New Yorkers Blister De Blasio Over Rising Crime, Bail Reform [Video]

/in , , , , , , /by

In a town hall in Queens, NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio was lambasted by New Yorkers who are fed up with the rising crime rate, with his policies of neighborhood jails and homeless shelters, and with the state’s failed new “bail reform.”

“I’m 56 years old, lived in this city my whole life, and you are the worst mayor that New York City has ever seen,” one resident stated. “Many people are being beaten, slashed, and hurt by criminals being released,” said another resident regarding Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s new bail reform law, in the wake of which violent crime has risen. “New York City is becoming a crime city. Could you please get rid of bail reform to make our city safer?”

“Forget bail reform. Bail reform is not working. Do you understand?” pleaded a resident. “I think you have no clue what goes on in regular people’s lives,” declared another. “Why don’t I feel safe Mr. Mayor?”

De Blasio dismissed their concerns as the result of listening to “right-wing propaganda” and to people “whipping up fear.”

Bill de Blasio

47 Known Connections

De Blasio Voices His Support for Socialism

In an interview that was published in New York magazine in September 2017, de Blasio made the following comments:

  • “What’s been hardest is the way our legal system is structured to favor private property. I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be. I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs. And I would, too. Unfortunately, what stands in the way of that is hundreds of years of history that have elevated property rights and wealth to the point that that’s the reality that calls the tune on a lot of development…. Look, if I had my druthers, the city government would determine every single plot of land, how development would proceed. And there would be very stringent requirements around income levels and rents. That’s a world I’d love to see, and I think what we have, in this city at least, are people who would love to have the New Deal back, on one level. They’d love to have a very, very powerful government, including a federal government, involved in directly addressing their day-to-day reality.”

To learn more about de Blasio, click on the profile link HERE.

RELATED VIDEO: Antifa calls for violence in New York City

MISSOURI: 11-year-old Gives Birth in Bathtub After Being Raped for Months

/in , , , , , , , /by

This is a sick story about people who should not have been in the US in the first place.

Thanks to reader Maria for sending it.

From the New York Post:

Teen charged with incest, rape after 11-year-old relative gives birth

A St. Louis teen confessed to raping his 11-year-old relative about 100 times after she gave birth to his baby in a bathtub, according to a news report.

Cops were tipped off to the alleged abuse at the hands of Norvin Leonidas Lopez-Cante when his father brought an infant to St. Joseph Hospital on Tuesday and told police someone left the child on his front porch, KSDK-TV reported.

The baby still had its umbilical cord and placenta attached and a body temperature of 90 degrees, the NBC affiliate said.

On Thursday, police visited the father, Francisco Javier Gonzalez-Lopez, and he told them his 17-year-old son was the father of the child and their 11-year-old relative was the baby’s mother — but claimed he had no knowledge of the abuse or the pregnancy until the girl gave birth.

Lopez-Cante later admitted to authorities that he had sex with the girl about twice a week, a total of about 100 times, the report said.

The story gets worse!

From KSDK Five on Your Side:

Woman charged after 11-year-old daughter gives birth to baby in a bathtub

ST CHARLES, Mo. — A mother was charged after her 11-year-old daughter gave birth in a bathtub last week.

Lesbia Cante pleaded not guilty Wednesday to a charge of endangering the welfare of a child. In court Wednesday, her cash-only bail was increased to $100,000 from $10,000.

[….]

Gonzalez-Lopez said he did not know the girl was pregnant or that Lopez-Cante was raping her until she gave birth to the child in their bathtub.

After police read Lopez-Cante his Miranda rights, he told police he had sex with the girl about 100 times but did not know she was pregnant. He said he did not know when he first had sex with her but said it happened about twice a week.

[….]

Lopez-Cante was charged with first-degree statutory rape, statutory sodomy and incest. His bond was set at $25,000, cash-only.

Gonzalez-Lopez was charged with endangering the welfare of a child for his role in the incident. His bail was set at $10,000, cash only.

Charging documents said he entered the country illegally and was previously deported.

Look at those bail amounts—Gonzalez-Lopez who has been previously deported gets the lowest bail of the bunch!

I didn’t see any mention of the nationality of these sickos..  Let me know if you do!

Aside from wreaking the girl’s life, the illegal aliens will now cost taxpayers a fortune as their cases move through the criminal justice system. Expensive incarceration will surely follow.

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

VIDEO: ‘Antifa Bully’ Threatens Pelosi’s Republican Challenger With Death

/in , , , , , , /by

A man identified as an ‘Antifa bully’ by Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s Republican challenger John Dennis threatened Dennis with death.

Dennis, who is also chair of the San Francisco Republican Party, filmed the incident with the Far-Left protester which took place during a clean-up event on the streets of San Francisco.

The man, who did not know Dennis, accused him of being a racist. During the incident, the ‘Antifa bully’ also said to Dennis, “I’m going to catch you when all the cameras aren’t around and I’m gonna f— you up!”

Dennis said the man was making “all kinds of vulgar gestures to suburban moms who came in to clean up San Francisco. He was also threatening every guy he could find in the crowd.”

Dennis decided to approach the man to try to defuse the situation.

Watch Laura Ingraham’s interview with John Dennis on the Ingraham Angle

Also this month, police in Portland refused to protect a videographer attempting to film masked Antifa protesters ostensibly demonstrating against a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) rally — a rally that never happened.

As reported by News Radio WRVA, the videographer — Nate Millsap, who runs a YouTube page called Stumptown Matters – said the Antifa protesters had “concealed objects or weapons in their hands” and that one of them approached him while shaking a can of pepper spray.

According to the report, “Millsap retreated and ran into police fitted with riot gear. At this point, the group had stopped chasing him, but were still shouting insults at him. But Millsap received little help or sympathy from the police, who told him if he ran back toward the mob, ‘We’re not gonna come out and save you.’

“One officer added, “You better come up with a different plan, like maybe go somewhere else, dude.”

Watch Millsap’s video of the incident:

Meanwhile in New York, two university teachers face questioning over their reported involvement in the violent and destructive January 31 rampage through the New York City subway system.

The teachers were named as Nitasha Dhillon, a professor at the University of Buffalo, and Amin Husain, an adjunct instructor at New York University. The two are co-founders of the Far-Left movement Decolonize this Place, which called for a “city-wide convergence” at Grand Central Station to “f— the police.”

The January 31 event saw hundreds of protesters storm the subway system, jumping and vandalizing the turnstiles and spraying graffiti on the walls.

NYC estimates that the protest cost the city $100,000. Thirteen people were arrested in the melee.

Among the demands of the protesters were banning police from patrolling the subway system and making subway rides free.

RELATED STORIES:

Police Stand By While Conservative Reporter Assaulted by Antifa 

Antifa Violence Talk Cancelled Due to … Threat of Antifa Violence

Antifa Blocks, Berates Elderly Woman Using Walker

Dems Meet Privately With Iranian FM: How Is This OK?

/in , , , , , , /by

Democrat members of Congress met privately with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif without the knowledge or approval by the State Department.

The meeting took place at the recent Munich Security Conference, an annual forum where world leaders discuss international threats, reported The Federalist, which broke the story.

At least one senator who was at the meeting, Chris Murphy (D-CT), defended his actions in an online post, writing,

“I have no delusions about Iran — they are our adversary, responsible for the killing of thousands of Americans and unacceptable levels of support for terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East. But I think it’s dangerous to not talk to your enemies … A lack of dialogue leaves nations guessing about their enemy’s intentions, and guessing wrong can lead to catastrophic mistakes.”

Murphy, a staunch critic of Trump’s Iran policy, said he asked Zarif whether the reprisals against the U.S. for the recent assassination of Iranian terror general Qasem Soleimani were over and told him that if groups in Iraq that are affiliated with Iran attack U.S. forces, it will be “an unacceptable escalation.”

He also said he brought up the issue of American prisoners held by Iran and the recent increase in attacks by the Houthis (an Iranian proxy group in Yemen) since the Soleimani hit.

Murphy concluded by stating,

“I don’t know whether my visit with Zarif will make a difference. I’m not the President or the Secretary of State — I’m just a rank and file U.S. Senator. I cannot conduct diplomacy on behalf of the whole of the U.S. government, and I don’t pretend to be in a position to do so. But if Trump isn’t going to talk to Iran, then someone should.”

He then erroneously states,

“Congress is a co-equal branch of government, responsible along with the Executive for setting foreign policy.”

It is for this reason that Murphy and other Democrats were wrong in meeting with Zarif (in addition to the fact that these members of Congress have a history of being virulently against almost anything the president does).

In fact, according to the Constitution, it is the responsibility of the executive branch of government (the president) to set foreign policy. It is the responsibility of the Senate to ratify treaties (which the Obama administration brazenly circumvented when making the Iran deal).

In fact, there is a law on the books that addresses such meetings. The Logan Act, promulgated in 1799, prohibits private citizens from conducting official diplomacy and makes it a felony for unauthorized Americans to negotiate with governments in disputes with the U.S.

The U.S. cut off diplomatic relations with Iran after President Trump withdrew from the 2015 nuclear agreement in May 2018. Since then, the U.S.’ policy has been to isolate and bankrupt Iran – the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world – through a “maximum pressure campaign.”

Meetings such as Murphy’s and other Democrat members of Congress with an Iranian regime official defy that policy. Moreover, they send a message of disunity – and hence, weakness — to Iran.

During the conference, “Murphy and Zarif both criticized U.S. foreign policy during a two-hour discussion on the Middle East,” The Federalist reported.

The news outlet also noted that,

“Murphy’s meeting with Zarif comes while Murphy has defended Democratic rogue meetings with foreign leaders in the past while offering harsh criticism of Republicans who sent an open letter to the Iranian regime while the Obama administration stamped out the details of a nuclear agreement with the Middle Eastern adversary. Murphy, a staunch defender of the agreement said the Republicans were ‘undermining the authority of the president.’

“In 2017, Murphy also condemned former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn following anonymous leaks of a phone call between Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kysylak surfaced.

“‘Any effort to undermine our nation’s foreign policy – even during a transition period – may be illegal and must be taken seriously,’ Murphy said at the time.”

Murphy and his cohorts should be censored and perhaps even prosecuted for their actions.

Tell us what you think. Take a minute to answer out poll below:

Was it OK that the Dems met privately with the Iranian foreign minister?
VOTE

RELATED ARTICLES:

Did John Kerry Commit Treason? 

Kerry: ‘We Gave [Iran] a Little Bit of Money’

Kerry: ‘No Knowledge’ that ‘Death to America’ is ‘Specific Plan 

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

Canada: Seeding the State With Totalitarianism

/in , , , , /by

I was born and raised in Pakistan. Later in life, my husband and I lived in at least three Arab cities. We have also traveled extensively through most of the Muslim majority countries. As a young couple, our goal was to establish our careers and gain financial stability.

We quickly learned that in order to achieve these goals, there were certain things we could never discuss publicly. This included absolutely no criticism of the ruling family in any given country or any aspect of religion, government, laws, gender inequality or human rights aberrations (all of which we saw).

In short, there was no freedom of expression.

At the end of 1988, already a young family, we moved to Canada to embrace the values of freedom of speech, freedom of (or from) religion, gender equality and a healthy respect for debate and discussion.

It took some time to absorb all this and feel empowered to speak out. I started by writing in the local newspaper. I could now freely critique and question the status quo – especially gender issues and the growing Islamist agenda I saw.

Thirty years down the road, can I do this in Canada today? The answer is a resounding “no!” Is Canada beginning to resemble the theocracies we left behind? Yes, because Canada is starting to show signs of totalitarianism.

The freedoms that we came here for are at stake, with the most important of all being freedom of speech. It started with a wave of political correctness leading to Motion 103 (M103) which does not allow for any critique of Islam or Muslims.

M103 has petrified Canadians into silence so much so that they can’t even question extremist attacks on our soil or the rise of hate-speech in places of worship.

Then we have Bill C-25 which seeks to impose “diversity” within all corporations, complete with financial penalties against organizations that do not comply with these government standards.

This has resulted in people routinely running to the Human Rights Commission with complaints if they happen to be a minority and did not get their coveted job (forget about the fact that they might not have the proper credentials).

Diversity has become the buzz word for the Human Rights Commission. I’ve always held that diversity can only happen organically (without being imposed), but it seems that now it is being forced.

In addition, there is Bill C-16 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression. The bill mandates all citizens must address others by their preferred pronouns and transgender fantasies … or else!

It’s “zir,” “ze,” “zem” or “zeir.” The keyword here is “mandate” which means that at places of work or academic institutions if this choice is not followed, there is trouble.

An example of someone who has suffered terribly due to these totalitarian laws is Canadian Professor Jordan Peterson, who received massive backlash for refusing to adhere to the gender pronouns which he called “compelled speech” and for speaking out against political correctness. I agree with Professor Peterson that these expressions can’t and should not be mandated by the government of a “liberal” democracy.

David Solway in a piece in American Thinker writes

“To describe Canada as a totalitarian state-in-progress sounds like a gross and indeed absurd exaggeration. Yet many premonitory signs are present.”

He goes on to say “There are other laws on the books, bills such as C-59, C-75 and C-76 that reduce and even criminalize freedom of expression, infringe on privacy rights, compromise due process and render government transparency a thing of the past.”

Are we headed down a slippery slope? It sure looks that way.

Fear of being called a racist or a bigot does not allow for any exchange of ideas. And in that fear, freedom dies.

RELATED STORIES:

The Indomitable Raheel Raza Takes on M-103

Stripping Away Our Freedoms

Did the Canadian Gov’t Try to Swing the Muslim Vote?

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

Islamic State Bride Justifies Slavery: ‘She said she really loved her slave-master, and she accepted Islam’

/in , , , , , /by

Slavery is acceptable in Islam. The Qur’an has Allah telling Muhammad that he has given him girls as sex slaves: “Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty.” (Qur’an 33:50)

Muhammad bought slaves: “Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported: There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man).” (Muslim 3901)

Muhammad took female Infidel captives as slaves: “Narrated Anas: The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, ‘Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.’ Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives. She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet. The Prophet made her manumission as her ‘Mahr.’” (Bukhari 5.59.512) Mahr is bride price: Muhammad freed her and married her. But he didn’t do this to all his slaves:

Muhammad owned slaves: “Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah’s Apostle was on a journey and he had a black slave called Anjasha, and he was driving the camels (very fast, and there were women riding on those camels). Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Waihaka (May Allah be merciful to you), O Anjasha! Drive slowly (the camels) with the glass vessels (women)!’” (Bukhari 8.73.182) There is no mention of Muhammad’s freeing Anjasha.

“Trini, Bajan woman on life with ISIS: We thought it was irie,” by Simon Cottee, Trinidad and Tobago Newsday, February 13, 2020:

Aliya Abdul Haqq, one of the hundred or so TT citizens currently stranded in the Al Hol camp in Syria, recently told two foreign journalists that life inside the ISIS caliphate was “irie” – a Jamaican expression for nice or cool. Abdul Haqq, 34, is the sister of Tariq Abdul Haqq, a former lawyer and Commonwealth Games boxing finalist who traded his enviable life in Trinidad for war and death in Syria.

Abdul Haqq was interviewed alongside Abbey Greene, 33, who is from Barbados and was married to Abdul Haqq’s brother Tariq….

Abdul Haqq and Greene travelled to Syria in November 2014 with their respective husbands, Osyaba Muhammad and Tariq Abdul Haqq. While 240 TT citizens travelled to Syria between 2013 and 2016, Greene, to my knowledge, is the only Bajan to have gone to join ISIS.

Abbey Greene, the Barbadian widow of Trinidadian Tariq Abdul Haqq, brother of Aliya Abdul Haqq. –

“We came (to Syria) with our husbands, we made hijrah (migrated) to live under the Islamic State, under the law of Islam, and we basically followed our husbands,” says Greene.

Miraculously, both women survived the slaughterhouse of Baghuz, the last sliver of the ISIS caliphate, which fell in March 2019.

Abdul Haqq says before leaving TT she was never radical.

“I was into makeup, piercings and all these crazy things, which I still like.” It wasn’t until after her father died – Yacoob Abdul Haqq was accidentally shot and killed in May 2013 – that she and her family “made this big turnaround.”

Tariq, in Abdul Haqq’s telling, spearheaded this metamorphosis: “My brother came home one day and he said he was going to Syria.

“I started laughing,” she recalls, but within months she had come round to his way of thinking, because in Syria, “it’s strict sharia, which is what I like, so I said, ‘Let me try and see what Syria is about.’”…

Asked what life was like when she first arrived in Syria, Abdul Haqq relays that she was based in Raqqa, then the de-facto capital of the caliphate.

Aliya Abdul Haqq –

“It matched pretty well (my expectation). There were airstrikes, but it was really mild, so it was still very much like my country (TT). But under sharia, it wasn’t extreme then…It was normal life, we had tea parties, pyjama parties, it was really irie…cool, calm.”

Apparently, she deliberately avoided seeing the public beheadings that were a regular feature in the city back in 2014, but admitted her son had been exposed to several and that it had a violent effect on him.

Do these women have any regret over following their husbands to Syria and for all that ISIS has done?

Not one bit, it seems.

In fact, at several points in the interview, when Abdul Haqq and Greene are questioned about ISIS’s extreme violence against civilians and the rape and sexual enslavement of Yazidis, their default response is either to dodge the question or to rationalise ISIS’s violence as a legitimate response to the violence meted out against ISIS….

What about the beheading of western hostages?

“I don’t know…The men deal with this,” says Abdul Haqq.

Did the brutality of ISIS cause them to rethink their commitment to the group? This question prompts a long pause.

Then this from Greene: “I really don’t think about that question.”

On the sexual enslavement of Yazidi girls and women, Abdul Haqq confides that she had met two Yazidi women in Raqqa: “They were slaves to a Bosnian guy…and from what (one of them) told me, she said she really loved her slave-master, and she accepted Islam.”

What about ISIS’s systematic killing of Yazidi men – what can justify that?

More silence. Then Greene repeats what has become a mantra for her: “For me, this war is never-ending, and it’s on both sides.”

When probed about slavery, Greene seemed reluctant to condemn it outright, insisting: “Slavery in Islam is not like slavery back in the day — there are certain rules you have to follow, you have to show rahma (mercy), you must feed them, take care of them.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

The hidden scourge of modern slavery

Saudi government notes that Muslim Brotherhood worked with Nazis during World War II

Facebook blocks Google Translate and Disney.com in its efforts to block Jihad Watch

Canada: Official describes use of taxpayer funds for Muslim Voting Guide as “weird”

Hizballah leader calls for Lebanon to boycott American products as “part of the battle to prove Islamic superiority”

Egypt: Human rights group accuses Qatar and Turkey of funding Muslim Brotherhood

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

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

/in , , , , /by

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?

/in , , , , /by

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

/in , , , , , , /by

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

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

/in , , , , , /by

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 Blanchard, Michael 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 Cantor, Eric Vilain, Stephen Levine, Debra 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

/in , , , , , , , , /by

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

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

/in , , , , , , , /by

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

/in , , , , , , /by

“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:

Tucker Carlson Calls For Roger Stone Judge’s Impeachment: ‘Democratic Activist Wearing Robes’

Roger Stone Heckled as He Leaves Court After Being Sentenced to Three Years in Prison

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

RELATED VIDEO: Matt Gaetz Tells ‘The View’ Trump Should Pardon Roger Stone

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

/in , , , , /by

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

/in , , , , , , /by

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.