MOVIE REVIEW: ‘Captive State’ — How, Via Coercion, Distant Autocrats Take Control of Humanity

Captive State is a film about control, total control of humanity by global government. Our contributors have written about the effort to create a global government (a.k.a. One World Order) under the United Nations’ program titled Agenda 21.

Rolling Stone magazine reporter  describes Captive State perfectly saying, “The largely unseen Legislators rule not through the gee-whiz space-age power of laser beams and whatnot, but via the traditional coercion of distant autocrats.”

Simply stated, the only way UN Agenda 21 can work is to have “distant autocrats”, using coercion, to deny private citizens of their private property rights. If you own nothing you are nothing. Hence a Captive State is where the people, with the aid of technology, become the “property of the state.”

Well now there is a film that portrays how this comes about. Take out the “aliens” and put in the United Nations autocrats who implement Agenda 21 at the city, county, state and national levels and you have the theme in Captive State.

Watch the trailer:

Captive State is about how the leaders of every country voluntarily submit to global governance run by the “Legislators.” Sound familiar (BREXIT)?

According to the Focus Features Captive State website, “After 10 years of occupation, some chose cooperation, others chose resistance.”

Today we see this playing out in the fight between those who hold dear their national identities (nationalists) and those who want a world without borders run by autocrats (globalists).

As Ayn Rand wrote, “The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism and Collectivism.” Rand defines these two principles as follows:

  • Individualism – Each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.
  • Collectivism – Each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.

There is a growing resistance against the globalists in places like France, Poland, Hungary, Italy, Brazil and Venezuela. And yes, in America as well. Globalists embrace collectivism. Nationalists embrace individuality and freedom.

Captive State is about the individual versus the collective.

This Is CNN Facing a $275 Million Lawsuit

The family of Nicholas Sandmann is suing CNN for $275 million.

Sandmann, who is a high school student from Kentucky, was waiting for his bus after March For Life when the students began to receive taunts from a group of Black Hebrew Israelites. Soon after, Nathan Phillips, a Native American activist, walked into the crowd of students.

A video of the incident soon circulated and various media outlets, including CNN, portrayed a story that appeared to show Sandmann instigating a confrontation with Phillips. As the complete story has come out and the whole video has been circulated, a very different narrative has developed–clearly, Sandmann was an innocent bystander trying to avoid escalating a tense situation.

Nicholas Sandmann’s co-counsel, Todd McCurty, released this statement via Fox News :

“What CNN’s tagline is, is, ‘facts first,’ and what we believe their reporting was in this circumstance was, ‘lies first, cover up second,’ and facts not yet determined by that organization.”

Mccurty went on to say:

“without any reasonable investigation, they took something straight off Twitter that had been in essence manipulated so that it told one story and they reported it as the truth.”

Now, CNN has been criticized often for left-leaning bias in reporting. However, what should also be noted is CNN’s history of funding the liberal activist organizations. While the Sandmann story and subsequent lawsuit is just one example of biased, and apparently downright dishonest, reporting, the situation does serve as evidence as to how corporate activism may infect c company’s ability to conduct business.

CNN scores a 1.7 because they fund groups such as the World Wildlife Fund, HRC, and LULAC among many others. All of these groups are leftist organizations, so how can we expect CNN to report unbiased news?

If you want to see for yourself exactly what organizations CNN supports, you can see that here. If you would like to reach out to CNN and tell them why you do not watch their programming, click on the button below.


Contact CNN!


Help us continue providing resources like this and educating conservative shoppers by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

VIDEO: Election Theft — Voter Fraud — Judicial Injustice

At the Sarasota Patriots for Trump monthly forum the guest speaker was Mark Adams. The title of his presentation was “Election Theft – Voter Fraud – Judicial Injustice.”

Please watch:

ABOUT MARK ADAMS

Mark Adams has a law degree and an MBA, and practiced law in Florida. In 2006, Mark won the first and only injunctions getting a third party candidate into televised debates. Mark has also handled more Congressional election contests than any other attorney, and unlike the other attorneys who have handled election contests, Mark gathered proof that the election results were manipulated in 2006 and 2008. Mark has also exposed corruption in our judicial system.

Mark discusses solutions to these very critical issues. Mark has done extensive research on the Framers, the Constitutional provisions that they thought would ensure liberty and justice, and how the Constitution has been subverted in order to allow our country to be pillaged and our liberty to be stolen. Mark will explain the fundamental rights which were supposed to enable us to maintain a Constitutional Republican government which was controlled by the people and how those fundamental rights have been stolen.

 

Of Tweets and Termites: Intersectionality and the Mainstreaming of Anti-Semitism

Albert Einstein once observed, “If my theory of relativity is proven correct, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew.”

Why are Einstein’s words uttered some ninety years ago so relevant today? Because anti-Semitism, like some ancient Bacillus frozen in Arctic permafrost and defrosted, has again reared its ugly head; not just in Europe but around the world. This “new form” of anti-Semitism claims to be different from the traditional racial and religious images. Its adherents say that they are anti-Zionist, NOT anti-Semites. But listen very carefully to what they are saying and you will hear accusations that could easily come right out of the pages of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

Just recently, in the Belgium city of Aalst, a parade took place which featured a float whose ludicrous depictions of Jews were virtually the same as those seen in the pages of “Der Sturmer.” The float featured grotesque distortions of several Jews in religious garb complete with sidelocks sitting atop bags of money with a rat perched atop ones shoulder. It was anti-Semitism of the most virulent obscene kind that Julius Streicher himself would have been proud of. What makes this sickening display even more alarming is the official sanction given to it by the Mayor of Aalst; Christoph D’Haese who stated that “It’s not up to the mayor to forbid such displays,” and that the carnival participants had “no sinister intentions” . . . NO SINISTER INTENTIONS? I suppose one could say that Adolf Eichmann had no sinister intentions either. After all, he himself had no part in the actual killing process; he merely organized the transports to the death camps. He was just a man doing his job; no different from Mayor D’Haese of Aalst.

Here in the U.S. we have our own anti-Semitic scandal. Newly-elected Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, a Muslim immigrant from Somalia, has been tweeting a series of anti-Semitic tropes, which she has refused to apologize for or retract, and which has caused a great deal of controversy. What is extremely alarming is the inability of the Democratic party and its leadership to in any way try to condemn, censure or remove her from her position on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Indeed, just the opposite has occurred with Democrats from around the country, and even a number of Jews themselves, rushing to her defense. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi herself stated that “Her words were not based on any anti-Semitic attitude.” Really! Not too long ago, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan declared, “People call me an anti-Semite. Please. I’m not an anti-Semite; I’m anti-TERMITE.” One cannot help but wonder if Speaker Pelosi would say that Minister Farrakhan’s statement “was not based on any anti-Semitic attitude.” In refusing to repudiate Omar, Pelosi and the leadership of the Democratic party has unofficially endorsed her anti-Semitic tweets. Their silence is deafening. Defenders of the party will point out that Congress did pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism . . . as well as condemning Islamophobia . . . and ALL forms of hate against Hindus, Seikhs, LBGTQ’s and all people of color. But there have been no reported statements by any member of Congress against any of the aforementioned groups, except ONE . . . Ilhan Omar’s tweets concerning Jews. What would normally in the past have been a “no-brainer” for any Democrat, is suddenly taboo in this new age of political correctness, identity politics, and radical ideology. This is an indication of how far to the left the Democratic party has moved and attests to the nexus that exists between the radical left and Islamists.

As the Democratic party continues its lurch to the left, and all indications are that it will, invariably becoming even more anti-Zionist and by extension anti-Semitic; inevitably embracing the policies of organizations such as the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) Movement. To add insult to injury, there is a motion in the UN that was introduced in Jan 2019 by the Palestinian Authority to reinstate UN Resolution 3379; first adopted in 1975 and later revoked in 1991. That resolution declared that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.” There are no other people anywhere in the world, at any time in history that has this dubious distinction. When South Sudan gained its independence in 2011, after years of bloodshed, did ANYONE at the UN propose calling the national aspiration of the South Sudanese to their own homeland racist? The Kurds, an ethnic group indigenous to the Middle East whose population is scattered between Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey also aspire to their own national homeland, and NO ONE has called them racist. Only Israel and the Jews have that distinction. Make no mistake: Anti-Zionism IS anti-Semitism. The two terms have become conflated together. If you agree that Israel is as evil and repugnant as they say, then the ONLY possible remedy for such a racist apartheid fascist state is its TOTAL destruction; its Jewish population either exterminated or exiled.

This is how it begins. Slowly, surely, irrevocably, methodically, step by step, removing the constraints away from what was previously thought of as unacceptable. Get the population used to seeing and hearing various forms of anti-Semitism from parade floats to rhetoric on an almost daily basis. This normalization of Jew-hatred coupled with the refusal of politicians both here and abroad to seriously address the issue and choosing to defend the perpetrators, along with a left-wing media’s reluctance to adequately report on these events, makes the acceptance of anti-Semitism by the general public inevitable. Anti-Semitism has now gone mainstream. Look at what is happening in Europe today. In France, home to the 3rd largest Jewish population in the world, Jews are leaving in ever increasing numbers in response to a new wave of anti-Semitic incidents. In Britain, the openly anti-Semitic Jeremy Corbyn, head of the left-wing Labour party, is eagerly anticipating his own accession to power while Prime Minister Teresa May laments on how sad it is that British Jews feel they no longer have a future in Great Britain. American Jews, for their part, seem almost blissfully unaware of the tsunami of anti-Semitism that is engulfing Europe and will sooner or later make its way here with the same intensity we see in Europe. “We are safe here,” is a commonly heard refrain. “We are a civilized and cultured country with laws that protect us,” they claim. So are Britain and France. So was Germany during the two world wars. Germany, during the 1920’s and early 1930’s was generally regarded by many as the most advanced country on the planet; scientifically, culturally, and artistically. This was the country of Beethoven, Bach, Goethe, and Heine. German Jews considered themselves to be patriotic Germans. More than 100,000 of them had served in the German army during the first world war; some 30,000 of whom were decorated for bravery; yet, when their time came they walked into the gas chamber along with all the others. Many American Jews are almost totally ignorant of this fact. They continue to cling to their ancestral ideology; a combination of Progressivism, ultra-Liberalism, neo-Marxism, and the Jewish concept of “tikkun olam.” They ardently believe that the main threat to Jews today comes from the neo-Nazis and the KKK. While it is true that these groups do exist, they comprise only a small percentage of the population. Of course, there are both leftist Jewish and non-Jewish groups who would disagree with these statistics. They choose to lump all Republican Conservatives and anyone who disagrees with them into the category of neo-Nazis and right-wing hate-mongers. They ignore the real threat today that comes NOT from a maligned and numerically inferior neo-Nazi and KKK Movement, but from an unholy alliance of convenience between the radical left and Islamists; a fact most American Jews cannot and will not accept.

The radical left of today is playing for very high stakes. Ultimately, it is all about power and control. They will continue to spread their message of identity politics, victimhood, social justice, racism, anti-Zionism, and anti-Semitism in order to achieve these goals. They will continue to practice what has become known as the doctrine of intersectionality; which allows them to make common cause with any other group they perceive as “oppressed.” This is why you see anti-Israel and anti-Semitic signs displayed by just about every radical left group at demonstrations throughout the country. It is why a few years ago, activists in Ferguson, Missouri carried placards saying, “From Ferguson to Gaza; the struggle continues.” The vast majority of American Jews have gone along with these policies in keeping with the belief system of their forebearers. They are unable or unwilling to comprehend that their Progressive, Liberal, Neo-Marxist ideology has shifted its allegiance to those who seek the destruction of the Jewish state and by extension – the Jewish people.

American Jewry today is at a crossroads. In all probability the vast majority of American Jews will continue to cling to their ancestral belief system. It is what they are familiar with. It is what their parents and grandparents believed in. It is all they know. To change now would be to deny everything their family members and they, themselves, have lived for. But before they bury their heads in the sand once again, they should at least hear these simple truths. When our enemies came for us during the Holocaust, they did not ask if we were Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or secular Jews. Neither were they interested in any past service we may have rendered to the state. WE WERE JEWS! That was all that mattered; and if history repeats itself . . . when our enemies come for us once again in the future; they will not ask if we are Israelis or Zionists. They will not care that we marched in the Civil Rights Movement; protested against apartheid in South Africa; supported equal rights for women; advocated for the LBGTQ community, and campaigned for Hillary or Bernie. You will be a Jew – and that is all that will matter!

The anti-Semitism that has been unleashed today by the radical left and their Islamist allies is of a kind that is so visceral; so virulent; so vile; so vicious, and so vitriolic that it can no longer be justified under the guise of anti-Zionism. In form, content, and message, it is EXACTLY the same as that which was seen and heard during the heyday of the Third Reich. It is what made the Holocaust possible. What begins with a parade float in Aalst, Belgium, inevitably ends in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and Treblinka. This is the fate our enemies have in store for us. This is why Grand Ayatollah Khameini in Tehran rejoices that more Jews are moving to Israel; it will make it easier to find and kill us all when the time comes.

As for the Jews themselves, most of them will continue doing as they have always done, confident in the assurances of their religious and political leadership that “we are safe here.” They will continue to vote for, support and finance the party and the ideology that will ultimately lead them down the pathway to their own destruction and that of the state of Israel. Vladimir Jabotinsky was quite correct when he wrote about them decades ago: “The Jew learns not by way of reason, but from catastrophe. He won’t buy an umbrella merely because he sees clouds in the sky. He waits until he is drenched and catches pneumonia.” History may yet prove that when it comes to the Jews, Jabotinsky, was an optimist.

College president Rejects Motion to Suspend Israel Study Abroad Program backed by Antisemitic Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib

“Students and faculty of California’s Pitzer College voted Thursday to suspend the study abroad partnership with Israel’s University of Haifa, but college president Melvin Oliver is declining to take any action on the program, calling it an “academic boycott of Israel.”

In a slap in the face of Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib and her antisemitic followers the President of Pitzer college rejected a move backed by Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib to suspend the Israel abroad study program. This is more than the Democratic controlled Congress did in the face of Tlaib’s antisemitism. Thank you President Melvin Oliver.

Read the Free Beacon column:

College President Rejects Motion to Suspend Israel Study Abroad Program

Anti-Israel Pitzer College proposal backed by Rep. Rashida Tlaib

BY: Brent Scher

Students and faculty of California’s Pitzer College voted Thursday to suspend the study abroad partnership with Israel’s University of Haifa, but college president Melvin Oliver is declining to take any action on the program, calling it an “academic boycott of Israel.”

The anti-Israel proposal, backed by radical leftist groups and Democratic congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, won the support of the Pitzer College Council in a Thursday vote taken by both students and faculty. Oliver says the vote amounts only to a recommendation to the president and is declining to take it.

Oliver made numerous arguments against the proposal in a Thursday message to the academic community, including that it was “prejudiced” against Israel, would “curtail academic freedom,” and that it is not the school’s role to take political positions.

“Although some claim that this is not an academic boycott of Israel, I disagree,” Oliver wrote. “The recommendation puts in place a form of academic boycott of Israel and, in the process, sets us on a path away from the free exchange of ideas, a direction which ultimately destroys the academy’s ability to fulfill our educational mission. I categorically oppose any form of academic boycott of any country.”

READ MORE.

Florida: First Generation Pakistani Heart Doctor Defrauded Medicare to the Tune of $2.2 Million

And, the same newspaper that reported the news from Davenport, Florida had praised him to the heavens just a couple years before in a glowing article about how much the first generation Pakistani doctor was giving back to the community.

Editor: I haven’t written a Medicare fraud story for two weeks, not since this story about the Colorado fugitive Pharmacist! But, I’m glad to focus on one this morning.  Maybe I like these stories because I’m a senior and see around me friends and acquaintances getting all sorts of tests and procedures that strike me as unnecessary and possibly harmful.

I’m also writing it because I like the fact that a 75-year-old patient tipped-off the feds and will be getting a big reward for turning him in!

You don’t often see a photo of the doctor in stories like this, but because The Ledger featured him in a glowing “giving to the community” story in 2016, they had a picture.

So here is the story titled,

Davenport doctor settles health care fraud lawsuit for $2.2M

From The Ledger,

DAVENPORT — A Davenport doctor and his vascular surgery practice paid more than $2.2 million to settle allegations of health care fraud for filing false claims to federal health programs.

According to U.S. Attorney Maria Chapa Lopez in a media release issued by the United States Attorney’s Office Middle District of Florida, Dr. Irfan Siddiqui and the Heart & Vascular Institute of Florida in Davenport violated the False Claims Act by submitting claims from Jan. 2, 2011 to June 30, 2018 for medically unnecessary and non-Medicare reimbursable vein ablations that were up-coded to reflect they were medically necessary so the doctor and the practice would profit.

[….]

In federal case documents filed with the U.S. District Court Middle District of Tampa, the lawsuit said the claims filed by Siddiqui and the medical practice also contained false diagnoses and symptoms, and notes the vein ablation procedures were performed by unqualified personnel, such as ultrasound technologists and therapists, and not the doctor himself.

According to court documents, Lois Hawks, 75, a former patient from Winter Haven, was the plaintiff in the case, represented by Nicholson & Eastin, LLP in Fort Lauderdale. Attorney Robert N. Nicholson said Hawks “is very grateful that the United States Attorney’s Office aggressively pursued her allegations, and that a significant recovery resulted from their efforts.”

Siddiqui’s attorney, Saqib Ishaq, did not respond to emails from The Ledger.

[….]

Civil court documents filed say that Hawks went to Siddiqui with pain and redness in her left ankle. She first visited Siddiqui on Oct. 14, 2014, on a referral from her podiatrist for evaluation and treatment.

Go to The Ledger for an account of what she experienced over the next several months.

The Ledger then wraps with this line,

Hawks received $446,000 as a statutory relator’s share in the recovery.

press release from the US Justice Department explains that Ms. Hawks received the reward under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act.

I wrote about qui tam here.

As a loving friend and family member, keep an eye on those doctors. And, if you suspect fraud involving medicare or medicaid help them report it!  

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

Let’s Get Serious About What Constitutes a National Emergency

Let’s get serious. If hundreds of thousands of unvetted illegal aliens storming our southern border is not a national emergency what is?

Leftists don’t consider open borders a national emergency because they welcome illegal hordes into America to overwhelm the welfare system, collapse the economy, and vote illegally to insure one-party Democrat dominance. It is their preferred road to destroying America from within and imposing socialism.

Sharia compliant Muslims do not consider it a national emergency because hundreds of thousands of their sharia compliant Muslim Brotherhood brethren are pouring in determined to replace our Constitution with sharia law and establish an Islamic caliphate on United States soil.

Drug dealers do not consider open borders a national emergency because their product can be brought into the country easily without fear of incarceration.

Gang members do not consider open borders a national emergency because their murderous brethren can cross the border and be protected in sanctuary cities.

Human traffickers do not consider open borders a national emergency because open borders makes selling young girls into sex slavery far simpler.

Robert Mueller does not consider open borders a national emergency. He was FBI director for almost five years under Obama and oversaw the resettlement of 47,000 Somali refugees into Minnesota when vetting refugees from countries with hostile norms should have been a national priority.

Organizations in the resettlement industry like Church World Services, Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and the National Association of Evangelicals World Relief Corp that have been paid tens of millions of dollars in federal funds do not consider open borders a national emergency because refugee resettlement is big business.

The nine federal refugee contractors that are the core of the Refugee Council USA (RCUSA), the lobbying arm of the refugee industry, do not consider open borders a national emergency because the more refugees that are admitted the more money they make.

  • Church World Services (CWS)
  • Ethiopian Community Development Council (ECDC) (secular)
  • Episcopal Migration Ministries (EMM)
  • Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS)
  • International Rescue Committee (IRC) (secular)
  • US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) (secular)
  • Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services (LIRS)
  • United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)
  • World Relief Corporation (WR)

The RCUSA marched for Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Brotherhood’s propaganda organization, and paid lobbying firm Podesta Group $100,000 to lobby Congress in 2017. Investigative reporter Michael Leahy reports, “The Podesta Group’s proposal stated, “Our primary targets will be Republicans-and some key Democrats who work well across the aisle-who sit on committees of jurisdiction and whose responsibilities include refugee and asylum policies.”

Targets specifically identified in the memo included Senator Flake on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senators Graham, Rubio, Murkowski, and Collins, all on the Senate Appropriations Committee. Today, Nancy Pelosi has appointed Muslim Brotherhood spokeswomen Ilhan Omar to the Foreign Relations Committee and Rashida Tlaib to the Senate Appropriations Committee. They will not require expensive lobbying to support open borders.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) does not consider open borders a national emergency. In fact, the UNHCR is one of the loudest voices promoting mass immigration and colonization to erase America.

Globalists do not consider open borders a national emergency because their primary goal is the obliteration of national sovereignty and territorial boundaries everywhere in the world.

United States Senators swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution and are duty bound to secure our territorial borders. So, who are these politicians who have broken their promise to America and why have they refused to define the invasion on our southern border as a national emergency?

Every Democrat senator voted against President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency on the southern border. No surprise there.

12 senate Republicans in name only (RINOs) voted against President Trump. You can call them yourself and ask them why.

  • Lamar Alexander (R-TN) – 202-224-4944
  • Mitt Romney (R-UT) – 202-224-5251
  • Mike Lee (R-UT) – 202-224-5444
  • Rand Paul (R-KY) – 202-224-4343
  • Susan Collins (R-ME) – 202-224-2523
  • Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) – 202-224-5301
  • Pat Toomey (R-PA) – 202-224-4254
  • Jerry Moran (R-KS) – 202-224-6521
  • Rob Portman (R-OH) – 202-224-3353
  • Roger Wicker (R-MS) – 202-224-6253
  • Marco Rubio (R_FL) – 202-224-3041
  • Roy Blunt (R-MO) – 202-224-5721

Any serious discussion about our southern border crisis has to acknowledge that a whopping 70% of Americans know that illegal immigration is a national emergency that threatens our national security and social stability. President Trump was elected to secure the southern border and build a wall. So, why would 59 senators sworn to support and defend the Constitution vote to nullify President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency?

To answer that question we must evaluate the ideological and financial goals of the senators who voted.

Corrupt politicians are easy to understand – like any whore their favors are paid for.

Ideological motivations are far more difficult and troubling to explore. Sadly, in contemporary America it is no longer realistic to assume that US Senators sworn to support and defend the Constitution and our representative democracy are ideologically dedicated to the Constitution and our representative democracy. This is no small thing considering the future of America will be determined by their votes.

Americanism is represented by President Trump and the 41 Senators who supported the President’s national emergency declaration. They are all dedicated to upholding the Constitution and preserving our representative democracy. They pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands.

The Leftist/Islamist/Globalist axis has common cause to dismantle the Constitution and destroy representative democracy in America. The 59 Senators who voted to nullify President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency voted against upholding the Constitution and preserving our representative democracy. Whether motivated by personal animus, money, Socialism, Islamism, or Globalism, they have all pledged their allegiance to the global flag of the United Nations and to the one world government for which it stands.

59 American senators pledging allegiance to the global flag of one world government is the national emergency. Americans must get serious about what constitutes a national emergency because the 2020 presidential election will determine which flag will be raised on inauguration day.

EDITORS NOTE: This Goudsmit Pundicity column is republished with permission.

School Tries Concealing Drag Makeup Day

“You did what?!” Parents across Santa Ana couldn’t believe it. In one house after another, the answer to “How was school today?” was nothing like they expected. Moms and dads listened in disbelief as their middle schoolers talked about going to an “LGBT Fair” that no one bothered to ask their permission for. There were even people in drag, their 11-year-olds said, giving make-up lessons — right there in school.

Townhall’s Kira Davis listened as one mom fumed about not knowing about the fair until after it happened. There wasn’t even an opportunity to opt-out, she complained at last Tuesday’s school board meeting. Unfortunately, that was just one of the infuriating examples the largely-Hispanic community used to explain how fed-up they were with the state’s new sex ed law. But the problem is a lot bigger than the law, Davis explained. It’s how liberals are exploiting the Spanish-speaking communities to implement it.

In one of the more fiery exchanges of the night, a mom seethed that so many liberals were trying to marginalize California’s multi-ethnic communities. “How can a state that claims to be so much for the rights of immigrants and minorities then ignore our concerns on purpose? They are hypocrites!” Although California’s law does order schools to offer the curriculum outline in both languages, Santa Ana hasn’t made the Spanish materials available to parents. Hardly an accident, Kira argues, since most of the communities like this one are “whole-heartedly opposed to LGBT-based sex-ed.”

One thing’s for sure: The more radical the social policy, the greater the opportunity for conservatives. Santa Ana’s meeting room was bursting with the latest evidence that Democrats have a huge problem on their hands, especially when it comes to abortion and sex ed. What’s even more insulting, these parents pointed out, is how liberals are purposefully taking advantage of them — deceptively leaving families in the dark because they know “this particular community would absolutely not approve of the more graphic elements.” Not to mention, Kira goes on, “the unmonitored discussions” on gender and sexuality.

Like a lot of other California districts, these parents have reached their boiling point. Tuesday’s meeting was so jam-packed that even the overflow rooms could barely hold the families. Holding signs that read, “No SeXXEd!” moms and dads fended off the ACLU attorneys who’d been farmed out across the state to handle complaints. Later, parents were even more furious to find out that four of the five people who testified in favor of the curriculum didn’t even live in the district!

In between emotional testimonies, Kira was appalled at how condescending board members were, firing back hostile — and at times, demeaning — answers. “As an outside observer, I was terribly vexed by how dismissive and deceptive school authorities were to this particular group of parents. It was clear they did not believe immigrant Hispanic parents were engaged or informed enough to be welcomed into the process.”

“All these people were asking for was a say, a chance to be involved, to be heard and to be active participants in the education of their children. They were asking for respect and instead received nothing but contempt and disrespect from the very people they trust to care for the development of their students.” But, she warns, “If you think this is just another case of ‘whacky’ California paying the price for their ‘whacky’ voting habits, think again. This is coming to a state and a school district near you.”

Are you prepared for that day? Make sure you’ve read FRC’s “A Parent’s Guide to the Transgender Movement in Education” — and share it with your friends.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Sharifa Alkhateeb Talks About Using Public Schools to Convert America to Islam

Houston MassResistance exposes “Drag Queen Story Hour” cross-dresser as registered child sex offender! Library officials forced to apologize to public.

Drag Queen Storytime Reader Previously Charged with Sexual Assault of a Child Under the Age of 14

New Mexico Exposes Big Canyons on Left

Hungary for More: ‘Making Families Great Again’

Calling Our Louisiana Friends!

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission.

Don Blankenship Hammers Establishment Media And D.C. Elites In Sweeping $12 Billion Legal Action

WILLIAMSON, W.Va.March 15, 2019 /PRNewswire/ — On March 14, 2019, coal baron and recent Republican U.S. Senate Candidate from West Virginia Don Blankenship filed a lawsuit against major news outlets across the political spectrum, some of their personalities and officials from the National Republican Senate Committee alleging defamation and interfering in a federal election. It is believed to be one of the largest and most sweeping defamation cases ever to be filed.

For further information:

Mr. Blankenship’s attorney Eric Early of Early, Sullivan, Wright, Gizer, & McRae LLP has offered up quotes below.

“This is a groundbreaking defamation case punctuated by collusion to interfere in a federal election by major media outlets and high-ranking United States Senators. There has never been a case like this that clearly exposes the D.C. swamp elite.”

“This is further proof that the mainstream media has officially crossed over from being ‘fake news’ to ‘totally incompetent news.'”

“Here you have a guy, ‘Judge’ Napolitano that Fox News represents as their ‘legal expert,’ supposedly an attorney and retired judge and yet at the time of his statements, remarkably turned a misdemeanor into someone being jailed for manslaughter.  Pretty sad for a ‘news outlet.'”

“Granted, some things over the past several years that have been labeled as ‘fake news’ may be somewhat subjective – but saying that Mr. Blankenship was jailed for manslaughter and calling him a felon is TOTALLY fake news.”

“On some occasions, the media has tried to hide behind the defense that their target is a public figure.  But that doesn’t work when you outright maliciously lie and exhibit reckless regard for the truth.”

“The defendants in this case are one of three things – 100% dishonest, totally incompetent, or all of the above.”

“The McConnell swamp saw Mr. Blankenship take the lead in the polls and panicked. Many of the false statements, all repeating the same slur that Don’s a felon, were deployed in the week before the primary after Mr. Blankeship took the lead. At the end of the day, these media outlets and some of the swamp politicians including Mitch McConnell and Senator Thune are alleged to have set out on a reckless campaign to defame Mr. Blankenship and to interfere in a federal election.”

“This is how the out of touch political elite like Mitch McConnell and the old line establishment media keep good people from running for office.  The founding fathers set it up so that every day people who are the heart and soul of our nation, like school teachers, small business people, farmers, those retired, and even working class folks such as coal miners like Mr. Blankenship was as a teenager – could run for office, serve the public then go back to their profession after they have served the people as their representative.  The way it works now is the establishment politicians have created an elite class whose top priority is protecting themselves, raising money to stay in power, and continuing to live in their political bubble separate and apart from the rest of us.  They have little interest in serving the people.  It’s a game to them and when non-professional politicians want to step up and serve, they gang up to keep the people out.  The almost singular focus of the professional politicians is to keep themselves in power, and is one of the reasons why our great country is $22 Trillion in debt, for all practical purposes broke.  The professional political class, many of whom have barely held a day job in their lives and who have instead spent their time doing anything possible to become entrenched politicians, have created the mess and have no plan to get us out of it.”

“As for Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and the other defendants in this case, when they represent themselves as a news outlet or news sources, the public’s reasonable expectation is that they are indeed ‘credible’ news outlets.  And yet they have the audacity to lie about facts that are easily ‘google-ible.’ These fake news outlets are going to have to decide at some point whether they are actual news or entertainment channels.  There is a BIG difference.”

“Regarding the tragic Upper Big Branch Mine incident, one thing you should know right up front is that Don Blankenship was never charged with or accused of causing the death of any miners.  In the case of the Upper Big Branch Mine explosion, the death of 29 minors was found to be the result of the Obama administration’s regulations that required the mine to change its air flow volume.  Mr. Blankenship was the CEO of a large company that operated 119 mines at the time of the incident.  Don Blankenship hadn’t been at that particular mine in over 10 years. To say Don is responsible for the explosion is like saying the CEO of United Airlines was responsible for 9-11. It has since been documented that the air-flow regulations placed on the Upper Big Branch Mine by the Obama Administration lead to the explosion.  In fact, if any news outlet wants to make the accusation that Mr. Blankenship is the culpable party for the deaths, they will be welcomed onto our list of defendants.”

SOURCE: Early, Sullivan, Wright, Gizer, & McRae LLP 

Activist Court Turns the Law Designed to Protect the Firearm Industry from Frivolous Lawsuits on its Head

On Thursday, the Connecticut Supreme Court created a dangerous new exception to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a strong safeguard for our right to keep and bear arms.

Repealing or judicially nullifying the PLCAA has been a priority for the gun ban lobby ever since the law was enacted in 2005. Thursday’s decision, while not binding beyond Connecticut, provides a possible roadmap for those hoping to circumvent the PLCAA’s protections against frivolous and untested legal claims against the firearm industry.

The case is Soto v. Bushmaster.

The PLCAA was enacted to protect the firearms industry against a highly-orchestrated and coordinated series of lawsuits that sought to either bankrupt the industry or force it to “voluntarily” adopt the sorts of measures gun control activists had unsuccessfully sought to impose by legislation.

While anti-gunners like to portray the PLCAA as providing “extraordinary” or “unparalleled” legal protection to gun makers and sellers, in reality it simply ensures that activist courts cannot create a firearm-specific exemption to well established principles of law. The most important of these is, as the Connecticut Supreme Court put it, “the general rule that an individual cannot be held liable for the conduct of others.”

Gun control activists, however, have long sought to hold firearm manufacturers and sellers accountable for the crimes of third-parties who obtain and illegally use the guns they sell. The theory would be similar to the victim of a drunk driver suing the manufacturer or dealer of the vehicle the driver happened to be operating at time.

This theory is unsurprisingly almost always a legal loser, absent unusual circumstances demonstrating a link between the merchant and the criminal or specific warning signs the merchant was aware of but chose to ignore when selling the gun to the person who later misused it.

Nevertheless, winning the cases was never really the point. The point was instead to get enough litigants in different jurisdictions to gang up on the manufacturers so that they would go out of business or give up defending the lawsuits before the cases ever got before a jury.

The PLCAA put an end to this, while still allowing for liability for those who knowingly engage in bad conduct. For example, it contains exceptions for marketing a defective product, entrusting a firearm or ammunition to someone unfit to have it, or breaking a law “applicable to the sale or marketing of the [firearm or ammunition],” and thereby causing the plaintiff’s injuries.

The plaintiffs in Soto v. Bushmaster are survivors and representatives of those killed in the terrible murders at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. in 2012.

They advanced a variety of legal theories as to why the PLCAA did not apply to their claims.

A trial judge dismissed all of these claims in an October 2016 ruling, which we reported on at the time.

The plaintiffs then appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which in a closely divided 4 to 3 ruling, found a pathway for the case to proceed.

The high court’s majority opinion focused on the exception for the violation of laws “applicable to the sale or marketing of the [firearm or ammunition]” that result in the plaintiff’s injuries.

In so doing, it had to resolve the question of whether that exception applies only to gun specific laws (like the ones used as examples in the act itself) or whether it could apply to any law that might conceivably be invoked against the manufacture or sale of a firearm or ammunition.

The court chose the broadest reading of that language, finding that it applied to any law used to bring a case against a firearm manufacturer or seller, whether or not that law was enacted with firearms in mind or even whether or not it had previously been used in the context of a firearm related claim.

The law the plaintiffs invoked was the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), which prohibits any person from “engag[ing] in unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”

The plaintiffs advanced two theories as to how this applied to the defendants’ behavior.

First, they asserted that any sale of an AR-15 to the civilian population was necessarily a fraudulent commercial practice, because (so they claimed) such firearms have no legitimate civilian use.

Never mind the fact that the AR-15 is, by all accounts, the most popular centerfire rifle in America, that it is owned by millions of law-abiding people who use it for every legitimate purpose for which a gun can be used.

It is also notable with respect to this claim that Congress enacted the PLCAA the year after it allowed the Clinton Gun Ban to expire in 2004. Congress was well aware that gun control advocates hate AR-15s and similar guns and want them permanently banned, but it did not exempt them from the PLCAA’s protection. Indeed, an important principle underlying the PLCAA is that the legislatures get to determine how to regulate firearms, not the courts.

The Connecticut Supreme Court, however, did not decide whether the sales and marketing of AR-15s to the general public is inherently fraudulent, finding only that the statute of limitations had expired on that particular claim. But the court at least left the door open for future such claims in other cases.

The second CUTPA theory the plaintiffs advanced was the outrageous accusation that Bushmaster intentionally marketed its version of the AR-15 to school shooters and other violent criminals and that the perpetrator of the Newtown crimes choose to use that gun at least in part because of this.

The supposed evidence the plaintiffs used for this claim was Remington ad copy that used militaristic images and language, appeals to patriotism, references to the gun’s use and proofing in combat.

These are, of course, the same advertising techniques used to sell any number of other lawful products to law-abiding people, from pants, to sunglasses, to boots, to vehicles.  The fact that a customer might appreciate knowing that an item – especially one for use in protecting his or her home and loved ones – performed well under demanding circumstances is hardly proof that it is purposely being marketed to deranged killers.

But that premise was enough for the Connecticut Supreme Court to require the defendants in the case to spend millions of dollars defending themselves from what is certain to be prolonged and costly litigation that publicly portrays the companies and their products in the most negative ways possible.

This was so, even though the majority acknowledged CUTPA had never been used to bring a firearm-related case in Connecticut and indeed had never even been applied to a personal injury case.

And if there was any remaining doubt about where the majority stood on the issue of AR-15s, they also included a totally unnecessary commentary suggesting the limits of the Second Amendment, which wasn’t even raised as an issue in the case. In particular, the court opined, “It is not at all clear … the second amendment’s protections even extend to the types of … rifles at issue in the present case.”

To their credit, three judges dissented from the majority opinion as it applied to the ability to use CUTPA to circumvent the PLCAA, even as they indicated their own disagreement with the choices Congress made with the Act.  “It is not the province of this court, under the guise of statutory interpretation, to legislate a particular policy, even if it were to agree that it is a better policy than the one endorsed by the legislature as reflected in its statutory language,” the Chief Judge wrote in his dissent.

With the viability of the PLCAA now in jeopardy, it is likely the defendants will appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Whether any intervention comes quickly enough to save the gun industry from a renewed campaign of frivolous litigation remains to be seen.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Governor Bevin Signs NRA-backed Constitutional Carry

Yesterday’s Scandal, Today’s Mandate: Anti-gunner Embraces Operation Choke Point as Official Policy

Kentucky Governor Welcomes NRA to Bill Signing Ceremony

Canada’s Senate Holds Hearings on “Rube Goldberg” Gun Control Law, Bill C-71

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission.

Kitten Act Scratches at the Surface of Hypocrisy

What do cats have that newborn babies don’t? Democrats’ support. In one of the sickest ironies no one is talking about, Senate liberals picked this moment — 17 days after they voted to kill America’s perfectly healthy infants — to fight for the humane treatment of kittens. Maybe the DNC’s strategists are out to lunch, or maybe the Left really is this shameless, but I can’t wait to see some of these politicians standing on debate platforms next year telling the American people that when it comes to protecting living things: We chose cats over kids.

For sponsors like Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the optics are nauseating. Here he is, arguing that America “must stop killing kittens,” when, three weeks ago, he stood in the U.S. Capitol and agreed with 43 Democrats that human beings should be put down. “The USDA’s decision to slaughter kittens after they are used in research is an archaic practice and horrific treatment, and we need to end it,” Merkley said with a passion that he and his colleagues couldn’t muster for a generation of perfectly healthy newborns. His Kittens in Traumatic Testing Ends Now — or KITTEN – Act wouldn’t stop the research, but it would keep the animals from being destroyed.

“The KITTEN Act will protect these innocent animals from being needlessly euthanized in government testing,” Merkley told reporters, “and make sure that they can be adopted by loving families instead.” Does he even hear himself? They should be treated and adopted? That’s exactly what Americans have requested for living, breathing babies. Democrats said no. Killing a child is a “personal decision,” they said, and Congress shouldn’t get in the way. What a comfort for abortion survivors like Melissa Ohden to know that, given the choice, Democrats would save a stray cat over her.

“The fact that we need a piece of legislation to tell the federal government to stop killing kittens is ridiculous on its face,” Congressman Brian Mast (R-Fla.) argued. But “ridiculous” doesn’t begin to describe a party that tells America to back away from the tables of crying newborns while it rushes to the rescue of kittens instead. I suppose we should also tell firefighters when they run into burning houses to look for the pets first? After all, on the Democrats’ sliding scale of “wantedness,” shouldn’t we find out how loved someone is before we decide if they’re worth saving?

Meanwhile, as if legal infanticide isn’t revolting enough, House Democrats have decided Americans should pay for it. In what’s turning out to be a test for the most unpopular majority in history, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) chamber is pushing a bill that would force a country who overwhelmingly opposes late-term abortion to bankroll it – along with abortions in any trimester. Rep. Diane DeGette (D-Colo.), another liberal who can’t seem to take taxpayers’ “No!” for an answer, is trying to overturn the Hyde amendment. “It’s just important as we move forward that we pass legislation that honors women’s reproductive health and their decisions,” she said.

But what about honoring taxpayers — two-thirds of whom fiercely oppose the idea of financing the Left’s killing machine? And that includes “pro-choicers.” Although the bill doesn’t stand a chance in the Senate, it could still make history. If Pelosi keeps up with the Left’s tone-deafness and brings DeGette’s bill up for the vote, it would be the first time the House has voted to overturn Hyde in history.

While House and Senate Democrats seem obsessed with taking lives, at least one court is helping states protect them. In what may turn out to be the ruling that turned the Supreme Court tide, the Sixth Circuit Court sided with Ohio in defunding Planned Parenthood. For three years, the Buckeyes have been fighting to redirect the $1.5 million for abortion providers to real health clinics. Buckeye leaders, including former Governor John Kasich, were sick of “using abortion providers as the face of state health care programs.” A lower court said too bad. But 11 judges on the Sixth Circuit disagreed, insisting that Ohio’s law doesn’t violate the Constitution “because the affiliates do not have a due process right to perform abortions.”

And while President Trump didn’t have anything to do with the ruling, he had plenty to do with the people who made it. Four of the 11 judges who defended Ohio’s law were appointed by this White House. If you’re wondering how much this administration’s commitment to nominations matters, this is proof. There are men and women on benches across America today who are literally saving lives because this president made the courts a priority. Thanks to Donald Trump, pro-lifers know better than anyone: you don’t need Congress to win on life.

However, we are pushing Congress to pass the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. In the U.S. House, congressional leaders may not yet see the light, but they will see thousands of newborn baby hats – thanks to all of you who’ve supported our End Birth Day Abortion campaign. If you haven’t had a chance to add your voice, click over to our website and join us!


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

The Pronouns That Can Slow Down Foster Homes

Pentagon Marches forward with Trans Change

RELATED VIDEO: Abby Johnson DESTROYS Abortion Arguments at Hearing.

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission.

Southern Poverty Law Center Founder Ousted, Rumors Suggest Internal Racial Problems

“Morris (Dees) is a flimflam man and he’s managed to flimflam his way along for many years raising money by telling people about the Ku Klux Klan and hate groups.” – (Stephen Bright, Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta)


I don’t usually bother posting stories that are widely published, but this one is very much worth posting so that the story doesn’t get swept under the rug.

Your job is going to be to make sure this news is sent to every newspaper that has swallowed the Southern Poverty Law Center propaganda in its latest “hate list” hit.

I’ll be sending it to the Patch in Annapolis that recently listed my old blog, Refugee Resettlement Watch, as a hate “group” taking the SPLC‘s word for it and never contacting me!  See SPLC targeting me again, here.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW rare photo of Morris Dees (left) and SPLC Prez Richard Cohen together.It seems to me that if the workplace was uncomfortable for women and people of color (as some allege) that the blame extends to Cohen as well.

Here is how the story begins at the LA Times (news overnight). Emphasis is mine,

Southern Poverty Law Center fires co-founder Morris Dees amid employee uproar

The Southern Poverty Law Center has fired its famed co-founder, Morris Dees, over unspecified misconduct, the nonprofit announced Thursday, a stunning development at an organization that became a bedrock of anti-extremism research and activism under nearly half a century of Dees’ leadership.

While the organization’s leadership did not disclose the reason for Dees’ departure, staff at its headquarters in Montgomery, Ala., were told in an internal email that “although he made unparalleled contributions to our work, no one’s contributions can excuse that person’s inappropriate conduct.”

The Times has also learned that the organization, whose leadership is predominantly white, has been wrestling with complaints of workplace mistreatment of women and people of color. It was not immediately clear whether those issues were connected to the firing of Dees, who is 82.

Also Thursday, employees sent correspondence to management demanding reforms, expressing concerns about the resignation last week of a highly respected black attorney at the organization and criticizing the organization’s work culture.

A letter signed by about two dozen employees — and sent to management and the board of directors before news broke of Dees’ firing — said they were concerned that internal “allegations of mistreatment, sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and racism threaten the moral authority of this organization and our integrity along with it.”

In a public statement, Richard Cohen, president of the SPLC, announced that an outside organization would be hired immediately “to conduct a comprehensive assessment of our internal climate and workplace practices, to ensure that our talented staff is working in the environment that they deserve — one in which all voices are heard and all staff members are respected.”

Dees co-founded the Southern Poverty Law Center in 1971 and gained notoriety by suing members of the Ku Klux Klan, which resulted in the anti-hate organization’s offices being firebombed in 1983.

The article suggests that Dees role in recent years was in fundraising, so if there are complaints about the work environment it seems to me that falls directly on Richard Cohen, right?

The Times continues….

In recent years, according to the center’s internal email to staff, Dees’ role has been focused on “donor relations” — expanding the Southern Poverty Law Center’s financial resources, which nearly totaled half a billion dollars in assets in 2017, according to the group’s most recently available public financial disclosures.

Dees has not been involved in the liberal-leaning organization’s “programmatic initiatives,” such as the Hatewatch blog. Cohen is the top leader most often featured and interviewed in the press as the organization has geared up to face a far-right movement that has grown energized in recent years. (Cohen did not respond to requests for further comment.)

Over his more than 40 years at the Southern Poverty Law Center, Dees formed coalitions with major civil rights groups, including the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, and his departure took some civil rights leaders by surprise.

Uh-oh!  Racism at the SPLC? Say it isn’t so!

The center has faced complaints in the past that it does not employ enough black staffers.

In an internal email to the organization’s legal department announcing her departure last Friday, a black attorney suggested the center needed to create a more inclusive work environment.

“As a woman of color, the experiences of staff of color and female staff have been particularly important to me … and we recognize that there is more work to do in the legal department and across the organization to ensure that SPLC is a place where everyone is heard and respected and where the values we are committed to pursuing externally are also being practiced internally,” she wrote.

The stories were legion!  I guess they were only legion to the Leftwing ‘human rights’ gang until now.

See this juicy nugget at the end of the LA Times story,

Stephen Bright, a Yale law professor and former director of the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta, has long questioned what he calls the center’s “fraudulent” fundraising.

“The chickens have had a very long trip, but they finally came home to roost,” Bright said.

 

“Morris is a flimflam man and he’s managed to flimflam his way along for many years raising money by telling people about the Ku Klux Klan and hate groups,” he said. “He sort of goes to whatever will sell and has, of course, brought in millions and millions and millions of dollars.”

While the SPLC funded some good work, Bright said, he had long heard complaints about race discrimination and sexual harassment from the center’s former attorneys and interns.

“It’s remarkable,” he said, “how many people who have worked at the center have not spoken very well of the center after they left.”

There is more, click here.

This post is filed in my ‘Charity fraud’ category.

My suggestion for what you need to do is above, but I’ll repeat it.  You must spread this story as far and wide as you can.  And, every time you see the SPLC mentioned in your local newspaper send them the story, preferably a story from a bigger newspaper like this one at the LA Times.

College Admissions Scandal Is Likely Tip of the Iceberg

The recently disclosed college admissions scandal has angered everyone because it involves the classic vices of greed, lying, subterfuge, dirty money, snitches, and cheating. It also underscores the notion that the rich play by a different set of rules, and that the college admissions process is not based on merit.

By unsealing the indictment and criminal complaint against 50 people, the Department of Justice pulled back the curtain on the whole sordid underworld of side-door, backroom, dirty deals reached by select parents, coaches, college board administrators, and others who allegedly put status and greed over fairness and merit.

Each defendant, who is presumed innocent, faces serious criminal consequences given the information contained in the indictment and criminal complaint.

And this may be just the tip of the iceberg.

The case centers on William Singer, the owner of a college counseling company in Newport Beach, California. Unlike other college counseling companies, Singer provided unique services that guaranteed admission of less-than-average students to the college of their parents’ choice through, as he termed it, the “side door.”

The side door involved bribing college coaches to admit students (not actual student athletes) as recruited athletes, cheating on SAT/ACT exams by paying off select administrators of those exams, doctoring grades, and more. In return for these services, parents paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to Singer’s fake charity, and some then took the tax deduction the next year.

Right after Singer was caught by the FBI and decided to become a cooperating witness, he tipped off some of his clients, which is why Singer was also charged with obstruction of justice. What we don’t know yet is who he tipped off, what was said, what actions (if any) those people took as a result of the tip, and whether more charges are forthcoming.

As a cooperating witness, Singer (thus living up to his last name) told the feds about his scam, and agreed to a series of recorded phone conversations with unsuspecting client parents regarding their ongoing conspiracy. Portions of those recorded conversations are contained in the complaint, and give the reader an unvarnished view into the quid pro quo nature of the scam.

Singer’s pitch was a simple business proposition: Name the college you want your kid to attend, get your kid a fake diagnosis of a learning disability, petition the college board for extra time to take the SAT/ACT because of the learning disability, Singer gets a fixer to take the exam for the student or “correct” the student’s exam at one of two special testing sites, work with Singer on a fake athlete profile for your kid, and pay Singer the money he required—and presto, your kid is admitted to the college of his or her choice as a “recruited athlete.”

Over an eight-year period, Singer conspired with dozens of parents to get their lackluster students into elite colleges and universities. He bragged about it to his clients. The Justice Department documents mention Stanford University, Yale University, the University of Southern California, Wake Forest University, the University of San Diego, the University of Texas, UCLA, and Georgetown University.

We don’t know what other schools Singer placed students into over the years, what other parents he conspired with, and how many other college coaches, administrators, or persons he worked with to achieve his nefarious business purpose. But there certainly are others, which is why the U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts mentioned that there may be more charges. Count on it.

Singer is facing a long time in jail, even though he pled guilty. He was charged in a criminal information with racketeering conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of justice, RICO forfeiture, and money laundering. He had a strong incentive to take a plea and become a cooperating witness. No doubt he expects the sentencing judge to go easy on him when he is sentenced, but he very likely will do substantial prison time regardless of any sentence reduction.

The charges against the parents include conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, each of which carries a maximum sentence, if convicted, of no more than 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and a fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss. The charges against the coaches and teachers include racketeering conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) and carry the same sentence.

This case is just getting started. Several of the spouses, who were recorded in phone conversations, were not charged. Why? Either because they didn’t commit a crime, or because the government decided that not charging them at this time gives the government leverage over the indicted spouse.

It is certainly possible that as the government develops other facts, and as defendants weigh their options and decide to cooperate, other defendants may be charged. Furthermore, as individual colleges conduct internal investigations, they may uncover facts that they will turn over to the government, who in turn may charge more individuals.

Who are the victims, if any, at this point? Certainly those actual student athletes who had a reasonable shot at gaining admission into those schools during that recruiting year, who were denied that recruited athlete slot because it was rigged in favor of a privileged kid.

Perhaps there are other students of merit who applied to colleges but were denied admission, or were deferred, because these (and others we don’t know about) were granted admission based on bogus credentials. Time will tell.

Stand by for more, as other shoes are likely to drop.

COMMENTARY BY

Cully Stimson

Charles “Cully” Stimson is a leading expert in national security, homeland security, crime control, immigration and drug policy at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and the Center for National Defense. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Parents Embroiled in College Scam Gave Democrats Twice as Much as Republicans

Students Cheat Using Moe’s Coursework Completion Services



EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.

VIDEO: Hawaii Signs Resolution To Abolish the Second Amendment

Hawaii may have just eclipsed California, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York as the most anti-gun, anti-freedom states in the Union. Abolishing the Second Amendment is about as un-American as you can get.

RELATED ARTICLES:

TX State Senator Introduces Bill To Ignore Federal Gun Laws

160 Gun Control Bills Sit in New York’s State Legislature

“The Protected Class” Are Hypocrites of the Highest Degree

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column with video is republished with permission.

VIDEO: Nick Sandmann vs Media Giants

Linwood Pc and #ReformOurMedia published the following comments and video on YouTube:

BOY vs GIANTS: They Messed With the Wrong Kid! Covington Student, Nicholas Sandmann, Is Taking On the Goliath Corporations that Smeared His Good Name and Endangered His Life and Future. Please Watch. Like. Share. Care.

RELATED ARTICLE: Lawyer for Covington Catholic teen Nick Sandmann releases video slamming CNN, WaPo, as lawsuits proceed (Watch)