Much has been said about the acquittal of felonious invader Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, the killer of young Kate Steinle, who died in her father’s arms. Yet while most of the focus has been on “sanctuary cities” — a euphemism for treasonous, lawless cities — there perhaps has been no scrutiny of the people whose minds are too often a sanctuary from knowledge and reality: modern jurors.
The problem stems from “The Error of Impartiality,” which is the title of an essay on this very subject. For what is often perceived in jurors as fairness is just fecklessness, of the moral variety.
When choosing jurors, pains are taken to dismiss people with preconceived notions about the case. But consider: If in question is a high-profile matter such as the O.J. Simpson or Steinle case, what kind of person would know nothing about it and/or have formed no opinions? Does this reflect impartiality or just indifference?
Assuming such a person makes the ideal juror is like supposing that someone still undecided the day before a high-profile election is surely a better voter than someone who reads the news and formed an opinion early on. An undecided individual may be a better voter in the particular (relative to a given wrongly decided voter), but in principle this supposition simply is untrue. G.K. Chesterton explained the matter brilliantly in the aforementioned essay, writing:
What people call impartiality may simply mean indifference, and what people call partiality may simply mean mental activity. It is sometimes made an objection, for instance, to a juror that he has formed some primâ-facie opinion upon a case: if he can be forced under sharp questioning to admit that he has formed such an opinion, he is regarded as manifestly unfit to conduct the inquiry. Surely this is unsound. If his bias is one of interest, of class, or creed, or notorious propaganda, then that fact certainly proves that he is not an impartial arbiter. But the mere fact that he did form some temporary impression from the first facts as far as he knew them — this does not prove that he is not an impartial arbiter — it only proves that he is not a cold-blooded fool.
If we walk down the street, taking all the jurymen who have not formed opinions and leaving all the jurymen who have formed opinions, it seems highly probable that we shall only succeed in taking all the stupid jurymen and leaving all the thoughtful ones. Provided that the opinion formed is really of this airy and abstract kind, provided that it has no suggestion of settled motive or prejudice, we might well regard it not merely as a promise of capacity, but literally as a promise of justice. The man who took the trouble to deduce from the police reports would probably be the man who would take the trouble to deduce further and different things from the evidence. The man who had the sense to form an opinion would be the man who would have the sense to alter it.
Chesterton also noted that the logical outcome of our “impartiality” standard is that a “case ought to be tried by Esquimaux, or Hottentots, or savages from the Cannibal Islands — by some class of people who could have no conceivable interest in the parties, and moreover, no conceivable interest in the case. The pure and starry perfection of impartiality would be reached by people who not only had no opinion before they had heard the case, but who also had no opinion after they had heard it.”
The essay is pure gold, and I strongly recommend you read the whole thing.
I once wrote a piece titled “Why Most Voters Shouldn’t Vote,” and a corresponding principle may be that most jurors shouldn’t sit on juries. People so apathetic that they couldn’t be bothered to try and determine reality on high profile candidates or cases probably won’t transform, magically, into sagacious sleuths of reality upon entering a ballot or jury box. Apathy is not an asset, and ignorance is not a virtue.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Kate-Steinle.jpg360640Selwyn Dukehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSelwyn Duke2017-12-03 07:08:272017-12-04 12:42:41We Can Thank a Flawed Jury System for the Steinle Verdict
Naturalization has provided the “keys to the kingdom” to criminals and terrorists.
On November 21, 2017 the Department of Justice issued a press release, “Denaturalization Sought Against Five Child Sexual Abusers in Florida, Illinois and Texas.”
According to the press release, each of the five men had become naturalized United States citizens more than a decade ago and had all engaged in illegal sexual contact with children prior to becoming U.S. citizens. Three of the victims who had been sexually assaulted were merely six years old at the time they were assaulted.
In each case the alien concealed his criminal acts against his victim in filing for citizenship. Such false statements constitutes a felony under the provisions of 18 U.S. Code § 1425 (Procurement of citizenship or naturalization unlawfully) with a potential maximum prison sentence of 10 years in prison. However the maximum sentence of 25 years in prison may be imposed if such fraud was committed in conjunction with terrorism.
However, the statute of limitations of ten years has tolled for each of these individuals. (Most federal felonies have a statute of limitations of 5 years, where naturalization fraud is concerned, however, the statute of limitations is ten years. We will address the reason for this shortly.)
Consequently while these criminals cannot be criminally prosecuted for committing immigration fraud, all were naturalized well over a decade ago, the Justice Department is seeking to have them stripped of their citizenship to set the stage for removing (deporting) them from the United States.
Advocates for immigration reform insist that such aliens will undergo “security checks” that are conducted when aliens file applications for various immigration benefits. Clearly this flawed system failed where these five individuals referenced in the DOJ press release are concerned.
The only thing worse than no security is false security.
Aliens who seek to naturalize are supposed to undergo in-depth background investigations known as Good Moral Character (GMC) investigations.
Naturalization fraud not only enables criminals to evade detection but has a serious national security component as well.
This vetting process was greatly abbreviated under the Clinton administration and, as I noted in my April 2015 article, How DHS Ineptitude Facilitates Terrorist Operationshas not only enabled terrorists to escape proper scrutiny, they have been able to acquire various immigration benefits that enhance their ability to travel freely and embed themselves.
For terrorists United States citizenship and a U.S. passport is the ultimate “Key to the kingdom” facilitating their travel around the world using both their U.S. passport and the passport of their country of birth to cover their tracks and gain credibility in seeking entry into a series of counties around the world as they travel to receive training, conduct clandestine meetings and carry out attacks.
My article was predicated on a naturalized United States citizen, Abdirahman Sheik Mohamud who had immigrated to the U.S. from his native Somali and was subsequently charged with traveling to Syria to fight against members of the U.S. military in the hopes of killing several American soldiers.
He was charged with several crimes including making false statements to the FBI agents who interrogated him but no mention was made of the fact that he had naturalized just one year earlier and had apparently lied on his application for citizenship.
On June 29, 2017 The Justice Department issued a press release, “Ohio Man Pleads Guilty to Providing Material Support to Terrorists” which laid out all of the charges to which the defendant pleaded guilty. However, the charge of naturalization fraud was not included. It is interesting to note that for one of the crimes, lying to the FBI agents in a matter involving terrorism, Mohamud can be sentenced to a maximum of 8 years in prison. However, naturalization fraud committed in conjunction with terrorism carries a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison and would pave the way for his being stripped of United States citizenship.
There are many other documented cases of naturalized citizens who, intent on carrying out terror attacks seek U.S. citizenship thereby enabling them to obtain a U.S. passport. That strategy that was an integral part of their plans yet, inexplicably, not all of those cases have resulted in the terror suspect being charged with naturalization fraud.
Because of the particular significance of naturalization fraud and its potential nexus to national security and terrorism, while most federal felonies have a statute of limitations of five years, the statute of limitations for naturalization fraud is ten years.
In point of fact, the 9/11 Commission determined that immigration fraud and visa fraud were frequently used by terrorists as a means of entering the United States and embedding themselves in the United States in preparation for the deadly attacks they planned to conduct. This fact prompted me to write about Immigration Fraud- Lies That Kill.
Going back to the press release about the five aliens who face denaturalization, while, as the saying goes, “better late than never,” what is not clear is why it took the federal government more than a decade to uncover the fact that these individuals had lied on their applications for United States citizenship.
This is not simply an issue of the matter of being frustrated that justice delayed is justice denied, and the fact that because of the statute of limitations they escaped the possibility of being prosecuted and sentenced to jail time and a fine. A potentially even more significant issue is the unavoidable fact that each every day these child molesters were present in the United States, moving freely through the towns and cities where they lived that they may have had the opportunity to attack more defenseless children.
Indeed, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that some additional children may have been attacked but that the attacks went unknown and/or unreported.
If the system had worked as it should have worked, these predatory aliens might well have been stripped of their lawful immigrant status and deported from the United States before they even had the opportunity to file for naturalization.
Therefore Attorney General Sessions should consider issuing a directive to find out how the system permitted these five miscreants to slip through the cracks for such a long period of time.
It would be important, for example, to know if any of these criminal aliens had been aided by the anarchistic sanctuary policies of jurisdictions that seek to downgrade the nature of crimes for which aliens stand accused so that these aliens can be shielded from deportation, even where this endangers public safety including the youngest and most vulnerable members of communities across the United States.
Not only does this endanger pubic safety and national security but also undermines the principle of equal protection under the law for United States citizens.
Undoubtedly there are many other aliens who have similarly fallen through the infamous “cracks in the system.”
Every such criminal is a potential ticking time bomb whose presence, each day, poses a threat to the safety to the residents of the communities in which they live.
In the wake of recent mass shootings attention has focused on failures of the system that is supposed to prevent criminals and those suffering from serious mental illness from purchasing and possessing firearms. In the wake of several mass shootings, to everyone’s horror and frustration, it was determined that the shooter should have been barred from possessing firearms but, for various reasons, the system was not provided with relevant information that would have barred the gunmen from owning firearms.
The laws did not fail, the way they were administered, however, did. Vital relevant information was not included in databases undermining the integrity of the background checks.
On November 22, 2017 the U.S. Department of Justice issued a press release entitled, “Attorney General Jeff Sessions Directs FBI and ATF to Conduct a Comprehensive Review of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.”
It is important to make certain that guns do not fall into the hands of criminals and the severely mentally ill. It is, however, no less important to make certain that no less attention is given to the vetting systems concerning aliens who live in towns and cities across the United States.
Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud…
Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.
Therefore a similar directive needs to be issued that addresses the failings of the process by which aliens seeking immigration benefits are scrutinized, including the impact that “sanctuary” policies may play in undermining this critical system.
Staffers who are the targets of unwanted sexual advances on Capitol Hill should not have to endure a lengthy mediation process and pay the legal bills as lawmakers secretly draw on a mysterious slush fund to settle the accusations against them, an advocate for taxpayers argues.
In the event of a monetary settlement of sexual harassment complaints, members of Congress can draw on a taxpayer-funded account set up within the Treasury Department to cover their legal expenses and settle cases.
The account has paid out $17 million in the past 10 years, public records show, although it is not clear how much of that was for cases of sexual harassment.
“Right now, it’s very unclear to the taxpayer where this money is going,” Grace Morgan, director of external affairs for the Washington-based Taxpayers Protection Alliance, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.
“We don’t know who is getting paid the settlements and why they are getting paid the settlements,” Morgan said Monday. “The $17 million figure does not distinguish between sexual harassment claims and other general workplace claims. There is no information and no transparency.”
The spotlight fell on the question of sexual harassment on Capitol Hill after the scandal that brought down Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein prompted dozens of women, and men, to blow the whistle on the sexually predatory practices of major business, entertainment, and media figures ranging from actor Kevin Spacey to news anchor Charlie Rose.
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the longest-serving member of Congress, has been accused of sexual harassment by two former staffers. Several women, although none of them staffers, also accuse Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., of groping them.
When a congressional staffer decides to press ahead with allegations of sexual harassment, he or she must navigate a four-step process administered through an agency called the Office of Compliance. The steps: counseling, mediation, administrative hearing or civil action, and appeals.
“This turns out to be a 180-day process, and it’s not very fair or just to the victims,” Morgan said.
Nor is the amount paid out as the result of sexual harassment accusations against lawmakers currently public information, she said.
“We also need a full investigation into the $17 million and what has been paid to victims, how much involves sexual harassment claims and how this impacts taxpayers,” Morgan said.
‘Initial Spike’
For starters, the Senate passed a resolution requiring training on sexual harassment for senators and their staff. The House was expected to follow suit Wednesday.
Although an “initial spike” in sexual harassment complaints is likely to occur when new procedures go into effect, congressional employees will benefit over the long term from a healthier workplace, Rep. Barbara Comstock, R-Va., told The Daily Signal in a phone interview Monday.
Comstock, sponsor of a resolution targeting sexual harassment and discrimination that has attracted broad, bipartisan support, said she expects the House to adopt it.
The resolution would require “all House members, officers, employees, including interns, detailees, and fellows” to complete “anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training” during each annual session of Congress.
Comstock said she also will explore a legislative fix aimed at preventing the use of taxpayers’ money to cover settlement expenses when employees accuse lawmakers of sexual harassment.
Meanwhile, the resolution stipulates that lawmakers and employees complete training regarding sexual harassment within 90 days of the start of a one-year session. New employees must complete the training within 90 days of their hire date.
Where the current, 115th Congress is concerned, individual lawmakers and staffers must complete training no later than 180 days after its second one-year session begins in January.
‘A Changed Culture’
The House vote Wednesday marks a “watershed moment” of bipartisan support for a resolution that will begin a step-by-step process for implementing “fundamental reforms that change how [sexual] harassment is detected and prevented,” Comstock told The Daily Signal.
“We are looking at what can be done by resolution and what needs to be done legislatively,” the Virginia Republican said:
What we want is a zero-tolerance policy for this kind of behavior and a changed culture so that people can be free from this kind of harassment. We would also like to streamline the process for victims to come forward with any complaints so that it is not so long and drawn out. It should be a victim-friendly process.
BuzzFeed first reported that Conyers, the senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, reached a settlement in 2015 with a former staffer in a wrongful dismissal complaint. She alleged that she was the victim of unwanted sexual advances from Conyers, now 88.
Conyers “repeatedly made sexual advances to female staff that included requests for sex acts, contacting and transporting other women with whom they believed Conyers was having affairs, caressing their hands sexually, and rubbing their legs and backs in public,” BuzzFeed reported.
Tuesday morning, news broke that another former staff member had leveled accusations against the congressman.
The accuser, Deanna Maher, said Conyers made unwanted sexual advances toward her on three different occasions while she ran his district office in Michigan between 1997 and 2005, according to the Detroit News and other media reports.
Four women have come forward to accuse Franken, 66, of sexual harassment, beginning with Leeann Tweeden, a radio talk show host who described his behavior during a USO tour in 2006, two years before he was elected senator. Another woman, Lindsay Menz, said Franken groped her while having his photo taken with her at the 2010 Minnesota State Fair.
Legislation Possible
Co-sponsors of Comstock’s resolution include fellow members of the House Administration Committee: Chairman Gregg Harper, R-Miss.; ranking member Robert Brady, D-Pa.; and Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif.
Looking ahead, Comstock said she would like to see additional steps taken to ensure taxpayers would not be on the hook to cover legal settlements following allegations of sexual harassment.
“For that, we would need new legislation,” she said.
The House Administration Committee scheduled a hearing for Dec. 7 to review possible actions under the Congressional Accountability Act, the 1995 law specifying that certain civil rights, labor, workplace, and health care laws must apply to Congress.
That law also created an independent agency, the Office of Compliance, which is led by a five-member, nonpartisan board of directors and four executive staff members appointed by the board.
The Office of Compliance is charged with advising members of Congress, congressional staff, and visiting members of the public on their rights and their responsibilities in the workplace setting.
The office also offers advice on potential changes to the Congressional Accountability Act. Its general counsel has independent investigatory and enforcement authority for certain violations of the law.
‘Needs to Be Reformed’
After receiving multiple media inquiries about taxpayers’ money being used to cover the costs of settling sexual harassment allegations against lawmakers or legislative branch employees, Susan Tsui Grundmann, executive director of the Office of Compliance, released figures showing more than $17 million has been spent since 1997 to cover the settlements.
Not all of the complaints covered by the $17 million involved sexual harassment. Some were allegations made under the Americans with Disabilities Act, while others involved potential civil rights infractions.
Neither Grundmann nor other officials have made public a detailed breakdown of how and why the $17 million was spent.
The idea behind the Congressional Accountability Act was to apply the same set of anti-discrimination and civil rights laws governing other Americans to members of Congress and their staffs. But the 1995 law created a taxpayer-financed “Awards and Settlements” account in the Treasury Department to cover the cost of legal settlements.
The Taxpayers Protection Alliance, which is nonpartisan, focuses on educating the public about the effects of excessive taxation and spending at all levels of government.
Morgan, the organization’s director of external affairs, said the settlements fund appears to be used to insulate Congress from much-needed accountability and transparency.
“I would like to see a system where members of Congress themselves have to pay the settlement, or they have to go through the dispute process,” Morgan said in the interview, adding:
As it stands now, the victim has to pay for her own legal fees, where the member of Congress gets the federal funding for their lawyer. It’s a very long, drawn-out process that needs to be reformed.
The Office of Compliance would be responsible for administering the training created by the House resolution.
Aggressive Action
Comstock said she anticipates more complaints will be filed against members of both the House and Senate as employees become more familiar with what sexual harassment is.
“We might see an initial spike in the number of complaints as people develop a better understanding of what constitutes harassment,” the Virginia Republican said. “But the end result will be a more positive, healthy work environment.”
Congress could learn from how corporate America and the military moved to address questions of sexual harassment, she said. Both institutions have wrestled with similar issues for many years and their procedural changes could be instructive, she said.
“They have addressed this problem very aggressively,” Comstock said, and she believes in-person training is more effective than online sessions.
In a change long familiar to many other workplaces, the House resolution would require every lawmaker’s office to post “a statement of the rights and protections provided to employees of the House of Representatives under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995.”
What happens next, assuming the House adopts the resolution Wednesday, will become more clear after the Administration Committee’s Dec. 7 hearing.
While it may be challenging for Americans inside and outside Congress to come to terms with misconduct that involves public officials who agree with their political views, Comstock said, the safety and well-being of employees should be paramount.
“I think it’s best to stay out of the team politics and instead focus on the right policies,” she said.
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/john-conyers.jpg360640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2017-11-29 07:11:382017-12-02 09:52:44The Secretive, Taxpayer-Financed Settlement Fund Used by Lawmakers Accused of Sexual Harassment
We are living through a remarkable time in history. Almost daily, those in influential positions who once appeared untouchable are falling out of popular favor as their abuses are exposed.
Earlier this month, one particularly corrupt institution was dealt back-to-back blows: Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion business.
On Nov. 13, The Hill reported that the FBI may be investigating Planned Parenthood and its associates for the sale of aborted babies’ body parts for profit. It’s the latest development yet in a scandal that began in 2015 with the release of explosive undercover videos.
Those videos showed abortion industry executives haggling over the price of hearts, livers, brains, and kidneys and describing, in chilling detail, their techniques for crushing late-term babies to get the freshest organs.
The Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives spent almost one-and-a-half years conducting a national investigation, reviewing 30,000 pages of documents, and hearing hours of testimony.
They found enough evidence to refer several Planned Parenthood affiliates and tissue procurement companies for potential prosecution. Attorney General Jeff Sessions suggested that if the FBI concurs, charges might be filed.
Then came the second punch.
Just as news of the FBI inquiry broke, the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals declined to revisit its ruling that the state of Arkansas can redirect Medicaid funds away from abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood, which the state is completely justified in doing considering the ongoing baby parts scandal.
These two major breakthroughs would have been inconceivable under the Obama administration, which repeatedly abused federal power to prop up the abortion industry.
President Barack Obama’s aggressively pro-abortion administration put the “bully” in “bully pulpit.” Under Obama, the Justice Department became a tool to harass and intimidate pro-life advocates, labeling them domestic terrorists alongside groups like the Ku Klux Klan.
Instead of investigating Planned Parenthood for the shocking, potentially illegal practices exposed in the videos, pro-abortion Attorney General Loretta Lynch decided to investigate the whistleblowers.
The Obama administration also actively interfered with state efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. Kansas, Tennessee, Indiana, Texas, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina—all these states tried to get taxpayers out of the abortion industry, only to have the federal government bypass local officials to directly award lucrative contracts to Planned Parenthood or threaten to withhold federal Medicaid funds unless they kept tax dollars flowing.
As one last parting gift, during Obama’s final weeks in office, his administration issued an order banning states from defunding Planned Parenthood under Title X, which took effect two days before President Donald Trump’s inauguration.
Through it all, Obama’s court appointees have generally been reliable backers of abortion. One Obama appointee even compared an abortion to a tonsillectomy in a recent case that would have created new “rights” to abortion on demand for illegal immigrants.
But there’s a new sheriff in Washington now, and a palpable sense of terror is gripping Planned Parenthood and its camp. Without their defender-in-chief or the courts to bail them out, they are finally being held accountable.
Trump has busily set about undoing his predecessor’s destructive pro-abortion legacy. He has filled his Cabinet with pro-life officials, and has filled court vacancies with outstanding judges like Neil Gorsuch who faithfully interpret the Constitution.
Right away, Trump signed legislation (H.J. Res. 43) rolling back Obama’s parting gift to the abortion industry—something that, on a personal note, I was proud to witness in the Oval Office.
Trump’s strong commitment to pro-life policies has helped embolden state governors and legislatures. Texas has now applied to reclaim the federal funding it was denied under the last administration. South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster in August successfully defunded Planned Parenthood and requested a waiver from the Trump administration so that the state can do the same with Medicaid, which is where the abortion business gets most of its taxpayer funding.
The next step is for the Trump administration to issue new guidance to the states restoring their freedom to prioritize Medicaid funds the way they believe will best serve their citizens. The administration must be prepared to defend that policy vigorously should the case go to the Supreme Court.
The pro-life majorities in both houses of Congress should also fulfill their promise to redirect half a billion dollars in annual taxpayer funding away from Planned Parenthood using budget reconciliation, where they have the best chance of succeeding.
Marjorie Dannenfelser is president of the national pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List. Twitter: @marjoriesba
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/CecileRichards6-1250x650.jpg361640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2017-11-29 06:33:362017-11-29 06:33:36Planned Parenthood Is in Deep Trouble With the Law. This Could Be a Turning Point.
Florida Representative proudly posted on his Facebook page an endorsement by Ocean Champions:
But who is Ocean Champions?
According to its website:
Ocean Champions is a 501(c)(4) organization with a connected political action committee – the first national organization of its kind focused solely on oceans and ocean wildlife. Our goal is to create a political environment where protecting and restoring the oceans is a national government priority. By helping to elect pro-ocean Congressional candidates and engaging with Congress to pass pro-ocean laws and shoot down bills that would harm the ocean.
What does Ocean Champions mean by having a goal to “create a political environment where protecting and restoring the oceans is a national government priority” and to “pass pro-ocean laws and shoot down bills that would harm the ocean?”
Under the Obama administration this meant implementation of the National Ocean Policy on July 19, 2010, known as “Ocean Zoning.” This policy was fully supported by Ocean Champions and twelve other environment groups. In a July 19, 2010 press release titled “Conservation Groups Applaud National Ocean Policy” David Wilmot, Ph.D., President and Co-Founder of Ocean Champion stated:
The nation can now look to the National Ocean Policy to provide a guiding vision for all federal agencies and a needed mandate for the future protection and restoration of our coasts, oceans, islands and Great Lakes.
In four separate Congresses, legislation has been introduced to implement similar far-reaching ocean policies, and to-date NO bill has passed the House or been reported out of a Committee. Despite numerous requests from the Committee, the administration has yet to cite specific statutory authority on which this policy is based.
Rather than streamline Federal management, the policy adds layers of additional Federal bureaucracy that could significantly impact the economic and recreational uses of our oceans, ocean lands, and potentially all rivers, tributaries and lands that drain or adjoin our oceans. In total, the Executive Order creates: 10 National Policies; a 27-member National Ocean Council; an 18-member Governance Coordinating Committee; and 9 Regional Planning Bodies. This has led to an additional: 9 National Priority Objectives; 9 Strategic Action Plans; 7 National Goals for Coastal Marine Spatial Planning; and 12 Guiding Principles for Coastal Marine Spatial Planning to be created.
Restrictive national standards, along with ocean zoning, could slow and potentially stop the permitting of activities such as commercial and recreational fishing and energy production. This will harm the economy and cost jobs.
Although the policy is portrayed by the administration as primarily targeting Ocean related activities, recently released documents show just the opposite. The draft implement plan specifically states that the policy plans to address “the major impacts of urban and suburban development and agriculture—including forestry and animal feedlots.”
The policy establishes a Federally-controlled system of regional planning bodies that could override local and state zoning authorities. These bodies will have broad authority to issue regulations potentially impacting all activities that occur on lands adjacent to rivers, tributaries or watersheds that eventually drain into the ocean, yet these bodies will allow no representation by the people, communities and businesses that will actually be impacted by the regulations.
The new national standards will also create a whole new class of lawsuits that could further restrict permitting of coastal and ocean activities and create a new way to challenge state permitting decisions for activities that “might affect” the ocean environment. This initiative is poised to become a litigation nightmare.
Over 80 national and local organizations representing agriculture, forestry, energy, fishing, boating, mining, transportation and construction wrote to Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers requesting a prohibition on funding for the implementation of the President’s National Ocean Policy.
This new policy will affect already budget-strapped agencies such as NOAA, Department of Commerce, Department of the Interior, EPA, Department of Transportation, USDA, Homeland Security, and the Army Corps of Engineers. As Federal budgets are further reduced, it is unclear how much funding the agencies are taking from existing programs to develop and implement this new initiative. [Emphasis added]
So Buchanan is against Florida’s fishing, boating, agricultural, forestry and energy industries. He wants to take control of Florida’s shorelines and give oversight to unelected bureaucrats. He wants less permitting for construction along Florida’s shores and more lawsuits.
So is Rep. Buchanan pro-Florida? Pro jobs and for a growing Florida economy. Is he for the working people of Florida or not.
According to the House Committee on Natural Resources you can’t be pro-ocean and pro-growth. Pick one: the people of Florida or the ocean.
Reading the constant newspaper headlines over the past weeks and months, it’s high time we ask ourselves: are we living in a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah? These Biblical cities were infamously smote by God’s righteous cleansing by a rain of fire and brimstone; what will we do to rectify today’s situation?
The number of cases of sexual harassment/abuse from society’s so-called “elites,” (and since they run the media, government, and Hollywood, “elite” is no idle label) points to a disturbing – and, frankly revolting – number of sexual criminals running our country’s government and influential industries. From Harvey Weinstein to Charlie Rose to Bill Clinton, the highest level of our society is veritably infested by sexual predators who know neither morals nor consequences for their destructive actions.
Tax Payer’s Slush Fund for Congressional Predators/Criminals
Adding insult to injury, we recently learned that Congress has operated slush fund to pay out various victims of sexual, racial, and handicap abuse since 1995. Under the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) of 1995, they are required to report on the payouts from this fund, although under a convenient cloud of half-disclosed information.
According to the Office of Compliance (compliance.gov), Congress has paid out more than $17 million from 1997 – present day (20 years). This figure encompasses 264 individual cases, which include “overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.”
Here are some questions to consider in the aftermath of this stunning and disgusting revelation:
How many of these cases are related to sexual harassment/abuse? Since the revelation of this fund came only after the public outing of high profile sex offenders, is it reasonable to assume that most of the cases related to sexual offenses?
How many individual lawmakers and aides does this slush fund affect? Is it 50? 100? 150? (Reminder: 264 cases since 1997.) How many are repeat offenders, and who are they?
Is it completely fair to assume that these payments were only made to victims whose accusations were validated? It seems reasonable to conclude… yes!
Additionally, is it also fair to assume that each victim who was paid out of this fund is normally sworn to secrecy as a condition of the payout? If so, it is fair to point out that “money for silence” is a common applied mafia tactic.
What, if any, actions have been taken against the offenders?
What was going on in 2002, when the fund paid out nearly $4 million for a total of 10 cases? (Average of nearly $400,000 per case.) What was the nature of these claims? And who are/were the offenders?
Proposed Reforms for the Rotten Core
In the days since we have learned of this horrifying tax payer-financed fund, there have been calls for reform. Up to and including President Trump, many people have been calling for Congress to disclose immediately the names of the criminals/offenders whose actions led these payouts. Here are our two simple, humble recommendations which should be implemented as soon as possible:
All names of members of Congress and their aides who admitted to criminal actions that resulted in payouts should be released so that voters can identify them, and vote accordingly in the upcoming election. Victims should not be named.
Any above named individual should refund the government/tax payer for any and all funds paid to victims as a result of their disgusting individual actions. The tax payer should not be responsible for any payment whatsoever that resulted from impropriety on behalf of elected officials and their staff.
Since the passage of Obamacare and its exemptions of Congressmen/women, it is commonplace to assert that elected officials should be subject to the same laws and rules as citizens. This fund for victims is the prime example! Elected officials are no different than the people who elect them, and if they are criminals they should be subject to the same investigations, arrests, penalties, and consequences.
We, the People, Accuse!
What type of a society accepts rulers that act like animals without morals or scruples? What is now considered “normal” by our society? Is the right to routinely abuse women and men, (and dare we ask, children, too? Cf. Dennis Hastert) a reward of winning elected office?
What type of society accepts men in power who prey on women/men/boys/girls, ruin their lives through traumatic experiences, and worst of all pays for these crimes through our provided tax dollars? This is a pox on our house that we cannot afford to ignore.
This appalling revelation of a tax-funded slush fund should not go unnoticed. For example, recent accusations against Al Franken (D-MN) should not lead to 1 cent being paid out on his behalf. All compensation money should come from Franken’s own pocket – PERIOD!
The Clintons, Bill and Hillary, ushered into Washington a disgusting culture of casual abuse and, yes, rape and pedophilia. The phenomenon, however, affects both parties and cannot and should not be looked at in a partisan manner.
It is our right – no, it is our duty – as citizens, as a civilized and moral people, to demand accountability and an absolute end to these criminals’ careers as lawmakers.
This is your government, and dammit it’s your country! Don’t let them off the hook this time!
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/us-capital-building-2.jpg360638Wallace Bruschweilerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngWallace Bruschweiler2017-11-26 20:12:522017-11-27 08:23:20Sodom and Gomorrah – Is this the mirror of today’s society?
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
According to its website:
