Recent Energy and Environmental News

For the full version of the latest Energy and Environmental Newsletter, please click here…  To review some of the highlights, see below.

FYI, the new buzzword is community “resilience.” Like its sibling “sustainability” this is the Left creating a Trojan Horse that is intended to fool trusting, well-intended, and unaware citizens. Hopefully that will not be any of our readers.

Gov Matt Bevin recently gave an exceptional talk about electrical energy realities. He was Southern States Energy Board chairmen, and was giving the keynote speech at their annual meeting. It is one of the BEST talks I’ve ever heard from a politician about the importance of affordable, reliable electrical energy. Pass it on!

Since there is such a diversity of interesting material, the Newsletter articles are subdivided into eight (8) categories.

My vote for the most outstanding articles this cycle: It Costs $532,000± to Decommission A Single Wind TurbineNY County Health Board Eyes Wind Turbine RegulationsClimate Worship Is Nothing More Than Rebranded PaganismHow I Changed my Mind… about Global Warming, and The False Prophets of Climate Change

Energy Economics

It Costs $532,000± to Decommission A Single Wind Turbine
In a “Reversal” Wind Power Industry Wants More U.S. Tax Credits
Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt: Let’s Not Commit Economic Suicide

Wind Turbine Health Matters

NY County Health Board Eyes Wind Turbine Regulations
A new tool in China’s kit of repression
Why Everything is Getting Louder
Community ailments circle back to turbines

Renewable Energy Destroying Ecosystems

Socialism Is the Greatest Threat to the Environment
Why Wind Turbines Threaten Endangered Species With Extinction
Wind energy’s big disposal problem
Unfurling The Waste Problem Caused By Wind Energy

Nuclear Energy

Video: Nuclear Energy is Green
GEN IV Nuclear Energy is Clean, Efficient and Plentiful — Why the Worry?
Nuclear Power Is The Only Realistic Option
Net-Zero CO2 Emissions By 2050 Requires A New Nuclear Plant Every Day

Energy Misc

Video: Kentucky Governor’s Keynote Speech on Low Cost Energy
Weathermen Wild As Wind Turbines Interference Wrecks Their Radar Signals
NC Energy Company Finds Solar Power Actually Increases Pollution
Short video: Renewable Portfolio Standard Scam (Part 2)
Video: Hansen & Shellenberger: Nuclear Power? Are Renewables Enough?

Global Warming (AGW)

Climate Worship Is Nothing More Than Rebranded Paganism
President Trump, religious liberty, and international climate policy
Chief UN Climate Scientist Calls the Climate Narrative “Religious Extremism
How I Changed my Mind… about Global Warming
The IPCC’s Seldom Mentioned ‘Uncertainties’
IPCC Lead Author’s Research Uncertain About UN’s Climate Goal
Top climate scientist breaks ranks with ‘consensus’
‘There is no climate emergency,’ hundreds of scientists, engineers tell U.N.
Dozens of Failed Climate Predictions Stretch 80 Years Back
Some Recommended Sources for Objective Info on Climate Change
Marxists join climate strike: for system change, not climate change!

Impressionable Youths and Global Warming Propaganda

The False Prophets of Climate Change
Greta Thunberg and the Cult of Adolescence
The Global Warming Cult is Polluting Adult and Children’s minds
Drama Over Science? Greta’s Climate Speech and Appeal to Emotion
Short satire video: Green activist Greta Thunberg & Thomas Cook

Misc (Education, Science, Politics, etc.)

What the Trump Impeachment Inquiry is Really About
Yes, the Deep State Really Does Exist
An Open Letter to Heartland
Short video: Why I Don’t Want and Don’t Deserve Reparations
The Progressive Agenda to Dumb Down America’s Children
The 50 most miserable cities in America
With a $230 million deficit, UN may run out of money by end of month
Archive: The importance of stupidity in scientific research

Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone, as some documents (e.g. PDFs) are much easier to read on a computer… We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize display issues.

Note 2: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues… As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and link to this on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off this list, simply send me an email saying that.

Note 3: This Newsletter is intended to supplement the material on our website, WiseEnergy.org. For wind warriors, the most important page there is the Winning page.

Note 4: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

INFANTICIDE: Live Organ Harvesting Commonplace in U.S. Abortion Mills [Video]

Daleiden, Merritt trial reveals beating hearts cut from abortion survivors

by Stephen Wynne  •  ChurchMilitant.com

SAN FRANCISCO (ChurchMilitant.com) – Bombshell testimony from the trial of Center for Medical Progress undercover journalists David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt has revealed that infanticide is commonplace inside U.S. abortion mills.

Earlier this month, attorneys for Daleiden submitted a closing argument brief detailing that live births are occurring inside the facilities and that these newborns are routinely killed — their organs harvested while still alive.

Describing Daleiden’s research into the practice, the brief recounts that he discovered “a mainstream media exposé produced and aired in 2000 by Chris Wallace for the program ’20/20.'”

From Wallace’s report, Daleiden learned of Dean Alberty, who worked as a fetal tissue procurement technician inside a Planned Parenthood facility in suburban Kansas City.

According to the brief:

From the “20/20” video he learned that Alberty had been handed whole fetuses from Planned Parenthood doctors and had harvested beating hearts. Alberty had also testified before Congress and described a live birth of twins who were actually cuddling each other. He would not harvest from them and the abortion doctor drowned them in a pan of water.

The practice was not isolated to Kansas City, Daleiden discovered.

In the course of his research, he came across the book Beyond Abortion: A Chronicle of Fetal Experimentation, which documents experiments performed on unborn babies, as well as the removal of organs from infant abortion survivors.

In Beyond Abortion, Daleiden found an article titled “Artificial Placenta,” which described “obtaining live fetuses as old as 24 weeks from unnamed abortionists and keeping them alive in a machine for study but letting them drown in the machine after obtaining data.”

In the summer of 2011, he learned of a company named StemExpress, which specializes in providing “biospecimens” to researchers across the country; a deeper look at the firm revealed the scale of tissue harvesting occurring inside American abortion mills.

Daleiden discovered that StemExpress required “tissue procurers to service 48 universities and 8 private entities with fetal organs and tissues.”

He later uncovered “a StemExpress order form with a list of organs and tissues for sale, including whole hearts, hearts with veins and arteries attached, as well as brains, livers and other organs.”

He then found “a Stanford study using whole human fetal hearts obtained from StemExpress which they put on a Langendorff perfusion machine.”

According to the brief:

Mr. Daleiden learned through his own research and by consulting experts, including Dr. Theresa Deisher, that in order to use the Langendorff machine the heart had to either still be beating when it was placed on the machine or a beating heart had to be arrested in a relaxed state in a potassium solution and then quickly transported to the machine. … Dr. Deisher testified that she told Mr. Daleiden that the “most horrifying aspect of the use of the remains of aborted fetuses was that some of the babies had to be alive, have beating hearts when they were harvested.”

Deisher, a stem cell research scientist, testified that based on her experience with stem cell research on hearts, this was a frequent occurrence. The babies’ hearts have to be harvested while still beating, she explained, as otherwise the organ would have no research value because once in “contracture,” the heart’s cells would no longer be capable of regenerative growth.

The brief detailed additional evidence of infanticide — including testimony by a former StemExpress employee:

Mr. Daleiden continued to gather evidence for his investigation. He met Holly O’Donnell who had worked for StemExpress and told him she left after seeing a late gestated fetus. She was directed to dissect its brain. She did so. She also told him that her superior Jessica tapped the fetuses’ heart and it started beating. She also told him of seeing a message stating that an intact fetus was being sent to the StemExpress facility.

Daleiden later learned that “StemExpress technicians had to work very closely with the abortion doctors at [Planned Parenthood] MarMonte who increased dilation on the patients in order to obtain intact fetuses with beating hearts.”

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra — a self-identified Catholic — is prosecuting Daleiden and Merritt for their undercover work. In his preliminary hearing closing argument, he made no effort to rebut testimony about the harvesting of infant abortion survivors’ organs.

Instead, Becerra suggested that harvesting organs from newly born infants is protected by the state’s abortion statutes.

The “defendants willfully misrepresent the law on homicide in California,” he argued. “California law is clear that therapeutic abortion is not homicide.”

Pro-life advocates counter that there is nothing “therapeutic” about harvesting beating hearts from live infants.

RELATED ARTICLES:

ABP. VIGANÒ: Pope must give ‘Clear Statement’ on Christ’s Divinity

Canadian Prime Minister’s ‘New’ Sex Scandal

Insurance Provider Won’t Pay for Sex Abuse in Buffalo

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column with video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

President Trump is protecting Americans from Big Government

During the Obama Administration, it became common practice for Federal agencies to target and penalize American families and small businesses. They got away with it by hiding behind vague, often secret interpretations regarding how ordinary citizens should comply with the government’s own maze of bureaucratic regulations.

When President Donald J. Trump took office, he pledged to turn the page on Washington’s regulatory overreach, giving the American people a government that’s finally accountable to its citizens. Building on that promise, the President signed a pair of Executive Orders today to ensure that the abuses that took place under the last Administration can never happen again.

Americans will no longer be kept in the dark.

First, Agencies will have to place their guidance documents on easily searchable public websites, allowing any American access to them. The government will be required to permit citizens to give their input on these guidelines, and they will have the ability to ask agencies to withdraw guidance they believe is wrong. Second, agencies will be strictly prohibited from enforcing rules that have not been made publicly known.

These common-sense changes come alongside the President’s historic efforts to cut burdensome red tape. In his first week in office, he issued a challenge to his Administration: For every new regulation introduced, 2 old ones must be cut.

That goal has been met—to say the least. As of today, the tally is 14 regulations that have been cut for every significant new one implemented. That makes for the largest deregulatory push since Ronald Reagan was President.

Unlike Obama, President Trump is protecting Americans from Big Government.

Acting OMB Director: “Trump Keeps Promise to Tame Bureaucracy That Runs Roughshod Over Americans”


President Trump signs ‘game-changing’ trade deal with Japan

During the U.N. General Assembly last month, President Trump continued to fight for fairer trade deals for American workers. The results of that hard work came to light Monday, when the President signed a pair of groundbreaking deals at the White House.

“These two deals represent a tremendous victory for both of our nations,” President Trump said. “They will create countless jobs, expand investment and commerce, reduce our trade deficit very substantially, promote fairness and reciprocity, and unlock the vast opportunities for growth.”

President Trump: This is a groundbreaking achievement for the U.S. and Japan

America’s farming community is the big winner from the first of Monday’s agreements, which dramatically expands their market access. Before this deal, Japan was already America’s third largest agricultural export market—accounting for $14.1 billion in food and agricultural exports last year. The terms are even better now, as Japan will eliminate or reduce tariffs on approximately $7.2 billion in U.S. agricultural goods.

Once the agreement goes into effect, more than 90 percent of American agricultural imports into Japan will be duty free or receive preferential tariff access.

“In the United States, these deals are a game-changer for our farmers and our ranchers . . . [they] will now be able to compete fairly in Japan against major competitors worldwide,” the President said.

The second deal signed on Monday focuses on digital trade, setting the same “gold standard” digital trade rules that are found in the President’s landmark United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA). Vital online commerce will now be expanded, which brings a significant boost to the already roughly $40 billion worth of digital trade between America and Japan. It ensures America will remain a global leader in digital.

The President’s deal with Japan is a win for American farmers and businesses.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘There can be no reward’: Beto O’Rourke supports punishing religious institutions for views on sexuality

© All rights reserved.

MSNBC’s Las Vegas Anti-Gun Rally

On Wednesday, anti-gun news outlet MSNBC, along with their partner organizations Giffords and March for Our Lives, hosted nine Democrat candidates for President for what was billed as a “Gun Safety Forum.”  Most of the time was spent by candidates and anti-gun activists railing against guns, NRA, and occasionally, President Donald Trump.

As one can imagine, there really wasn’t much new discussed, as candidates continued to try to convince Democrat voters that each is the most anti-gun choice.  At times, it seemed like a fight might break out over who had the most outrageous scheme to disarm law-abiding Americans.

Everyone seemed to agree on “universal” background checks, “red flag” laws, and that there is an “epidemic” of gun violence in our country.  But as each candidate took the stage for their individual allotted time, most tried to separate themselves from the others.

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, one of the higher polling lower tier candidates, started things off, trying to draw a connection between passing new gun laws and combatting “white nationalism.”

Buttigieg also promoted gun licensing, as well as “red flag” laws and “universal” background checks.  Attacking NRA, he made the patently false allegation that our association represents the interests of gun manufacturers, rather than our 5 million dues-paying members.

Mayor Buttigieg also talked about banning semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, making the confusing statement that such things should not be sold “anywhere near an American school or neighborhood.”  He seemed to clarify later that he was not talking about limiting where gun stores could operate, but meant he wanted to ban these popular rifles.

While trying to sell the constitutionality of banning some of the most commonly owned firearms in America, he made two bizarre comparisons.  First, he said that people can own slingshots, but not nuclear weapons, followed by stating that water balloons are legal, but predator drones are not.  It’s hard to imagine a more ridiculous comparison than one between children’s toys and actual weapons of war while discussing the Second Amendment.

His support of banning AR-15s, however, did not, at this time, include support for the type of confiscation scheme that has been promoted by one of the other candidates.  More on that later.

Former HUD Secretary and San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro was next. He promoted increasing the tax on ammunition to further drive up its cost and supported the banning of so-called “assault weapons,” but fell short of calling for their confiscation.  Instead, he promoted a voluntary “buy-back” scheme, followed by registering those not turned in and tracking their future transfer, similar to the way fully-automatic firearms are currently regulated.  While he did not mention fully incorporating them into the National Firearms Act (NFA) protocols, that seemed to be where he was heading.

Next was New Jersey Senator Cory Booker.  He stated support for banning and confiscating semi-automatic firearms, pushed so-called “safe” storage laws, and promoted his scheme to implement a federal licensing program for gun owners.  He went so far as to call out all of his opponents that don’t support his position, claiming anyone who does not support licensing “should not be a nominee from our party.”  He then went on to pat himself on the back for pushing “the most ambitious” gun plan.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has been leading the pack in some polls, then spoke.  She promoted the idea of limiting firearm purchases to one-a-month, and also suggesting a 7-day waiting period before a law-abiding citizen could take possession of a lawfully purchased firearm.  She also threatened a federal investigation of NRA—a clear attempt to quash our right to free speech, and that of our more than 5 million members.

Following Warren was former Vice President Joe Biden. While Biden had been the favorite in the race, at one point commanding a lead of more than 25-points over his closest rival, his advantage has all but disappeared.  Biden again raised his make-believe idea on gun control—mandating guns that can only operate utilizing “biometric markers.”  He also pushed a ban on the manufacture of AR-15s and similar rifles, coupled with regulating those that are currently owned under the NFA.  This scheme has been promoted by representatives of Giffords, one of the sponsors of the event, so Biden was clearly playing to the audience.

His presentation was marked by the usual rambling, odd tangents, and self-promoting hyperbole to which we’ve grown accustomed.  At one point he stopped in the middle of praising those behind March for Our Lives to clumsily transition to talking about the federal restrictions on hunting migratory waterfowl; pointing out that there is a limit of three shells in your shotgun when in the field.  That brought him to discussing putting limits on the number of rounds one can have in other firearms.  Biden seems to be struggling with determining an arbitrarily acceptable limit on ammunition capacity, so maybe he’s now testing out the idea of using three.

Former Texas Representative Robert Francis O’Rourke, who self-identifies as “Beto,” took the stage after Biden.  He specifically called out Mayor Buttigieg for not supporting his gun confiscation idea, all but calling him a coward.  He seemed to imply the same about Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (R-N.Y.) and Senator Chris Coons (D-Del) for their questioning the level of support for the disarmament scheme.

O’Rourke also pushed the popular lie among the anti-gun crowd that AR-15s and similar semi-automatic rifles are “weapons of war.”  He even made the outrageously false claim that such firearms are “sold to the militaries of the world.”  Of course, this is just an evolution of what gun-ban advocate Josh Sugarmann began promoting in the late ‘80s, when he wrote about so-called “assault weapons”:

“The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

Of course, millions of law-abiding Americans own semi-automatic rifles, while fully-automatic firearms are strictly regulated under the NFA, and are what is actually “sold to the militaries of the world.”

He also claimed that, when the Second Amendment was ratified, it took “three minutes to reload a musket.”  In fact, someone in the 18th century who was familiar with their musket could fire and reload it two- to three-times a minute.  While that fact has little to do with the debate over gun control, what O’Rourke ignores is the more relevant fact that those privately owned muskets were no different than the muskets used by those in “the militaries of the world.”

The bottom-tier candidate waited until near the end of his time to break out two of the shticks for which he has become somewhat famous; profanity and high school-level Spanish.

Another bottom-tier candidate, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, was next, although she didn’t really bring anything new to the discussion.  She mostly echoed the same, tired gun-control ideas promoted by those who came before her.  Perhaps that is why she has been struggling throughout most of her campaign to generate more than 1% support in the polls.

Businessman Andrew Yang, who can’t seem to achieve much more than mid-single digit support in spite of promising to give people “free” money, had some curious ideas.  He appeared to support Biden’s “biometric markers” idea, and mentioned expanding on the Booker notion of licensing by promoting a multi-tiered licensing program, although he didn’t offer real details on that while on stage, other than there would be different licenses for different guns.

Yang also mentioned wanting to keep track of people who own multiple firearms, but also offered no details on accomplishing this to the audience.

Two particularly odd ideas stood out.  First, in order to counter the impact of organizations like NRA, he suggested giving every American $100.00 of what he referred to as “Democracy Dollars.”  People could give this money to lawmakers and candidates to help influence their votes, which sounds a bit like buying votes.  While we do not support the notion of buying votes, perhaps Mr. Yang did not consider the fact that NRA has five million members.  Does he really want to add more than half-a-billion dollars that could be used to support the campaigns of candidates that support the Second Amendment?

His other odd idea, which may be better described as troubling, was the suggestion that gun manufacturers be fined every time one of their lawful products is used by a criminal.  One presumes he is not suggesting the same penalties for the makers of any other lawful products commonly used by criminals.  If he did, then he would likely be accused of trying to bankrupt the entire manufacturing industry, rather than just those that manufacture firearms.

One other odd statement he made, but also didn’t go into any real details about, was implying that criminals who use firearms to kill others are somehow victims.  This line of thought deserves no additional commentary.

Finally, California Senator Kamala Harris spoke, offering nothing substantively new.  She reiterated her desire to use executive action to implement many of her schemes.  Perhaps hoping to avoid the ire of O’Rourke, she made clear that she supports his approach to banning and confiscating AR-15s and similar semi-automatic firearms.  Some of the candidates who took the stage mentioned their version of supporting the Second Amendment included, at least to some extent, the right of self-defense.  Harris, however, spoke only of respecting the Second Amendment as it relates, in her mind, to the tradition of hunting.

Ultimately, this anti-gun rally produced what would be expected of an event run by an anti-gun news outlet and anti-gun organizations.  The same gun control ideas that have been promoted ad nauseum by radical extremists for years, or even decades.  It was at least slightly interesting to see at what lengths candidates will go to try and out-anti-gun one another, especially considering the controlled environment where there was no chance of facing any sort of push-back.  Especially from citizens who still respect the Constitution, individual freedom and our right to keep and bear arms.

RELATED ARTICLES:

San Francisco Mayor Waffles on NRA “Terrorist” Group Designation

Federal Court Entertains Bizarre Legal Theories That Threaten Gun Owners, Rule of Law

Violent Crime Dropped in 2018

NRA’s Adaptive Shooting Program Aids Disabled Hunters

Member Spotlight: Meet the Police Officer Who Told Congress She ‘Would Not Comply’ with a Gun Ban

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Citizens Speak Out Against Florida’s ‘Red Flag Law’ and ‘Risk Protection Orders’

I want to thank and congratulate the 12 members of WH 912 (3 of which are also LARC Members & 4 of which are Members of Polk REC) who came to the annual FL Congressional Delegation forum open to the public on October 7, 2019 at the Polk State Campus in the PCSO complex.

Seven made 3 minute testimonies on the unconstitutional provisions of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS Public Safety Act (hereafter referred to as SB 7026) and five more supported us for a total of 12 activists in attendance.

Many thanks and kudos to our lineup of speakers – in order of appearance they were Patti Zelsman, Jack Zelsman, Danny Krueger (nominated for this years WH 912 Oscar), Royal Brown III, Glynnda White, Kay Mijou, and Manny Brito. All were well rehearsed and completed their presentations within 3 min limit or a few lines (seconds) past 3 minutes. We also appreciated those present to support us – Roy and Nancy Pearce, Linda Adams, Jane Thomas, and Dy Soldwedel-Krueger.

We spoke before five of the six members of the Polk County Congressional Delegation who were Senators Albritton and Lee and Representatives Burton, Tomkow and Bell. Sen. Stargel was not present, Her Legislative Asst. Chad Davis was the recorder for the Delegation.

Glynnda White wrote the narratives for each of our 7 speakers and submitted them to Chad Davis in advance so that we would be pre-scheduled in a sequence that built upon each other and reinforced all the major points we wanted to get across. Among important points made were as follows:

  1. MSDHSPSA (SB 7026) is unconstitutional and violates our 2nd, 5th and 14th Amendment Rights and, in certain circumstances may also violate our 1st and 5th Amendment Rights – each of the testimonies drove this point home with specific examples of how our rights are/can be violated.
  2. School Safety and Gun Control should have been considered in two separate bills/laws and not cobbled together in one rushed 3 week time frame after the Parkland shootings.
  3. The Risk Protection Order (RPO) codified within SB 7026 prescribes Ex Parte petitions resulting in seizures of firearms, ammo, accessories & permit without a Hearing which comes 14 days later at which time the respondent must prove he/she is not a threat. This is a clear violation of Due Process Rights and the Legal Precedent of “Innocent Until Proven Guilty” for law abiding citizens who might be served with an RPO. This and other provisions are not only troubling to law abiding gun owners (especially those who have undergone background checks, have no criminal record, received CCW training and issued carry permits) but are fraught with many dangers that can result in violations of our Constitutional Rights (see attachment which was given to all the Congressional Panel Members).
  4. Age restrictions on owning, possessing, purchasing long guns clearly violate the 2A rights of 18-20 year olds.
  5. Bottom line recommendation was to support, co-sponsor Rep Mike Hill’s HB 6003 or sponsor a companion Senate Bill to HB 6003 which will revoke the RPO and 2 A age restrictions. Reconsider a much different and constitutional Bill for potential emergency situations where firearm seizure procedures may be appropriate.

This is the kind of Grassroots effort we must all support if we want to retain our rights and not live in fear of the possibility of an unconstitutional seizure of our firearms, ammo, accessories and permit.

BACKGROUND: Risk Protection Order in SB 7026 Violates Many Rights

Stands Due Process on Its Head – RPO takes away our Due Process Rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments as well as the Fl Constitution Sec 1, Art 9 and infringed upon our 2nd Amendment (2A) rights including FL Constitution Sec 1, Art 8.

Ex parte seizure of firearms, accessories, ammo, permits (if issued), etc. before a hearing for the respondent

Triggered by False Allegations/Weak Investigations –   Allows possibility of being triggered by false accusations and possible less than thoroughly investigated information by very busy and often overworked law enforcement.

Reverses legal precedent of being innocent until proven guilty since the respondent must prove they are not a threat rather than the court proving they are in the “after the fact” (post seizure) final RPO hearing.

Premonition Not Fact – Judges making decisions to seize property based on premonition of what might happen in the future – to do so opens very dangerous avenues to ignore our rights – trading rights for safety

Impact on Innocent Respondent  – Current procedure could lead to law abiding gun owning citizens being put through the embarrassment of seizure, personal cost to hire an attorney, loss of the means to defend themselves and their families and bureaucratic nightmare of being placed on state & federal criminal data bases and the difficulties of clearing their names.

Civil Procedure Treated Like Criminal Law – Since the RPO is a civil procedure, Why then are respondents served an ex parte and Final RPO automatically reported for inclusion in the state and national criminal data bases ?  There are no provisions in the RPO section of the law to help the respondent remove their names from these lists thus setting up another potential bureaucratic nightmare for the respondent.  This is another level of punishment for the respondent as a part of the criminal system yet they were served with a civil order.

Weak Rules of Evidence  – An RPO based on a premonition should at least be supported with beyond reasonable doubt evidence not the nebulous clear and convincing evidence of a threat as stated in the law.

2A Privilege Not Right– Hearings being held after the fact of seizures has the effect of turning the 2A from a right to a privilege.

Legal Representation – During the final RPO Hearing the court is represented by prosecution/attorney(s) representing Law Enforcement (LE) petitioners whereas the respondent is not entitled to Public Defense.  If they want (and probably should retain) legal representation, the respondent must hire an attorney without reimbursement compensation should their case be vacated.

Vague language of the RPO is open to varying interpretations by different legal jurisdictions, Judges, LE.

Duty Judges – Reliable sources have reported where large numbers of RPOs are being issued, the load is too great for assigned judges to review petitions and hold hearings so case assignment can go to duty judges with little knowledge of the RPO procedures.

Contract Lawyers for LE are being hired to represent LE petitioners with an incentive for pay based on cases leading to issuing of Final RPOs.

Judges Removed  – In at least one Court Jurisdiction, the Judge assigned to RPO cases was replaced by the Chief Judge of that Jurisdiction because of complaints by LE petitioners that he was turning down too many LE petitions he judged to not be clear and convincing and did not issue an ex parte RPO.

Property Treatment – There are no specifics in the RPO process as to the condition of how the seized property of the respondent is to be handled, stored, maintained and returned nor are there stipulations within what timeframe to return property should the ex parte RPO or final RPO be overturned or vacated.  This can lead to damaged property being returned without compensation and bureaucratic delays in returning properties.

3rd Party Transfer – The time frame of the option whereby a respondent can transfer property to be held by a 3rd party is also not determined nor prescribed.  There are unanswered questions about the strict conditions (such as passing a background check) required of the 3rd party transferee.

  •     For example if the 3d party is a CCW permit holder is this enough proof that a background check has been performed or does a new check have to be made and by whom?  Transfer requires a  sworn statement that the 3rd party will not allow respondent access during RPO period – will the LE officer serving petition take this statement or does the 3rd party or if not who/where do they go?
  •     Based on the lack of specifics on the transfer process, it appears this transfer won’t happen before the seizure but afterwards/post seizure.  This then leads to more bureaucracy and time delays.  The transfer should be conducted before seizure so as to preempt the need for LE to take possession, store, maintain and return property e.g. this function should take place between respondent & 3rd party at the same time the petition is served to the respondent and LE conducts inventory.  This would save LE resources as well.

Unequal Penalties – The fact that an accuser found to have rendered a false statement can only be charged with a misdemeanor whereas a search warrant can be issued to determine if any of the prohibited items are in the respondent’s residence and if the respondent is found to possess any firearm or related item after the final RPO (including one firearm bullet), they can be charged with a 3rd Degree Felony. This is also absurd, amounts to a civil search and unbalances the scales of justice.

Other Rights in Jeapordy – We are concerned these violations of our 2nd, 5th and 14th Amendment rights by SB 7026 could lead to other violations such as our 1st and 4th Amendment rights.

  •   1st Amendment Rights – Sen. Galvano’s coordination with FDLE to identify hate groups and hate speech could lead to RPOs being issued to members of these groups even though no such correlation exists in past mass shootings.
  •   What will be the criteria/sources used to determine that a group is a terrorist group and that they are a threat?  Surely not the uber leftist SPLC who has placed most conservative groups on their list of terrorists?
  •   Who will determine what is hate speech ?  This is fraught with the possibility of politicizing hate speech and using it against political opponents and seems more like the tactics of the Communist KGB or Nazi Gestapo than USA law.
  •   There are leftist groups such as the SPLC who have falsely classified most conservative groups as hate groups.  Others have now stated the NRA is a terorist group and all members of the NRA are racists.  These types of action like the RPO run the risk of turning certain agencies of the FL Govt into “speech police” which could further jeopardize our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.

Weakening Self Defense Laws: Then there are the intended or unintended consequences in RPOs weakening our Self Defense laws and Stand Your Ground rights – law abiding citizens will be concerned about using their firearms under lawful conditions for fear of then having an RPO issued against them while a determination of immunity from prosecution for shooting takes place.

  •   Acceptance of large donations from gun control groups like Everytown USA  to PACs helping Republican Senators get re-elected also smacks of a conflict of interest and definitely conflicts with Republican values.

Civil Law Process Treated Like Criminal Law.  Why then are respondents served an ex parte and Final RPO automatically reported for inclusion in the state and national criminal data bases ?  There are no provisions in the RPO section of the law to help the respondent remove their names from these lists thus setting up another potential bureaucratic nightmare for the respondent.  This is another level of punishment for the respondent as a part of the criminal system yet they were served with a civil order.

Conclusions – All of the above stacks the deck against the respondent in an RPO case especially if the respondent has no prior criminal record, is law abiding and is the target of someone’s vendetta, anger, political attack or other such lies and distortions to make LE petitioner and Judge wary that they might be a threat and then err on the side of perceived safety rather than individual liberty.

Human Life International lists Products that use Aborted Fetuses – Warning gruesome!

Two current issues that separate the two major political parties are climate change and abortion.

One party believes that the climate is changing but mankind has little to do with the changes. The other party believes that it is mankind that is destroying the planet and therefor mankind must be punished (with taxes and regulation) or even cannibalized in order to save the planet. A closely related issue is abortion. Why? Because by having fewer babies, or no babies at all, one can save the planet from extinction according to the policies of one major political party candidate for President of the United States, Senator Bernie Sanders.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS

Planned Parenthood and Environmentalists have joined forces to save planet earth by controlling global population. In the Planned Parenthood Global booklet titled Health Has No Borders on page 10 describes the intersection of the abortion industry and environmental movement, as a global partnership:

Women’s health is directly linked to the state of their environment. When rural environments become unsustainable, it is women whose lives are most disrupted. To address this issue, Planned Parenthood partners with local environmental advocates to integrate women’s health and empowerment into the work that they do. [Emphasis added]

Health Has No Borders describes how Planned Parenthood partnered with environmental advocates like Fundaeco (Foundation for Ecodevelopment and Conservation) in Guatemala:

In Guatemala we work with Fundaeco, one of the country’s largest environmental organizations. Before partnering with Planned Parenthood Global, Fundaeco had done some community organizing, but felt they had hit a brick wall in disseminating their message. To truly get their campaigns going, they determined they needed to focus not just on the local environment, but on the human rights of the local population.

Enter Planned Parenthood Global.

We made an initial investment to pilot three community health centers in one of the protected areas in southeast Guatemala. To ensure local ownership, these health centers were created by donations of land or supplies from local villages within the protected areas. [Emphasis added]

The founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger wrote:

The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.

This mantra is being carried out globally, and funded by local governments and organizations such as the United Nations.

SELLING HUMAN FETUSES

On July 19, 2015 we published an article titled Kraft, Pepsi, and Nestle Using Aborted Babies For Flavor Additives in which listed dozens of companies that use fetal tissue to enhance the flavor of their products. Note: Food and beverages do not contain any aborted fetal material; however, they may be tastier because of it.

Since that time the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) has published a series of undercover videos detailing how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of fetuses to companies for profit. Here is just one CMP video:

Andrea Byrnes from Human Life International published a column titled Products That Use Aborted Fetuses.

Byrnes writes:

Do some products contain fetal parts? The short gruesome answer: Yes.

Today’s consumer products are not the soap and lampshades of recycled Nazi concentration camp victims. The new utilitarian use of people is a sophisticated enterprise, not visible to the human eye.

Byrnes looks at three areas where fetal body parts are used:

  1. Food and Drink
  2. Cosmetics
  3. Vaccines and Medicine

While actual fetal body parts are not contained in food and drink products they are contained in cosmetics, vaccines and medicine. Byrnes reported:

The fountain of youth…is babies.

Commercially, it’s known as Processed Skin Proteins (PSP), developed at the University of Lausanne to heal burns and wounds by regenerating traumatized skin. The fetal skin cell line was taken from an electively aborted baby whose body was donated to the University.

[ … ]

The Vaccine Card at the Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute (SCPI) website lists over 21 vaccines and medical products that contain aborted fetal cell lines. The Card is updated yearly, and also lists ethical vaccine alternatives when there are any.

EUGENICS

“Eugenists imply or insist that a woman’s first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. “ – Margaret Sanger, Eugenist and founder of Planned Parenthood.

In a column titled New York Times’ ‘1619 Project,’ the MacArthur Foundation and Eugenics we wrote about the 1998 book “Archons And Acolytes: The New Power Elite” written by Clarence C. Walton wrote:

Eugenics became a fashionable cause, and courses in the subject were soon introduced by a number of colleges and universities. The Rockefeller Foundation provided ample financial support, generously funding international conferences and research projects, and earning unwanted praise from the Nazis who welcomed the international respectability that their eugenicists needed. Today the Ford and MacArthur Foundations have also made population control a major objective of their funding efforts. In the first phase of the eugenics movement, artificial birth control (with Margaret Sanger identified as its major force) became the preferred method for controlling population growth.” [Emphasis added]

Eugenics was created in the United States and its goal was and remains “population control.” Eugenics was quickly adapted by the Nazis to further their ideology of a “genetically superior” Aryan race.

Today eugenics is called genetics. It’s goal is the same, a genetically pure race.

A genetically pure race requires the ultimate in government control. The Green New Deal provides for tyrannical government control over every aspect of our lives and lively hoods. The battle cry is “save the planet.” Their success will measure in the reduction of numbers of people globally. It’s ultimately about the elites, in government and research labs, determining who lives and who dies.

About Andrea Byrnes:

Writer Andrea Byrnes was the first producer of U.S. March for Life coverage at EWTN Global Catholic Network, which she continued to supervise for seven years. She attended her first HLI conference in 1989, where she first met Servant of God Dr. Jerome Lejeune. She and her husband would later pray for Lejeune’s intercession for her son’s health difficulties discovered before birth, and thanks be to God, he is thriving.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Mapped-out: Where It’s Dangerous in America to Be Born Alive

Stillborn Baby Showed Signs of Life, But This Doctor Put Him in the Morgue Fridge to Freeze to Death

Babies Born Alive After Abortion Can be Left to Die in 16 States

Planned Parenthood Fights To Hide Evidence Of Selling Fetal Tissue In Daleiden Trial

Moroccan Feminists Vow To Abort Their Babies to Protest Laws Protecting the Unborn

Comprehensive List Of Companies That Use Aborted Fetal Cells As Flavour

Meet the Company Buying Planned Parenthood’s Baby ‘Specimens’

Prager U misses the key piece on leftist-Tolerance

NC Legislators Working To Overturn Gay Marriage: “Tell It To Satan!”

RELATED VIDEO: The Vortex — Pagan Prayer and Tree Planting at the Vatican.

How are Banks Harming Small Businesses?

As much as 78 percent of small businesses report positive corporate profitability, rating their happiness level to 8, on average (from a scale of 1-10). The past couple of years seem like the ‘golden’ years for small businesses, thanks to the increasing consumer demand, innovation, and technology – great possibilities and opportunities are present in the business sector.

But while big brands thrive, many small businesses suffer. Why?

Apparently, too much regulation by governments is interfering with the free market, which greatly affect the health of small businesses.

Rigid policies and regulations make sourcing capital difficult.

If you tried your luck of borrowing money from your bank and got turned down, you’re not alone. Only one in five business loans are approved by traditional banks.

Why? Banking policies say so. Let’s talk about Basel III as an example. This law is a set of banking regulations that place stricter standards on the quantity and quality of capital that banks must hold.

What does this mean for small businesses? Many experts believe that Basel III reduces credit availability for small enterprises. This means that bank loans will get more expensive and thus, far more difficult for many businesses to obtain.

Banks’ supreme power over loan contracts.

Take a look at any bank loan contract and you will know – banks hate young entrepreneurs. What most small business owners think is that as long as they are keeping up with their payments, they won’t be in trouble.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the case. The standard business loan contract gives banks an inordinate level of power over the borrower, without the latter knowing about it. For example, banks have the power to call in a loan and demand for payments in an unrealistic time frame. They may also perform a new valuation of assets securing the loan. And if the value has gotten down, the borrower faces potentially unmanageable loan costs.

Federal regulations hurt small businesses.

Small businesses are the heart of America’s economy. 45% of the U.S. gross domestic product is driven by small enterprises. But despite their prevalence, federal regulations and their infrastructure have a disproportionate impact on the free enterprise in America, especially on small businesses. Such regulations alone are estimated to cost small businesses as much as $1.9 trillion a year in direct costs, productivity loss, and higher prices.

The federal tax code, for example, adds additional burden to small businesses more than the amount of money they have to pay. It’s not just business taxes they have to deal with. Payroll taxes are a hassle as well. One-third of small businesses spend 80 hours per year on federal taxes and nearly half spend $5,000 on accountants and tax practitioners.

Another law – the Affordable Care Act (also called Obamacare), brought so many data collection and reporting requirements from small businesses. To comply with the new law, employers need to invest so much time, people, and in some cases, complex IT infrastructure – something that small organizations cannot afford.

Outdated banking technology hinders growth.

While the rest of the world is keeping up with the latest technology, banks don’t. That’s despite having the money and resources to do so. You won’t believe it but most of them still use the technology from the 1970s, a sad reality that causes a greater burden to small businesses.

For instance, it’s far easier and faster for companies to pay their suppliers in person than send a request for a bank wire transfer. If entrepreneurs need to get an update about their loans, they have to call the bank (worse, go there personally). There’s lack of transparency as to how much of the repayment has been deducted from the actual loan and how much went to the interest.

Another issue with banks concerns accepting international payments. More and more small businesses are entering the global market. Unfortunately, bank limitations are always challenging. It’s funny how consumers can easily track their $5 payment but small businesses could not trace their $10,000 supplier payment.

Bottom-line

Banking laws and government regulations are hurting small businesses in so many ways because of rigid policies and practices, lack of transparency, and the use of outdated technology. Because banks take full control over contracts (from loans to other financial services), entrepreneurs are often left in the dark. Additionally, many federal regulations, such as the federal tax code, cost small enterprises due to its complexities.

Will the situation ever change? Not until the government make their policies fair and less rigid for small businesses.

Why Even Liberals Should Be “Climate Change Skeptics”

Given the poor track record of drastic government solutions adopted in an atmosphere of fear, a healthy skepticism toward demands related to climate change should not only be tolerated but encouraged.


When you’re several decades older than Greta Thunberg, her impassioned warning of impending doom hits you differently than it may college students or early twenty somethings. In a word, it sounded “familiar.”

I’m not just talking about the climate change movement, nor exclusively about the left side of the political spectrum. I’ve been hearing about impending doom that can only be averted by massive increases in the size and scope of government my whole life, from both the right and the left.

The earliest example I remember came from the right. During the 1980s, the airwaves were flooded with reports on the military superiority of the Soviet Union. I don’t mean their nuclear weapons capabilities, which were and remain a valid cause for concern, as are those of every nuclear-armed government. No, the American public was saturated with reports of the Soviet Union’s superiority in waging conventional war, with planes, tanks, ground troops, etc.

The only solution, said the Reagan administration, was massive increases in military spending, which not only doubled the size of the federal government overall during Reagan’s two terms but started a trend of massive military spending that continues to this day. The conventional wisdom of the right says it was this spending that caused the Soviet Union to collapse because they tried to keep up and couldn’t. It wasn’t. The Soviet Union collapsed because of its communist economic system, which former KGB agent Vladimir Putin admitted in 2009 when he said,

In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.

The truth is, the Soviets were never a military threat, outside their nukes, which Reagan’s spending did nothing to deter. Poor countries generally don’t win conventional wars against much richer ones. Knowing that now, would you like to have those trillions in unnecessary military spending back?

The 1980s also saw a massive increase in the so-called “War on Drugs.” Capitalizing on the tragic death of basketball player Len Bias, drug warriors succeeded in convincing the American public that only draconian drug laws and sentencing guidelines could save their children from certain death due to an imminent, nationwide epidemic of drug addiction. The legislation pushed through on the heels of this fear-mongering resulted in the mass incarceration of generations of disproportionately black and brown people, many for as little as possessing too much marijuana, which is now legal in more than half of US states.

Knowing what you know today, would you like to have those millions of destroyed lives and families back?

In 2003, with the American public still shell shocked from the 9/11 attacks, the George W. Bush administration embarked upon a fear campaign similar to the Reagan administration’s Soviet scare featuring an even less plausible boogeyman: Saddam Hussein. Hussein was a ruthless dictator and a generally bad guy, but he was never a threat to US national security. The Bush administration evoked images of massive chemical weapons attacks and even “a mushroom cloud” in a major US city. It was all baloney.

Knowing what you know today, would you like to have the Iraq War back?

So, what does all this have to do with climate change? Environmentalists are using the same tactics, only for different ends. Right-wingers often revere the military and law enforcement. For all their talk about “small government,” no increase in either would be too much for many of them.

They’ve generally got what they’ve wanted in those areas by employing a thus far foolproof tactic that goes something like this: Oh my God! I’ve discovered a dire threat to all our lives and civilization as we know it. And believe it or not, the only solution is for you to give me everything I’ve ever wanted politically.

Shouldn’t any thinking person be suspicious of this? Would it not have benefitted Americans, left, right or otherwise, to have been more skeptical of claims like this before the War on Drugs or the Iraq War?

I’m not trying to convince liberals there is nothing to the anthropogenic climate change theory. But I am calling attention to the fact that the very same tactic that gave us the Iraq War, the largest prison population in the history of the world, and an out-of-control national debt due largely to unnecessary military spending is now being used to achieve a political result to address climate change.

Let’s not forget that before the fall of the Soviet Union and China’s dramatic turn away from communism and towards a market economy, the hard left’s chief argument against free markets had nothing to do with the environment. For most of the 20th century, they claimed that full-on communism or socialism was a better economic system. It was only when its failure in so many places became impossible to deny that the focus shifted to the environment. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) didn’t form until 1992, the year after the Soviet Union disappeared and just after China’s market reforms got underway.

Coincidence? Maybe, but shouldn’t it at least raise an eyebrow? How can anyone be blamed for skepticism when the very same people who wanted a centrally planned economy based on its economic merits suddenly discover it’s the only way to “save the planet”? Shouldn’t that give pause to even a true believer in climate change?

This is before even asking the question of whether giving the government these sweeping new powers (not to mention trillions more of our dollars) would actually solve the stated problem. Past experience should make us skeptical of this, too. Did the War on Drugs result in fewer drugs on the street? Did the Iraq War result in less terrorism? Believing the government is suddenly going to be wildly successful based purely on its doing the bidding of the other political tribe seems more like religious faith than reason.

One thing Greta Thunberg’s speech is honest about, at least indirectly, is that adopting the drastic environmental measures called for by the hard left will make us poorer. She derisively asks how any of us can even talk about “economic growth.” That’s easy for Thunberg and other First-Worlders to say, given what this will cost them vs. what it will cost truly poor people, of which there are very few in the United States or Sweden.

The truth is eliminating fossil fuels at the rate the hard left suggests could cost billions of poor people their lives, not merely their hamburgers. Given that grim reality and the poor track record of drastic government solutions adopted in an atmosphere of fear, a healthy skepticism toward the hard left’s claims and demands related to climate change should not only be tolerated but encouraged.

COLUMN BY

Tom Mullen

Tom Mullen is the author of Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? and A Return to Common  Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. For more information and more of Tom’s writing, visit www.tommullen.net.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Where Will Climate Change Solutions Be Found?

Here Are 4 Outrageously Insane Climate Proposals

The religion of climate change & the new doomsday scenario

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

Trump Jilts Google in Copyright Dispute at Supreme Court

The Trump administration has urged the Supreme Court to stay out of a long-running copyright dispute between Google and Oracle Corp., dealing a considerable blow to Google’s efforts to avoid an $8 billion damages award.

At issue in the dispute, billed as the copyright fight of the decade, are software interfaces called API declarations, which are shorthand commands that facilitate prewritten, complex computer functions. Google used a trove of Oracle-owned Java API declarations when building its Android smartphone operating system.

dailycallerlogo

“[Google] copied 11,500 lines of computer code verbatim, as well as the complex structure and organization inherent in that code, in order to help its competing commercial product,” the Trump administration’s legal brief reads. “The record demonstrates, moreover, that [Google’s] unauthorized copying harmed the market for [Oracle’s] Java platform.”

Sun Microsystems originally developed the contested API declarations. Oracle acquired Sun in 2010. Shortly thereafter, Oracle sued Google in federal court for patent and copyright infringement, saying Google impermissibly copied the API declarations. Years of litigation followed.

Now before the Supreme Court, Google questions whether APIs are copyrightable in the first place. The federal Copyright Act provides that protection does not extend to “methods of operation.” In Google’s view, APIs are a method of operation because they help developers access prewritten, complex functions.

“The Java API declarations simply tell developers how to access the prewritten methods to perform tasks carried out by the implementing code,” Google’s petition reads. “In that respect, the declarations are analogous to a set of rules developers are trained to follow when writing programs in the Java language. If the rules were changed, the prewritten methods would not work. For that reason, the declarations are necessarily part of the method of operating the libraries of prewritten code.”

The Trump administration disagreed, saying APIs do not count as a method of operation simply because they perform a function.

“Although there is a sense in which all computer code could be described as a method of operating a computer, the Copyright Act as a whole makes clear that computer programs can be protected by copyright, refuting any suggestion that the functional character of computer code suffices to bring it within [the Copyright Act],” the government’s brief reads.

The Supreme Court gives the federal government’s views great credence when, as here, the justices ask for its guidance about whether to take a case.

However, Google contends the federal appeals courts are split as to whether copyright protections reach software interfaces like APIs. The Supreme Court justices are much more likely to take a case featuring a question of law over which multiple courts disagree.

Google prevailed at the case’s first trial in 2012. A jury deadlocked over Oracle’s claims, prompting the judge to sign with Google. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a specialized court for patent appeals, reversed that decision and ordered a new trial in 2014.

Google appealed the Federal Circuit’s ruling to the Supreme Court, but the justices turned the request down in 2015.

A second trial followed in 2016. A jury sided with Google, finding fair use protected its reliance on the API declarations. The Federal Circuit overturned that verdict, ruling Google had not engaged in fair use. It returned the case to a lower court for a trial on damages.

That decision is now pending before the Supreme Court. On April 29, the justices asked the Trump administration to weigh in on the petition.

The case is No. 18-956 Google v. Oracle America.

COLUMN BY

Kevin Daley

Kevin Daley is a legal affairs reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @kevindaleydc.

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

VIDEO: Child Protection Services attack Christian families for teaching the gospel

In a LifeSite News article titled “Multi-year Child Protective Services investigation devastates Texas family” Candi Summers reported:

August 26, 2019 (Texas Home School Coalition Association) — On November 21, 2013, Texas Child Protective Services (CPS) forcibly removed seven children of a Texas homeschool family, in spite of no evidence of abuse or neglect, by order of Judge Graciela Olvera of the 256th District Court of Dallas County.

The action against the Tutt family calls to mind the saying “No good deed goes unpunished.” The Tutts were a Christian family with five biological children, three adopted children, and one in the process of private adoption. (Three of the biological children are grown and living outside the home.) The Tutts spent several years as a licensed CPS foster home, adopted a child from CPS foster care, and were serving with Safe Families, working with at-risk families and directly with CPS to help children in need of care because of abuse or neglectful situations. At the time of the incident that drew CPS’s attention, they were caring for a sibling group of five, including an autistic child, through Safe Families. Additionally, CPS had independently placed an infant with them, knowing that they already had 11 children in their home. This family obviously had a heart for helping children in bad situations, and CPS itself was aware of this goodwill and called on the family as a resource for such children for many years.

On September 21, 2013, a four-year-old autistic child in the Tutts’ care wandered away from the home after climbing over a baby gate, out a dog door, and over a 5-foot fence. The Tutts’ eight-year-old followed the four-year-old but could not bring him back, so he stayed with the child while the other Tutt children notified their father, Trevor, who immediately got in his car and began to search for them. Unfortunately, Trevor turned right at the end of the block while the children turned left, and a police officer picked the children up and returned them to the home before Mr. Tutt could find them. Without entering the home, but seemingly upset with the number of children there, the fact that the shaded yard did not have grass, and the fact that the autistic child had soiled himself, the officer contacted CPS.

Read more.

Child Protection Services have been overrun by liberals and are now weaponized tools of the left.

VIDEO: Where the House Judiciary Actually Got Things Right

While there was plenty wrong with Wednesday’s House Judiciary Hearing on H.R. 1296, the proposed ban on semi-automatic firearms introduced by Representative David Cicilline (D-R.I.), there were some shining moments for those who still support the Second Amendment.

First, there were the two women who testified in opposition to the latest attempt at banning America’s most popular rifles.

Amy Swearer, the Senior Legal Policy Analyst for the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, used an effective combination of statistics, research, analytical thinking, and anecdotal evidence in her testimony [below] to point out the massive flaws with enacting a revised version of the failed 1994 Clinton gun ban.

From a statistical standpoint, Amy explained that the firearms targeted by H.R. 1296 are used in a fraction of all firearm-related crime. She explained that Americans are four-times more likely to be stabbed to death than to be killed by a criminal wielding one of these firearms.

And while many in the gun-ban community continually ask why anyone “needs” a semi-automatic rifle, Ms. Swearer pointed out that these so-called “assault weapons” are particularly suited for civilians to use for personal protection, especially at times when the government is “unable or unwilling to defend entire communities from large-scale civil unrest.” Amy stated that in 1982, during the Los Angeles riots, many business owners and private citizens used such firearm to protect their lives and their property from rampant looters when the police were nowhere to be found. Similarly, during the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, these firearms were again utilized by law-abiding citizens for lawful, defensive purposes.

Amy drove home her point about the suitability of guns like the AR-15 for personal protection by relating the story of taking her mother, who was not familiar with firearms, to the range to teach her how to safely use a gun. Ms. Swearer related that her mother, like many handling firearms for the first time, had difficulty with using a handgun accurately and effectively. When she switched to an AR-15, however, Amy said her mother was able to control the firearm far more easily than a handgun, and her accuracy improved vastly.

“That is why law-abiding citizens buy millions of these firearms,” Amy said. “When accuracy and stopping power matter, they are simply better.”

Pointing out that firearms are used by law-abiding citizens for personal protection between 500,000 and 2,000,000 times a year, Ms. Swearer closed by hoping politicians do not strip her mother of the ability to use the most effective firearm possible for ending threats to her safety.

Dianna Muller, a retired 22-year police veteran, spoke next [below]. A professional competitive shooter who has represented the United States in competition, Mrs. Muller also works with The DC Project, a nonpartisan educational initiative that seeks to bring 50 women, one from each state, to the nation’s capital to promote gun rights.

Mrs. Muller pointed out that gun rights are women’s rights. She stated that she is particularly vulnerable to violent criminal attack because she is likely smaller and “less equipped for violence” than someone who may seek to do her harm, especially if she is outnumbered. “My firearm is the great equalizer,” Dianna testified, “and levels the playing field.”

Also addressing the question of why someone “needs” an AR-15, she stated hers is her preferred firearm for home defense, and that her husband also uses one for hunting. Mrs. Muller also pointed out that if legislators want to look at reducing firearm-related fatalities, rather than demonizing gun owners, they should look at promoting several programs she mentioned that have already had an impact, and would be more effective than adding restrictions on law-abiding gun owners. Among the programs she highlighted were NRA’s Eddie Eagle and School Shield.

Outnumbered by five anti-gun panelists, and facing a hostile majority in the House Judiciary Committee, Amy Swearer and Dianna Muller did an outstanding job representing the views of those opposed to banning guns.

Several staunch defenders of the Second Amendment who serve on the House Judiciary Committee also exhibited their strong support of law-abiding gun owners.

U.S. Representative Doug Collins (R-Ga.), the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, reminded people that calling semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 “assault weapon” is designed to confuse those unfamiliar with firearms. He pointed out that some attribute the creation of the term to anti-gun extremist Josh Sugarmann, the founder and Director the Violence Policy Center. Sugarmann, Collins pointed out, stated, “The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

Collins also pointed out the hypocrisy of those who promote banning guns like the AR-15 in order to allegedly save lives. While those opposed to these firearms keep trying to tie them to an “epidemic of gun violence,” the ranking member pointed out that rifles of ANY kind were used in 403 murders in 2017. Semi-automatic rifles that fall under the restrictions of H.R. 1296 would be only a fraction of those homicides.

By comparison, he pointed out that in 2017, knives were used in 1,591 murders, and hands and feet in 696. The “epidemic” would seem to be far worse in areas unrelated to semi-automatic rifles.

Ranking Member Collins also pointed out that speeding was the stated cause in 9,717 fatalities in 2017, and further pointed out that nobody is seeking to limit automobiles to a maximum top speed of 70 MPH.

During the period when committee members could question the panelists, Collins asked Dianna Muller—who was on the police force before, during, and after the Clinton gun ban—if the ’94 ban had any discernible effect on her as a law enforcement officer. She said it had zero effect.

When Representative Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) had a chance to speak, Amy Swearer related that the official report on the effectiveness of the 1994 gun ban found that renewing it would likely have no measurable effect on violent crime.

When it was time for Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) to speak, he pointed out that the discussion of banning so-called “assault weapons” focused on cosmetic features, rather than how a firearm functions. After stating that hunting with a semi-automatic rifle is legal in most states, he asked the panelists if hunting rifles should be banned. Only Amy Swearer and Dianna Muller stated they should not.

Representative Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) used part of his time to point out that, when President Barrack Obama asked the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to look at existing research on gun violence, they found that “self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,” and that “semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 are commonly used in self-defense, especially in the homes of law-abiding citizens because they’re easier to control than handguns.”

It was during Representative Biggs’ questioning that Dianna Muller made what was possibly the most widely reported comment during the hearing. When speaking about the proposed ban on semi-automatics being discussed, Mrs. Muller stated, “I will not comply with the ‘assault weapons’ ban.” Ohio Representative Jim Jordan (R) was the next Second Amendment supporter to speak, and he succinctly summed up what the legislation would ban, stating, “Semi-automatic weapons, with a magazine capacity of ten rounds or more, with scary features….”

During his questioning of Amy Swearer, the two discussed the fact that the “scary features” don’t have any impact on how the firearms function, and would not benefit criminals intent on doing harm. Both seemed to agree that those law-abiding citizens who follow the law will be less able to effectively defend themselves or their loved ones from violent criminals.

In fact, Ms. Swearer expressed concern that, should the bill become law, “You’ll see millions of law-abiding citizens become felons overnight for having scary looking features on firearms.”

As the two discussed the commonly understood fact that criminals try to avoid armed victims, and that the bill would only disarm law-abiding citizens, Rep. Jordan made another simple, but powerful point.

“Bad guys aren’t stupid, they’re just bad,” he said.  “They’re just evil. They’re not going to follow the law. What this legislation will do is make it more difficult for law-abiding people like you, like all kinds of folks, to protect themselves when some bad guy is bent on doing something wrong.”

Florida Representative Greg Steube (R) pointed out that those promoting the ban on modern sporting rifles like the AR-15, if successful, will eventually look to banning other guns until they are all banned. He also attempted to ask Charlottesville Police Chief RaShall Brackney to clarify an earlier remark about banning all firearms. Chief Brackney seemed unwilling to either clarify or walk back her earlier statement.

Other Republican committee members also spoke out in defense of the Second Amendment and in opposition to the bill, including Representatives Ken Buck (Colo.), Ben Cline (Va.), Louie Gohmert (Tex.), and Tom McClintock (Cal.).

Our thanks go out to all of those who spoke in support of law-abiding gun owners and our right to keep and bear arms, especially considering they were in a hostile committee where pro-gun panelists were outnumbered 5-2.

RELATED VIDEO: Lauren Boebert/Dudley Brown speak on 2A Rights

RELATED ARTICLES:

Violent Crime Drops As Concealed Carry Numbers Increase

No, 158 House Districts Haven’t Had Mass Shootings This Year

Virginia Police Chief Advocates Ban on All Guns at U.S. House “Assault Weapons” Hearing

Anti-gun AGs Push So-called “Universal” Background Checks for Ammunition

NRA Supports Supreme Court Petition Against Massachusetts Semi-Auto Ban

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Election Fraud Charges Brought in Michigan

I know that by now you might be thinking this blog could be renamed Michigan Frauds and Crooks.

Is it Michigan or is it that papers like the Detroit News are doing their jobs?

And, to one of my critics—you see I do write about American crooks when the news interests me!

Thanks to reader Cathy for this story published yesterday:

Southfield city clerk charged with 6 felonies tied to November election

Detroit — Southfield City Clerk Sherikia L. Hawkins was charged Monday with six felony counts over “unauthorized and inaccurate” changes to absentee ballots in the November 2018 election.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson made a joint announcement of the charges in Detroit, calling it a “rare” case.

“Voting is fundamental to the very essence of our democracy,” Nessel said during a Monday news conference. “It is incumbent upon state governments to safeguard the electoral process and ensure that every voter’s right to cast a ballot is protected.”

Allegations that Hawkins altered 193 absentee voter records came to light during the 14-day canvass following the election. Benson said the Oakland County Clerk’s Office reported with the Bureau of Elections “the potential for these irregularities and from there we began our investigation.”

[….]

Hawkins, a Democrat who just a few months ago was honored by the state party with the Dingell/Levin Award at its Legacy Dinner in Detroit, could not be reached Monday at her office for comment or a number listed in public records. Her attorney also could not be reached.

[….]

After taking office in January, Benson and Nessel, both Democrats, wanted to make sure the state’s elections were protected from “every conceivable threat,” Nessel said.

“Every citizen must know that when they enter the ballot box, the vote that they cast will be counted and that the collective will of the voters will be carried out,” Nessel said.

Hawkins,38, was arraigned Monday in 46th District Court in Southfield on the charges, which include election law-falsifying returns or records, forgery of a public record, misconduct in office and multiple counts of using a computer to commit a crime.

Forgery of a public record is a 14-year offense, Nessel said.

[….]

“After the city has examined the underlying facts of this matter, we will explore all appropriate and legal avenues to protect the voting process and rights of the Southfield Citizenry,” the statement issued by [City Council] spokesman Michael Manion said. “Mrs. Hawkins will be on administrative leave with pay at this time.”

Hawkins is paid $101,500 per year in Southfield as the city’s clerk.

[….]

Hawkins made history in November 2017 as the first African-American elected as city clerk, according to the clerk’s page on the city’s website. She formerly served as Pontiac’s city clerk.

More here.

Just for fun, see my tag for ‘Michigan’ to see how often the state has been the scene of some criminal activity reported here at Frauds and Crooks.

RELATED ARTICLE: Good Summary at Powerline Blog on Rep. Ilhan Omar’s Apparent Scam on America

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Establishment Catholic Media Pushing Gun Control

by Jesse Russell  •  ChurchMilitant.com

Responding to CNA’s Mary Farrow

“But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth” (Revelation 3:16).

With the post-John Paul II Church in America split between two rival camps of traditionalist and leftwing Catholics (a.k.a. “Left Cats”), one of the oddest media outlets is Catholic News Agency (CNA).

On one hand, during the Francis era, CNA has been an invaluable resource for Catholics, providing detailed analysis of the infiltration of the Catholic Church in America by George Soros-tier NGOs and Democratic Party operatives.

On the other hand, CNA will regularly publish pieces that sound like a whitewashed and toned-down version of something penned by one of the many Left Cat writers, many of whom are literally funded by George Soros.

In addition to a steady stream of cringe-worthy, “just a few million more” pieces arguing for the right of the entire world to enter the West via illegal and legal immigration, a recent gem on CNA’s website is a piece arguing for the classic Democratic Party “middle ground” approach to gun control in which Americans will be slowly stripped of their firearms via a dialectical series of compromises.

In “What the Church does — and does not — teach about gun control,” CNA’s Mary Farrow presents the argument that although the Catholic Church teaches that humans have a right to defend themselves, the Church also teaches that the state has a right to protect the common good by regulating gun ownership.

While such an argument seems perfectly reasonable on the surface, Farrow’s piece is a masterpiece of gaslighting worthy of a CNN-tier fake news segment argument for “common sense gun control.”

In fact, the lead photo of the piece is of two serious-looking teenage girls, one of whom is holding a sign with a crossed out AR-15 crudely drawn on it and accompanied with the (all caps, of course) words “COMMON SENSE” and “WE NEED GUN REFORM NOW.”

The message, of course, is that while our country along the entire West is rapidly becoming a violent, God-less hellscape, it would be only common sense to disarm the American population and leave them at the mercy of criminals who have no concern for gun laws.

Farrow begins her piece with a narrative of the recent El Paso and Dayton shootings along with a body count of those killed and some pleading words from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Luring the reader into assurance that her piece is not going to be a screed arguing for immediately taking away any and all guns from Americans, Farrow presents an argument from the Dominican Fr. Thomas Petri about the right Catholics have for self-defense.

However, with her gun-owning reader relaxed, Farrow then opens up her bag of tricks.

Taking aim at the iconic AR-15 and other high-capacity rifles, Farrow paraphrases Fr. Petri as saying, “A claim that does not seem to be morally or reasonably supported by Church teaching is the supposed right of citizens to protect themselves against their government.”

With respect to Fr. Petri, such a claim is, in fact, made by another Dominican, St. Thomas Aquinas himself, who, in  Chapter 7 of , allows for legitimate resistance against a tyranny, writing in paragraph 49: 

If to provide itself with a king belongs to the right of a given multitude, it is not unjust that the king be deposed or have his power restricted by that same multitude if, becoming a tyrant, he abuses the royal power. It must not be thought that such a multitude is acting unfaithfully in deposing the tyrant, even though it had previously subjected itself to him in perpetuity, because he himself has deserved that the covenant with his subjects should not be kept, since, in ruling the multitude, he did not act faithfully as the office of a king demands.

Farrow finally gets to the heart of the matter by quoting Fr. Petri’s apparent argument, in the key of the radical Left itself, that the state needs to intervene with increased regulation and monitoring of Americans who own serious weapons:

A semiautomatic weapon is used for firing a lot of bullets very quickly, and what’s the reason for that? Well, it’s to do maximum damage to multiple targets at one time. So yes, I think Catholic moral principles would dictate that the state does have not only a right but a responsibility to monitor who has such means, and that they’re in good mental condition and are able to use them properly.

Like the innumerable pieces produced by CNA cheering on the now rapid death of the West via mass immigration, “What the Church does — and does not — teach about gun control” buries its subversive message within a deluge of noble and pious verbiage and a few  Teddy Ruxpin – level tear-jerking stories.

Contrary to CNA’s arguments, the worst thing imaginable would be to grant a judicial system and law enforcement apparatus under President Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren to disarm and humiliate those guilty of the crime of “wrong think.”

Moreover, those at CNA and their pals at the USCCB who think they can appease the power structure ruling our country and much of the world by selling globalist ideas to confused conservative Catholics must realize that they are only useful idiots whose shelf life will eventually wear out and who will someday find themselves red-flagged for their own all too conservative Catholicism.

RELATED VIDEO: Lauren Boebert/Dudley Brown speak on 2A Rights

RELATED ARTICLES:

Violent Crime Drops As Concealed Carry Numbers Increase

No, 158 House Districts Haven’t Had Mass Shootings This Year

Virginia Police Chief Advocates Ban on All Guns at U.S. House “Assault Weapons” Hearing

Anti-gun AGs Push So-called “Universal” Background Checks for Ammunition

NRA Supports Supreme Court Petition Against Massachusetts Semi-Auto Ban

Priest Tells Joe Biden: You Can’t Be Catholic and Support Abortion

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Democrats don’t hate your guns, they hate you!

In an article titled “Have They Lost Their Minds?” John C. Sigler wrote:

Last year I was criticized for saying “they don’t hate your guns, they hate you” – Well, it looks like I was right. San Francisco’s defamatory and utterly hateful and ridiculous resolution shows just how far off the deep end their hatred for you, the NRA, and America’s traditional values has driven the anti-gun crowd.

But there is a method to their madness. The real meat of their preposterous resolution lies not in the defamatory and inflammatory labeling of NRA as a so-called “domestic terrorist organization”. No, the real meat of their preposterous resolution lies in the purpose of that resolution which is to do the same thing that New York tried to do – scare off businesses who do business with NRA and its 5+ million law-abiding God-fearing, freedom-loving patriotic members. Here’s the punch line from their hate-filled resolution:

“The City and County of San Francisco should take every reasonable step to limit those entities who do business with San Francisco from doing business with this domestic terrorist organization”( meaning the NRA and its members). [Emphasis added]

What we have seen since the election of Donald J. Trump is a global effort to delegitimize his administration and a national effort by the Democratic Party and the media to dehumanize his supporters.

The Democratic Party is working day and night to turn America into a socialist nanny state.

Their strategy is to use political correctness to silence the overwhelming majority of Republicans, growing numbers of Independents and Democrats who believe the party has gone to far. Even Rahm Emanuel, during a panel discussion on ABC’s show This Week, said,

We have taken a position so far, and the candidates have, through the process — a few have not — about — on basically Medicare for all, which is, we’re going to eliminate 150 million people’s health care, and we’re going to provide health care for people that have just come over the border.

That is an untenable position for the general election. [Emphasis added]

Whether it is the New Green Deal, Medicaid for all, free healthcare for illegal aliens, forgiveness of tuition debt, giving away money to everyone not working at the expense of those who are working, or attacks on the U.S. Constitution, the Democratic Party has left America.

On September 11th, 2019 CNBC reported that the Democrat controlled House passed two bills banning new offshore oil and gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and the Florida Gulf Coast. The day after this bill passed drones attacked the Saudi oil fields. This has driven oil and gas prices up globally. The Democrats do not have what is good for working Americans in mind. Emma Newburger reported:

The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed two bills banning new offshore oil and gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and the Gulf Coast of Florida. It was set to vote on a third bill banning drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The legislation could hamper President Donald Trump’s push to expand offshore oil and gas development.

Conclusion

Democrats are unabashedly the party of Karl Marx and Mao.

Only President Trump had the foresight to make America energy independent. Only President Trump is unabashedly pro-worker, pro-middle class, pro-jobs and pro-America.

That is the choice on November 3rd, 2020.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Marching Toward Gun Confiscation: Prohibition Advocates Released Unhinged Gun Control Plan

Flag on the Play: Media Promotes Gun Confiscation Laws by Exaggerating “Study” Results

Beto Going All-In on Confiscation

William Pelham Barr, Patriot or Traitor?

John Brennan writes: “But if democracy is a process rather than a state, the democratic process may involve, at some point, the violation of personal liberties and procedural justice.”

“This is the chilling apologia for the anti-Trump conspiracy.  In order to keep the regime moving “forward,” the violation of personal liberties and procedural justice” is justified, whether it is an unpaid campaign adviser being violated (Carter Page) or the National Security Advisor (General Mike Flynn); whether it entails launching a disinformation campaign (Trump/Russia), or reversing an election (the Mueller probe).  The ends – their ends – justify any means.” – Diana West in her book, The Red Thread


William Pelham Barr has a history of cover-ups, and the more I look at the facts, the more convinced I’ve become that he will protect the Deep State.  Resistance to the onslaught of evil is almost non-existent.  Socialists control the mass media, they have all the money in the world, they control higher and now even lower education, and they have edged their way into the pulpits of America.  Add all of that up along with our ignorant electorate who blindly vote without any knowledge of the candidates and how the hell are we ever to win?  These freedom hating socialists belong in the center of Dante’s hell.

It is a sobering fact that American presidents (many of whom have been corrupt) have gone out of their way to hire fixers to be their attorney generals.  Recent history alone gives us a good look at several of them…Loretta Lynch (2015-2017), Eric Holder (2009-2015), Michael Mukasey (2007-2009), Alberto Gonzales (2005-2007), John Ashcroft (2001-2005), Janet Reno (1993-2001), Dick Thornburgh (1988-1991), Ed Meese (1985-1988), etc.

Barr, however, seems to be a particularly spectacular and sordid case. As George H. W. Bush’s most notorious CIA insider from 1973 to 1977, and as the AG from 1991 to 1993, Barr wreaked havoc, flaunted the rule of law, and proved himself to be one of the CIA/Deep State’s greatest and most ruthless champions and protectors.  In fact, his modus operandi is a great deal like that of his close friend, Robert Mueller. Before becoming Attorney General in 1991, Barr held numerous other posts within the Department of Justice (DOJ), including serving as Deputy Attorney General.

The CIA, Congress and Covert Operations

The issue of notification of Congress about imminent clandestine activities was at the heart of the Iran-Contra scandal when President Ronald Reagan and CIA Director William Casey specifically ordered that lawmakers be kept in the dark about the infamous, covert arms-for-hostages deals with Iran.

Barr was by no means alone in pushing these views, the documents show. Other notable proponents during the Iran-Contra aftermath included then-Congressman Dick Cheney and John R. Bolton, who was also at the Justice Department.  After Cheney became defense secretary, he continued to press for extraordinarily broad Executive Branch authority, advising then-President George H. W. Bush to veto the Senate’s intelligence appropriations bill on the grounds it “attacked” presidential prerogatives – resulting in the only known such veto since the CIA’s creation.  Link

Spook Air Moves to Ohio

Previously documented was Mr. Barr’s involvement with the CIA, the Iran-Contra scandal, the covert arms-for-hostages deals with Iran and Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton’s sellout to the CIA.

Arkansas was great for Iran Contra, but it was a wealthy Ohio businessman and his close associate that helped attract the CIA to the Buckeye State. Those men were billionaire philanthropist Leslie Wexner and Jeffrey Epstein.  Wexner owns The Limited and Victoria’s Secret, and during this period, he had entrusted all of his money to his longtime friend, Jeffrey Epstein, a secretive financier.

Wexner and his company had a relationship with the CIA and Southern Air Transport (SAT) which was directly owned and used by the CIA for covert operations from 1960-1973.  SAT was intimately involved in the Iran-Contra affair, having been used to funnel weapons and drugs to and from the Nicaraguan Contras under the guise of delivering “humanitarian aid.”

Ohio gave lucrative tax incentives to SAT for a promised 300 new jobs they’d bring to Columbus that never transpired.  Columbus Free Press editor, Bob Fitrakis noted that in addition to Wexner the other main figures who were key in securing SAT’s relocation to Ohio were Alan D. Fiers Jr., a former chief of the CIA Central American Task Force, and retired Air Force Major General Richard Secord, head of air logistics for SAT’s covert action in Laos between 1966 and 1968, while the company was still known as Air America. Secord was also the air logistics coordinator in the illegal Contra resupply network for Oliver North during Iran-Contra.

Fiers was later pardoned by George H. W. Bush with help from then AG Bill Barr.

William Safire on AG Barr

Back in 1992, the first time Bill Barr was U.S. attorney general, New York Times writer William Safire referred to him as “Coverup-General Barr” because of his role in burying evidence of then-President George H. W. Bush’s involvement in “Iraq-gate” and “Iran-Contra.”  Iraq-gate was essentially the Bush administration using the agriculture department and banking to illegally divert funds to build up Saddam Hussein’s military after the Iraq-Iran war, including selling him weapons of mass destruction.  This was a huge scandal that Safire was involved in covering.

Barr has been the go-to guy for protecting a president, covering up scandals, and obstructing investigations. In August 1992, Safire wrote about Barr’s refusal to appoint an independent counsel to investigate what he called Iraq-gate.  Safire lasered in on what he thought was “the Bush Administration’s fraudulent use of public funds, its sustained deception of Congress and its obstruction of justice.”

Another independent counsel, Lawrence Walsh, had been named to investigate the Iran-contra affair in 1986 and would infuriate Republicans when he issued high profile indictments on the eve of the 1992 election.

AG Barr was already covering up for Bush, Weinberger, Elliott Abrams, former assistant secretary of state; Robert C. McFarlane, former national security adviser, and former CIA officials Clair E. George, Alan D. Fiers and Duane Clarridge and others from the Reagan administration.

Elliott Abrams; George H. W. Bush; Caspar Weinberger; William Barr (AP/Getty/Salon)

On October 19, 1992, Safire wrote of Barr’s unwillingness to appoint an independent counsel to look into Iraq-gate, “Why does the Coverup-General resist independent investigation? Because he knows where it may lead: to Dick Thornburgh, James Baker, Clayton Yeutter, Brent Scowcroft and himself (the people who organized the sale of WMDs to Saddam). He vainly hopes to be able to head it off, or at least be able to use the threat of firing to negotiate a deal.”

Three months later, Safire revisited the issue after Barr “handpicked a whitewasher” who would successfully filibuster the probe until after the election.  Barr pushed hard for last minute pardons for six individuals caught up in the investigation, including former defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger.

Lawrence Walsh had been appointed to investigate the Iran-Contra activities of the Reagan administration and determine if crimes had been committed.  But the pardons by Barr aborted Weinberger’s trial and virtually eliminated what was left of Walsh’s investigation.  Walsh denounced the pardons and stated that doing so “undermines the principle that no man is above the law.”

Walsh’s tenure effectively discredited the independent counsel law in the eyes of both parties.

In Safire’s article, Justice Corrupts Justice, he accused Barr of not only rigging the cover-up, but of being one of the criminals who could be prosecuted.

John Bolton

John Bolton has always been a war hawk, one who promoted funding for the military industrial complex.  As such, I am thrilled that our President fired him.

Bolton has made a career out of defying Congress. During the Iran-Contra investigations, he refused to comply with Congressional demands for records. Bolton also believed that the Independent Counsel law was unconstitutional and did everything he could do preempt Congress’s efforts to investigate Iran-Contra. Bolton has no record of building up and reforming institutions. He defies laws, believes in might makes right, and has worked to undermine the system of checks and balances that is key to America’s representative republic.

The Inslaw/Promis Octopus

Inslaw Inc. is an information technology firm which developed the famous Promis software. A bankruptcy court determined Inslaw was defrauded of its intellectual property rights. Hillary Clinton was the intellectual property lawyer for the company that illegally marketed the software worldwide. Mary Jacoby, wife of Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, is the daughter of a major investor in the company Hillary Clinton represented that marketed the stolen software.

The Promis software is a National Crime Information Center (NCIC)-type tracking technology incorporating numerous databases such as court records, financial

institutions, and utility companies. Inslaw was forced into bankruptcy in 1985 because the US Justice Department which contracted to purchase it, reneged on its obligations. Pirated versions of the software were sold by the US intelligence community worldwide to 88 foreign intelligence agencies, and other organizations such as banks. The program included a “backdoor” for US intelligence to hack into.

Once the original version of Promis was delivered, the DOJ handed off a copy to the CIA which subcontracted Wackenhut Corp. to develop the “backdoor.” Wackenhut hired a technical and electronics whiz-kid, Michael Riconosciuto as its Research Director. A child prodigy who built an argon laser at 16, invented the electrostatic bomb, and published his Riconosciuto Italian to English dictionary still in use by most online translators among his many other inventions, Riconosciuto was put to work designing the covert “backdoor” for the co-opted Promis program. The work was done at a facility on the Cabazon Indian Reservation in Indio California. Another modification would take place in Little Rock, Arkansas, to tailor the Promis software for use by banks.

In October 1991, Barr appointed then retired Democratic Chicago judge Nicholas Bua as special counsel in the Inslaw scandal. Few people understand the full ramifications of Promis software, and the undetectable spying apparatus placed in foreign computers. In 1989, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jack Brooks, D-TX, launched a three-year investigation into the Inslaw affair. In the resulting report, the Committee suggested that among others, Edwin Meese, while presidential counselor and later as attorney general, and Democrat D. Lowell Jensen a former assistant and deputy attorney general and former US district judge in San Francisco, conspired to steal Promis software from Bill Hamilton’s company, Inslaw.

Bua’s 1993 report found the DOJ of no wrong doing in the matter, despite a 12-year lawsuit by Inslaw, regarding the government theft of their software.  One journalist, Danny Casolaro, died as he attempted to tell the story and boxes of documents relating to the case were destroyed, stolen, or conveniently “lost” by the DOJ. Software piracy, conspiracy, cover-up, stonewalling, covert action…just another decade at the corrupt DOJ.

Barr’s Blanket Immunity for Federal Agents

Barr told the New York Times in 1993 that he was not directly involved in the Ruby Ridge operation. Two years later, the Washington Post revealed that “top officials of the Bush Justice Department had at least 20 phone contacts concerning Ruby Ridge in the 24 hours before Vicki Weaver was shot,” including two calls involving Barr.

Barr spent plenty of time organizing former Attorneys General and others to support “an FBI sniper in defending against criminal charges in connection with the Ruby Ridge incident.” Barr also “assisted in framing legal arguments advanced in the district court and the subsequent appeal to the Ninth Circuit.”  He called this, “serving the disadvantaged” pro-bono charitable work, (for FBI sniper, Lon Horiuchi, who already had a federally-paid law firm defending him) that helped tamp down one of the biggest scandals during Barr’s time as Attorney General from 1991 to early 1993.

Barr was responsible for both the U.S. Marshals Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, two federal agencies whose misconduct at Ruby Ridge “helped to weaken the bond of trust that must exist between ordinary Americans and our law enforcement agencies,” according to a 1995 Senate Judiciary Committee report.

When Boundary County, Idaho filed criminal charges against Horiuchi, Barr sprang to action seeking immunity for FBI snipers. He spearheaded efforts to sway the court to dismiss all charges because holding a sniper liable would “severely undermine, if not cripple, the ability of future attorneys general to rely on such specialized units in moments of crisis such as hostage taking and terrorist acts.”

Federal Judge Alex Kozinski warned in his dissent of a new James Bond “007 standard for the use of deadly force” against American citizens, stating, “A group of FBI agents formulated rules of engagement that permitted their colleagues to hide in the bushes and gun down men who posed no immediate threat.  Such wartime rules are patently unconstitutional for a police action.”  Link

BCCI Banking Scandal

The Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a shadowy but very real institution with connections to governments and intelligence services all over the world. BCCI’s owners specialized in evading regulators so that they could speculate and bribe with the depositors’ money. As the fraud mounted and spread, law enforcement officials and bank regulators the world over discovered what the CIA had been trying to hide.

Tampa’s federal prosecutors launched an investigation of money laundering in 1991.  The District Attorney of Manhattan investigated a broad array of bank activities and received zero cooperation from Justice Department and CIA.  And Barr sat on the influential deputies committee of the National Security Council, which controlled the paperwork.

“We couldn’t get records. We couldn’t get witnesses. We could barely get a meeting,” said John Moscow, the lead BCCI prosecutor in Manhattan.

Barr was up for confirmation as attorney general. Moscow said he heard that Democrats on the Judiciary Committee made Barr promise to let the BCCI investigation go ahead.  Trouble was, the big shots were indicted, but got away and Barr did not press Pakistan for their extradition, nor did his successors in the Clinton administration.

Conclusion

AG Barr appears to be someone who would protect the Deep State, not the law, and the Barr family history of Marxism is more than troubling.  The move from extreme leftism to rightwing conservatism resembles the liberal establishment takeover of the old right Republican Constitutionalists by Trotskyite Irving Kristol (father of Bill) and William F. Buckley, CIA Agent, Council on Foreign Relations member, and Yale Skull and Bones member.

That takeover neutralized the strong Republican support for our Constitutional God given freedoms and squelched the desire to fight the enemies of our Republic.  The ultimate question is…will the DOJ enemies of freedom ever truly meet justice?!

Rule of Law or Coverup General?  You decide.