Here Are the Best Valentine’s Day Shopping Options That Are #AnywhereButTARGET

/in , , , /by

Cards, candy, flowers, and where to eat are the top decisions many will be making for Valentine’s Day. But for conservatives, being prepared for the holiday is just as important as making sure you are “shopping your values.” And at 2ndVote we’re making sure we have the best options for many of these items that are #AnywhereButTARGET.

A little bit of planning by using 2ndVote’s resources like our company database, mobile app (for Apple and Android products), and our Everyday Shopping Guide can point you in the right direction.

Below you’ll see a few suggestions from our research to help you pick the right alternatives in the days leading up to February 14th. Here we have some of the “best options”, as well as some companies you might want to avoid.

Retail
Hobby Lobby – 5
Bed Bath & Beyond – 3
Family Dollar – 3
Target – 1.4

Cards
American Greetings – 2.9
Hallmark – 2.3

Flowers
ProFlowers – 3
Edible Arrangements – 3 (Not technically flowers, but it counts for a decorative arrangement and a treat!)

Candy
Russell Stover – 3
Godiva – 3
Hershey – 2
Mars – 2.1

Jewelry
Kay Jewelers – 3
Tiffany & Co. – 2.3

Restaurants
Bonefish Grill – 3
Carrabba’s Italian Grill – 3
Cheesecake Factory – 3
Fleming’s – 3
Outback Steakhouse – 3
Olive Garden – 1
Red Lobster – 1
The Capital Grille – 1

Be sure to help share #AnywhereButTARGET campaign by visiting AnywhereButTARGET.com this week and spread the word!

Help us continue holding corporations accountable for their activism by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

The Dawn of a New Budget

/in , , , /by

It was over almost as soon as it began, but this morning’s government shutdown still happened. While most Americans were counting Zzzs, congressional Republicans were counting votes. And, in a tense debate over the new budget, they didn’t have them. The midnight deadline came and went, with members doing everything they could to jumpstart the government before rush hour. The internal battle between defense hawks and fiscal conservatives lasted until dawn, when the House and Senate’s compromise finally passed in enough time to take a 5:00 a.m. trip to the White House for the president’s signature.

Although the agreement keeps the government running through March 23, neither side was thrilled with the $320 billion package. The deal is particularly significant because it sets the spending caps for military and nondefense spending over the next two years. Conservatives, most vocally the House Freedom Caucus, were frustrated by the GOP’s refusal to cut costs. “We support funding our troops but growing the size of government by 13 percent is not what the voters sent us here to do,” the group tweeted.

Leaders like Senator James Lankford (R-Okla.) struggled to come to grips with the steep costs. Like a lot of Republicans, he thought conservatives could do better.

“This budget deal shows the American people exactly how broken our budget and appropriations process is,” he said. “It does not address our runaway deficits and actually takes major steps backwards in the fight to reign in Washington’s overspending appetite. Our budget process has only worked correctly four times since 1974. We desperately need budget reform. I’m ashamed that we have passed five continuing resolutions since the end of last Fiscal Year in September. This is no way to govern.”

“While I strongly support the budgetary certainty and increased military funding that this bill provides, the long-term negative consequences of the bill are too many. The prevailing theme of debt ceiling negotiations is usually avoiding default, but lost in the conversation is how we got here in the first place, and how we can get out of the cycle of deficit spending.”

Good, solid conservatives voted both ways on the bill. Many of our friends probably found themselves on the opposite sides of the roll call for the first time in a long time. As difficult as the details were to swallow, President Trump and others did cheer the $165 billion bump for our troops, which finally ended the long, painful days of sequestration. “Without more Republicans in Congress,” he tweeted, “we were forced to increase spending on things we do not like or want in order to finally, after many years of depletion, take care of our Military. Sadly, we needed some Dem votes for passage. Must elect more Republicans in 2018 Election!”

As for other silver linings, FRC was pleased to see the religious liberty protections for FEMA disaster assistance included, as well as a big boost in sexual risk avoidance (abstinence) dollars ($75 million a year for two years), an extension of the funding for community health centers that don’t perform abortions, a repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board death panels, and major cuts to the Obamacare slush fund.

I would agree with President Trump with one caveat: we need to elect more conservative Republicans. We need leaders who are willing to go toe-to-toe with the liberals who have pushed America to the verge of fiscal and moral bankruptcy until we prevail.

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Businesses, Bathrooms, and Bermuda

Fake News and Real Consequences

Conservatives Sound the Alarm on Budget Deal

The Senate’s Ugly Budget Deal Would Trample on the Success of Tax Reform

VIDEO: How Social Media Monopolies Silence Conservatives, How Anti-Trust Laws Could Help

/in , , , , /by

The Social Media Neutrality Panel was held on February 6th, 2018 at the Newseum in Washington D.C.

Rightside Broadcasting Network reported:

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018, at 1:00 pm (ET) at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. thought leaders and prominent voices in alternative media will gather for a panel discussion on social media neutrality and the fight for diversity of voices online. The event will feature several prominent online conservative and moderate voices who have been impacted by social media bias, shadow banning and other methods meant to silence voices and limit readers and viewers access to information. Panelists will discuss political bias by Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and by search engines such as Google.

A Harvard University study published on August 16, 2017, analyzed both mainstream and social media coverage of the 2016 election cycle. The study clearly shows that modern conservatives in America today have wholeheartedly rejected the liberal mainstream media.

The 2016 election cycle was the first election cycle where conservatives used alternative media news sources to gather information rather than turning to traditional mainstream outlets.

Conservative Americans abandoned the mainstream media in 2016 and will not be returning anytime soon. This paradigm shift forced left-wing tech-giants to take action. Tech giants today understand they have the ability to influence what information consumers see through their complex, and non-public, algorithms. Often this power is abused. Several conservative outlets, and countless individuals have been targeted, shadow-banned, and silenced by these tech giants.

By silencing these voices, big-tech is limiting information available to the American public and is a direct assault on First Amendment rights. The time for transparency is now! Tuesday’s panelists include Jim Hoft of The Gateway Pundit, Pamela Geller of The Geller Report, Margaret Howell of Right Side Broadcasting, Oleg Atbashian from The People’s Cube, Tech entrepreneur Marlene Jaeckel and special video remarks by Michelle Malkin and James O’Keefe.

The panel included testimony from Jim Hoft of The Gateway Pundit, Pamela Geller of The Geller Report, Margaret Howell of Rightside Broadcasting Network, Oleg Atbashian from The People’s Cube, tech entrepreneur Marlene Jaeckel. Topics all involved the current tech climate, social media bias, shadow banning and other methods meant to silence voices and limit readers and viewers access to information.

Watch the full panel discussion:

EDITORS NOTE: Pamela Geller Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of The Geller Report and author of the bestselling book, FATWA: Hunted in America, as well as The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. She is also a regular columnist for numerous publications. Geller’s activism on behalf of human rights has won international notice. She is a foremost defender of the freedom of speech. Her First Amendment lawsuits filed nationwide have rolled back attempts to limit Americans’ free speech rights and limit speech to only one political perspective, and exposed attempts to make an end-run around the First Amendment by illegitimately restricting access to public fora.

In Geller’s statements, she discusses how major social media platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, and Youtube have created the “new town square”, which they now have a monopoly on, and are using their platforms to erase and hide any viewpoint or person that does not conform to their pushed “progressive” values. Geller tells the audience how Google’s advertising platform went from being 70% of revenue from the Geller Report to them blacklisting her from the platform simply based on her conservatives views. She outlines how they do not just target voices they disagree with, but they make sure that those voices are unable to sustain themselves: “If they kill your ability to make a living, it’s a form of murder.”

Watch Geller’s entire statement below:

The Plot Thickens: Grassley-Graham Letter Sheds New Light on Steele Dossier, Nunes Memo

/in , , , , /by

While politicians, pundits, and the people continue to react to (and spin) the contents of the Nunes memo that was released last Friday, and await the release of the Democrats’ rebuttal, a new document has been released that contains tidbits of illuminating information.

On Jan. 4, Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on crime and terrorism, submitted a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Chris Wray requesting that they consider investigating Christopher Steele for lying to the FBI, which is a federal crime.

Steele is the former British spy who was hired and paid $160,000 by Fusion GPS, a research company working on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to do opposition research on Donald Trump. Steele is also the individual who produced a dossier that was used to support an application for a warrant to engage in electronic surveillance of Carter Page, a suspected foreign agent (wittingly or unwittingly) of the Russian government who was also working as an unpaid foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign.

And it is Steele’s credibility, as well as allegations of political bias at senior levels of the FBI, that are the center of this dispute.

Grassley-Graham Memo Informs Our Understanding of Nunes Memo

Attached to that referral letter was an eight-page classified memorandum (“Grassley/Graham memo”) setting forth the basis for the referral. Wray, very much to his credit, has declassified much (but not all) of the information in that memorandum, which has now been released.

The initial application (which was subsequently renewed three times) was filed on October 21, 2016, pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and was signed by a judge on the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

As I wrote in a previous article, Former FBI Director James Comey has testified that the information in the Steele dossier was “unverified” at the time the initial FISA application was submitted, and, according to the Nunes memo, former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe testified before the House intelligence committee that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court] with the Steele dossier information,” suggesting the FBI did not believe probable cause existed based on the information it gathered on its own.

Several Democrats have charged that the Nunes memo mischaracterized McCabe’s testimony and have implied that there was more than enough information in the FISA application to support issuing the warrant without information from the Steele dossier.

In their referral memorandum, Grassley and Graham, who have reviewed all four FISA applications in their entirety, “as well as numerous other FBI documents relating to Steele,” make statements which, assuming they are true, tend to support what is contained in the Nunes memo.

Specifically, the Grassley/Graham memo states that the Steele dossier “formed a significant portion of the FBI’s warrant application,” that the application “relied more heavily on Steele’s credibility than on any independent verification or corroboration for his claims,” and that the basis for the warrant “rests largely” on Steele’s credibility.

The Steele dossier contains explosive allegations that the Russian government, acting under orders from Russian President Vladimir Putin, was carrying out an operation to tilt the election in Trump’s favor and that the Russian government had compromising information of a financial and sexual nature against Trump that could be used to blackmail him at some point in the future.

Why the FBI Trusted Steele

The FBI, it seems, trusted Steele and relied on this information because of his background as a spy and because he had provided the bureau with reliable information on several occasions in the past.

According to the Grassley/Graham memo, the FBI stated in its initial FISA application that, “based on [Steele’s] previous reporting history with the FBI, whereby [Steele] provided reliable information to the FBI, the FBI believes [Steele’s] reporting to be credible.”

While that may have been so in the past, there was plenty of reason to distrust Steele in this case.

In addition to the fact that he was working on behalf of the DNC and Trump’s opponent in the presidential election, Steele detested Trump. A month before the government filed its first FISA application, Steele told Bruce Ohr, a senior Justice Department official whose wife worked for Fusion GPS, that he was “desperate” to see that Trump not win the election.

Moreover, the Steele dossier itself is replete with statement allegedly provided to Steele by various unnamed sources whom Steele claims are or were senior Russian officials or people who were close to them. In other words, the validity of the dossier depended not only on the credibility of the man preparing the dossier (whose credibility was subject to doubt in this case), but also his assessment of the credibility of other unidentified sources who were feeding him information.

Did Clinton Sources Contribute to Steele Dossier?

As disturbing as that is, another revelation in the Grassley/Graham memo is even more concerning.

The memo suggests that some of the information being fed to Steele and included in his dossier did not come from highly-placed Russian sources, but from people associated with the Clintons.

There has been some speculation that this individual may have been Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton and employee of the Clinton Foundation and a long-time close confidant of Hillary Clinton.

As the memo states, “[i]t is troubling enough that the Clinton Campaign funded Mr. Steele’s work, but that these Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional concerns about his credibility.”

Steele’s Relationship With FBI

The nature of the lies that Steele may have told the FBI are also significant.

Given the fact that the information in the Steele dossier was “unverified” and was central to the FISA application, the FBI was looking for some, any, information that might be deemed corroborative. According to the Grassley/Graham memo, at the time of the initial FISA application, Steele had told the FBI that he had not disclosed the contents of his dossier to anyone other than the bureau and Fusion GPS.

Roughly one month beforehand, Yahoo News, presumably doing its own investigative work, published an article that, as the FISA application stated, “generally match[ed] the information about [Carter] Page that [Steele] discovered doing [his] own research … .”

According to the Grassley/Graham memo, the FBI affirmatively stated in the FISA application that it did not believe Steele was the source of the information that appeared in the Yahoo News article, which attributed the source of its information to “a well-placed Western intelligence source … .”

If the Yahoo News source was indeed an independent source, this would be significant, but it wasn’t. Contrary to what he told the FBI, Steele had, in fact, provided information in his dossier to others. The source of the information in the Yahoo News article was Steele himself.

Steele, no doubt anxious to get his revelations into the public domain before the election, was leaking like a sieve. In addition to speaking to Yahoo News, Steele provided background briefings to CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker, and possibly other media outlets.

Shortly after the initial FISA warrant was obtained, Mother Jones published its own article in which Steele outed himself as an FBI confidential source, which prompted the FBI to formally terminate Steele’s designation as a trusted source.

Friends of Steele’s have stated that Steele was deeply troubled by what he learned during his investigation of Trump and that he felt like he was “sitting on a nuclear weapon.” Perhaps that was so.

But given the explosive nature of charges, the relationship of the target (Page) to the Trump campaign in the heat of a close election battle, the fact that Steele was paid by (and possibly given unsourced information by) the Clinton campaign, it was incumbent on the FBI to verify as much of this information as it could or, at the very least, to reveal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court every bit of information it had that might cast doubt on Steele’s credibility.

In summary, the initial FISA application and, most likely, the renewal applications, relied extensively on the credibility of Steele. Yet in addition to the fact that it failed to disclose the full extent of Steele’s known or potential bias in the initial application, when the FBI learned that Steele had not been truthful during the process, it did not, it seems, tell that to the FISA court.

As Graham has stated: “You can be an FBI informant. You can be a political operative. But you can’t be both, particularly at the same time.”

All attorneys before a court have a duty of candor, which means they must disclose “all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.” Would the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge have signed the warrant if this information had been disclosed? We will never know.

This is, of course, a developing story, and more information will likely be revealed once the memo from Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., is disclosed, assuming that it is disclosed.

Speaking of the Schiff memo, some Democrats have expressed the fear that the president, who must approve the memo’s release, will make “political redactions” to the memo to prevent the disclosure of information that will be unfavorable to him.  And some Republican sources have expressed the fear that the Democrats may have intentionally included highly sensitive information in their memo so that, if redacted by Trump, it would enable them to argue that the president is hiding something.

Let’s hope neither of these is true.

It is, of course, vital that the president protect against the disclosure of sensitive “sources and methods” that could imperil the integrity of current or future national security investigations. That having been said, it is also important that the public get to the bottom of what happened here. As I have previously stated, this “matter should be thoroughly and dispassionately (to the extent that is possible in Washington, D.C.) investigated. The matter is too important to do otherwise.”

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of John G. Malcolm

John G. Malcolm

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: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

7 Anti-Trump Politicians and Institutions Who Colluded with the Russians

Poll: Americans ‘Overwhelmingly’ Believe Obama ‘Improperly Surveilled’ Trump Campaign

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.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

How Democrats Used the FBI to Spy on Two Men accused of Russian Collusion: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Donald J. Trump

/in , , , , , , /by

George Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

With the ongoing revelations that Americans were the targets of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) surveillance during the 2016 presidential primary process and after the presidential election, this quote deserves to be repeated. Why? Because this is the second case of an administration run by a President from the Democratic Party that has done this.

The first example happened 63 years ago when the FBI spied on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. At that time the President was John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert was the Attorney General.

According to the Stanford University website:

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began monitoring Martin Luther King, Jr., in December 1955, during his involvement with the Montgomery bus boycott, and engaged in covert operations against him throughout the 1960s. FBI director J. Edgar Hoover was personally hostile toward King, believing that the civil rights leader was influenced by Communists. This animosity increased after April 1964, when King called the FBI ‘‘completely ineffectual in resolving the continued mayhem and brutality inflicted upon the Negro in the deep South’’ (King, 23 April 1964). Under the FBI’s domestic counterintelligence program (COINTELPRO) King was subjected to various kinds of FBI surveillance that produced alleged evidence of extramarital affairs, though no evidence of Communist influence. [Emphasis added]

Fast forward to today. There are numerous reports of animosity and open hostility toward President Donald J. Trump by senior members of the FBI during the administration of former President Barack Obama. These senior members to date include: former FBI Director James Comey, former Chief of the Counterespionage Section Peter P. Strzok II, Strzok’s mistress former FBI senior council Lisa Page, former Deputy Associate Attorney General Bruce Ohr and former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe.

The FBI spying on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Donald J. Trump, both Republicans and both critical of the FBI, was done for “political” reasons. Both cases involved “suspicion” of Russian collusion.

History has vindicated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr of any Russian collusion. The investigation against President Trump is ongoing.

The Permanent House Committee on Intelligence is conducting an ongoing investigation into the possible misuse and abuse of FISA warrants and the secret FISA court system. According to RedState.com:

Despite attempts by Democrats to almost immediately declare the House Intelligence Committee memo on possible abuse by the FBI and DOJ the work of Republicans who just wanted “to demolish the separation between politics and the fair administration of justice,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (primary author of the memo) has indicated the agency is not in the crosshairs — but roughly five agents definitely are.

The Permanent House Committee on Intelligence voted unanimously to release a second memo written by Rep. Adam Bennett Schiff (D-CA District 28) the committee’s minority chairman. This second memo, like the first, is going through the process of being reviewed to insure no intelligence procedures and sources are reveled. President Trump has five days to review and release it. There are already expectations that a third memo is being prepared for release.

The more memos released the more Americans will learn about how Americans can be swept up into a system of domestic spying, legally and illegally.

It is important that once this episode is over that we do not repeat it, ever again.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Declassified Memo Shows DOJ Worked to ‘Tip the Scales of Justice,’ Lawmaker Says

GOP Memo Raises Serious Questions About FBI, Justice Department

Democrats and FBI Abuses

House Committee Votes to Release Democrats’ Memo on FISA Application

/in , , , , /by

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence voted unanimously Monday evening to release Democrats’ Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act memo to the public, sending the document to the president to decide whether he wants to approve its release.

Republicans voted to declassify the Democrats’ memo, which reportedly weakens allegations made in the memo crafted by the intelligence committee’s chairman, Devin Nunes. The committee’s unanimous vote sends the Democrats’ memo to the White House, giving President Donald Trump five days to decide if he wants to declassify and release it to the American public, Politico reported.

dcnf-logo

While Trump has the power to block the memo from being released, the White House said it would “entertain” the possibility of approving its release.

The four-page Nunes memo, put forth Friday, alleged the Department of Justice and FBI made “material and relevant” omissions in applying for a Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant. All Democrats on the House intelligence committee voted against releasing the Nunes memo.

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

Obama’s Bunker Festers in The Swamp

/in , , , , /by

Once upon a time a seasoned political operative ran for President of the United States against a candidate who had virtually no political experience.

She––Democrat Ms. Hillary Clinton––former First Lady of Arkansas, former First Lady of the United States, former U.S. Senator from New York, former Secretary of State under the faux “president” Barack Obama, was clearly the favorite.

Her opponent––Republican Mr. Donald J. Trump––the billionaire builder who lived in the American version of the Palace of Versailles in Manhattan and in several other resplendent homes around the country and the world, who hosted two wildly successful TV shows, who owned casinos and built golf courses and was a favorite of tabloid magazines, and who had been lionized and courted by the Hollywood crowd, the media whores, and both Democrats and Republicans for his generous contributions, was the clear loser.

Ha ha ha sputtered the political experts. The idea that this neophyte, this (pardon the expression) capitalist could go up against a representative of the outgoing Big Government regime––which brought us socialized medicine (Obamacare) and socialized education (Common Core) and 94-million unemployed Americans and strangulating regulations and horrific trade deals and a foreign policy that bowed deeply to our enemies and spit in the faces of our faithful allies––well that just struck the experts as preposterous.

With the powerful Clinton Machine behind her, the endorsement of the outgoing faux “president,” the immense help of rigged-election experts like ACORN, the incalculable assistance of a bought-and-paid-for leftwing media, and with the good-old-reliable votes of feminists and blacks and Hispanics and gays and all the other groups that stupidly believe Democrats have helped them over the past 60 years, Hillary had no competition at all.

THE BEST-KEPT SECRET      

The cocky Hillary supporters believed that millions of deplorable Americans failed to notice their candidate’s frequent coughing fits, the help she needed simply to ascend three stairs, her peculiar head-bobbing spasms, the cringe-producing effect of her strident voice, and her frequent absences from the campaign trail, not to mention her promising more of the same socialist-cum-communist policies that had failed so miserably for the previous eight years..

They also failed to realize that her opponent had hired an extremely savvy pollster.

That pollster told candidate Trump, on a daily and sometimes hourly basis, how Americans throughout the country were responding to his America First message. And it was all good. And it was a secret that the entire Trump Team kept to themselves.

Or so they thought. But the information that was so damning for Hillary’s candidacy apparently reached the corrupt upper echelons of Obama’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ), and scared them enough to hatch an illegal, seditious, unconstitutional plot to derail the Trump candidacy and, failing that, the Trump presidency.

For months on end, fake polls, as reported by fake news shills, told us that Hillary was a slam-dunk. Right up to 8 p.m. on the night of November 8, 2016, when the entire leftwing media started to wipe the avalanche of egg yolks dripping down their faces.

TRYING TO BRING DOWN A PRESIDENT

To those of us who supported Mr. Trump from the beginning––I wrote an article back in 2011 entitled “Trump is Already Running the Country”––it was clear that every now and then in American history, someone comes along to save our country from those who hate it.

FDR is in this category, bolstering America’s spirits through the worst Depression in our history and a devastating World War (although I personally revile Roosevelt for condemning six-million Jews to annihilation when he could and should have bombed the concentration camps in Germany and Poland to which Hitler condemned his defenseless victims).

Abraham Lincoln is in this category, miraculously uniting our country after the ferocious Civil War that almost tore it apart.

President Trump belongs in this category, accomplishing more that is good for America in one year in office than any chief executive in our history––all while the clinically hysterical liberals in the media and among the populace continued to beleaguer, hound, protest, vilify, insult and harass him, and when ill-intentioned actors from Obama’s DOJ and FBI put their malevolent plot into action, a plot that accused both candidate and President Trump of colluding with Russians to swing the election his way.

To this malicious end, they did the following:

  • Hired British spy Christopher Steele (who admitted in writing that he “hated” candidate Trump) to create a phony story about the Republican candidate being in a Russian hotel engaging is raunchy acts with a prostitute;
  • Hired the political opposition-research group Fusion GPS to distribute the phony info.
  • Paid for this sham scenario with multimillions of dollars from both Hillary’s campaign coffers and the Democratic National Committee’s monies;
  • Went to the judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to apply for a search warrant without informing the judges about (1) the Trump-loathing spy’s bias, and (2) who paid for the warrant. By the way, who are these judges and exactly who appointed them???
  • Obtained the warrant which allowed the partisan hacks from Obama’s DOJ and FBI to conduct a more than year-long collusion investigation which produced NOTHING!
  • Oops… make that something. It produced hard, cold, concrete, irrefutable, and to my mind indictable evidence that the people who were in collusion were––ta da––the corrupt upper echelon of the DOJ and FBI who lied to the FISA judges, as well as Hillary Clinton who as Sec. of State gave 20 percent of U.S. uranium to the Russians (similar to her husband Bill giving nukes to North Korea and their ideological clone Barack Obama giving nukes to Iran!).

WHAT’S MISSING FROM THIS PICTURE?

For well over a year, we’ve had the fishy FISA memo, former FBI director James Comey being accused of covering up Hillary’s crimes, the witch hunt of President Trump by another former FBI director Robert Mueller, CA Democrat Adam Schiff’s manic attempts to impeach the president, the media’s narcotizing anti-Trump talking points, and the few lone voices––vox clamantis en deserto––in the conservative media, but what do they all have in common? What is missing?

  • Not outrage…they are all outraged.
  • Not accusations…the right blames the left and the left blames the right.
  • Not plain talk…conservative Sean Hannity has been clear as a bell, as are the leftist bought-and-paid-for shills on every leftwing news outlet, both electronic and print.

While all of them pointed fingers, cast blame, railed against the “system” they thought was crooked or biased or partisan, the elephant in the room––the subject they never raised, the person they never mentioned as the arch architect of the entire illegal corrupt plan to derail the Trump presidency––BARACK OBAMA!

Does anyone really believe that FISA warrants can be submitted or obtained by any underling in the American government? Of course not! That request has to come––or at least be approved––directly from the Oval Office.

Does anyone really believe that the anti-Trump talking points, rallies, vigils, disparaging articles, and orchestrated hatred is spontaneous? Of course not! They come directly from groups like Organizing For America, which was formed by the former community organizer Barack Obama with the express intent of dismantling traditional American institutions and converting them into the socialist and communist regimes they most admire.

According to journalist and author Paul Sperry, Obama sent a message to his “troops” saying that he “was heartened by anti-Trump protests. Yes,” says Sperry, “Obama has an army of agitators — numbering more than 30,000— who will fight his Republican successor at every turn of his historic presidency. And Obama will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.”

Ah… the bitterness.

A FEW EXCEPTIONS

To their credit, a few people––so far––have cited Obama as a central player––probably the central player––in the Russian-collusion fiasco. As CanadaFreePress.com editor Judi McLeod has written, “One day after the release of the Memo, we should all be asking, `Where is Obama?’ Why is he so stonily silent…? The answer is that the scurrilous Obama, just like Steele, went into hiding. The Memo proves that the FBI is not just part of a USA intelligence apparatus that systematically spies on its own American citizenry, it paid…for filth completely made up by a foreign agent with whom they were in tight ‘Hate Donald Trump’ league.”

Daniel Greenfield, in an article entitled The Memo Reveals the Coup against America, writes that “the Democrats and the media spent a week lying to the American people about the `memo’”…claiming its release  would be damaging to America’s spying and even treasonous. But “they didn’t mean American spying methods––they meant Obama’s spying methods.”

“The memo isn’t treasonous,” Greenfield continues. “It reveals a treasonous effort by the Democrats to use our intelligence agencies to rig an election and overturn the will of the voters. Today, the media and Dems switched from claiming that the memo was full of `classified information’ that might get CIA agents killed to insisting that it was a dud and didn’t matter. Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive.”

And the other night the Fox News moderator Jesse Watters called out Obama for his significant role in this orgy of corruption.

But where are the other voices to identify the virulence––and jealousy––of the anti-Trump minions? And particularly Barack Obama’s role?

As I wrote in a former article, “James Comey and the Stinking Fish Factor”––“Whether it’s in industry or the military or sports or show business, if failure occurs, it’s always the top dog who is accountable. Not the assembly line worker or the buck private or the third baseman who calls the shots, but the one who occupies the ultimate seat of power. Look at what happened at the Democratic National Committee…the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief of Communications, and Chairwoman all resigned because of the hacking that proved the DNC to be both crooked and racist.”

So it is with the putative head of the Democrat Party, Barack Obama. And it’s not just jealousy or ideology that drives his obsession––it’s fear! All the honchos under Obama––John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, John Podesta, Obama himself, the list is long––quake with dread that their own scandals, acts of malfeasance, controversies, and possible illegalities will be unearthed and come to light during the Trump years and they will all be frog-marched straight into Leavenworth…hence the mad quest to frame the president and get him out of office.

They should be afraid. And they should be remorseful for their shabby tactics and constitutional violations. But if Hillary Clinton is any example of the left’s craven sociopathy––and I think she is the prime example––the American public can expect no apologies and no regrets but rather the same evasions, deceptions and lies that the Obama gang raised to an art form during his ignominious eight years in office.

In fact, not only is Hillary credited with creating the Russian-collusion fakery but as writer Mark Tapscott so thoroughly documents, the Clintons have been using the FBI against their enemies for years.

It is doubtful that when candidate Trump promised to “drain the swamp,” he had even an inkling of the vast number of slithering, predatory, reptilian creatures who inhabited that toxic environment. But being the smartest guy in the room, and a quick study at that, you can bet that he will decontaminate the place as swiftly as he pushed through the biggest tax and jobs bill in history.

For that he will gain the eternal gratitude of the American people, a huge majority of the candidates he endorses in the midterms, and a thunderous reelection in 2020.

Trump didn’t Collude with Russia – Obama Did – Just ask Ukraine by Daniel Greenfield

/in , , , , /by

Republicans have traditionally been more hostile toward Russia. And Trump’s entire campaign pitch was nationalism. Nationalist leaders in small countries might collaborate with Putin, but the nationalist leader of the United States could only end up on a collision course with Russia. Obama’s first year was a golden period for Russia because he didn’t believe in national interests. Trump does. The left inevitably accuses the right of its own sins

September 2009 – Obama hadn’t even been in office for a whole year when he gave in to Moscow’s biggest demand by dropping the missile defense shield for Poland and the Czech Republic.

During his 2008 campaign, he had enthusiastically backed the defensive program, declaring, “We have to send a clear signal that Poland and other countries in that region are not going to be subject to intimidation and aggression.”

Like all of Obama’s campaign promises that were based on political triangulation, law enforcement, counterterrorism, Jerusalem, and gay marriage, it was a campaign deception to be realized after the election.

Putin praised Obama’s sellout of our allies as a “brave decision.”

In his first year, President Trump touted the sale of Patriot missiles to Poland. That was a truly brave decision.

After the Russian invasion, Obama refused to provide Ukraine with military assistance. While he had handed out weapons to Islamist terrorists in Syria and Libya, the Ukrainians were only offered MREs – ‘Meals Ready to Eat” for their troops. The same administration that covertly shipped a fortune in foreign currency on unmarked cargo planes to Russia’s Iranian allies took months to meet Ukrainian requests for boots and spare tires.

The Trump administrated unapologetically approved the sale of sniper rifles to the Ukrainians.

“I’m aware of not only the extraordinary work that you’ve done on behalf of the Russian people,” Obama had gushed during his meeting with Putin. There were no protests from the same media that has since then repeatedly suggested that Trump’s praise for Putin indicated a soft spot for dictators.

Looking back at Obama’s first year and Trump’s first year, it’s easy to assess who was giving Moscow more. It wasn’t just missile defense. In the spring of 2009, Hillary Clinton was in Moscow toting a misspelled Reset Button swiped from a swimming pool. But it was Obama who had first urged a “reset or reboot.” That was the month he sent a secret hand-delivered letter to Russia offering to kill the missile shield. The Russians turned down his proposed deal, but he went through with the appeasement anyway.

Trashing missile defense was just one step in a larger effort to revive Jimmy Carter’s defense policies. In his first year, Obama began the push to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. CTBT would have allowed the Russians (and everyone else) to build up their nuclear arsenals, while crippling our own. The new START treaty was drafted in 2009 and signed the next year. And Russian violations of it were ignored.

It took a new administration to change that.

In his first phone call with Putin, President Trump blasted the START treaty as a bad deal that gave Moscow a free ride. The next month, the Pentagon officially came out and said what everyone knew.

This was a sharp contrast with the previous administration which had refused to detail Russian violations. It falsely claimed that it couldn’t answer the question because “the New START treaty forbids releasing to the public data and information obtained during implementation of the treaty.”

In a supposed off-mike conversation on March 26, 2012, in Seoul, South Korea, Obama assured then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev he would have more flexibility after the election. Medvedev responds that he will inform Vladimir Putin.

Before the Iran deal, the Russia deal had been Obama’s legacy. And the same lies, echo chambers, and spin that would be used to cover up Iranian violations were being deployed to mask Russian violations.

The Russians couldn’t have been too surprised at Trump holding their feet to the fire. Trump had blasted the START treaty during the third presidential debate, while Hillary Clinton had rambled on about cyberattacks. The Russians would have been far more concerned about nukes than keyboards.

That was the same debate where Hillary Clinton had accused Trump of being Putin’s “puppet.”

But if that’s true, where are the concessions and the appeasement? Every tangible foreign policy issue that the commentariat at conspiratorial lefty media outlets like the Washington Post, the Huffington Post and ThinkProgress had seized on as evidence of Trump’s collusion has come up short.

Remember when Trump was secretly conspiring to lift sanctions for Exxon-Mobil’s Russian drilling project?

“Could Massive Russian Oil Deal with Exxon Explain Why Putin Appears to Have Meddled in US Election?,” Democracy Now shrieked.

“Trump-Putin Bromance: Election Hacking, Oil Drilling,” the Huffington Post caterwauled.

ThinkProgress made them seem restrained: “Trump, Putin, and ExxonMobil team up to destroy the planet.”

“Pick of Exxon CEO for Secretary of State clarifies why Putin wanted Trump elected: a $500 billion oil deal killed by sanctions,” the sub yammered. Trump, Putin and oil represented “the gravest threat to humanity (and democracy) since the rise of the Axis powers.”

Just one problem. Trump refused to let the deal happen. So much for that conspiracy theory.

Seizing on the potential Exxon deal was an act of desperation. The left was quick to juggle Russia collusion theories, but had trouble coming up with anything that Russia actually got from Trump.

Not only wasn’t there anything like Obama’s ‘Year One’ windfall of appeasement, but Moscow was getting nothing but trouble. The new National Defense Strategy lists Russia as a major threat. It’s a return to the Republican view of Russia as a geopolitical threat that Obama had mocked Romney for.

The Washington Post, which boasts a new Russia-Trump conspiracy theory every five hours, responded by claiming that Trump’s policy of confronting Russia is exactly what Vladimir Putin wants. “Trump’s strategy pushes confrontation with Russia, and Moscow is pleased,” a Post op-ed declared.

What better evidence could there be that Trump is Putin’s puppet than that he’s standing up to him?

The new Russia conspiracy meme borrows the old Obama spin on Iran and ISIS which accused critics of “playing into their hands” by trying to fight them, instead of appeasing them. It was classic Orwellian spin. “Weakness is strength,” “lies are truth” and “opposition is collusion.” But it said something about the weakness of the collusion reality that the Post was forced to rely on such weak Rhodes-ian spin.

What had Trump done for Russia? Well he stood up to it. And that’s exactly what Putin wants.

The media’s case for collusion comes down to the hacking of Democrat emails. But while having Podesta’s missives exposed to daylight was clearly a traumatic event for the Dems, it’s not exactly up there with letting the Russians have a free hand in Europe. Or letting its Iranian allies go nuclear.

The media has blasted us with headlines about the meeting between Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer about the Magnitsky Act. But a year later, the Magnitsky Act is doing just fine. There’s been no review. If Trump had really wanted to, the sanctions on Russia would be a memory. But instead the sanctions keep on coming.

The media made much of Trump’s signing statement to CAATSA (Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017) criticizing its intrusion on his authority. Obama had repeatedly made similar objections, though using very different rhetoric, in signing statements to previous bills. When the administration missed the October 1 sanctions deadline, the media again rolled out the conspiracy theories. “The Trump administration is delaying Russia sanctions that Congress demanded,” Vox bleated. The sanctions were sent in the very next day.

The media has come to specialize in spinning conspiracy theories out of process. It’s safer to focus on the trees, because then they don’t have to notice that there’s no forest. But it’s a sign of just how little it has to work with when it comes to real life policy as opposed to the conspiracy theories of its bubble.

“What did Putin want from Trump and what did he actually get?” a Newsweek article inquires. It’s forced to conclude that there is nothing. Russia received a whole lot from Obama in his first year. Trump has dealt it a series of setbacks instead. Newsweek concludes that Putin helped elect Trump but got nothing in return. That would make Putin rather stupid. And no one has yet accused him of that.

But that’s what the current collusion conspiracy theories of the left have irrationally been reduced to. Putin helped elect Trump. And got nothing from Trump for it. Now it’s time to impeach Trump anyway. Backing Trump never made any sense.

Republicans have traditionally been more hostile toward Russia. And Trump’s entire campaign pitch was nationalism. Nationalist leaders in small countries might collaborate with Putin, but the nationalist leader of the United States could only end up on a collision course with Russia.

Obama’s first year was a golden period for Russia because he didn’t believe in national interests. Trump does. The left inevitably accuses the right of its own sins. Trump didn’t collude with Russia. Obama did.

ABOUT DANIEL GREENFIELD

Daniel Greenfield is a freelance writer and commentator with a special focus on the War on Terror and the rising threat to Western Civilization. Mr. Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center. He maintains a blog and is a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis of the conservative-online-journalism center at the Washington-based Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research.

Related Articles

Thoughts at the End of an Important Year
The Lies of Huma Abedin
Deporting Russia’s Past: The Anti-Polish Ope…
Is Moscow ‘Deep State’ HQ?
From Russia with Reciprocity

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of a supposed off-mike conversation on March 26, 2012, in Seoul, South Korea, President Barack Hussein Obama assures then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev he will have more flexibility after the election. Medvedev says he will inform Vladimir Putin.

The Memo! Transparency at last!

/in , , , , /by

The President of the United States has, under his Constitutional authority, released the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence memo on what the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation used as the basis to seek a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to spy on American citizens.

The President noted that he awaits the memo from the Democratic members of the Select Committee after it goes through the same procedures.

We are withholding comment and ask the citizens read the memo and leave their comments on its contents.

370599093 FISA Memo Full Text by John Hinderaker on Scribd

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Podcast: What You Need to Know About Nunes Memo, Allegations of FBI Bias

The Nunes Memo and the Death of American Journalism

The Facts Currently Known About Nunes Memo, FBI Bias Accusations

Nunes memo raises question: Did FBI violate Woods Procedures? – The Hill

Trump Says FBI Leadership Politicized ‘Sacred Investigative Process’

5 Things You Need To Know About The Bombshell House Intelligence Memo.

House Memo States Disputed Dossier Was Key To FBI’s FISA Warrant To Surveil Members Of Team Trump

RELATED PODCAST: Memo Special Edition

RELATED VIDEOS:

The greatest scandal is U.S. history explained.

Rep. Devin Nunes speaks about the FISA memo.

Chairman Nunes: FBI, DOJ ‘issue spurious objections to allowing the American people to see information related to surveillance abuses’

/in , , , , /by

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes issued the following statement on January 31st, 2018:

“Having stonewalled Congress’ demands for information for nearly a year, it’s no surprise to see the FBI and DOJ issue spurious objections to allowing the American people to see information related to surveillance abuses at these agencies. The FBI is intimately familiar with ‘material omissions’ with respect to their presentations to both Congress and the courts, and they are welcome to make public, to the greatest extent possible, all the information they have on these abuses. Regardless, it’s clear that top officials used unverified information in a court document to fuel a counter-intelligence investigation during an American political campaign. Once the truth gets out, we can begin taking steps to ensure our intelligence agencies and courts are never misused like this again.”

Reuters reports:

The White House worked on Thursday to clear the release of a secret Republican memo alleging FBI bias against President Donald Trump in its Russia probe, an administration official said, disregarding a warning from the top U.S. law enforcement agency.

The four-page document, crafted by Republican members of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, will be made public by the panel on Friday, a senior White House official said. An official also said Trump had read the document.

Read more.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Representative Devin Nunes is by the Associated Press.

Trump Puts State of the Union in Strong Hands of Americans

/in , , , , , /by

Last night, President Trump turned his first State of the Union Address into an American pep rally. Cheering the American people for helping one another overcome a year of natural and man-made tragedies, the president cast a winning vision of unity.“We endured floods and fires and storms,” the president said in the opening of his address. “But through it all, we have seen the beauty of America’s soul, and the steel of America’s spine.” The president even gave a shout-out to the Cajun Navy. “We saw the volunteers of the ‘Cajun Navy,’ racing to the rescue with their fishing boats to save people in the aftermath of a devastating hurricane.”This may seem like a throwaway line, but like so much in the president’s remarkable speech last night, it was an affirmation of the “American way,” which as President Trump said last night, we are rediscovering. Throughout the speech, Trump pointed not to the government as the key to solving America’s problems, but to our faith in God and one another.“In America, we know that faith and family, not government and bureaucracy, are the center of the American life. Our motto is “in God we trust,” the president affirmed

This speech was a sea-change from the previous president in that it celebrated all things American. “…We celebrate our police, our military, and our amazing veteran as heroes who deserve our total and unwavering support.” But what made this speech one of the most remarkable addresses I’ve heard from the House chamber is the way the president wove in powerful, accounts of heroism, sacrifice, patriotism, compassion, and commitment. Two such accounts were the actions of Albuquerque Police Officer Ryan Holets and North Korean-born Ji Seong-ho.

As the president shared last night:

“…Ryan was on duty when he saw a pregnant, homeless woman preparing to inject heroin. When Ryan told her she was going to harm her unborn child, she began to weep. She told him she did not know where to turn, but badly wanted a safe home for her baby. In that moment, Ryan said he felt God speak to him: ‘You will do it — because you can.’ He took out a picture of his wife and their four kids. Then, he went home to tell his wife Rebecca. In an instant, she agreed to adopt. The Holets named their new daughter Hope.”

Several powerful messages were conveyed to the American people as Officer Ryan and his wife stood in the gallery to the applause of Congress. First, in the two and half minutes that the president highlighted the compassion of Officer Holets, the last eight years of hostility towards law enforcement that’s been fomented by statements and actions from Washington officially ended.

Even more powerful was the message of the sanctity of life that has become a hallmark of the Trump administration. This affirmation of life was not missed by the pro-abortion crowd. Tweeting in response, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said, “If the government won’t change, WE will change the government. Like never before, women are the most powerful political force in this country. Together, we are going to transform America into the country we know it can be.”

The reality is that President Obama already took us to that point with his pro-abortion agenda and the American people rejected it.

But there was more communicated through Officer Holets, a very subtle, but compelling endorsement of religious freedom. It was Holets’s faith — on the job — that caused him to reach out with compassion to this homeless, drug-addicted, pregnant mom.

This is America at its best. This is religious freedom!

Picking up on the power of faith, President Trump shared the story of Mr. Ji Seong-ho:

“In 1996, Seong-ho was a starving boy in North Korea. One day, he tried to steal coal from a railroad car to barter for a few scraps of food. In the process, he passed out on the train tracks, exhausted from hunger. He woke up as a train ran over his limbs. He then endured multiple amputations without anything to dull the pain.

The president continued:

“Later, he was tortured by North Korean authorities after returning from a brief visit to China. His tormentors wanted to know if he had met any Christians. He had — and he resolved to be free.

Seong-ho traveled thousands of miles on crutches across China and Southeast Asia to freedom. Most of his family followed. His father was caught trying to escape, and was tortured to death.

Today he lives in Seoul, where he rescues other defectors, and broadcasts into North Korea what the regime fears the most – the truth. Today he has a new leg, but Seong-ho, I understand you still keep those crutches as a reminder of how far you have come. Your great sacrifice is an inspiration to us all. Seong-ho’s story is a testament to the yearning of every human soul to live in freedom.”

I’m not easily impressed with political speeches, but the president’s address to the nation last night was indeed impressive. The message was clear. To use the president’s words, “Together, we are rediscovering the America way.” Faith, family, and freedom!

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Post-Obama, States Pick Up Harassment of Little Sisters

Walk with FRC through 2018

Trump Breaks Nearly All Applause Records for State of the Union Addresses

Here’s an In-Depth Analysis of Trump’s Policy Proposals in His State of the Union Speech

Podcast: Left Flips Out Over Trump’s Successful State of the Union Speech

Tenth Wave of Judicial Nominees Announced by President Trump

/in , , , , /by

President Donald J. Trump announced his intent to nominate a tenth wave of judicial nominees as follows:

If confirmed, John B. Nalbandian of Kentucky will serve as a Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  John Nalbandian is a partner in the litigation practice group of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, where he has practiced since 2000. He is the firm’s lead appellate lawyer and also practices complex litigation in State and Federal courts. He is board certified as a specialist in appellate law. Prior to joining Taft Stettinius, Mr. Nalbandian practiced for five years in the appellate section of a law firm in Washington, D.C. Upon graduation from law school, Mr. Nalbandian clerked for Judge Jerry E. Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In 2010, the U.S. Senate confirmed him to serve as a board member of the State Justice Institute, a nonprofit organization established by the federal government to improve the administration of justice in state courts. Mr. Nalbandian resides in Union, Kentucky, and is a member of the Kentucky and Ohio Bars. In 2007, Governor Fletcher appointed him as a Special Justice to the Kentucky Supreme Court.  He has also served on the Magistrate Judge Merit Selection Panel for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, as a Board Member of the Northern Kentucky Tri-County Economic Development Board of Directors, and as a Board Member of the Telecommunications Board of Northern Kentucky. Mr. Nalbandian is involved with issues of importance to minority communities as a board member of the Greater Cincinnati Minority Counsel Program, and as a board member of the Asian-Pacific Bar Association of Southwest Ohio. Mr. Nalbandian earned his B.S., magna cum laude, from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was inducted into the Order of the Coif and served as managing editor of the Virginia Law Review.

If confirmed, Joseph L. Falvey, Jr., of Michigan will serve as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.  Joseph Falvey is a 30 year veteran of the United States Marine Corps, having served 14 of those years on active duty. In 2011, he retired from the Marine Corps as the Commander of the Marine Corps’ Reserve Legal Support Section. He previously served as a prosecutor, defense counsel, or judge in over 300 trials, and served as an appellate judge on the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals. In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, he was mobilized in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and served in Afghanistan in 2002.  In his civilian career, Mr. Falvey served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the national security unit of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan from 2008-2011. Before joining the Department of Justice, Mr. Falvey spent over a dozen years as a professor of law at two law schools in Michigan. Currently, Mr. Falvey is the District Counsel for the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District. Mr. Falvey earned his B.A. from the University of Notre Dame, his J.D., cum laude, from Notre Dame Law School, where he was editor-in-chief of the Journal of College and University Law, and his masters of law (LL.M.) with honors from the Judge Advocate General’s School of the Army.

If confirmed, Alan D. Albright of Texas will serve as a District Judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.  Judge Alan Albright is a partner in the Austin office of Bracewell LLP, where his practice focuses on a wide range of complex commercial and civil matters, with a particular emphasis on intellectual property and patent litigation. From 1992 to 1999, Judge Albright served as a United States Magistrate Judge in the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas. For several years, he also served as an adjunct professor at the University of Texas School of Law, where he taught trial advocacy, and in 2017, he was inducted into the American College of Trial Lawyers. Judge Albright earned his B.A., with honors, from Trinity University and his J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law, where he was a member of the Texas Law Review.

If confirmed, Susan Brnovich of Arizona will serve as a District Judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.  Judge Susan Brnovich currently serves as a trial court judge on the Maricopa County Superior Court, where she has served since 2009.  She has presided over criminal, civil and family court calendars.  Prior to becoming a judge, she served for five years as a commissioner on the Maricopa County Superior Court, where she presided over numerous criminal jury trials.  Prior to assuming the bench, Judge Brnovich served for eight years as prosecutor with Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.  Judge Brnovich earned her B.B.A., M.S., and J.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

If confirmed, J. Campbell Barker of Texas will serve as a District Judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  Cam Barker serves as Deputy Solicitor General in the Texas Attorney General’s Office.  In that role, he argues appeals on behalf of the State of Texas in State and Federal courts, and he litigates and advises on other cases and matters of significance to Texas.  He previously was a partner at Texas litigation boutique Yetter Coleman LLP, where he practiced commercial and intellectual property law.  Before entering private practice, Mr. Barker served for four years in the criminal division of the United States Department of Justice, where he also served on detail to the Eastern District of Virginia as a Special Assistant United States Attorney.  Earlier in his career, Mr. Barker served as a law clerk to Judge William C. Bryson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and to Judge John M. Walker, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  Mr. Barker earned his B.S., summa cum laude, from Texas A&M University and his J.D., with highest honors, from the University of Texas School of Law.

If confirmed, Courtney Dunbar Jones of Virginia will serve as a Judge on the U.S. Tax Court. Courtney Dunbar Jones serves as a senior attorney in the Tax-Exempt and Government Entities division in the Office of Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service. Prior to joining the Chief Counsel’s office six years ago, Mrs. Jones practiced for three years in the exempt organizations and intellectual property practice groups of the Washington, D.C.-based firm Caplin & Drysdale. Before relocating to the Washington area, she practiced for four years at Bird, Loechl, Brittain & McCants, a boutique law firm in Atlanta.  Since 2015, Mrs. Jones has served on the Board of Trustees of Hampton University, where she earned her B.S., magna cum laude and was the recipient of the President’s Award for Exceptional Achievement. Mrs. Jones then earned her J.D. from Harvard Law School, where she served for two years as the editor in chief of the Harvard BlackLetter Law Journal, (which has since been renamed the Harvard Journal on Racial & Ethnic Justice). During law school, Mrs. Jones was recognized for a variety of achievements; she was named a scholar in the Earl Warren Legal Training Program sponsored by the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, and received the National Bar Institute African American Law Student Fellowship.

If confirmed, Jeremy D. Kernodle of Texas will serve as a District Judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  Jeremy Kernodle is currently a partner at Haynes and Boone, LLP, where he founded and chairs the firm’s False Claims Act practice group and focuses on representing healthcare providers and government contractors in Federal courts throughout the country.  Before entering private practice, Mr. Kernodle served as an attorney-advisor in the Office of Legal Counsel at the United States Department of Justice.  Before that, Mr. Kernodle was an associate at Covington and Burling LLP in Washington, D.C., where his practice focused on complex commercial and appellate litigation.  Earlier in his career, Mr. Kernodle served as a law clerk to Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Mr. Kernodle earned his B.A. and B.B.A., both summa cum laude, from Harding University, and his J.D. from Vanderbilt University Law School, where he graduated first in his class.

If confirmed, Dominic W. Lanza of Arizona will serve as a District Judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.  Dominic Lanza serves as the Chief and Executive Assistant United States Attorney in the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona.  Before joining the United States Attorney’s Office nine years ago, Mr. Lanza practiced for five years as an associate in the constitutional and appellate law practice group of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.  After graduating from law school, Mr. Lanza served as a law clerk to Judge Pamela A. Rymer of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Mr. Lanza earned his A.B., summa cum laude, from Dartmouth College, where he was an All-Ivy League, All-America, and Academic All-America football player and was named the outstanding member of his graduating class, and his J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law School, where he served as editor and transition chair of the Harvard Law Review.

If confirmed, Maureen K. Ohlhausen of Virginia will serve as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.  Maureen Ohlhausen was confirmed as a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission in 2012, and currently serves as its Acting Chairman. Prior to her confirmation, she was a partner and head of the FTC practice group in the Washington-based firm Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP.  From 1998 through 2008, Commissioner Ohlhausen held a variety of posts at the FTC, starting as an attorney in the Office of the General Counsel and concluding as Director of the Office of Policy Planning. Before joining the staff of the FTC, Commissioner Ohlhausen served as a staff attorney on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and later as a law clerk to Judge David B. Sentelle of that court. Upon graduation from law school, Commissioner Ohlhausen served as law clerk to Judge Robert J. Yock of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. She earned her B.A., with distinction, from the University of Virginia, and her J.D., with distinction, from the George Mason University School of Law.

If confirmed, Robert R. Summerhays of Louisiana will serve as a District Judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.  Judge Robert Summerhays serves as a United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Western District of Louisiana and recently completed an eight-year term as Chief Bankruptcy Judge. Prior to assuming the bench in 2006, Judge Summerhays was a partner in the Dallas office of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, where his practice focused on commercial, corporate, multidistrict, and securities litigation. Upon graduation from law school, Judge Summerhays served as a law clerk to Judge W. Eugene Davis of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Judge Summerhays earned his B.A., with high honors, from the University of Texas at Austin, where he was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa. He also earned his J.D., with high honors, from the University of Texas at Austin, where he was inducted into the Order of the Coif, and served as an associate editor of the Texas Law Review.

If confirmed, Michael J. Truncale of Texas will serve as a District Judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  Mike Truncale is a partner at Orgain Bell & Tucker, LLP, where he has handled a wide range of litigation matters, including products liability and commercial disputes, since joining the firm as an associate in 1985.  During his time in private practice, Mr. Truncale has devoted considerable time to public service.  Governor Perry appointed Mr. Truncale to serve a four-year term as a regent of the Texas State University System and Governor Abbott appointed him to serve a six-year term as a board member of the Prepaid Higher Education Tuition Board.  Mr. Truncale is Board Certified in civil trial by the National Board of Trial Advocacy and is Board Certified in personal injury trial law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.  He also has extensive experience in alternative dispute resolution, serving as a mediator in more than 2,000 cases in state and federal courts throughout Texas.  Mr. Truncale received his B.B.A., magna cum laude, from Lamar University, his M.B.A. from the University of North Texas, and his J.D. from the Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law.

If confirmed, Wendy Vitter of Louisiana will serve as a District Judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  Wendy Vitter serves as General Counsel of the Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans.  She previously served in the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office, beginning as a law clerk and ultimately rising to chief of the Felony Trials Division.  During that period, she focused on homicide prosecutions and litigated over 100 jury trials.  Previously, Ms. Vitter practiced maritime and complex litigation at a boutique firm.  She is also involved in her community and recently concluded a three-year term as President of the Cancer Association of Greater New Orleans Board of Directors.  Ms. Vitter earned her B.A. from Sam Houston State University, and her J.D. from Tulane University Law School.

The Clueless versus Trump the Bare Knuckled Fighter for the American People

/in , , , , , , /by

President Donald J. Trump will deliver his first State of the Union Address on January 30th, 2018 in accordance with Article II of the Constitution, which states that the President:

“[S]hall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

The Congress will assemble, less some who are boycotting the address, to listen to President Trump outline what he has accomplished and what he plans to accomplish in the coming year. The difference is that President Trump is in a bare knuckled fight with some in his own party and most, if not all, of the opposition parties (Democrats and Independents alike).

But President Trump is a fighter. Evan Sayet in a July 2017 column titled He Fights wrote:

My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #NeverTrumpers) constantly ask me if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum.  They ask if I don’t think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office.”  Here’s my answer:

We Right-thinking people have tried dignity.  There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency.  We tried statesmanship.  Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as John McCain?  We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney?  And the results were always the same.

This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.

Read more.

Which is better? Being nice or getting things done?

Nike Quotes published this on its Twitter page, “This world is against me. It wouldn’t be fair otherwise.” This sounds like it could be the motto of President Trump.

But President Trump is doing what he promised to do during his Inaugural Address one year and ten days ago. During his Inaugural Address President Trump said:

Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.

For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.

Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth.

Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed.

The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.

Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.

It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America.

This is your day. This is your celebration.

And this, the United States of America, is your country.

The politicians didn’t listen to President Trump and they are now paying a price for not hearing his words.

Bret Stephens in a column titled Clueless Versus Trump published in the New York Times on January 19th, 2018 notes:

Apple’s announcement on Wednesday that it will repatriate most of the estimated $274 billion that it holds in offshore earning is great news for the United States. Uncle Sam will gat a one-time $38 billion tax payment. The company promises to add 20,000 jobs to its U.S. work force, a 24 percent increase, and build a new campus. Another $5 billion will go toward a fund for advanced manufacturing in America.

C’mon. What’s with the long face?

In December this column warned that hysterical opposition to the Republican tax bill was a fool’s game for Democrats that could only help Donald Trump. Yes, there were things to dislike in the legislation, from both a liberal and a conservative perspective.

Bit it was not the moral and fiscal apocalypse its critics claimed.

Read more.

President Trump during his first State of the Union speech lay out how he has empowered the American people and taken power away from politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. This is why they fear him. He is systematically taking away their power to control the people. As he does this he strengthens the economy and has made America competitive globally. As former President Bill Clinton said, “It’s the economy stupid.” For far to many in Washington, D.C. its not about the economy but about growing the federal government’s power to tax, spend and regulate. This trend has trickled down to city, county and state governments like California.

President Trump will most likely talk about his immigration plan and his administration’s efforts to take people off of welfare and putting them back into the work force. For at one time there were two classes of Americans, the working class and all others. America was built on the ideal that work is the best and most effective cure for poverty. That remains so today. The more people working the better.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Behind Trump’s Davos triumph

Trump Administration Strikes a Blow Against Identity Politics

The 5 Key Points Trump Will Talk About in First State of the Union

GOP Lawmakers Split Over Trump’s Latest Immigration Plan

e Hear You: The Schumer Shutdown, ‘Dreamers,’ 2 Marches, and California’s Tax Grab

EDITORS NOTE: Here are excerpts from the Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union given on January 30, 1961 by President John F. Kennedy:

The present state of our economy is disturbing. We take office in the wake of seven months of recession, three and one-half years of slack, seven years of diminished economic growth, and nine years of falling farm income.

Business bankruptcies have reached their highest level since the Great Depression. Since 1951 farm income has been squeezed down by 25 percent. Save for a brief period in 1958, insured unemployment is at the highest peak in our history. Of some five and one-half million Americans who are without jobs, more than one million have been searching for work for more than four months. And during each month some 150,000 workers are exhausting their already meager jobless benefit rights.

[ … ]

In short, the American economy is in trouble. The most resourceful industrialized country on earth ranks among the last in the rate of economic growth. Since last spring our economic growth rate has actually receded. Business investment is in a decline. Profits have fallen below predicted levels. Construction is off. A million unsold automobiles are in inventory. Fewer people are working–and the average work week has shrunk well below 40 hours. Yet prices have continued to rise–so that now too many Americans have less to spend for items that cost more to buy.

[ … ]

We cannot afford to waste idle hours and empty plants while awaiting the end of the recession. We must show the world what a free economy can do–to reduce unemployment, to put unused capacity to work, to spur new productivity, and to foster higher economic growth within a range of sound fiscal policies and relative price stability.

[ … ]

Meanwhile this country has continued to bear more than its share of the West’s military and foreign aid obligations. Under existing policies, another deficit of $2 billion is predicted for 1961–and individuals in those countries whose dollar position once depended on these deficits for improvement now wonder aloud whether our gold reserves will remain sufficient to meet our own obligations.

[ … ]

But all these problems pale when placed beside those which confront us around the world. No man entering upon this office, regardless of his party, regardless of his previous service in Washington, could fail to be staggered upon learning–even in this brief 10 day period–the harsh enormity of the trials through which we must pass in the next four years. Each day the crises multiply. Each day their solution grows more difficult. Each day we draw nearer the hour of maximum danger, as weapons spread and hostile forces grow stronger. I feel I must inform the Congress that our analyses over the last ten days make it clear that–in each of the principal areas of crisis–the tide of events has been running out and time has not been our friend.

In Asia, the relentless pressures of the Chinese Communists menace the security of the entire area–from the borders of India and South Viet Nam to the jungles of Laos, struggling to protect its newly-won independence. We seek in Laos what we seek in all Asia, and, indeed, in all of the world-freedom for the people and independence for the government. And this Nation shall persevere in our pursuit of these objectives. In Africa, the Congo has been brutally torn by civil strife, political unrest and public disorder. We shall continue to support the heroic efforts of the United Nations to restore peace and order–efforts which are now endangered by mounting tensions, unsolved problems, and decreasing support from many member states.

In Latin America, Communist agents seeking to exploit that region’s peaceful revolution of hope have established a base on Cuba, only 90 miles from our shores. Our objection with Cuba is not over the people’s drive for a better life. Our objection is to their domination by foreign and domestic tyrannies. Cuban social and economic reform should be encouraged. Questions of economic and trade policy can always be negotiated. But Communist domination in this Hemisphere can never be negotiated.

Read the full speech.

Hawaii: Missile Alert Investigator has Conflict of Interest

/in , , , , , /by

News Release from  Office of Rep. Gene Ward.

Rep. Gene Ward (R-Hawaii Kai, Kalama Valley) wrote a letter to Governor David Ige putting forth the questions he was not given an opportunity to ask in the Legislative Hearing held at the State Capitol Auditorium on January 19, 2018.

Ward’s letter noted, “I was not allowed to ask you any questions in last Friday’s hearing because my last name started with “W” and you left the hearing after 38 minutes, the exact same period of time the people of Hawaii were traumatized by the January 13th’s false missile attack alarm.

“Your early departure connoted the amount of concern you gave this subject — more akin to a budget hearing rather than a total breakdown of communications with the people of Hawaii. I am also of the opinion that the Chairman of the hearing was not seriously interested in having a detailed Information Briefing into the Missile Alert Fiasco when the period allotted was just a 2-hour time slot at the Capitol Auditorium for you and three of your Generals. This was a matter of serious national interest and it was treated with less attention than a hearing on homelessness at the Capitol.

Ward asked a number of questions to the Governor and then ended his letter with a warning about a possible conflict of interest:

Lastly, I raise the issue of conflict of interest if you expect the people of Hawaii to believe your final report when it is being written by General Hara, who is too close to the situation at HI-EMA, a close personal friend of General Miyagi and under the command of General Logan.  According to the Department of Defense, General Logan serves as the Director of the Hawaiʻi Emergency Management Agency, so how can he be evaluated by his Deputy Director, General Hara?  How can he investigate his boss and colleague General Miyagi and his assigned responsibilities at HI-EMA in an objective manner?”

SA: Ige Defends Hara Investigation

Dear Governor Ige,
January 22, 2018

I was not allowed to ask you any questions in last Friday’s hearing because my last name started with “W” and you left the hearing after 38 minutes. Two pretty lame excuses, unless of course you and the Chair were attempting to send a message that 38 minutes is what you want to be remembered for.

My point is you were too easily dismissed by the Chairman to be responsible to the people of Hawaii to answer legislators’ questions. Your early departure connoted the amount of concern you gave this subject — more akin a budget hearing rather than a total breakdown of communications with the people of Hawaii. I am also of the opinion that the Chairman of the hearing was not seriously interested in having a detailed Information Briefing into the Missile Alert Fiasco when the period allotted was just a 2-hour time slot at the Capitol Auditorium for you and three of your Generals. This was a matter of serious national interest and it was treated with less attention than a hearing on homelessness at the Capitol.

I’m writing this follow-up letter to you today not only because I could not ask you any questions in last Friday’s Hearing, but also because the people of Hawaii did not receive the detailed answers they deserve. Until those answer are provided, the images of a father putting his daughter in a sewer manhole for protection and UH students fleeing for their lives on campus, and a constituent of mine having a heart attack, will be indelibly linked to the future credibility and trust of your Administration.

I trust you are prepared to regain the confidence of the people of Hawaii and you could certainly begin that by promptly answering this letter.

Below are questions I would have asked you as a member of the House Committee on Veterans, Military, & International Affairs, & Culture and the Arts, plus a few others as new information has been forthcoming since the hearing:

My opening statement: Thank you Governor Ige for being here, but more important, taking responsibility for what I have called the Missile Alert Fiasco. You have said the “buck stops here” and should be commended for this (as President Trump did on national TV) but regardless of how many “mea culpas” or “kala mais” you constantly repeat, there are simply too many unanswered questions to accept your apologies and promise of “never again.”.

(Some of the questions below were asked in my January 15 letter to the Governor and I will paraphrase them with the other questions I was intending to ask at the Hearing.)

  • First, Governor Ige, how can the emergency alert system you set up issue an official “live” missile alert without first getting permission from PACOM? PACOM is the only authority that knows there is a missile threat. How can you override that with your so-called drill when your message of January 13 did not say it was one?
  • Is there a protocol from PACOM that has to first signal to you that the state is actually under a missile threat before you send out an alert? If not, why not? Your button should not be allowed to be pushed without this clearance protocol, so why was it? Did you discuss this with your software vendor and allow a single individual to make the determination on his own? How this has been explained so far borders on incompetence of personnel or a ‘Rube Goldberg’ software system for which we should get our money back.
  • Because there are so many gaps in time and knowledge of what precisely happened on the morning of January 13, I requested in my January 15 letter to you what I called a “forensic tour” of the HI-EMA facilities so legislators can fully understand what happened on the morning of January 13, 2018. Will you organize and allow your generals to conduct such a tour so legislators will be able to explain exactly what happened to their constituents?

Now what follows are the questions that I asked to Generals Logan and Miyagi in your absence. This includes the partial questions I asked and others that I was not allowed to ask.

QUESTION 1: CAN WE KICK THE TIRES OF HI-EMA?: I basically asked the same question as above to General Logan about HI-EMA organizing a “forensic tour” of HI-EMA and a walk through of the events of the morning of January 13. General Logan gave a vague “yes” with a bit of dancing between the need for transparency and how a study by General Hara will have details available that Legislators can see. Your answer to this question will be more important than his response to date.

QUESTION 2: “MOTHER MAY I” FROM FEMA REQUIRED: I then asked General Logan if he, you, or General Miyagi had said that HI-EMA had to ask FEMA for permission to retract the message that was incorrectly sent out? While he was answering this question, KHON reporter Gina Mangieri shook her head at his response because she had spoken with FEMA and was told that no such permission or clearance was required by them — some misinformation initially put out by your Administration suggesting that Hawaii had to do a “mother may I” with FEMA before retracting your false alarm. General Miyagi stepped up to the microphone and fell on his sword on this one.

Unfortunately, before I got beyond General Miyagi’s “HI-EMA Mea Culpa” — I was cut off by the Chairman as I was in the process of asking General Miyagi: “If you were still on active duty during the January 13 events and they occurred on your watch and under your supervision, what would your response be to what happened regarding personnel, and what would your commanding Generals likely do to you after how you handled this event?”

So, will heads roll, Governor? Sometimes the most honorable thing is for those in error is to remove themselves.

GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY I WOULD HAVE ALSO ASKED A RHETORICAL QUESTION WITH A TOUCH OF LEVITY: Mr. Chairman, may I call Gina Mangieri of KHON TV to the stand? She appears to know more about this event and what went wrong than most people in this room. (I knew he would object to this suggestion, though as a former reporter himself, the Chair might appreciate the intent.)

But let the facts be known, Gina Mangeri has uncovered a number of half-truths that put HI-EMA in a very unfavorable light, particularly noting that FEMA did not have to give permission to HI-EMA to retract the Missile Alert, and that the so-called “wrong click of the mouse” on a single screen, turns out to be a series of screens and a series of clicks required as uncovered by Ms. Mangeri.

THE LAST QUESTION WAS TO ASK GENERAL LOGAN ABOUT THE FCC COMING TO HAWAII AND THIS HEARING: Who was responsible for the 3 FCC members being here today? Did you invite them, or did the Federal Government see fit to intervene, or perceive we needed outside help and could NOT do this on our own?

So Governor Ige, thank you for the opportunity to ask these questions to you, albeit some days later but nonetheless still as important and in print.

TRANSPARENCY REQUESTED:

As earlier stated, I am disappointed that you and your Generals did not spend more time with us. I am very curious about what was on your schedule, on Friday morning, January 19 that did not allow you to stay longer than 38 minutes in the hearing. I and a few others are interested to learn of what kept you from answering further questions.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

Lastly, I raise the issue of conflict of interest if you expect the people of Hawaii to believe your final report when it is being written by General Hara, who is too close to the situation at HI-EMA, a close personal friend of General Miyagi and under the command of General Logan. According to the Department of Defense, General Logan serves as the Director of the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency, so how can he be evaluated by his Deputy Director, General Hara? How can he investigate his boss and colleague General Miyagi and his assigned responsibilities at HI-EMA in an objective manner?

General Hara is an honorable man, but may I suggest you work with the Legislature in forming an investigative panel to ensure the objectivity of this report and that it is received with the highest credibility. The way it is currently structured looks to incestuous and unobjective.

Thank you ahead of time for responding to these questions I have posed to you and your Generals. I trust the nature of this subject and its importance to the people of Hawaii will be reason to answer these questions in an expeditious manner. Mahalo.

Respectfully,

Rep. Gene Ward, Member
House Committee on Veterans, Military, & International Affairs, & Culture and the Arts

EDITORS NOTE: Gene R. Ward is an American politician and a Republican member of the Hawaii House of Representatives since January 2007 representing District 17. He currently serves as the Minority Floor Leader.

DACA: President Trump and Congress Must Look Before They Leap

/in , , , , , /by

There is a bit of sage advice that warns, “Look before you leap.”

Motorists are also warned to not attempt to drive through a flooded street because it may be impossible to know the depth of the water.

Those warnings certainly apply to any politician, President Trump included, who may be inclined to reach a compromise on DACA.

It has been estimated by the DHS that about 800,000 illegal aliens have enrolled in DACA.  The media and advocates for legalizing these aliens repeatedly describe them as having been brought here as children who, supposedly, had no control over their situation.

Most folks are not aware that in order to qualify, these aliens had to claim that they entered the United States prior to their 16th birthdays but could have applied to participate in this program if they did so prior to their 31st birthday.  Today those aliens may be as old as 36 years of age.

Now, reportedly, the administration is seeking a compromise to deal with these aliens who will begin losing their temporary protection from deportation on March 5th.

However, in the parallel world of Washington, DC, what you see may not be what you get.

On January 18, 2018 USA Today reported, “There are 3.6M ‘DREAMers’ — a number far greater than commonly known.”

That estimate, according to USA Today, was provided by the Migration Policy Institute.

Advocates for legalization of DACA aliens, who enrolled in the Obama program, are also now demanding that any aliens who claim they would have qualified as “DREAMERS” and claim they entered the United States before their 18th birthdays be granted lawful status as well.

Durbin is seeking a massive legalization program through extortion, holding the U.S. government and Americans hostage.

The December 4, 2018 Chicago Tribune report, Durbin rallying support for Dream Act, included this sentence:

The Dream Act would grant “conditional permanent residency” to an estimated 1.8 million immigrants who arrived in the U.S. before age 18 and can meet requirements similar to those under the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

According to the article Durbin, the second highest ranking Democrat in the Senate, is steadfast in this demand, stating,

We have to assert ourselves in the minority and make it clear that we are not going to vote for certain legislation — and our votes are needed — unless this is included as part of the package,” Durbin said.

Even as negotiations are underway, and a supposed “compromise” is being sought, the amnesty advocates have already greatly increased the number of potential participants.

In point of fact, the number of potential applicants would be so great as to overwhelm and implode the legal immigration system and the entire adjudications processes conducted by the division of the Department of Homeland Security known as USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services).  With such huge numbers, no interviews or field investigations could be conducted to verify the claims made in the applications and to seek to uncover fraud.

As you will see shortly, immigration fraud threatens national security.

We must learn the lessons history teaches us.  Consider that when President Reagan signed the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) into law the original estimate of roughly one million participating aliens was greatly eclipsed by the ultimate total of more than 3.5 million aliens who “emerged from the shadows.”

No one has ever explained that huge numeric discrepancy.  Was it because of undercounting?  Was it because a huge number of illegal aliens ran the borders after the cutoff date and then lied about their dates of entry?

Both are possible but unknowable.

Here is the issue that no one has addressed.  There is absolutely no way to know the true date of entry for aliens who enter the United States without inspection.  There is also no way to verify whether or not they ever left the United States since entering the United States and then, once again, entered without inspection.  This is critical because in order to be eligible for DACA in the first place, these aliens had to claim that they entered the United States prior to their 16th birthdays and must have claimed to have been continuously present in the United States since their entry.

This is why DACA (Deferred Action-Childhood Arrivals) should actually be referred to as DACCA (Deferred Action- Claimed Childhood Arrivals).

There were a number of other problems with the DACA program that I enumerated in a recent article,  DACA:  The Immigration Trojan Horse. One of the most serious problems is that DACA was an effort to bypass the Constitution by enacting the failed DREAM Act without legislation.  The goal was to pass a massive amnesty program for unknown millions of illegal aliens, by “hook or by crook.”

The DREAM Act is an acronym for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, ironically legitimizing the use of the term “alien,” the very same term that would normally invoke outrage by the immigration anarchists if it was ever used in any other context except for linking it to the American Dream — for illegal aliens.

Given all that is involved, efforts to reach a “compromise” on DACA would compromise national security, public safety and the integrity of the entire immigration system.  And now it would appear that the 800,000 aliens that advocates for DACA amnesty are demanding that the number of potential participants be increased by more than three-fold.

There is absolutely no justification for any illegal alien who failed to have already registered for DACA to be considered for any benefit other than a trip home unless such alien has another means of gaining relief from deportation.

DACA amnesty makes a mockery of the legislative process and of our immigration system as it now stands.  Nevertheless it would appear that Durbin and company are determined to hold our government hostage for the legalization of a number of illegal aliens that truly has no limit.

Immigration fraud undermines the entire immigration system.   It is entirely possible that aliens who have yet to enter the United States could easily run our borders and successfully defraud the system by claiming to have been residing in the United States for many years.

As I noted previously, immigration fraud has a direct nexus to national security and terrorism.

Consider the case of one of those aliens who participated in the 1986 Amnesty, Egyptian national Mahmud Abouhalima, who was described as the “field general” behind the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center bombing which killed six innocent victims and injured more than one thousand people and inflicted an estimated one-half billion dollars in damages.

On March 25, 1993 the Los Angeles Times reported:  “Alleged Leader in N.Y. Bombing Flown to U.S.: Probe: Mahmud Abouhalima was seized in Egypt. Fifth man is also arrested in World Trade Center attack.” The report continued:

NEW YORK — A suspect believed to be the “field general” behind the World Trade Center bombing was brought back from Egypt under tight security Wednesday to be formally charged today in one of the worst acts of terrorism in the nation’s history.

Mahmud Abouhalima, who was the focus of an international search by the FBI, was seized last week by Egyptian police in his hometown on the Nile delta as part of a crackdown on proponents of an Islamic state who are blamed for a wave of violence in that country.

The LA Times report went on to note:

Abouhalima first came to the United States in October, 1986, with a German passport and tourist visa. Four years later, he became a permanent resident by claiming that he was an agricultural worker under a special exemption for such workers in the 1986 Immigration Reform Act. U.S. officials said this exemption has often been misused.

The official report “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel“ had this to say about Abouhalima:

“Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.”

Senator Schumer was a key architect of the agricultural amnesty provision of the 1986 amnesty when he was a member of Congress and is now a prime mover of the push for a massive legalization program under the guise of DACA.

The World Trade Center attacks of  February 26, 1993 and September 11, 2001 were only possible because of massive failures of the immigration system.

Other terror attacks in NYC and elsewhere have also been facilitated by multiple failures of the immigration system.

Senator Schumer and NYC’s mayor have demanded more money to protect New York from terror attacks, declaring that New York City is a prime target for terrorists, while blithely ignoring the findings of the 9/11 Commission.

Simply stated, “those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it”

RELATED ARTICLE: Culture Wars: Supporting “Them” Over “Us” Until We’re Dead

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.