’t there to pursue that.” Even DNC Chairman Tom Perez wanted nothing to do with the six’s crusade. “I’m not talking about impeachment,” he let everyone know.
Liberal columnists from Vanity Fair to the Chicago Sun-Times complained that the effort would do more harm to their cause than good. “Nobody wants Trump gone from the White House more than me,” wrote Mark Brown. But, “You’re kidding yourselves if you think this is any sort of real blow to Trump… Our fellow Americans elected him…They won. We lost. And until there’s a stronger case to be made for impeachment, Democrats would be better served by being patient while fighting Trump on other fronts.”
Of course, the irony is that Barack Obama, whose picture belongs next to Webster’s definition of lawlessness, is the one who could have legitimately been impeached. If the Constitution hadn’t been in bomb-proof casing those eight years, the 44th president would have erased every memory of it. His abuses of power — from recess appointments and contraception mandates to IRS targeting — were actual violations of the law. The Democrats’ case against Donald Trump amounts to one thing: policy differences.
Of course, this has been the strategy all along. From cake bakers to sportscasters, liberals have tried to persuade people that holding conservative views is a fireable offense at best — and a criminal one at worst. It isn’t breaking the law to disagree with the radical ideology of the Democratic Party, but that’s what politicians like Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) allege in their criticism of Trump. “He creates controversy, he cannot get along with our members of Congress, and I’m going to continue my efforts to impeach him.” Apparently, Karl Rove wrote, “the standard for impeaching a president has shifted again: Now he can be removed from office for creating controversy and fighting with Congress.”
And while the impeachment of Trump isn’t something people inside D.C. take seriously, there is one thing they do — and that’s next year’s election. If you think the President Trump’s had a hard time getting things done with a Republican Congress, imagine what would happen if Democrats regain control of the House, Senate — or both. Our country can’t afford to hand the mantle back to Pelosi and Hoyer, who will almost certainly declare war on traditional values, bringing whatever positive change Trump’s affected to a grinding halt. As for their hesitation on impeachment proceedings, I don’t have to tell you how quickly that could change. So, remain vigilant. If you want to see more of the president’s promises become a reality, don’t let up!
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-hand-over-heart-e1510877791308.jpg365640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2017-11-16 19:16:412017-11-16 19:16:41Impeachment the Pits for Dems
Congressman Buchanan, along with Senator Mitch McConnell and Speaker Paul Ryan, recently called for Judge Roy Moore to step down as a candidate for the U.S. Senate in Alabama after unsubstantiated sexual misconduct allegations appeared in a Washington Post article.
Now it has been revealed that the U.S. Congress has a “secret slush fund” to pay off those who have accused members of Congress of sexual misconduct. To date according to multiple sources over $15 million of taxpayer dollars have been used to hush up this scandal. Congressman Buchanan because of his Ways and Means position has to know about this “slush fund.”
QUESTION: Will Congressman Buchanan put his morals where his mouth is by exposing his predator colleagues in Congress and call for them to step down?
Laura Ingraham has this report by a former staffer speaking out about Congress’ sexual misconduct:
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are so predatory that female staffers are advised not to ride in elevators alone with them, according to accounts compiled by CNN.
Females are also admonished to be careful of male lawmakers who sleep in their offices — another “unwritten” rule that women on Capitol Hill live by, according to the outlet.
The outlet spoke to more than 50 lawmakers, current and former staffers, and other political veterans, who revealed a culture so rife with sexual harassment that there is an informal “creep list” of lawmakers to avoid.
[ … ]
The “creep list” of male lawmakers — mostly in the House of Representatives but also in the Senate — are “notorious for inappropriate or predatory behavior,” according to the story. A female congresswoman said “half are harassers,” of her male counterparts, before quickly adding, only “some are harassers.”
The House Ethics Committee has ended its years-long probe into Florida GOP Rep. Vern Buchanan, finding no wrongdoing by the lawmaker, the secretive panel announced Friday.
The Justice Department and Federal Election Commission long ago stopped looking into Buchanan, the Ethics Committee noted in its report on the case.
Friday’s announcement is a highly unusual one for Ethics as it was not publicly known that Buchanan was still under investigation by the panel, and there was no requirement that a report or statement clearing him be issued.
“I’m very pleased the committee conducted a thorough review of the facts and reached a unanimous and bipartisan conclusion that I did nothing wrong,” Buchanan said in a statement.
Buchanan has been under scrutiny for the last several years after a former business partner alleged that the Florida Republican used straw donors to funnel tens of thousands of dollars in illegal campaign contributions to his 2006 and 2008 campaigns via employees at his car dealerships.
When a woman accused of adultery was sentenced to death by stoning, Jesus’ in John 8:7, said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
There is a proverb which states, “Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.” Perhaps no members of the House of Representatives should cast stones?
Congressional Office of Compliance just released a year-by-year breakdown of harassment settlements and awards:
NOTE: Congressman Buchanan was elected to the Congress in 2006 and sworn in in 2007. In 2007 according to the Congressional Office of Compliance over $4 million was awarded to 25 individuals. Every year since Mr. Buchanan has been in office more and more settlements have been made.
EDITORS NOTE: We have contacted Congressman Buchanan’s offices in Washington, D.C. and Sarasota, FL for comment but have not received a reply at the time of publication of this column. In an email to Congressman Buchanan we asked the following questions:
Will you release the names of every member and demand that they step down?
Will you disclose the names of those abused.
Will you disclose the amount of money allocated to each victim?
Will you disclose the process under which these cases are handled.
If we we receive a statement from Mr. Buchanan we will publish it.
UPDATE 11/17/2017: After repeated calls to Congressman Buchanan’s office we have yet to receive any response.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/vern-buchanan-1.jpg370640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2017-11-16 07:13:552017-11-17 10:43:39VIDEO: Will Congressman Vern Buchanan put his morals where his mouth it?
If Republicans don’t appreciate Donald Trump now, they will later. That’s when his biggest accomplishment — the courts — will reap the most rewards. For the last 10 months, the White House has been working at a frantic pace to confirm originalist judges, a quest that’s not only making history — but securing it.
Not since Richard Nixon has any president moved faster or more strategically on judicial nominees than Donald Trump. And while the Supreme Court is what captures most people’s attention, the real work is being done a step below — on the appellate level. That’s where, experts say, the real genius comes in.
In a fascinating article, even the New York Times can’t help but notice (with reluctant admiration) how the Trump team has intentionally gone about balancing the courts from the Obama years. “There has never been anything like what we’ve been able to do together with judges,” the president said recently. He’s right. By filling the appellate courts with constitutionalists, Trump’s team is making sure that Americans get a fair shake from the judges who hand down the majority of the country’s rulings. As the Times points out, “The 12 regional appeals courts wield profound influence over Americans’ lives, getting the final word on about 60,000 cases a year that are not among the roughly 80 the Supreme Court hears.”
While most of the country only tunes in to the SCOTUS fights, the reality is that most of these hot-button issues are being decided in the circuit courts below. That makes the president’s focus all the more important. In its interesting article, “Trump is rapidly reshaping the judiciary. Here’s how,” the Times explains that this plan dates back to last year, when legal experts huddled to talk about a “secret battle plan to fill the federal appeals courts with young and deeply conservative judges.” With the help of Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Republicans have delivered plenty of victories on that front, confirming eight — with more on the horizon. Thanks to Grassley, the Senate has kept up with the White House’s frantic pace, despite the Democrats’ stalling tactics.
And while the GOP is used to obstruction from Democrats, it was surprised to see some from its own party. For reasons few understand, Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) is standing in the way of Trump’s ninth federal court win — Kyle Duncan, the White House’s pick for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In a rare move, the senator from my home state refuses to endorse Duncan, a man many call a “conservative superstar.” As a solicitor general and law firm partner, he expertly tackled some of the most difficult issues, including marriage, the HHS mandate, bathroom bills, and gender identity. The Judicial Crisis Network calls him “one of the best lawyers of his generation.” I would hope that Senator Kennedy would join his fellow Republicans in moving on Duncan’s confirmation — and send another stellar judge to the bench.
In the meantime, conservatives who said the courts were the deciding factor in the 2016 elections have to be happy with the results. Even the New York Times can’t help but notice: “Mr. Trump is poised to bring the conservative legal movement… to a new peak of influence over American law and society.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/judge_justice_770x400-e1510621073322.jpg375640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2017-11-13 19:58:082017-11-13 19:58:08The Verdict Is in on Trump’s Judges
Fewer than half of President Donald Trump’s executive branch and judicial nominees have been confirmed by the Senate—the lowest number of confirmations in the past four administrations at comparable points in their presidencies.
The dismal numbers—a total of 223 confirmations of 519 nominees—were circulated by the White House amid complaints of unprecedented Democratic obstruction and the Senate’s lax schedule.
Nominations
Bush 1989
Clinton 1993
Bush 2001
Obama 2009
Trump 2017
Received in Senate
463
545
783
581
519
Confirmed
341
406
451
394
223
% Confirmed
74%
74%
58%
68%
43%
Cloture Votes
0
6
0
5
51
Voice Votes
321
398
413
366
146
Roll Call Votes
20
8
38
28
77
Source: Congress.gov, via White House
Trump has 175 pending nominees awaiting action from Senate committees and another 101 on the Senate calendar awaiting a confirmation vote, according to the White House.
“Personnel is policy. In delaying the confirmation of President Trump’s appointees, the Senate is directly limiting the president’s effectiveness,” the Conservative Action Project argued in an Oct. 10 letter.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has used delaying tactics, such as the maximum of 30 hours of debate on nominees, to slow down the confirmation process of Trump picks. That glacial pace means as few as two to five nominees are getting roll call votes each week.
“If this continues, it will take us more than 11 years to confirm the remaining presidential appointment[s],” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said earlier this year.
Democrats forced more than eight times as many cloture votes in the Senate at this point in the first year of a presidency than any other Senate minority going back to President George H.W. Bush’s tenure in 1989. Further, the 51 cloture votes for Trump nominees is more than all of the past four predecessors combined through their entire administrations.
Senate Democrats have even used procedures to block noncontroversial nominees. Six of the cloture votes were required to get votes on nominees who passed on the Senate floor with more than 90 votes, two with more than 85 votes, and one with 79 votes.
While those tactics have slowed the confirmation process, Democrats alone aren’t the problem, according to the Conservative Action Project, which released a letter last month imploring the Senate to move more quickly.
“The slow pace of Senate confirmations is exacerbated by the Senate’s continued insistence on working no more than 2 ½ days a week—arriving on Monday evening for a handful of votes, and departing, on average, by 2:30 p.m. each Thursday afternoon,” wrote the 133 conservative leaders who signed the letter. “Previous Senates worked harder.”
The short Senate workweeks and Schumer’s delaying tactics have resulted in 118 fewer conformations for Trump than the next closest administration, dating back to 1989. Three of Trump’s four predecessors had more than 65 percent of their nominees confirmed by this point in their presidency, while Trump has just 43 percent confirmed.
Dating to 1989, only President George H.W. Bush saw the Senate receive fewer nominations by this point in the first year of an administration. However, the first Bush had a much higher confirmation rate.
The Senate has received 519 nominations from Trump and confirmed 223.
By this point in 2009, the Senate received 581 nominees from President Barack Obama and confirmed 394, or 68 percent. President George W. Bush made 783 nominations by this point in 2001 and had 451 confirmations, or 58 percent. President Bill Clinton sent 545 nominees to the Senate by November 1993, with a 74 percent success rate of 406 confirmations.
George H.W. Bush got the same 74 percent confirmation rate by November 1989, getting 341 confirmations out of 463 nominations through the Senate.
For the entire single four-year term of George H.W. Bush, the Senate had only one cloture vote for a nomination. George W. Bush saw only four cloture votes during his eight years in office.
The Senate cast 10 clotures votes for Clinton nominees and 17 on Obama nominees, both two-term presidents, according to White House statistics.
Just 146 of Trump’s nominees were confirmed by the Senate with a voice vote. George H.W. Bush’s nominees passed by a voice vote 321 times; 398 for Clinton; 413 for George W. Bush; and 366 for Obama.
The signers of the Conservative Action Project letter urged McConnell to challenge the Democrats’ tactics by staying in session longer.
“[I]f Democrats are going to insist on all post-cloture time to be run, Majority Leader McConnell can easily make this painful for them by forcing continuous session overnight and through the weekend,” they wrote. “If the Senate stayed in session continuously for a week (including the weekend), they could confirm up to five nominees every week even if Democrats made them run the full post-cloture time on each nomination.”
Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.
Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.
The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.
Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.
Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.
You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.
After she was given a slap on the wrist by the EPC over three years ago, Mrs. Kirchner proceeded to step her egregious actions up a notch six months later after she was initially sanctioned.
During the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent [Kirchner] discussed inappropriate topics, such as sex, virginity and masturbation, with her language arts class. The conversations made several students feel uncomfortable or embarrassed.
During the 2012-2013 school year, during a lesson with her language arts class, Respondent [Kirchner] simulated having an orgasm. The simulation made several students feel uncomfortable or embarrassed.
During the 2012-2013 school year, Respondent [Kirchner] gave massages to students of her language arts class. The massages made several students feel uncomfortable or embarrassed.
Kirchner was found guilty of “gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude” and that she violated “the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession.” Kirchner was found to have violated Florida State Statute 1012.795, paragraphs (1)(d) and (1)(j), respectively.
What was the punishment given Kirchner?
The Florida Department of Education accepted a “Settlement Agreement”. The settlement agreement consisted of a letter of reprimand and placing Kirchner on two years probation. Kirchner accepted the Settlement Agreement.
Kirchner returned to her classroom at Coral Reef High School and retained her position on the Executive Board of the UTD. She retired last June and did not seek reelection to the UTD Executive Board.
However, six months after she was initially sanctioned by the EPC, she engaged in other acts that seem to be more outrageous according to a finalized EPC report issued last month.
According to the October 27, 2017, EPC Report:
On November 7, 2013, the Commissioner of Education issued an Administrative Complaint seeking to sanction the Respondent’s Florida Educator’s Certificate after she discussed topics such as sex, virginity and masturbation, simulated an orgasm in class and gave several massages to students in her class.
On April 4, 2014, the Educational Practices Commission issued a Final Order incorporating the parties Settlement Agreement which included a two (2) year probation period with specific conditions.
During the 2014-2015 school year, Respondent made several racially and sexually inappropriate comments to her students on school grounds and during school These comments include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) In or around November 2014, Respondent called – a student in her classroom, an “asshole” and ‘jackass” or words to that effect;
(b) In or around November 2014, Respondent referred to —————- work, as “shit” or words to that effect;
(c) In or around November 2014, Respondent called – a student in her classroom, a “jackass” or words to that effect;
(d) In or around November 2014, Respondent told an African-American student in her class, to not steal from her classroom because he would be blamed for said theft on the basis of his race;
(e) In or around November 2014, Respondent inappropriately discussed the similarities and differences between the female nipple and clitoris with a female student in her class; and
(f) In or around November 2014, Respondent referred to students as “retarded” or “retards” or words to that effect.
That, as a result of Respondent’s actions described herein, Respondent violated one or more of the conditions of her probation.
What was the punishment for these new offenses?
For the second time, The Florida Department of Education accepted a “Settlement Agreement.” This recent settlement agreement consists of a letter of reprimand and placing Kirchner on a six month suspension, three years probation, taking an ethics course, and a $750 fine. Kirchner accepted the Settlement Agreement.
Though she retired from Miami-Dade County Public schools last month, at the completion of her six month suspension, she will be eligible to teach anywhere in the State of Florida.
The sheriff deputies who assessed the fatalities at the bloody crime scene at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, counted the death toll as 26 because one of the victims was a mother carrying an unborn child inside of her.
The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 recognizes unborn children as separate victims for federal and military crimes. Texas law also defines a human being to include “an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth,” and recognizes an unborn baby as a potential crime victim.
“This has been a longstanding priority for us, and something we were instrumental in pushing,” said Jennifer Popik, a director for the National Right to Life, according to The New York Times. “The principle here is that there’s two victims. For a family already invested in the child, for the grandparents, this is a loss.”
Abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America defends harsher penalties for perpetrators who commit crimes against pregnant women, however, the group strongly opposes crime victim laws and “personhood” laws that give unborn babies separate legal status from the mother. These laws are an attempt to prevent women from getting abortions, according to NARAL.
“We need tougher laws on the books that increase criminal penalties for individuals who target pregnant women, and we stand with our allies in support of meaningful legislation to prevent future acts of gun violence,” said NARAL spokesperson Kaylie Long.
President Donald Trump’s administration has also defined life at conception. The Department of Health and Human Services “accomplishes its mission through programs and initiatives that cover a wide spectrum of activities, serving and protecting Americans at every stage of life, beginning at conception,” according to a draft plan from the agency.
Even New York’s World Trade Center memorial includes the words “and her unborn child” after the names of the pregnant women who died in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Thirty-eight states currently have fetal homicide laws.
Grace Carr is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @gbcarr24
A Note for our Readers:
Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.
Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.
The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.
Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.
Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.
You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/171108_TexasBaby_Carr-1250x650-e1510312564147.jpg369638The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2017-11-10 06:18:092017-11-10 06:22:19Here’s Why an Unborn Baby Was Counted as a Person in the Texas Massacre
