FLORIDA: 17-year-old boy converts to Islam, slits throat of 13-year-old, killing him for mocking his new religion

The family of the victim is suing Publix for selling Corey Johnson the knife, violating a Florida law that prohibits the sale of knives to anyone under age 18. That’s all well and good, but how many people even know that this incident happened at all? The murder of Jovanni Alexander Sierra should have been the occasion for a national discussion about the phenomenon of converts to Islam becoming violent, which keeps happening, and what should be done about it. Instead, the whole thing was swept under the rug, as always.

“Sierra died of his injuries, including a slash at his throat…”

“When you meet the unbelievers, strike necks…” Qur’an 47:4

“Florida teen murdered 13-year-old for mocking Islam — family is suing the grocery store that sold him the knife,” by Carlos Garcia, The Blaze, February 17, 2020 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

The family of a 13-year-old murdered in a stabbing attack by a Muslim teenager is suing the grocery store that sold him the knife he used in the crime.

Corey Johnson attacked Jovanni Alexander Sierra and others in 2018 in a horrifying attack in 2018. Johnson, who had converted to Islam prior to the attack, had been under investigation by the FBI because he was viewing radicalization propaganda online, including beheading videos.

“Corey Johnson has confessed his actions to our investigators stating that he stabbed the victims because of his religious beliefs,” said Palm Beach Gardens Police Chief Clint Shannon at the time. “Our understanding is he had converted to Islam and had been watching violent videos online.”

Sierra died of his injuries, including a slash at his throat, and Johnson is to be tried as an adult for the crime.

The family filed a lawsuit on Monday against Publix for selling the knife to Johnson just hours before he killed Sierra.

It is unlawful to sell weapons to anyone under the age of 18 in Florida….

RELATED ARTICLES:

More Iraqi interpreters than American troops? How the “interpreter” scam brought 75,000 Iraqis and Afghans to the US

Hungary: EU Parliamentarian blames immigration policy for rise of “radical Muslim antisemitism” in Europe

France: Two mosques shut down for preaching jihad, 63 others under surveillance

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

PODCAST: In Which Direction Are the Democrats Heading?

It is not much of a secret the Democrats have a divided party. One side consists of “moderates,” representing traditional party values, and the other consisting of “extreme-Leftists,” representing radical politics, such as Socialism, the New Green Deal, and a plethora of entitlements. The question is, which side is winning? In 2019, and for the first time ever, a Gallup Poll noted the majority of the party classified themselves as “liberals.” This is to be expected as the Democrats began to turn extreme-left in 2016 when Sen. Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, began preaching his far-left dogma on the campaign trail to the Democrats. This opened the door in 2018 allowing extremist Democrats to be voted into the House of Representatives, e.g., Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) (aka, “AOC”), Rep. Ilhan Omar (MN-5), Rep. Ayanna Pressley (MA-7), and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI-13).

We are now in the early stages of the political primary season, and already we are learning more about Democrat inclinations from the voters. Between the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA), both generally acknowledged as representatives of the extreme-Left, pulled approximately 40% of the votes cast. This leaves approximately 60% for the other Democrat candidates. Some would claim Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former VP Joe Biden, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar are “moderates,” but their background suggests otherwise as they subscribe to liberal doctrine. None could possibly be accused of being a conservative. All support abortion, open borders, health care, and additional entitlements. So much so, the Democrats are now referred to as the party of “giveaways.”

The fact there is a 60/40 split in the party suggests the majority of Democrats are traditionalists and do not necessarily embrace radical concepts like Socialism. Yet, if front-runner Sen. Bernie Sanders lands the nomination, this is precisely what the party will ask Democrats to accept.

News reports claim voter turnout was down in both Iowa and New Hampshire. I could not verify this, but if it is true, why? Three possible reasons: general voter apathy, people believe there isn’t a candidate who can beat President Trump, or more likely, the extreme-Left leanings are turning off traditional Democrats. Apathetic voters do not bode well for the party as we approach the elections.

The perspective of the party split is still a bit hazy, but will become clearer following the primaries of Nevada, South Carolina, and Super Tuesday. After this, we should have a complete picture of who is leading the party, “moderates” or the “extreme-Left.”

As an aside, the New Hampshire primary also had a Republican contest. At this time, President Trump received approximately 128K votes, representing the largest voter approval by an incumbent President in history, easily trouncing the last three incumbent Presidents:

2020 – Donald Trump – 128,781
2012 – Barack Obama – 49,080
2004 – George W. Bush – 53,962
1996 – Bill Clinton – 76,797

The President received strong support as he has energized his base through a solid economy and anti-extreme-Left policies. It appears the more he is attacked by the Democrats, the stronger he becomes politically.

So, are the Democrats prepared to accept extreme-Left doctrine? Maybe, but the American people overall are not. Either way, this will be an awkward election for the Democrats.

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – Also do not forget my books, “How to Run a Nonprofit” and “Tim’s Senior Moments”, both available in Printed and eBook form.

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right podcast is republished with permission. © All rights reserved. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Time to End the Tyranny of District Court Judges’ Nationwide Injunctions

Question: What is the difference between God and a federal judge?

Answer: God knows that He isn’t a federal judge.

On Feb. 6, U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs of North Carolina issued an injunction barring the Trump administration from implementing a new policy that changes how the government calculates the duration of an illegal immigrant’s unlawful presence in the country.

Although an injunction is the correct legal tool to stop someone from doing something, Biggs had a choice in how broad that injunction should be.


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


She could use an injunction that prevented the government from using the new calculation on the plaintiffs who sued, or she could use a so-called nationwide injunction that barred the government from using the new calculation against anyone, anywhere.

Biggs chose to issue a nationwide injunction. Actually, that’s a misnomer. These are better called “universal” or even “absent-party” injunctions, because they aren’t limited either by their geographic scope or the parties they cover.

Instead, they stop the government from enforcing a law or policy against anyone, anywhere.

These universal injunctions are controversial. U.S. Attorney General William Barr denounced them in a speech last May. Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen did so in a speech on Feb. 12, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have criticized them as well.

So, what exactly are these strange things, and are they legal?

As always, it’s wise to start our analysis with the Constitution. The Constitution defines the judicial branch’s role in our system of government. Judges don’t pass laws or set broad policies, because that’s the job of the other branches.

Instead, according to Article III, judges decide “Cases” and “Controversies,” which are actual legal disputes between specific parties. Whether civil suits between private parties or criminal cases involving the government, these disputes are brought by the parties, and judges settle them for the parties.

It makes sense, therefore, that when a judge issues an injunction in the process of deciding a particular case, that injunction will not cover more than is necessary.

Historically, when a plaintiff successfully challenged a law as unconstitutional, for example, the judge would most often block the government from enforcing the law against the plaintiff, rather than completely wipe that law from the books.

But the judiciary has grown more powerful than America’s Founders intended and, since the 1960s, this has included issuing universal injunctions.

This type of injunction has become increasingly common over the past few decades as political activists try to enlist judges to make the kind of widespread policy changes that the legislative or executive branches are designed to handle.

Like a gavel thrown into a well-oiled machine, these universal injunctions cause a host of problems for our constitutional government—and for the judiciary itself.

First, they empower judges to exercise power over the entire government, rather than just the parties who brought a case before them.

Second, universal injunctions give individual district judges far more power than they ought to have. Even if 1,000 judges have upheld a law, or limited their injunctions only to the parties in specific cases, one granting a universal injunction means that the law cannot be enforced anywhere.

Third, they undermine public confidence in the judiciary by giving activists judges near limitless power to undo the laws and policies of the democratically accountable branches of government.

One infamous activist judge, the now-deceased Stephen Reinhardt, once joked of his lawless decisions that “they [the Supreme Court] can’t catch them all.”

Finally, universal injunctions lead to what Gorsuch calls “rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions.” Oftentimes, judges issue universal injunctions at the beginning of a case, even before resolving legal and factual issues.

When that happens, the Justice Department often appeals on an emergency basis. That’s not good, because it doesn’t give the higher courts, including the Supreme Court, the time they need to make sure they get the answer right.

The Supreme Court, in particular, prefers to weigh in on a legal issue only after many lower courts, lawyers, and legal scholars have had time to discuss it. That debate sharpens the arguments and refines the issues. Emergency appeals, however, eliminate that.

The criticism of universal injunctions has reached a boiling point, and now it’s likely that the Supreme Court will step in. On Jan. 17, the Supreme Court accepted the case of Trump v. Pennsylvania.

One of the questions presented there is whether the court of appeals erred when it affirmed a universal injunction striking down regulations that would have allowed employers with sincere religious or moral objections to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage in employers’ insurance plans.

The high court should take this opportunity to end the practice of issuing universal injunctions. It should remind the lower courts that their power is limited to resolving cases and controversies, and that they are not gods sitting in judgment over the rest of the government.

COMMENTARY BY

GianCarlo Canaparo is a legal fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .


A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>


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

DECADENT DEMOCRATS: Deny sex is binary, embrace conversion therapy and then theirs Pete Buttigieg


EDITORS NOTE: This is the eleventh in a series titled Decadent Democrats. You may read the previous installments here:

DECADENT DEMOCRATS — From Pedophilia to Sex with Animals

DECADENT DEMOCRATS — From Electing a Dream ‘Queer Latina’ Candidate to No Incarceration For Drug Use of Any Kind

DECADENT DEMOCRATS: The Enemies of America are Our Best Friends Forever

DECADENT DEMOCRATS — From Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globe Diatribe to Abortion to Climate Change [+Videos]

DECADENT DEMOCRATS: From Creating Weak Men and Disorderly Women to Making Sex a Biological Reality Illegal

DECADENT DEMOCRATS: From the Party of Abortion and Allah Akbar to the 2020 Right to Life March and death of terrorist Soleimani

DECADENT DEMOCRATS: The Party of Marx, Mao and Mohammed

DECADENT DEMOCRATS: Their calls for violence created ANTIFA

DECADENT DEMOCRATS: Biden, Warren and Sanders reject President Trump’s Middle East peace plan

DECADENT DEMOCRATS: Liberals pay $2,500 to be told they’re racists, kiss the boots of blacks [Video]


The Democratic Party is all in when it comes to homosexuals. The party of Catholic President John F. Kennedy can’t help itself. Democrats even have, for the first time in history, Pete Buttigieg, a homosexual, running for president in their primary.

This is a turn around in policy and politics. We must remember what President Barack Obama, Oct. 27, 2010, in in an interview with liberal bloggers discussed his views on gay marriage:

“I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage. But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine.”

Then in May, 2012 Politico reported that President Obama evolved in his opinion of same-sex marriage stating:

“I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”

Rhuaridh Marr in a July 27, 2016 article The Democratic Party Platform is the most pro-LGBT in history reported:

This week, in Philadelphia, Democrats approved the most pro-LGBT party platform in their history. Almost half a century in the making, it represents a culmination of the struggle of LGBT activists to be recognized at the highest levels of politics. If 2012 was a watershed moment, when marriage equality was enshrined in that year’s party platform, 2016’s platform is an affirmation, a celebration of the rights of every LGBT American. The sheer breadth of the platform stands in contrast to the hate and opposition of its Republican counterpart.

Why do Democrats fully embrace the LGBTQ agenda?

The LGBTQ agenda includes:

  • Conversion therapy.
  • Teaching children about homosexuality in elementary schools.
  • Supporting male transgenders into women and girl sports.
  • Call anyone who disagrees with the LGBTQ agenda homophobic.
  • Embracing pedophiles such as Jeffery Epstein.
  • Passing policy The Equality Act on on May 17, 2019. The Equality Act is a bill passed by the United States House of Representatives that would amend the Civil Rights Act to “prohibit discrimination on the basis of the sex, sexual orientation, gender identity.”

ANSWER: Because the Democratic Party loves what they consider homosexuals to be consummate victims.

For Democrats homosexuals are victims, just as are blacks, Muslims, illegal aliens, pedophiles, transsexuals, Hispanics, etc. Victimhood is a prerequisite to becoming a member of the Democrat Party.

What is most interesting is that Democrats embrace a lifestyle that is both harmful and hurts individuals according to recent studies.

Democrats ignore science, genetics, DNA and multiple scientific studies that show homosexuality is neither natural nor normal. In fact science tells us that homosexuality is harmful and hurtful.

But this doesn’t matter because its all about getting votes.

Sex is Binary

In a February 14, 2020 Breitbart article titled No Sex ‘Spectrum’ Beyond Male and Female Thomas D. Williams, PH. D wrote:

The Wall Street Journal has issued a throwdown to the gender lobby, insisting in an op-ed Thursday that sex is binary and there is no “spectrum.”

“In humans, reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female at birth more than 99.98% of the time,” note biologists Colin M. Wright and Emma N. Hilton. “The evolutionary function of these two anatomies is to aid in reproduction via the fusion of sperm and ova.”

“No third type of sex cell exists in humans, and therefore there is no sex ‘spectrum’ or additional sexes beyond male and female. Sex is binary,” they assert.

In a February 16, 2020 article in the journal Public Discourse titled Transition as Treatment: The Best Studies Show the Worst Outcomes notes:

A pattern begins to emerge as we survey some of the best and longest outcome studies on gender transition: the longer the studies and the better the methods, the more negative the results.

The [conversion therapy]treatment for this particular disorder is severe: lifelong experimental medicalization, sterilization, and complete removal of healthy body parts—a treatment Dr. Ray Blanchard, one of the world’s foremost sexologists, calls “palliative.” In spite of its severity, however, medical gender transition is no longer a rarity. It is the recommended treatment for gender dysphoria, a diagnosable disorder of incongruence between one’s felt “gender” and one’s natal sex, the prevalence of which is increasing tremendously throughout the world. More and more children and adolescents are being diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and are undergoing medical treatment prior even to completing puberty.

For those who express caution or concern there is a familiar retort: “Trust the experts.” If you don’t, “you’re a bigot.”

This argument, however, makes a mockery of the fact that three of the most influential sex researchers of the last couple decades—Ray BlanchardMichael Bailey, and the recently vindicated Ken Zucker—all have problems with the affirmation-only transition narrative that is currently being promoted. You could add to this list names like James CantorEric VilainStephen LevineDebra Soh, and Lisa Littman.

In the February 13, 2020 article Science, Sex, and Suicide   asks, “Why would Scientific American urge a ban on therapies that may free some from an identity associated with greater depression and suicide, and yet never question “treatments” for gender dysphoria that lead to increased confusion, depression, and suicidal tendencies?

Otto explains:

Scientific American started off the new year—the publication’s 175th—with an editorial that unintentionally demonstrates the reality that science is not simply the dispassionate determination of the laws of nature. A great deal more than genetics and biology seems to be involved when the subject is LGBTQ-related, particularly when it concerns young people who are questioning their sexual identity.

The editorial, “Time’s Up for ‘Anti-Gay Therapy,’” calls for a federal resolution banning “conversion therapy.” The editors begin by referring to the story of a man named McKrae Game, a former champion of conversion therapy who recently left his wife and his ministry, “Hope for Wholeness.” Game has now come out as gay, pleading forgiveness for the harm he did by promoting what his organization called “freedom from homosexuality through Jesus Christ.” Game joins a growing number of former leaders of so-called “anti-gay therapy” who have recently disavowed the practice.

Conclusion

Democrats are hell bent on pushing the LGBTQ agenda on all Americans. Saying that sex is binary, believing that marriage is between one man and one woman are considered “hate speech” by Democrats.

Pointing out  that conversion therapy is harmful is deemed non-scientific, when the science is clear. The entire concepts of boy and girl, man and woman, husband and wife are now foreign to the Democratic Party.

Same-sex marriage may be legal but it is not common. What is common is that since the legalization of same-sex marriage the Democrats in concert with LGBTQ activists have made it their mission to fundamentally transform the ideal that sex is binary.

© All rights reserved.

For more articles on the LGBTQ Agenda click here.

Lawmakers in 9 States Move to Protect Children From LGBT ‘Transition’ Agenda

Conservative lawmakers have decided to become proactive about the transgender epidemic infiltrating the nation’s youth.

In the past couple of months, Republican lawmakers in at least nine states have introduced legislation to ban medical providers from helping boys and girls undergo a medical transition via surgery and/or hormone replacement therapy before they turn 18.

Some of the bills would make it a felony to prescribe hormones or perform related surgeries for minors.

In South Dakota, state Rep. Fred Deutsch, a Republican, spearheaded the effort. The South Dakota Legislature passed its version of the bill just this month.


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


If Gov. Kristi Noem, a Republican, signs the bill into law, doctors who offer medical transitions in the form of hormone replacements or surgery to children under 16 could receive a one-year jail sentence or a hefty fine.

Colorado, West Virginia, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Missouri, Florida, Illinois, and Kentucky all have similar provisions in the works, although the details vary.

In a tweet, Deutsch said: “The world is upside-down that protecting children from sterilization and mutilation is causing a firestorm.”

In a statement emailed to USA Today, he said:

Every child in South Dakota should be protected from dangerous drugs and procedures. The solution for children’s identification with the opposite sex isn’t to poison their bodies with mega-doses of the wrong hormones, to chemically or surgically castrate and sterilize them, or to remove healthy breasts and reproductive organs.

Sex reassignment surgery—a phrase the LGBTQ lobby hijacked and changed to “gender reassignment surgery,” a subtle but important difference—has had enough success and failure for lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle to use to their advantage.

Or so they think. A USA Today article, which is rather thorough, paints GOP lawmakers as interventionists who suddenly want to get involved in people’s “personal” lives. It cites professionals who voice disdain for lawmakers who would keep today’s youth from living as their feelings dictate.

These lawmakers face an uphill battle because of LGBTQ backlash and public relations. Reputable medical groups such as the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry have come out in favor of providing surgical and hormone replacement transitions as appropriate treatment for children struggling with gender dysphoria, despite little evidence it cures the dysphoria.

In fact, while little evidence exists either for or against medical transitions, because it’s such a new phenomenon, statistics show that some people who transition experience regret.

Fortunately, conservative lawmakers who propose these bills come from a place of education, combined with empathy and caution.

Because this is optional surgery, and not a life-or-death medical procedure (such as neurosurgery following a stroke), Republican lawmakers propose banning the surgery for teenagers, to err on the side of safety.

Although a speckling of success stories are told by medically transitioned teens and adults, more tales of failure, and horror, are out there.

These stories abound, though critics of the proposed bills seem to ignore them entirely.

In a powerful essay published by The New York Times in 2018, a writer who was born a man and was about to medically transition to a woman admitted, as the headline stated: “My new vagina won’t make me happy.” But the writer wanted to go ahead with the surgery anyway.

Jazz Jennings, 19, was born a biological male but socially transitioned to female years ago. The teen’s transgender journey has been a hit TLC show.

Doctors recently performed a third surgery on Jennings to further the transition from young man to young woman. Jennings suffered from severe complications after receiving a “new vagina.”

Walt Heyer is well known for his crusade against such medical transitions. Heyer, a fellow contributor to The Daily Signal, lived as a woman for several years. After taking female hormones, he had breast implants but was still suicidal after a short reprieve.

Eventually Heyer came to the belief not only that sex reassignment surgeries didn’t make him female, but that his issues were rooted in trauma and abuse—as they are for most people.

Heyer wrote in The Daily Signal in 2017:

Too many post-surgical patients contact me to report they deeply regret the gender change surgery and that the false hope of surgical outcomes was a factor. For children, the focus on encouraging, assisting, and affirming them toward changing genders at earlier and earlier ages, with no research showing the outcomes, may lead to more suicides.

Although it’s true that many conservatives would reject government involvement in the family via heavy-handed legislation, there are times when it’s necessary, specifically when safety—even common sense—is rejected in favor of the cause du jour.

This is such a time, when parents and activists are blindly answering the rallying cry of progressives who favor feelings over facts, even when it means leading our own children down a path of pain and regret.

COMMENTARY BY

Nicole Russell is a contributor to The Daily Signal. Her work has appeared in The Atlantic, The New York Times, National Review, Politico, The Washington Times, The American Spectator, and Parents Magazine. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Transition as Treatment: The Best Studies Show the Worst Outcomes

WSJ: No Sex ‘Spectrum’ Beyond Male and Female

My New Life After Transgender Despair

PODCAST: Problematic Women on Abortion, Pornography, and Transgender Models

PODCAST: The Radical Feminists Who Are Fighting the Transgender Movement


A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>


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

VIDEO: Linda Sarsour Uses Nazi Tactic to Dehumanize Israelis

Sharia-activist Linda Sarsour used a classic Nazi tactic employed against Jews when she urged her followers not to fall into the trap of “humanizing” Israelis. Dehumanization was a classic Nazi tactic used against Jews during World War II.

Sarsour made the comments while endorsing the many different anti-Israel strategies employed by activists. But the bottom line, she said, was,

“If you are on the side of the oppressor, or you are defending the oppressor or you are actually trying to humanize the oppressor, then that’s a problem, sisters and brothers, and we gotta be able to say that is not the position of the Muslim-American community.”

As noted in the tweet, British journalist Mehdi Hasan “nods along as Linda Sarsour warns against ‘humanizing’ Israelis.”

In addition, the tweeter, Stephen Knight, rightly comments, “The dehumanization of opponents is a bright red flag for anyone knowledgeable on extremism and fascism.”

Dehumanization was  a classic Nazi tactic used during World War II to turn the German people against the Jews, who were referred to as rats and vermin.

Psychologists warn that the first step in mass murder is to dehumanize the victim. In a talk titled “’Less Than Human’: The Psychology of Cruelty,” David Livingstone Smith, co-founder and director of the Institute for Cognitive Science and Evolutionary Psychology at the University of New England, notes,

“[For the Nazis, Jews] were untermenschen — subhumans — and as such were excluded from the system of moral rights and obligations that bind humankind together. It’s wrong to kill a person, but permissible to exterminate a rat.”

Sarsour’s comments came just before the United Nations published a blacklist of Israeli businesses that operate in Jewish areas located beyond the 1967 lines in east Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Golan Heights.

As The Jerusalem Post noted, “Israel is the only country against which such a list has been complied of businesses suspected [of] breaking international law.”

There are close to 100 land disputes worldwide that have not been subject to a similar blacklist, which means that the UN action falls under the classic definition of anti-Semitism, i.e. treating Jews or Israel with different standards than other people or countries in the world.

This is the main reason why the U.S., as well many other countries have deemed the Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement against Israel anti-Semitic at its core. Sarsour is a huge proponent of the BDS movement.

After a year-long legal investigation by the U.S. State Department, in November 2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced, “The establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not, per se, inconsistent with international law.”

RELATED STORIES:

Linda Sarsour to Fundraise for Terror-Tied Organization

Linda Sarsour Uses Latest Women’s March to Spew Anti-Semitism

CAIR Leads Fight for ‘Right’ of Universities to Promote Anti-Semitism

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

The Prosecution of Roger Stone by an Overzealous and Politicized Justice Department

“The refusal to take sides on great moral issues is itself a decision.  It is a silent acquiescence to evil.  The tragedy of our time is that those who still believe in honesty lack fire and conviction, while those who believe in dishonesty are full of passionate conviction.”  –  Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” –  Thomas Jefferson

“There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.” – Elie Wiesel

“Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence and thereby eventually lose all ability to defend ourselves and those we love.” –  Julian Assange


President Trump tweeted minutes after Stone’s conviction, “Now they have convicted Roger Stone for lying to Congress and want to give him a long prison term. What about Crooked Hillary, Comey, Strzok and Page who helped launch Crossfire Hurricane, McCabe, Brennan, Clapper, Schiff, Ohr, Steele and Mueller himself who all lied and have not been prosecuted. This is double standard like never seen before in our country.”

No charges against any of them, or any charges against the treachery committed by Hillary Clinton whose home server was hacked in real time by Red China and other foreign nations for classified government documents.  And corrupt cop Comey set her free on the request of Attorney General Loretta Lynch who met with Bill on the tarmac in a Phoenix airport.

The President is right, all of them lied under oath to Congress about consequential matters.  Yet, Judge Amy Berman Jackson specifically prohibited Stone defense lawyers from arguing that Stone’s case was one of “selective prosecution.”  (Trump suggested a pardon for Mr. Stone after he heard the harsh and drastic punitive sentencing.)

Roger Stone needs our help.  Please consider donating to his legal defense fund at StoneDefenseFund.com.

The Stone prosecution is a disgrace, it’s lawless, and it was rigged from the beginning.

Excessive Punishment

Judge Jackson put Paul Manafort in solitary confinement for nine months before he was even convicted.  At his age, the man was sentenced to die in prison, and that’s what they want to do to Roger Stone.  The prosecutions’ recommendation of seven to nine years for a 67-year-old, non-violent first offender has finally revealed Robert Mueller’s prosecution team for the corrupt Deep State monsters they are.

Stone did nothing that was of a criminal nature that threatened the people of this country or violated the laws that helped the Trump campaign win an allegedly “illegal election.”  His only crime was supporting Donald J. Trump for President, just like Lt. General Michael T. Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, and so many others.

Roger Stone was charged with obstruction of justice and making false statements to the special counsel. Significantly, the alleged false statements specified in the indictment were about conduct, which, if admitted, was not criminal.

On January 23, 2019, Mueller’s office illegally leaked Roger Stone’s indictment, written by Andrew Weissmann, to CNN. The illegal leak is a bigger crime that carries a heavier penalty than what Stone was charged with. See the entire Mueller timeline.

Mueller’s witch hunt was closed last May, although several prosecutors had remained behind to handle cases like Stone’s — prompting conservative commentators to openly wonder if politics had motivated their desire for an especially harsh sentence for Stone.

Prosecutors Resign

Timothy Shea is the new interim U.S. attorney for the D.C. office replacing Jessie Liu. Liu’s office oversaw prosecutions including those against Trump associates Paul Manafort, General Michael Flynn, and Roger Stone.

President Trump withdrew his nomination of Liu to serve as a top Treasury Department official.  She had worked in Justice during the Bush administration and became a member of Trump’s transition team and was appointed U.S. Attorney for DC.

Last year, AG Barr tried to promote her to the number three slot in justice, but that plan was thwarted by Senator Mike Lee. As it turned out, Liu was a pro-abort and she had opposed the confirmation of Samuel Alito. Senator Lee and AG Barr actually got into a shouting match when Liu was blocked for not being conservative.

The president’s move to withdraw Liu’s nomination comes just hours after four Justice Department lawyers quit following a move by senior leaders at the department to overrule the prosecutors’ judgment by seeking a lesser sentence for long-time Trump ally Roger Stone after he was found guilty of lying to Congress.

Timothy Shea is a former close adviser to AG Barr.  As a top Barr aide, Shea helped manage the Epstein crisis and oversee the lingering Mueller Cases in D.C.  As explained in my previous article, the entire Mueller drama was unnecessary and everyone knew it; the goal was to destroy those who had supported Donald Trump in order to discredit him.

Front-line prosecutors, two previously with Mueller’s team, argued for a sentence on the higher end for Stone than some of their supervisors were comfortable with, according to people familiar with the discussions.  Just as interestingly, the newly appointed U.S. Attorney, Shea, approved this aggressive stance, though not without some pushback.  The judge actually does the sentencing, the prosecutors only suggest punishment.

Four career DOJ prosecutors, abruptly resigned from their posts on Tuesday, February 10th in an apparent dramatic protest just hours after senior leaders at the DOJ said they would take the extraordinary step of effectively overruling the prosecutors’ judgment by seeking a lesser sentence for President Trump’s former adviser Roger Stone.

Jonathan Kravis, Aaron Zelinsky, Adam Jed and Michael Marando all withdrew.  Jed and Zelensky were prosecutors who worked for Robert Mueller.  All four quit in a crybaby huff because they weren’t getting their way.  Well, good riddance!

After the withdrawals by other attorneys, the DOJ’s new sentencing memo in Stone’s case was signed only by John Crabb Jr., the acting head of the criminal division of the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, DC.

Former acting Attorney General, Matt Whitaker said, “There is no precedent for a harsh sentence recommendation for Roger Stone.” The sentencing judgment was draconian for the conviction.  The average time a rapist spends in prison is four years, an armed robber serves three years and for violent assault, one and half years. Link

Nowhere on the web can anyone even find what Stone lied to Congress about! The prosecution’s desire to imprison Stone for seven to nine years is more than vicious, it’s despotic.

DOJ Alters Sentence

The decision to alter the sentencing recommendation was made before President Trump’s tweet, said Kerri Kupec, the director of DOJ’s Office of Public Affairs. Kupec said the DOJ has had no contact with the White House regarding the sentencing recommendation.

The democrats went into their typical Trump Derangement Syndrome hysteria and threatened another impeachment with Schiff accusing Trump of an “abuse of power.”

Speaker Pelosi, (D-CA) repeated the tired and preposterous meme.  Rep. Eric Swalwell, (D-CA) a chronic impeachment enthusiast, refused to rule out another attempt to remove Trump from office.  The unhinged harangues were all predicated on a brazen assumption that Trump had directed AG Barr to overrule the trial prosecutors and recommend a more appropriate and equitable sentence for Stone, which by the way, he has the right to do.  The deranged left is angry at Trump for exposing the wrongdoing.

Pelosi’s gang of psychotic lunatics are now using Barr as a political punching bag, and unfortunately Trump’s tweets made it worse.

Barr Complains About Tweets

AG Barr publicly complained that Trump’s tweets make it difficult for him to do his job.  He told ABC News, “I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody … whether it’s Congress, a newspaper editorial board, or the president.  Well, as you know, the Stone case was prosecuted while I was attorney general. And I supported it. I think it was established, he was convicted of obstructing Congress and witness tampering. And I thought that was a righteous prosecution. And I was happy that he was convicted.”  Well, if Barr thinks this is a righteous case, then where are indictments for McCabe and Comey?  AG Barr stressed, however, that the president never asked him to interfere in the criminal case against Stone, a longtime friend of the president.

Barr was disrespectful of our president and his first amendment rights; Donald J. Trump is the boss, not Bill Barr. Tweeting is how the President communicates with the American people.  The AG should have had a private meeting with President Trump rather than voicing his disapproval publicly.  Link

Two-Tiered Justice

A prime example of two-tiered justice is the reason the president withdrew his nomination of Jessie Liu.  During her time as U.S. attorney she helped a man by the name of James Wolfe get away with leaking classified information and ultimately lying to the FBI.

Wolfe was the former security director for the Senate Intelligence Committee. He was indicted in 2018 for leaking info to four journalists including one with whom he was having an affair.   He lied to the FBI and according to his indictment Wolfe picked up a highly classified document on the 17th of March to take to the intel committee.  A later FBI sentencing recommendation confirms that that document contained the first two Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants for Carter Page and was the foundation for accelerated “Spygate.”

So, what happened to James Wolfe?  He was never charged with leaking classified information.  Politico reports that during the lame duck session after the 2018 midterms, Senators Warner, Richard Burr and Diane Feinstein asked for leniency in his case and that’s where Jessie Liu comes back into the case.  Link

Also, on March 17, Democratic Senator, Intel committee chairman, Sen. Mark Warner texted Christopher Steele’s attorney, Adam Waldman, that he was “going into the skiff.” (The skiff is a secure room.) What did they talk about?  March 17th is also the date stamped on the released FISA warrants that allowed the spying to begin on Carter Page.  And from that, it is fair to say that James Wolfe took custody of the Carter Page FISA applications and delivered them to the skiff where they were reviewed by Senator Warner and then leaked to the press by James Wolfe.

It was Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and U.S. Attorney for DC Jessie Liu who were the decision-makers.  U.S. Attorney Jessie Liu dropped most of the charges against Wolfe; she allowed him to plead guilty to only one count of lying to investigators.  Wolfe served exactly two months in prison.  Did Liu help coverup the Wolfe case?  It sure looks like it. Remember, two months in prison.  The President has pulled the nomination of Jessie Liu, and it’s not because of Roger Stone.

The disparity in treatment of those connected to President Trump is shocking when one considers the leniency to James Wolfe via the democrat senators requests.  Consider that none of the people responsible for the phony Russian collusion story have been prosecuted.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz filed criminal referrals against former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. AG Barr refused to indict, and no action has been taken against them.

IG Horowitz determined that officials at the FBI and Justice Department deceived the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and obtained illegal warrants without probable cause in order to spy on a Trump campaign associate. So far, no one has been held accountable.

Conclusion

And oh yes, it was Roger Stone who came up with Make America Great Again (MAGA)!  On September 16, 2011, Roger Stone, Trump’s longtime political advisor and a veteran of Reagan’s 1980 campaign, tweeted the slogan, “Make America Great Again -Trump Huckabee 2012.” Two months later, in December 2011, Trump made a statement in which he said he was unwilling to rule out running as a presidential candidate in the future, explaining “I must leave all of my options open because, above all else, we must make America great again.”

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

What You Need to Know About Roger Stone’s Trial and Sentencing

Burn Down the DOJ and Start Over

More Than 1,100 Former DOJ Staffers, Including Current MSNBC and CNN Analysts, Call on AG Barr to Resign

Parkland Dad, Andrew Pollack: “March for Our Lives” Made Kids LESS SAFE

Andrew Pollack is the father of Meadow Pollack, a victim of the Parkland mass murderer.  He works to get the truth out while gun control zealots work to hide the truth by blaming guns.  This courageous story is a must read for those who really want to know the truth.

Parkland Dad Andrew Pollack: ‘March for Our Lives’ Made America’s Kids Less Safe

By Andrew Pollack

Breitbart

February 14, 2020

Two years ago today, my daughter Meadow and sixteen others were murdered in the Parkland school shooting. For the families of the victims, it was an unspeakable tragedy. But for others, it was an incredible political opportunity.

The shooting propelled a handful of shrill student activists to fame. The most prominent one, David Hogg, later mused, “We really only remember a few hundred people, if that many, out of the billions that have ever lived. Is that what I was destined to become?”

No, David. My daughter wasn’t murdered so that you could fulfill your “destiny” of tweeting about historically marginalized “indigenous lgbtq women and non binary” gun control activists.

She was murdered because of the failures of the Broward County school district, sheriff’s office, and mental health services. Failures that partisan agitprop, spewed by you and the other March For Our Lives (MFOL) activists, helped to shield from the public eye.

Although I disagreed with the gun control kids politically, I made it a rule not to criticize them publicly. Because I figured that despite our differences, we all wanted the same thing: safe schools…

Read the full story here.

Court victory for UK ‘transphobia’ delinquent

Tweeting rhymes against transgenderism is allowed in a non-Orwellian state, says a judge.


Former British police officer Harry Miller has successfully challenged the use of Hate Crime Operational guidelines, issued by the College of Policing in 2014 and followed by police forces nationally.

A Judge found that they had been unlawfully used to interfere with Mr Miller’s freedom of speech when he was visited by a policeman to question him over a “transphobic limerick” he shared on Twitter.

The guidelines deal with actions “perceived to be motivated by hostility towards religion, race or transgender identity,” which must be recorded “irrespective of whether there is any evidence to identify the hate element.”

Although the police accepted that “such incidents are not crimes, they are still logged on a system and can show up during a criminal records check” when an individual applies for a job.

In a landmark ruling at the High Court, Mr Justice Julian Knowles ruled the tweets were lawful, and that there was not “the slightest risk” that Mr Miller “would commit a criminal offence by continuing to tweet.” The judge added that the UK has never been an “Orwellian society,” nor had it experienced “a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi.” (“Judge rules in favour of free speech in ‘transphobic’ limerick case,” Telegraph, February 15, 2020).

But precisely because we have never lived in a police state – rather, having been used to a political system in which open debate brings about changes in the law and in society by democratic means – we have been slow to recognise the threat of fundamental changes introduced by stealth, incrementally and promoting apparently benign measures.

Coming from different angles, in fact it was a pincer movement conducted by social campaigners on one side and legal activists on the other, in whose grip the majority are suddenly finding themselves trapped.

After his self-funded challenge, Mr Miller celebrated his victory outside court, hailing the outcome as a “watershed moment for liberty” and vowing to continue tweeting. However, Mr Justice Knowles rejected his wider challenge to the lawfulness of the College of Policing’s guidance, ruling that it “serves legitimate purpose and is not disproportionate.”’

The case will now be tested at the Supreme Court after Mr Justice Knowles granted a “leapfrog certificate” to allow it to skip the Court of Appeal stage, but as the Telegraph points out, although “scathing in his judgment of Mr Miller’s treatment,” Mr Justice Knowles “defended the College of Policing’s guidelines on ‘non-crime hate incidents’,” even though they are the source of the problem.

The guidelines speak of incidents that are “perceived … to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice” and which are to be recorded “irrespective of whether there is any evidence to identify the hate element.”

Moreover, although “the police say they are working hard and that they just do not have the money or time to attend every crime scene,” they are putting huge efforts into “recording non-crimes”. The Government has pledged to introduce 20,000 new police officers, but “the Home Office must make sure that they are deployed to tackle actual crime, not people’s opinions.” (Telegraph comment, “Non-crimes should not waste police time,” February 15, 2020).

Thanks to Freedom of Information requests made by the Telegraph – and cited in court by Mr Miller – it has emerged that ‘nearly 120,000 “non-crime” hate incidents were recorded by police forces between 2014 and 2019.

Mr Miller was investigated by PC Mansoor Gul, a “community cohesion officer” who said Mr Miller needed to “check his thinking” – at which point, he says, he knew the police had gone too far. He told The Telegraph the incident was indicative of the growing “political corruption” of British policing, recalling strict instructions, during his time in the force, when policing public marches “to not even step in time with the music in case it gave the impression of being political,” although now they are doing the complete opposite. “I even have one picture of a British police officer carrying a riot shield painted in the trans flag colours.” (“’Don’t tell me to check my thinking … that is not the job of the police’,” Telegraph, February 15, 2020).

PC Gul disputes Mr Miller’s claim, but in fact it is the police that need to “check their thinking” – even check whether they are still thinking. For several years now, uniformed police have marched in Gay Pride marches. Far from fostering community cohesion, they have been dragged in to become enforcers of sexual diversity, thereby setting the majority against a tiny number of troubled individuals, at the behest of their self-appointed champions.

It is said that he who pays the piper calls the tune, but although the public pays for policing they do not pay to be policed; it is the sexual diversity campaign that is calling the tune to which the police are marching in lockstep. And the Supreme Court, which will hear Mr Miller’s case and may reject it, thus entrenching intolerance in law, has shown its left-liberal bias regarding Brexit.

In 2010 the Equality Act introduced legal protections on the basis of race and disability – things that cannot be helped – but also sexual activity and identity – things that can be helped.

Recently, an employment tribunal judge ruled that the view of tax expert Maya Forstater, who expressed criticism of trans issues online, was not “a protected philosophical belief under the 2010 Equality Act,” that there was “no legal right to question whether a transgender person is a man or a woman,” and that Ms Forstater’s belief was ‘“not worthy of respect in a democratic society’.” (“Test case rules against tax expert sacked over transgender tweet,” Telegraph, December 19, 2019).

An Orwellian situation has morphed into a Kafkaesque one, where no one knows exactly what they are accused of and no one knows exactly what they are allowed to say – consequently the safest course is to say nothing on the subject. The activists who police other people’s speech are the ones who decide who is guilty and who is innocent, and they can be as offensive as they like – nobody will investigate them.

Indeed, although the police guidelines purport to protect religion, anyone quoting the Bible or citing it in defence of traditional Christian beliefs on sexuality, is in danger of being arrested or sacked.

We have gone from true tolerance – where everyone has a right to their opinion – to the self-identifying policers of public speech believing that only their opinion is the truth. Of course, though everyone has a right to their opinion, everyone’s opinion cannot be right, but it does help to be backed up by medical science. In the case of trans issues this is entirely lacking, yet we have come to a point where, in the face of biological evidence, a tiny number of individuals who believe themselves to be the opposite sex, must be believed.

Indeed, their beliefs must be affirmed and even celebrated, as clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson found in 2017 when he refused to refer to individuals in line with their chosen gender. He famously protested an Ontario Human Rights Commission ruling that “refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity” in a workplace or a school, would probably be considered discrimination.”

Peterson argued that his objections were on the grounds of free speech, and nothing to do with discrimination, and that at no time in British Common Law history has the legal code mandated what we must say, as opposed to what we must not say. He did add that “he would use the gender-neutral pronoun of a particular person, if they asked him.” (Mick Brown, “What’s wrong with the Petersons?” Telegraph, February 15, 2020).

In a very short time we have gone from policing speech to censoring speech to compelled speech, but even those who defend the right to free speech fall silent on the issue of banning silent prayer outside abortion clinics.

This is chiefly because the defenders of free speech are on the Left, and although on trans issues they have truth on their side, the strongest party will win if politicians continue to back the trans campaign. In this war of words, the trans fascists will succeed in silencing every mention of the issue apart from fulsome praise for all things trans.

The anti-trans campaigners reject dire warnings that criticism can be hurtful, insisting that “sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me”. In this case, however, the words of the trans activists will not only hurt the right to free speech, but kill it off entirely.

COLUMN BY

ANN FARMER

Ann Farmer lives in the UK. She is the author of By Their Fruits: Eugenics, Population Control, and the Abortion Campaign (CUAP, 2008); The Language of Life: Christians Facing the Abortion Challenge (St Pauls, 1995), and Prophets & Priests: the Hidden Face of the Birth Control Movement (St Austin Press, 2002).

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

Granddaughter of Slaying Victim, 92, Backs Trump’s Fight Against Illegal-Immigrant ‘Sanctuaries’

VIDEO:


Daria Ortiz’s voice cracked when speaking at a White House event Friday, as she described how New York City’s “sanctuary city” status let her family—and the rest of the city’s residents—down.

Her 92-year-old grandmother, Maria Fuertes, a legal immigrant from the Dominican Republic, was sexually assaulted and killed last month, and police have charged illegal immigrant and alleged repeat criminal offender Reeaz Khan, 21.

Khan, from Guyana, was previously arrested on assault charges, but the city released him, despite an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer request.

Sanctuary jurisdictions are cities, counties, and states that provide a safe haven for illegal immigrants—in some cases, dangerous criminals—and obstruct federal immigration enforcement. That usually comes in the form of ignoring ICE detainer orders, except when there is a court order.


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


“Before coming to America, [Fuertes] worked as a secretary for the president in her native country, the Dominican Republic. She is a shining example of people who come legally to this country, work hard and do the right thing, and are law-abiding citizens,” Ortiz said. “My grandmother raised her children and her grandchildren while working hard to give us a future.”

Ortiz stood with President Donald Trump in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next to the White House, speaking to a crowd of about 220 U.S. Border Patrol agents and family members at a gathering of the National Border Patrol Council, the agents’ union.

During the event, Trump spoke about his administration’s immigration policies, the border wall, and cracking down on sanctuary jurisdictions.

The Justice Department recently filed lawsuits against the states of California and New Jersey, as well as against King County, Washington. All three lawsuits argue that the states and the county have violated the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution, contending the jurisdictions are flouting federal immigration laws.

“Unfortunately, my grandmother had to be the example of why something like this horrific crime should never happen,” Ortiz said, adding:

Our family’s hope is that her death was not in vain and that preventative measures are put into place to ensure that nothing like this happens to anyone again.

The tragedy in all of this is the fact that this could have been avoided had there been no sanctuary law.

She then talked about Khan, the defendant, facing seven charges, including second-degree murder, first-degree manslaughter, first-degree attempted rape, first-degree sexual abuse, and tampering with physical evidence.

“The man that is responsible for this should have never had the opportunity to do this, had his multiple offenses not been ignored,” Ortiz said, adding:

The system not only failed our family, but it failed our city. Our family would like to thank the administration for acknowledging my family’s tragedy and extending their concern.

Trump, who introduced Ortiz, returned to the podium and called for Congress to pass legislation that would allow the families of victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants to sue municipalities over sanctuary laws.

A bill to do just that, the Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act, was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and a companion House bill was introduced by Rep. Ted Budd, R-N.C., last summer. No action has taken place on either bill, according to Congress.gov.

“Not one more American life should be stolen by sanctuary cities,” the president said. “They are all over the place, and a lot of people don’t want them. Many, many communities don’t want them in California. The politicians want them for whatever reason.”

The California Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom made it the nation’s first sanctuary state.

“That’s why we are calling on Congress to pass legislation giving American victims the right to sue sanctuary cities and hold them accountable for the suffering and the damages that they’ve caused,” Trump said.

“American citizens are entitled to safe neighborhoods and safe streets that, really, the people in this room have provided when given the opportunity,” he said, referring to the Border Patrol agents at the event. “The sanctuary cities are not really giving that opportunity.”

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.” Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLES:

ICE Uncovers Forced-Labor, Trafficking Scheme Involving Church in the Philippines

Reader Praises Maryland Delegate Kathy Szeliga for Battling the Forces Looking to Make Maryland the Next Sanctuary State

Trump Begins Counterattack on Sanctuary Cities

Texas Begins Legal Fight With California Over Its Red State Travel Ban

China’s Hidden Influence in America


A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>


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

Rutgers: Jewish Democrat thrown out of Muslims4Peace event for calling Rashida Tlaib antisemitic

At virtually every university in the country, the academic establishment will use its thuggish cops to cosset and protect Leftists and Islamic supremacists from the slightest negative word. Institutions of higher learning? Hardly. They’re Antifa factories, centers of hard-Left indoctrination.

“Jewish Democrat Thrown Out of ‘Muslims4Peace’ Event for Calling Rashida Tlaib Antisemitic,” by Penny Starr, Breitbart, February 11, 2020:

Former New York State Democrat lawmaker Dov Hikind was tossed out of an event after confronting Rep. Rashida Tlaib (R-MI) on her past antisemitic remarks.

“Police just ejected me from an event of @Muslims4Peace at @RutgersU which was a fine event until @RashidaTlaib showed up. I challenged her about her antisemitism and spreading of an anti-Jewish blood libel! She had no answer for me,” Hikind tweeted. “They will never silence us!”

The crowd started shouting “Rashida!” “Rashida!” as Hikind was escorted out of the room.

The Daily Wire spoke to Hikind about attending the Muslims4Peace-sponsored event that was held over the weekend at Rutgers University.

The event was entitled “A Global Crisis: Refugees, Migrants, and Asylum Seekers – Lessons from the Prophet Muhammad,” according to the Daily Wire:

“As [Tlaib] started to speak about ‘showing up for allies,’ I decided it was time to take her to task for her recent promotion of an anti-Jewish blood libel,” Hikind said. “I stood up and asked her ‘what about your antisemitism? What about your spreading of a blood libel?’”

“And before I could finish my question, one man jumped at me and grabbed me,” Hikind continued. “I warned him to immediately get his hands off and he complied. The police were waiting on the sidelines and jumped in a second later and forcibly removed me. They did their job, and I have no qualms with them. But Rashida couldn’t answer me to my face.”

“I stood ten feet away from her, and all she could do was play the victim,” Hikind continued. “I was told that after I was escorted out she claimed that my question was part of a pattern of discrimination against people like her grandmother. In reality, she’s a shameless anti-Semite who hides her hate behind the guise of victimhood although she’s the only one consistently guilty of perpetuating hate. She’s the one guilty of promoting libelous lies that lead directly to violence! At the end of it all, Rashida showed us again that she has no backbone and has no real defense or justification for her abhorrent statements.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic Republic of Pakistan: Court validates forced conversion, marriage of 14-year-old Christian girl to Muslim

That “Trump Muslim Ban” Is Still With Us

RELATED VIDEOS:

Jewish Activist Confronts Tlaib’s Jew-Hatred.

Iran’s former Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps top dog: if US attacks, “we would raze Tel-Aviv to the ground.”

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

PODCAST: Nike Swooshes in to Attack Women’s Sports

First, they attacked America. Then adoption. Now, women. Honestly, with such a busy schedule of political extremism, it’s a mystery how Nike has time to sell anything. But for all of the company’s radical campaigns, it’s Nike’s latest that’s really raising eyebrows. The retail titan is picking a side in the transgender sports debate — and it isn’t girls’.

Just how beholden is Big Business to LGBT activists? Well, one of the biggest manufacturers of international sports equipment just told half its market that it doesn’t care about the future of women’s sports. So much for Nike’s progressive feminist cred. In Tennessee, one of the states that’s considering a ban on biological boys competing against girls, the company actually suggested that keeping a level playing field for girls “put[s] our collective economic success at risk.” If anything puts our economic success at risk, it’s destroying 50 percent of high school, collegiate, and pro sports!

And yet, Nike, like 142 other businesses, is actively working to stop Tennessee (and at least six other states) from fighting the injustice of transgender sports. “I fully support them for being true to themselves and having the courage to do what they believe in,” Connecticut track star Selena Soule says of her male competition. But athletics is “an entirely different situation. It’s scientifically proven that males are built to be physically stronger than females. It’s unfair to put someone who is biologically a male, who has not undergone anything in terms of hormone therapy, against cis-gender girls… It’s upsetting when we work hard all season and put in a lot of effort, only to turn up at the state meets and get beat by someone who is biologically a male and lose state championships over this.”

And these boys aren’t just stealing trophies, they’re stealing scholarships too. With the Olympics around the corner and the debate exploding across the sports world, even athletes who’ve identified as gay or lesbian are calling the trend what it is: cheating. Tennis pro Martina Navratilova has been a great ally for the LGBT movement, but she had no problem blasting the radical ideology that’s killing sports and healthy competition. “It’s punishing the innocent,” she wrote indignantly, “and it’s insane.”

If there is a silver lining to this gender lunacy, it’s that more people are starting to see the quandary that’s created by policies and decisions that aren’t based in anatomical realities but emotional whims. This week, Selena — along with two other cross-country runners, Chelsea Mitchell and Alanna Smith — are suing to take back their sports. “Our dream is not to come in second or third place, but to win fair and square,” Mitchell said. “All we’re asking for is a fair chance.”

For these three girls, and so many others across the country, it’s upsetting to know the outcome of the race before it starts. And just because someone believes they’re a girl doesn’t mean their bodies act like one. “Forcing girls to be spectators in their own sports is completely at odds with Title IX,” their Alliance Defending Freedom attorney, Christiana Holcomb, pointed out. “Connecticut’s policy violates that law and reverses nearly 50 years of advances for women.”

The issue has created such an unlikely coalition of feminists, liberals, conservatives, and parents that Congressman Greg Steube (R-Fla.) introduced a federal bill to make it clear that biology — not political correctness — should determine your team. “…Even people on the far-Left — [including] famous players [are] saying that it’s not fair that women are having to compete against men in women’s sports.” And while extremists may call that insensitive, the facts speak for themselves. “Males have 30 times more testosterone than females. That obviously helps make men’s bodies bigger and stronger… It’s just crazy to me that we’re even having to file bills on something like this. But that’s the world that we live in today, unfortunately.”


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Hidden Dragons in America, Pompeo Warns

Mass Burial Lays Dems’ Sincerity to Rest

Margaret Sanger and the Racist Roots of Planned Parenthood

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Trump Derangement Syndrome Explodes with Impeachment Acquittal

“They hate the president so much they are not going to let a little thing like having to lie deter them. They want him gone and are willing to lie to make it happen. Trump Derangement Syndrome is the Kool-Aid at Jonestown.” –  Derek Hunter, Townhall Political Columnist

“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child, miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.  Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.” –  P.J. O’Rourke

“Socialists cry, ‘Power to the People,’ and raise the clenched fist as they say it.  We all know what they really mean – power over people, power to the State.” –  Margaret Thatcher

“To argue with a person who has denounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” –  Thomas Paine


Trump supporters realize that the obsessed and demonically possessed Democratic Socialists led by our demented House Speaker Pelosi will not stop trying to destroy the blue-collar billionaire president elected by 63 million Americans.

Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a condition in which a person forsakes logical reasoning due to his or her strong dislike and fear of Donald Trump. Even therapists are starting to use the term to describe patients with these symptoms.  In other words, they’ve lost their minds, and there’s no cure in sight!

Early stages of TDS are inexplicable, fast eye-blinking, light palsy, stammering and overbearing snobbery. Sometimes redness of the face and shortness of breath accompany.  Later stages include total delusion, dementia, inability to think clearly and, ultimately, a madness that cannot be contained.

In 2016, the left was so sure that Hillary Clinton would win, that they abandoned their hold on reality when she was defeated by Donald J. Trump.  And they really hate this outsider who became President of the United States when it was first lady Hillary who was “promised” the position.  Imagine the corruption that would exist with Hillary in power…our lives would not be the same, but there’d be pots of gold pouring into the “pay to play” Clinton Foundation.

First, Russia, Russia, Russia, then obstruction of justice, and now impeachment.  They’ll never stop.

Impeachment

Night and day the mainstream media squawked that the “walls are closing in” on President Trump.  Impeachment was underway, “a solemn and somber process,” celebrated by House Speaker Pelosi handing out autographed pens during the impeachment article signing ceremony. One would think she was signing landmark legislation like the Civil Rights Act given the pomp and circumstance.

The fact remains that the president was not allowed due process, and he was never allowed to face his accuser, or to question witnesses against him.  This was a bogus and contrived unconstitutional attack on President Trump.  Pelosi’s vindictiveness continued even after the president’s magnificent SOTU speech.

Rep. Matt Gaetz has filed an ethics complaint against Pelosi’s disgusting lack of respect and protocol at the SOTU when she tore up government property at the end of our President’s speech.  Gaetz tweeted that Pelosi’s conduct was beneath the dignity of the House, and a potential violation of law (18 USC 2071).  The law’s wording promises up to three years in prison for “whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys … any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office.”  Gaetz claims there will be an ethics investigation into Pelosi’s actions, but ethics investigations are only pursued when the politician is a Republican.

Trump’s Lawyers

Summary judgement or dismissal should have immediately been done by Trump’s lawyers regarding the false impeachment charges, but the show went on…theatre for the dumbed down masses.  This charade by the Democrat Socialists has cost American taxpayers millions of dollars, and I hope it costs the Democrats plenty of seats in both the House and Senate.

All of Trump’s lawyers did a magnificent job of exposing the Democrat’s lies, and Pam Bondi even brought up Hunter Biden’s statements that he hasn’t had a job for almost two years and has no money. Really? He and his new pregnant wife have been renting a $12,000 a month house in one of the most expensive zip codes in the country out in California for a long time. Who is paying for that? If Hunter is so talented, how come he hasn’t had a job in almost two years? (h/t Devvy)

Thankfully, the Senate rejected the act of tyranny by the Pelosi-Schiff coup cabal that controls the House.  After the magnificent State of the Union address, after the “acquittal” of President Trump…it was “Vindication Day” for the President. And if the Republicans retake the House, they plan on expunging the Trump impeachment.

The Senate couldn’t come close to the 67 votes needed to impeach the President. Only one Senator was seen wringing his hands because he had to vote for one of the two counts leveled by the TDS Democrats.  Willard the Rat Romney, in his defection from the Republican held Senate, succeeded in capturing a bit of air time by the MSM.

But hold on…now the House Democrat impeachment managers and CNN hosts had a meeting of the minds in an interview that aired two days after the President was vindicated.  They said Trump really hadn’t been acquitted because the trial hadn’t been fair, and the president hadn’t been “exonerated” by the trial.  Talk about the idiocy of grasping at straws to fulfill their desire of eliminating the people’s choice for President. Wake up Democrats…we didn’t want the Queen of Corruption, Hillary Clinton!

Democrats Plot Against Trump and America

The Democratic Socialists aren’t finished.  Already they’re plotting the next impeachment of our president and more investigations into President Trump’s involvement with Ukraine.  They need to take a look in the mirror.

Democrats already have lined up possible charges if they choose to pursue impeachment 2.0.  Still pending is a wide open probe launched by Rep. Adam B. Schiff, (D-CA) “Pencil neck” as Rush Limbaugh calls him, has been investigating President Trump, his family and businesses, and the Trump Organization, over the congressman’s suspicions of blackmail, money laundering and bribery.  Ah yes, once again Alinsky’s psychological projection tactics…these modern day Caligula’s charge President Trump with crimes they most likely have committed themselves.

Jerry Nadler (D-NY) has his eyes set on a return investigation of Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.  On the same day the president was acquitted by the Senate, Nadler held an oversight hearing with Deep State FBI Director Christopher Wray. Nadler confirmed that, yes, we are indeed going there again. He is going to focus on questioning the legitimacy of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Nadler also claims lawmakers will likely subpoena John Bolton to learn what he was prepared to tell the Senate, and other high-ranking Democrats say the Ukraine story isn’t over.

During the oversight hearing, Director Wray admitted that the surveillance of Carter Page was illegal.  Wray has some explaining to do.  In May of 2019, he disagreed with AG Barr that there was any spying on the Trump campaign, but under oath again, he finally admitted that the surveillance of the Trump campaign was also illegal.

Worse yet is the fact that two men who have worked for our president would slander and libel the man for retribution.  Remember that Warhawk John Bolton was the foreign policy adviser to 2012 presidential candidate Willard RomneyAnd President Trump’s former chief of staff John Kelly said he believed former national security advisor John Bolton’s allegations concerning Trump’s Ukraine pressure campaign.  Back in August before Bolton was fired, he described Trump’s call with Zelensky as “warm and cordial.”

Bolton and Kelly may believe they’ve gotten revenge for being fired, but their retaliation against America’s President only makes them look petty and small.  Tucker Carlson called Bolton a snake referring to the snake in the poem Trump read during the 2016 campaign.  Attorney Joe diGenova said the release of Bolton’s book is an act of treachery.

Trump Wins

On February 7, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed a lawsuit brought by Democratic members of Congress charging that President Donald Trump was illegally profiting from his business interests in violation of the Constitution.  A three-judge panel issued a unanimous “per curiam” decision finding the lawmakers had no standing to bring their suit, which pointed to Trump profiting from foreign government officials choosing to spend money at Trump hotels as violations of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause.  Link

This is the clause that states a President cannot profit off of his office. Considering the fact that the President is losing his wealth while serving the country, this has always been a ridiculous argument. Link

Pelosi has once again failed in her attempt to remove the President from office…but she is not accepting defeat. Pelosi has now authorized Maxine Waters, of all people, to expand her investigations against the President to include articles of impeachment over the emolument’s clause.

Tossing Treacherous Turncoats

The smirking smug face of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was escorted from the White House Friday, two days after President Donald Trump was acquitted in the Senate impeachment trial. Vindman violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice by defying the Commander in Chief, and after he heard the call, he talked to a CIA officer. Was that Eric Ciaramella?  Then there’s Shawn Misko, who had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together.  Sean Misko spoke with Ciaramella about the need to “take out,” or remove, President Trump. Later he went to work for Rep. Adam Schiff’s committee.  Convenient?

Vindman and his twin are Ukrainian Russians who immigrated with their father and older brother when Yevgeny and Alexander were three.

Before he was detailed to the White House, Vindman served in the U.S. Army, where he once received a reprimand from a superior officer for badmouthing and ridiculing America in front of Russian soldiers his unit was training with during a joint 2012 exercise in Germany.

His commanding officer, Army Lt. Col. Jim Hickman, complained that Vindman, then a major, “was apologetic of American culture, laughed about Americans not being educated or worldly and really talked up Obama and globalism to the point of it being uncomfortable.”

“Vindman was a partisan Democrat at least as far back as 2012,” Hickman, now retired, asserted. “Do not let the uniform fool you. He is a political activist in uniform.”

The National Security Council aide handling book approvals (including Bolton’s) is the twin brother of Lt. Col. Vindman. Yevgeny Vindman, a senior lawyer and ethics official in the NSC is the identical twin brother of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Their offices were across the hall from each other.  Alexander Vindman testified that he told his brother about Mr. Trump’s July 25th call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Senior NSC official Timothy Morrison, who was the former boss of Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, testified that Vindman’s bosses had numerous concerns and problems with him.  Morrison confirmed that multiple other officials were concerned that Vindman was potentially leaking sensitive information to the media.

Both men will go to the Pentagon.  Defense Secretary, Mark Esper was asked about potential retribution for Vindman during a trip to New York City. The defense secretary said the Pentagon “has protections for whistleblowers” who report waste, fraud or abuse.  But Democrat Vindman wasn’t a whistleblower, or was he?

Gordon Sondland, who as the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union was a central figure in the administration’s dealings with Ukraine, announced Friday that he was losing his job, according to Fox News. Good!  “I was advised today that the president intends to recall me effective immediately as United States ambassador to the European Union,” Sondland said. As of Friday, eight of 12 officials who testified publicly during the impeachment hearings have left the posts, either voluntarily or otherwise.  It’s about time!  Excise the Deep State!  And the National Security Council is being cut way back.  See my previous article on both of these men.

Not since Lt. General Michael Flynn was in charge of the NSC, were there people who could be trusted to have the President’s back.  When McMaster came in, those good people were fired, and the Deep State representatives were hired.  Now Robert O’Brien is hopefully eliminating the NSC of these treacherous Never-Trumpers.

But there’s even more! Officials confirmed that Trump and national security advisor, Robert O’Brien have cut 70 positions inherited from former President Barack Obama, and Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, who had fattened the staff to 200.  Many were loaners from other agencies and have been sent back. Others left government work.  That’s a big hooray…now clean out the DOJ swamp!

Conclusion

Word on the street is that there may be major deep state arrests coming, but we’ve heard this before. Remember Huber?  Lindsey Graham is touting the same thing…but I’m not holding my breath.

As for Twitter, one of my favorites is back on line…James Woods…and he returns with guns blazing.

Hillary Clinton told everyone to “Resist.”  We’ve all seen those bumper stickers…it’s time for a new one that says, “Resistance is Futile.”

© All rights reserved.

RELATED TWEET:

The FBI’s False Prosecution and Railroading of Roger Stone

“The U.S. prosecution service is eating at the soul of the American republic. It is an absolute danger to everyone.” –  Conrad Black

“Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” –  Thomas Jefferson

“Left-wing zealots have often been prepared to ride roughshod over due process and basic considerations of fairness when they think they can get away with it.  For them, the ends always seem to justify the means. That is precisely how their predecessors came to create the gulag.” –  Margaret Thatcher


Roger Stone is a veteran Republican Strategist, New York Times Bestselling author, pundit and longtime consultant to the Trump Organization. Mr. Stone is the grandmaster of 10 Republican Presidential campaigns including his seminal role in Donald Trump’s political emergence. This is detailed in the recent PBS Documentary series on Donald Trump as well as in the award-winning Netflix Documentary “Get Me Roger Stone.” He also served as chairman of Donald Trump’s Presidential Exploratory Committee in 2000 and 2012.

Roger and his wife of 29 years, Nydia, live in Fort Lauderdale Florida.  President Trump was an honored guest at their wedding in Washington, D.C.  The Stones have two grown children and five grandchildren.  They are parishioners at Saint Anthony’s Catholic Church in Fort Lauderdale.

An intensive two-year multi-million-dollar investigation into Stone by the Special Counsel began in 2017.  They turned up no evidence of Russian Collusion, no collaboration with Wikileaks, and no evidence that Roger Stone had advance notice of the source or content of any of the Wikileaks disclosures, including the e-mails of John Podesta before their release.  Mueller indicted Roger Stone for lying to Congress.

The Gestapo

Gestapo tactics were obvious when on Friday, January 25, 2019, twenty-nine FBI agents in bullet proof protective gear and armed with submachine guns showed up pre-dawn at Roger Stone’s home.  There were seventeen vehicles, two of which were armored, two boats behind Roger’s home and one helicopter was circling overhead.  Link

Prosecutors knew Stone was represented by counsel and had spoken with Stone’s lawyer the previous day. Yet, their claim that Stone had to be arrested in this manner because he was considered a “flight risk” was disproven hours later when the government did not oppose his release without a cash bond. Stone had neither a valid passport nor a firearm when arrested.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson prohibited Stone’s lawyers from questioning the FBI’s actions, clearly designed to portray Stone negatively in the court of public opinion prior to trial.

FBI raids are not broadcast to the media, but one of Mueller’s FBI boys saw to it that this one was widely shown. Beirut-born Assyrian-American George Piro, Special Agent in Charge Miami, most likely authorized the raid and leaked the information to CNN.  The same thing was done to Paul Manafort who is dying in prison and is culpable for wrong doings, but so are many others on the left with ties to Russia and the Ukraine, many of whom were never charged including the Podesta brothers.

This was the start of the nightmare for the Stone family, all of which was begun by the Mueller Russia investigation and none of the people charged had anything to do with Russia.

The month prior to Stone’s Gestapo style arrest, on December 3, 2018, President Trump tweeted,

“I will never testify against Trump.” This statement was recently by Roger Stone, essentially stating that he will not be forced by a rogue and out of control prosecutor to make up lies and stories about President Trump. Nice to know some people still have guts.

Vindictive Prosecution

In order to secure search warrants on all Stone properties and possessions, prosecutors told a federal judge that they had probable cause of money laundering of foreign money in campaign contributions, mail fraud, wire fraud, and various cyber-crimes including unauthorized access to a computer server. In fact, prosecutors had no such evidence other than Stone’s Twitter feed.  They found no evidence of these crimes.

Stone was ultimately charged with lying to Congress and one count of witness tampering. Stone’s contrived indictment was crafted by Mueller Deputy Andrew Weissman based on the meta-tags on the copy of the indictment blast e-mailed to the press at 7am the morning of his arrest (even though a Federal Magistrate did not unseal the indictment until 9:30am that same morning) where Weissman left his initials.

Because of the “fake news” media black-out regarding Roger Stone’s vindictive prosecution by Mueller and the DOJ, few Americans understand how and why the long-time Trump political advisor and loyalist was convicted for lying to Congress, how flimsy the case against him was, and how he was railroaded in a Soviet-style show trial in Washington, DC.  Obama appointee, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, barred every powerful line of defense and carefully stacked an anti-Trump jury comprised totally of liberal Democrats.

The Jury Foreperson was former Democratic congressional candidate Tomeka Hart.  Her anti-Trump tweets were uncovered, including a March post about the Mueller investigation, which led to the charges against Stone and the pre-dawn raid.  Judge Andrew Napolitano has publicly stated that Stone deserves a new trial.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson

Robert Mueller was allowed to “Judge Shop.” Amy Berman Jackson also presided over the case of former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort. She had him incarcerated prior to and during his trial, even in solitary confinement for nine months, despite the fact that he hadn’t been convicted of any crime. A motion for a different Judge and a different venue by Stone’s lawyers was denied.

Special Counsel argued that Stone’s case should be before Judge Amy Berman Jackson. They claimed his case was related to the still untried case in which Mueller charged 75 Russians for the alleged hacking of the Democratic National Committee.  Prosecutors asserted that Stone’s e-mail address was found by a search warrant in that case, and that this case is related to Stone’s.  Where’s the proof?

They asserted that certain “stolen documents” are a topic in both cases, and second, that warrants used in the Russian hacker case surfaced “certain evidence that is relevant” to Stone’s case. In fact, no evidence from the Russian hacking case was introduced at Stone’s trial. Nothing in Stone’s indictment alleged he had access to “stolen documents.”

Obama appointee, Judge Jackson is a liberal activist Judge who dismissed the wrongful death lawsuit in Benghazi against Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the suit by the Catholic Church challenging Obamacare’s requirement that employers provide free coverage for contraception and abortion. Jackson’s decision on the Catholic Church was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Jackson ruled for the prosecution and against Stone’s lawyers on every motion in the case save one. It was reported that the Judge would smirk and roll her eyes at the jury whenever Stone’s lawyers were speaking in court.

The Prosecutors

Overseeing Stone’s case for the Office of Special Counsel was Jeannie Rhee, who represented Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation in the e-mail case. She gave the maximum contribution to Hillary’s campaigns in 2008 and 2016 as well as Obama’s in 2008.

Aaron Zelinsky, a former Huffington Post Columnist and Assistant U.S. Attorney worked under and was recommended by Acting AG Rod Rosenstein to assist Rhee in Stone’s prosecution.

Stone’s case would ultimately be prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Kravis who worked in the White House Counsel’s office during the Obama administration as associate counsel to the President.

Adam Jed, an Obama DOJ official who successfully argued that the act of Congress outlawing gay marriage was unconstitutional rounded out Mueller’s prosecution of Stone.

The Charges

Stone was charged with Violation of the False Statement Act, which requires not only that the statement be false but also that it be material and there was an intent to deceive. The prosecution claimed that Stone lied because “the truth wouldn’t look good for Donald Trump” is ludicrous in view of that fact that candidate Trump himself spoke openly about his campaign’s interest in the Wikileaks disclosure.

  • October 10, 2016 in Wilkes-Barre, PA: “This just came out,” Trump said. “WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks.”
  • October 12, 2016 in Ocala, FL: “This WikiLeaks stuff is unbelievable,” Trump said. “It tells you the inner heart, you gotta read it.”
  • October 13, 2016 in Cincinnati, OH: “It’s been amazing what’s coming out on WikiLeaks.”
  • October 31, 2016 in Warren, MI: “Another one came in today,” Trump said. “This WikiLeaks is like a treasure trove.”
  • November 4, 2016 in Wilmington, OH: “Getting off the plane, they were just announcing new WikiLeaks, and I wanted to stay there, but I didn’t want to keep you waiting,” said Trump. “Boy, I love reading those WikiLeaks.”

In fact, Trump mentioned WikiLeaks 141 times in the month before the 2016 election, according to MSNBC. So, what was Stone “hiding?” Stone, who appeared before the committee voluntarily and not under subpoena, had no motive to lie about what was a completely legal political activity. There was no testimony at trial that he told any Trump campaign official anything about Wikileaks that they could not have read on Stone’s Twitter feed! The House Intelligence Committee voted to turn over Stone’s classified testimony at Mueller’s request but did not refer Stone for prosecution. The Committee’s final report did not find that Stone had mislead the Committee.

One count that Stone engaged in “witness tampering” is also false. Stone had already divulged to the House Intelligence Committee that progressive radio host and comic impressionist Randy Credico who Stone had worked with for criminal justice sentence reform was his source regarding the significance and timing of the coming Wikileaks disclosures to the House Intelligence Committee.

Stone urged Credico to assert his fifth amendment rights not to testify before the House Intelligence Committee because Credico said he feared public exposure in the progressive community because he had “helped elect Trump.” Credico admitted that his own lawyer advised him to assert his fifth amendment rights as did numerous reporters as well as the ACLU.

Charges by prosecutors that Stone had threatened to “steal Credico’s dog” to pressure him into silence were specifically denied by Credico at trial. On January 20th, 2020 Credico wrote a letter to Judge Jackson saying that he “never felt threatened by Stone.” Nonetheless, Stone was convicted on the charge of witness tampering.

The prosecution insisted that Credico was not Stone’s source regarding the general significance and October release of the Wikileaks disclosures despite Stone’s release of a chain of e-mails which indisputably prove that he was.

Testimony

Prosecutors insisted Dr. Jerry Corsi was the source of Stone’s limited knowledge of Wikileaks plans but produced no evidence whatsoever to prove this and pointedly did not call Corsi as a witness at Stone’s trial. A text exchange between Corsi and Stone on October 3rd showed Corsi saying, “Assange has nothing and has made a fool of himself.”

Judge Jackson would not allow Steve Bannon’s sworn testimony before the House Intelligence Committee saying it was hearsay when Bannon stated that Trump’s campaign had no “access point to Wikileaks.”

Convicted felon Rick Gates testified at Stone’s trial that he overheard a cell phone conversation between Stone and Trump while in an SUV on the way to LaGuardia Airport in August 2016. Gates admitted that he could not hear the actual conversation and federal prosecutors produced no phone record or additional witness to corroborate this claim, although Gates said there were two Secret Service Agents in the SUV. Both Trump and Stone have denied this conversation ever took place. In written responses to questions from Mueller, President Trump specifically denied ever discussing the Wikileaks disclosures. Gates, who was convicted of conspiracy and lying to the FBI received a 45-day sentence in return for his testimony against Stone and federal prosecutors declined to prosecute Gates for not paying taxes on millions of dollars of income he admitted he embezzled from his partner Paul Manafort.

Guilty on All Charges

The jury found Stone guilty of all charges. While one juror, a Beto O’Rourke contributor, told the Washington Post that the jury was “diverse in age, gender, race, ethnicity, income, education and occupation, his claim is misleading to say the least. The jury included no Republicans, no military veterans, no Roman Catholics, no black men and no one with less than a college education, but did include a former Democratic candidate for Congress, two lawyers who worked in democratic administrations, three jurors with ties to the FBI, three jurors with ties to the DOJ, and two jurors with ties to the CIA, as well as an Obama appointee to the position of Communications Director of a Federal Department. It is questionable whether any Republican can get a fair trial in the District of Columbia.

The underlying premise of the federal indictment of Roger Stone contained in the first two pages of his indictment is that the Russians hacked the DNC and provided this allegedly hacked data to Wikileaks. All of the questions Stone allegedly lied about relate to this alleged action, yet Judge Amy Berman Jackson would not allow Stone’s lawyers to disprove this by calling forensic witnesses as they had for whistleblower Bill Binney of the National Security Agency. Having based their prosecution of Stone on this premise federal prosecutors insisted it was irrelevant.

Judge Jackson barred Stone’s attorneys from raising any questions regarding the misconduct of the special prosecutor, the DOJ, the FBI or members of Congress. “There will be no investigating of the investigators in my courtroom,” she said despite the appointment of Special Counsel John Durham, by AG Bill Barr to do exactly that.

Deep State

Congressman Adam Schiff admitted his coordination with the office of the Special Counsel in violation of House Rules in a letter to Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, but Judge Jackson prohibited Stone’s lawyers from pursuing this evidence of a “set-up” by Schiff.

The Washington Post reported that Mueller had an advance copy of Stone’s classified testimony (another violation of House Rules) prior to the full committee voting to release the testimony to the Special Counsel at Mueller’s request but did so with no referral for prosecution for perjury.

Schiff, Congressman Eric Swalwell and Congressman Joaquin Castro all predicted immediately after Stone’s testimony that he would be indicted for perjury, impossible for them to know without having seen the fruits of surveillance on Stone.

The Gag Order

I do not believe gag orders are constitutional.  General Flynn suffered under the same order for years. This unconstitutional order disallows public defense of charges when one is innocent until proven guilty. Yet, the prosecution is allowed to join with their Deep State mainstream media friends to destroy the innocent victims before trial.

Even after conviction, Stone is still under a gag order imposed by Judge Jackson.  While Stone has been gagged by the Judge based on the claim that his public defense of himself would “taint the jury pool” the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, The New York Times, the Daily Beast , Vox, Vice and others orchestrated an 18-month drumbeat of leaks from Mueller claiming that Stone would be prosecuted for treason and conspiracy against the United States and would prove to be the link between the Trump Campaign and Russia. None of this would prove true.

Roger’s wife, Nydia Stone has said publicly that her husband was prosecuted because he refused a deal to falsely testify against the president regarding the content of more than 25 phone calls between candidate Trump and Stone in 2016, which was proposed by prosecutors just prior to the transmittal of the Special Counsel’s Report to AG Bill Barr.

Conclusion

Roger Stone was indicted for lying to Congress despite the failure of Mueller to find any underlying crime for Stone to lie about. At trial, prosecutors provided evidence that Stone tried (unsuccessfully) to learn the content of the announced Wikileaks disclosures (which is not a crime). Mueller criminalized perfectly legal political activities in the indictment and conviction of Stone.

Stone was the last victim of Mueller’s witch hunt. He was railroaded in a vindictive, politically motivated prosecution by a biased Judge and a stacked jury. He now faces years in prison. He and his family have been bankrupted, they’ve lost their home, their savings, their insurance and Stone’s ability to make a living. Roger wife, Nydia Stone, is deaf and has no means to support herself if Roger is incarcerated for what amounts to a life sentence.

Over 150,000 Americans have now signed a petition urging President Trump to “Free Roger Stone.” President Trump has called Stone’s prosecution a hoax, he should pardon Roger Stone as an act of both mercy and justice now. At a minimum President Trump should commute Roger Stone’s sentence immediately after sentencing as prosecutors are demanding instant remand of Roger Stone into custody. Please urge the President to do so.

Obvious to many is the Deep State targeting and prosecution of those who supported Donald J. Trump for U.S. President.  The real criminals still walk free.

Stone is scheduled to be sentenced February 20th, 2020.

Part 2 shortly.

© All rights reserved.

Abortions and Perpetrated Fraud in America: My response to ‘NYC 2020 FASHION WEEK’

We have been subjected to so many lies, frauds, deceptions, and distortions for almost three years that most people are disoriented and puzzled. Who is doing that to us? You can answer the question, if you remember my definition of Stalinist Political Correctness made in 2017: “… Political correctness is a Stalinist policy, driven by a political agenda, a skillfully crafted design of a quintessential system of lies, fraud, and a long-term strategy of war against Western civilization to create a One World Socialist Government under the Kremlin’s rule.”  Stalinist Political Correctness is a mechanism of preventing the Truth from getting out, it is aimed at hiding or masking the Truth.

Several years ago, an editor of the monthly news magazine Whistleblower, David Kupelian said:

“Donald Trump is right about political correctness. It is like a disease that has infected America and is destroying it. The cure is truth, spoken boldly and courageously, but without hate. That’s what readers will find in abundance in The Thought Police,” 2016.

WOW! How right David Kupelian was several years ago. Unfortunately, America hasn’t learned to discern Stalinist Political Correctness yet and our culture has greatly suffered. Trump’s negative attitude to PC made me his supporter, because I knew PC and had written about it even before Trump’s announcement. Political Correctness is a monumental weapon to destroy successful capitalism and the political system left to us by the Founding Fathers. The Democrat Party has used PC against the American Republic and conservative Republicans for decades…

Abortions: Political Correctness and the Pro-Choice Fraud

It is painful to see how Stalinist Political Correctness continues deceiving and misleading the American public in the 21st century. Abortion is an issue that divides our country and a vivid example of the Dems’ work, armed with Stalinist PC. Their policy has a long history since the 60s. The pro-choice/pro-life framework overlooked the many hidden ways in which the law impacts women’s reproductive freedom. What the abortion debate left out was logic: Yes, logic and knowledge of Stalinist Political Correctness.

 In my articles written in 2010-2013, I gave several examples of the PC machinery that infiltrated all spheres of our society: politics, culture, art, education, and so on. Those columns have been deleted by the corrupt Obama’s FBI. Hence, I will present this example in the application of PC exercised by the Democrats again. Abortion is the real issue that divides America, especially the women of America. I had several abortions in my past life in the USSR and it is hard to describe the awful feelings I had after each experience. Besides excruciating physical pain (a surgery without anesthesia), I felt a psychological doom, a combination of grief, guilt, and a black hole in my entire existence. In America, I also found a description of women’s feelings, but it was much softer than mine.

“Many women with unplanned pregnancies believe abortion is their only option. This is what their boyfriends, family, and culture tell them. In moments of vulnerability and confusion, they end up making a choice they never wanted.” What’s a human life worth? Townhall.com Nov. 9, 2015. It is a very true description of a pregnant women’s life—confusion and vulnerability. I felt that way exactly… Don’t forget—a pregnant woman feels confusion and vulnerability in any culture and country she lives due to the pregnancy, which is changing the chemistry of her entire body and mind, regardless of her race and nationality.

 The Mechanism of Fraud Political Correctness Creates

Above mentioned Editor David Kupelian is right: The cure is truth, spoken boldly. Yes, and you are the witnesses of the system of incredible lies by the Democrats in following Stalin’s PC. Let’s go to the Truth and analyze the mechanism of Stalinist precepts: They are:

  1. Establishment of a false premise for a future theory or action.
  2. Usage of the false premise as a foundation of the theory or action.

While introducing Stalin in my books, among other epithets, I called him a charlatan of a highest class. Today, I’d like to show you the dreadful harm, which has been brought to the world by Stalinism and his PC. Please, look at the real definition of the word ‘Premise’ in the Dictionary:

LOGIC

Noun

1.

a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.

“if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true”

Verb

1.

base an argument, theory, or undertaking on.

“the reforms were premised on our findings”

The first example I bring is a misleading meaning to the term “pro-choice,” inculcated by the intimidating power of political correctness used by the Democrats. The issue has a long history which grew as a snow ball to the gigantic cultural fraud due to PC. The premise is clear—prevention of pregnancy. Be attentive to the premise—prevention of pregnancy. The Democrats just moved the time span one bit further and the Republicans, as usual, swallowed the fraudulent hook.

The real pregnancy comes to life by the sexual act and the actual choice is a prevention of sexual act. The partners, especially a woman has a choice before a sexual act, it is action taken before the sexual act that prevents pregnancy and not actions after the fact. Using PC, the Democrats just reprogrammed the human mind, moving the time span and making the choice after the sexual act, which is a fraud. The abortion issue has become a tool for the Democrats to undermine our traditional culture, and our set of values. Just count the disproportional murder of black fetuses and fatherless black families to see the enormous cultural implications of this leftist fraud.  Unfortunately, this fraud has affected all ethnic groups in America. You see it today–eighteen percent of pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) ended in abortion in 2017.

The issue of abortion is quite complicated one. Besides politics, it is the actual application of medicine mixed with three participants or subjects: the fetus, the woman’s will and the action of a doctor directed to abort the fetus. It doesn’t matter how you see a fetus, an alive child or not—the fetus is there, an integral part of the abortion procedure itself. The scandal revealing Planned Parenthood being related to the sale of babies’ body parts just confirms my point. A woman has a choice, a free choice in America when she is facing and intending to have a sexual encounter. Yes, it is her body… She ought to decide before the sexual act—THAT is the real choice for any women…

Now, please, combine the previous topic of a fraudulent time issue and abortion, spread nationwide for four decades in America to see an extremely negative cultural implication domestically, created and supported by the Democrats. More than 58 million babies have been aborted in America since 1973, more than 17 million of those were black babies. These are the awful numbers. They testify to the dramatic changes in our culture and moral slide if not outright degradation of our value system successfully created by the Democrat’s fraud. America still has not found the solution…What a shame!

Perpetrated Fraud by Stalinist Charlatans in America

The Democrats have gone even further in foreign policy, sabotaging our national security. Let’s take as an example the nuclear deal with Iran: the false premise was established by Obama in the beginning of the discussion—nuclear deal or war. The alternative given to us by Obama was a false one and created in the best traditions of Stalinist PC against the American interests and our national security. The premise was FALSE. There were definitely several alternatives to deal with Iran. The logical one was–To double the sanctions that already existed and to punish Iran for being the biggest sponsor of global terror while proclaiming “Death to America!” The double sanctions in reality could prevent any war and thus serve our national security interests. Obama did just the opposite. You can read the details of a fraud in my book: What is Happening to America?  The Hidden Truth of Global Destruction, Xlibris, 2012

Knowledge of Russia, her Security Services, and Stalinist Charlatans in America is a must. I have warned you with this refrain for the last thirty years, because I know the importance of this topic. Today, it is not only the Stalinist PC, lies, deception, and fraud confronting our values and our exceptional political system. Today, we have three Democrat-candidates, sponsored by the Russian Security Services and competing for the U.S. Presidency—they are arrogantly talking about the shape of our democracy! Mayor Pete is not “a good alternative” to old Bernie–Pete is an ideological twin-brother of another Stalinist Charlatan–Saul Alinski. Our dysfunctional FBI have not vetted Dems’ candidates, as a result we can have the third America’s Manchurian President! It is a reality in America today… Alas, Sen. Tom Cotton is not the FBI Director…

Our corrupt-dysfunctional FBI and CIA in both Democrat and Republican administrations overslept a collapsing fraudulent Socialism in the Soviet Union and allowed an abysmal Socialist fraud to become a legitimate issue in America: America’s Socialist mafia in cahoots with Stalinist Charlatans created a Socialist movement in the heart of America’s Congress—the House of Representatives. You saw the result: how, in militant hatred to Trump’s SOTU speech, it was been ripped up—with criminal intent to confront our unique political system, left to us by our Founding Fathers. Pay attention to Bill Maher: he loves Mayor Pete and considers Bernie Sanders as an authentically one…!!??

My fellow Americans!

Enough is enough! The momentum in America’s history has come to unite in behind President Donald J Trump, defending an exceptionalism of America, and our system of government from enemies foreign and domestic. And Mighty God will help us!!!

To be continued www.simonapipko1.com and www.drrichswier.com/author/spipko/.

© All rights reserved.