How The Obama Era Department Of Justice Is Funding Left Wing Liberal Lunatics To Further Their Own Political Agenda.


Ideas have consequences. In 2013, during the preliminary investigation for the
book, Extortion GAI researchers detected a pattern of federal lawsuits and settlements
brought by a newly created office within the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ. Assistant
Attorney General Tom Perez made the DOJ’s intentions clear in his January 14, 2010 speech to the Rainbow PUSH Coalition – Annual Wall Street Conference.

Mr. Perez stated: “Fair lending is a top priority for the Civil Rights Division, and I have taken a number of critical steps to ensure that we put our best forward. I have hired a Special Counsel for Fair Lending to spearhead our efforts. We are also establishing a
dedicated Fair Lending unit within the Division’s Housing Section. The unit will root
out lending discrimination in all forms.”

In remarks at the Brookings Institution Perez stated:
The establishment of the Fair Lending Unit, with dedicated attorneys, economists,
investigators, support staff and a Special Counsel for Fair Lending, ensure that fair
lending issues receive immediate attention and high priority.
The unit already has 50 matters open, including 18 investigations. We have
identified large, mid-size and small lenders as targets of enforcement efforts and
those targets include national, regional and local actors.

What Mr. Perez did not say in these comments was that millions of dollars would
eventually be handed over, no strings attached, to activist nonprofits.
The DOJ began to file lawsuits against financial institutions based on evidence of
unfair lending practices. With the threat of protracted litigation and bad press looming, the DOJ extracted settlements before trial. These technically voluntary settlement agreements, referred to as “consent orders,” usually established a settlement fund to service claims made by victims of the defendant’s alleged illegal behavior. More often than not, the consent order specified that unclaimed funds were to be distributed to a qualified organization as approved by the Department of Justice. Moreover, many of the settlements called for large sums of money to be paid toward educational efforts, often provided by these same qualified organizations.

The DOJ filed pleadings in each case that used essentially identical language for each
complaint and settlement. This assembly line approach uses what is sometimes referred to in the legal profession as “cookbook pleadings” – those not designed for actual litigation, but intended merely to provide a basis for the settlement and payment of money. Seldom was the actual complaint filed more than a month prior to filing the consent order and occasionally within days.

A consent order, sometimes referred to as a “consent judgment” or a “consent decree,” is an order or judgment by the court where the parties have previously agreed to the settlement terms and provisions. Another feature of the consent decree is that the court
will maintain jurisdiction of the matter to supervise the implementation of the decree. The filing of the complaint serves to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.

These institutions spend a vast sum of money advertising each year. A case of this
nature could have a devastating impact for any bank deemed racist. As the Wall Street
Journal reported, “The lenders quickly settled these cases rather than run the reputational risk of being called racist in court.”63 When contacted by the DOJ, often a target financial institution would want to reach a number and shut the process down as soon as possible, as one bank put it, “to avoid contested litigation.” Because the entire negotiation process occurs in the context of litigation, the internal communications of a party remain confidential protected by attorney client privilege. Thus, the public and Congress are provided very little information regarding the nature and process of the negotiations between the parties. In other words, the DOJ effectively silences the target institution without any form of congressional oversight or public scrutiny. Courts were either unaware of this mechanism of disbursement or did not comment in their review of the proposed consent orders.

The agreements were reached prior to filing the proposed order and the parties both had legal representation. A settlement in court is technically reached by the parties freely and voluntarily unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise. The congressional
testimony of Paul Larkin, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation in 2015
denounced the court’s limited participation in the process:

What aggravates this problem even more is that you have these sorts of settlements
gradually coming into wider and wider…Why is that a problem? Because oftentimes
there is no judicial involvement whatsoever. These agreements often are a means of
disposing not of charges or a lawsuit that has already filed. They are a means often of disposing of charges or a lawsuit before any are filed. So there is no judicial
involvement whatsoever. You have an agreement entirely between the lawyers for
the United States and the lawyers for other parties. And in this agreement they are
trying to engage in what is for all intents and purposes a sham transaction to avoid
depositing all of the money that is due to the taxpayers of the United States into the
account that the Treasury maintains, that Congress thereafter can decide how it will
be spent.

In all of the cases we reviewed in the course of our research, the court simply
accepted the proposed order, with one noted exception. In United States of America v.
Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. and Citizens Bank, the defendant bank gave the court reason to believe that something was amiss and the court took quite a different approach. The defendant objected to the claims made by the DOJ in the pleadings which the defendant had not seen until after the terms of settlement had been established. This anomaly opened up the process and demonstrated the pressure placed on a target institution by the federal government and its incentive to settle.

The DOJ had alleged that the defendants, Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. and
Citizens Bank, had engaged in a pattern of conduct violating the Fair Housing Act and the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The proposed Agreed Order imposed a much smaller contribution amount to the settlement fund, but incorporated several of the same elements in its terms as have been seen in other consent orders for other cases.

This proposed order required that the Defendant “enter a partnership” with the City of Detroit to set up a fund in the amount of $1.625 million and provide grants to homeowners to enhance neighborhood stability and revitalization. The program was to be administered by the city or its “designated partner.” The proposed order also required the Defendant to ensure that the Defendant’s lending products and services in the Detroit area were marketed in majority-black census tracts. It also required that the bank hire two Community Development Leaders to focus primarily on generating residential mortgage loans in the “majority-black census tracts of Wayne County” as well as to facilitate the bank’s grant program.

It instated a separate fund in the amount of $400,000 with one half of that fund devoted to advertising and marketing in these same neighborhoods. The consent order required that the other half be spent on consumer education in order to sponsor programs offered by community or governmental organizations engaged in fair lending work.

Furthermore, the proposed order required that the Defendant make $1.5 million available for loan subsidies via a “special financing program” for residents in Wayne County. If the funds were not fully expended, the remaining amount was to be donated to a nonprofit housing organization in the City of Detroit or to such other organization involved with community reinvestment in the City of Detroit.

In its response to the DOJ’s Motion For Entry of Proposed Agreed Order, the Defendant described the process by which the DOJ pursued the settlement.69 It became apparent that the motivation for these banks was to settle rather than resist the claims of the DOJ.

The Defendant bank explained that it was not aware of the precise nature of the
charges until the complaint was filed. The Defendant stated:

The precise articulation of the Department’s claim was not made available to
Citizens until the Department provided Citizens with a copy of the Complaint
after it was filed with the Court on May 5, 2011. Citizens disputes the factual
and legal basis for the claim presented, and, to the extent permitted, has
included in the proposed “Agreed Order” as Part III, the “Position of Citizens
Bank” that describes its actual conduct and performance.

It went on to illuminate some of Bancorp’s considerations in reaching a settlement:
Nonetheless, threatened litigation by the Department imposes a substantial
financial burden on Citizens, particularly in the context of current economic
conditions. Thus, Citizens entered into negotiations with the Department in
an effort to avoid contested litigation. The only option afforded by the Department to avoid contested litigation was the filing of a complaint and the simultaneous presentation of an “Agreed Order.”

The Defendant further stated: Citizens pursued the negotiations to avoid the cost and burden of litigation…. The important point for Citizens is that the voluntary resolution will put the matter to rest, through entry of the Agreed Order. Then the Defendant bank reiterated their reasons for entering into settlements over litigation, which had little to do with culpability:

Perhaps there are some inconsistencies here because Citizens continues to
deny a factual or legal basis for the claim, but agrees to take certain action to
resolve the claim of the Department. But it is not uncommon for businesses
facing the prospect of very expensive litigation against the government to
seek a way to avoid the cost. If reasonable business objectives can be met,
Citizens prefers settlement to the alternative of expensive litigation, and
indeed would prefer to use the bank’s resources to assist the City of Detroit
in its continued efforts to stabilize housing conditions in the City. The bank
currently faces economic challenges that further favor settlement over
litigation.

When faced with the prospect of extended litigation, expense, and bad publicity,
many targeted institutions choose to settle rather than resist the questionable and
disputable claims brought by the DOJ.

On May 24, 2011, the Court issued a scathing order denying approval of the
proposed consent order. The Court had its own reasons for refusing to approve
the consent order.

The Court noted: In reviewing the Agreed Order, it (1) fails to define terms; (2) lacks completeness; (3) contains superfluous clauses; (4) lacks clarity; and (5) is void of provisions for the Court to effectively oversee the parties’ obligations under the Agreed Order during its anticipated term.

Others, in the banking industry, have criticized the DOJ practices that have
resulted in these settlements.…there is a troubling lack of transparency with the DOJ’s growing fair lending actions. DOJ’s unprecedented actions and the legal theory upon which they are based are shrouded in secrecy, as targeted banks are forced to enter into
confidentiality agreements. Community banks work hard to comply with laws and regulations and consistently seek information and guidance on how to implement applicable rules in this ever-changing lending and regulatory environment. By requiring banks to enter into confidentiality agreements regarding the investigations, enforcement and settlement agreements, DOJ is thwarting banks’ ability to assess and refine, if necessary, their policies or practices to ensure compliance with fair lending laws.

This approach is counter to the intent of well-functioning fair lending laws.
Mr. Perez and the newly created Fair Lending Unit in the Housing and Civil
Enforcement Section of the DOJ had a different take on the Citizens case. In his estimation this had been a cooperative effort to right wrongs recognized by all.

He states:
Both Citizens and Midwest worked collaboratively with the Department to develop
these creative solutions, and were eager to find solutions that allow them to remedy
the harm done while also reaching new customers.

Toward the end of his remarks Mr. Perez addressed concerns that he had gleaned
from “…listening sessions we have conducted with industry stakeholders.” Among those
concerns were “transparency” in the DOJ processes; promptness of decisions by the DOJ
because “the cloud of uncertainty that looms during the pendency of an investigation can take a toll” and uncertainty regarding the legal theories that the DOJ was using. Mr. Perez described an “…unprecedented level of collaboration and coordination between DOJ and its partner agencies.”

The banking industry was concerned about the “harmful and inappropriate fair lending actions” of the DOJ, as expressed in a letter addressed to Eric Holder. The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United States Senate made this observation: …the DOJ used the settlement process to achieve policy goals—including the
distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars from private companies to third-party
housing counseling groups—that would not have been possible in litigation. In other words, the DOJ used the threat of litigation—and the corresponding financial and reputational costs—to cause banks to take actions that a court would not have
ordered them to do. (emphasis added)

Even as early as 2010, some members of Congress had begun to take notice that all was not right in the new administration’s Justice Department.

 

Congress Takes Notice

ScreenHunter_2657 Jun. 27 21.16

See  entire 115 page Government Accountability Institute report here: FOLLOW THE MONEY: HOW THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FUNDS PROGRESSIVE ACTIVISTS

Related Article:

HEADLINE JUNE 27, 2017: Hidden Government Forcing Taxpayers To Finance Their Own Destruction

Peter Schweizer‘s Government Accountability Institute issued a report in October 2016, “Follow the Money: How the Department of Justice Funds Progressive Activists,” that detailed the stunning amount of money the DoJ has been awarding to left-wing groups. Under Eric Holder’s DoJ, financial institutions paid an unprecedented $110 billion in fines, much of which came in through out-of-court settlements.

Many of the cases were based on tenuous grounds, such as “disparate impact” which assumes racism based solely on the proportion of loans awarded to minorities. According to the report, “The DOJ used the threat of litigation—and the corresponding financial and reputational costs—to cause banks to take actions that a court would not have ordered them to do.”

We are still trying to figure out where it all went. But we do have some ideas. As with Obama’s corrupt green energy subsidies, it seems apparent that Holder’s DoJ extorted huge sums from banks specifically to funnel money to political allies. Schweizer documents how the DoJ flagrantly misused this money:

See full article here: Hidden Government Forcing Taxpayers To Finance Their Own Destruction

holder the dept of just us

Advertisements

Muslims Across America In Full Celebration Mode Commemorating The “hard work” of Senator Rubio


Who needs to be concerned with Muslim terrorists running around when you have Marco Rubio up at the White House actively furthering their cause for a complete takeover of our country!

On April 4, 2017, the US Senate passed Senate Resolution 118, “Condemning hate crime and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United States.” The resolution was drafted by a Muslim organization, EmgageUSA (formerly EmergeUSA) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

Muslims across America were in full celebration mode commemorating the “hard work” of Senator Rubio, where EmgageUSA put out the following public statement:

Thanks to the hard work of Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Susan Collins and Senator Kamala Harris we have achieved the approval of Senate Resolution 118, an anti-hate crimes bill drafted by Emerge-USA. It is days like this that Americans are reminded of this country’s founding principles: equal opportunity, freedom, justice. We are proud to help support the protection of these rights #amoreperfectunion #theamericandream.”

Anti-blasphemy laws have been a massive victory for Muslims across the world, as now followers of Islam can have people who speak out or criticize their religion thrown into prison. We continue to hear horrifying stories coming out of Europe and Canada where citizens are being rounded up and jailed for speaking out against Islam, as courts are now turning their backs on their very own citizens in order to pander to the very group of people who want to kill them. Now breaking news is confirming that a Senator Marco Rubio has just gotten a bill passed in the Senate that will make speaking out against Muslims a crime, in a shocking move of treason towards the American people that will leave you speechless.

We had enough damage done to our country under the tyrannical rule of Barack Hussein Obama, who was nothing more than a domestic terrorist who worked tirelessly to further the mission of radical Muslims around the world. Well now it appears as though Marco Rubio has just picked up the torch of treason, as he has just been exposed as the TRAITOR who spear-headed a bill that will make speaking out against Islam illegal, which was written by a Muslim terror organization with direct ties to Al Qaeda. Creeping Sharia reported:

On April 4, 2017, the US Senate passed Senate Resolution 118, “Condemning hate crime and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United States.” The resolution was drafted by a Muslim organization, EmgageUSA (formerly EmergeUSA) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

Muslims across America were in full celebration mode commemorating the “hard work” of Senator Rubio, where EmgageUSA put out the following public statement:

Thanks to the hard work of Senator Marco Rubio, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Susan Collins and Senator Kamala Harris we have achieved the approval of Senate Resolution 118, an anti-hate crimes bill drafted by Emerge-USA. It is days like this that Americans are reminded of this country’s founding principles: equal opportunity, freedom, justice. We are proud to help support the protection of these rights #amoreperfectunion #theamericandream.”

So how bad has Rubio screwed over the American people? Here’s exactly what’s in the resolution which the Senate has just passed:

“…Federal law enforcement officials, working with State and local officials… to expeditiously investigate all credible reports of hate crimes and incidents and threats against minorities in the United States and to hold the perpetrators of those crimes, incidents, or threats accountable and bring the perpetrators to justice; encourages the Department of Justice and other Federal agencies to work to improve the reporting of hate crimes; and… encourages the development of an inter-agency task force led by the Attorney General to collaborate on the development of effective strategies and efforts to detect and deter hate crime in order to protect minority communities…”

What’s chilling is that THIS BILL HAS PASSED THE SENATE and has now gone on to the House, where almost the exact same verbiage was introduced as H.Res. 257. If passed, this law will create an “inter-agency task force” that will then go after people who speak out against Muslims, who are a “protected class.” H.Res. 257 urges:

“…the development of an inter-agency task force led by the Attorney General and bringing together the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education, the Department of State, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to collaborate on the development of effective strategies and efforts to detect and deter hate crime in order to protect minority communities”. The House Resolution was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on April 6 and from there it was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations on April 21.

Why the hell is Marco Rubio selling us down the river in order to further the cause of radical Islam? The Muslim groups he worked with to get these bills passed are not “peaceful” Islamists either. EmgageUSA’s leader Khurrum Wahid is currently on a terror watch list for his extensive work with Al Qaeda, and as a lawyer, Wahid defended Omar Ahmed Abu Ali, who was sentenced to 30 years in prison for plotting to assassinate President George W. Bush!

FYI: Muslims are also pushing hard to be classified as a ‘protected minority/class’ when they should be classified as a Terrorist Group. This is absolutely unbelievable!

See House Legislation here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/257

See Senate Resolution  here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-resolution/118

A COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF 53 PEOPLE WHO COMPRISE THE CLINTON BODY COUNT


Most people can go their whole life without experiencing a mysterious murder or strange suicide of a friend or co-worker. That being said, below is a comprehensive list of 53 mysterious deaths connected to the nefarious Bill and Hilary Clinton.
clinton body count
1 – James McDougal – Clinton’s convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr’s investigation.
2 – Mary Mahoney – A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown. The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House.
3 – Vince Foster – Former white House councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock’s Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.
4 – Ron Brown – Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown’s skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors.
5 – C. Victor Raiser II and Montgomery Raiser, Major players in the Clinton fund raising organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992.
6 – Paul Tulley – Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock, September 1992… Described by Clinton as a “Dear friend and trusted advisor.”
7- Ed Willey – Clinton fund raiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.
8 – Jerry Parks – Head of Clinton’s gubernatorial security team in Little Rock. Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock. Park’s son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton. He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.
9 – James Bunch – Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a “Black Book” of people which contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas.
10 – James Wilson – Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported to have ties to Whitewater.
11- Kathy Ferguson, ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson, was found dead in May 1994, in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness for Paula Jones.
12 – Bill Shelton – Arkansas State Trooper and fiancee of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiancee, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the grave site of his fiancee.
13 – Gandy Baugh – Attorney for Clinton’s friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor.
14 – Florence Martin – Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal Mena Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot wounds.
15 – Suzanne Coleman – Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.
16 – Paula Grober – Clinton’s speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident.
17 – Danny Casolaro – Investigative reporter. Investigating Mena Airport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.
18 – Paul Wilcher – Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Casolaro and the 1980 “October Surprise” was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993 in his Washington DC apartment. Had delivered a report to Janet Reno three weeks before his death
19 – Jon Parnell Walker – Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his death from his Arlington, Virginia apartment balcony August15, 1993. He was investigating the Morgan Guarantee scandal.
20 – Barbara Wise – Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang. Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce.
21- Charles Meissner – Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.
22 – Dr. Stanley Heard – Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee, died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton’s advisory council personally treated Clinton’s mother, stepfather and brother.
23 – Barry Seal – Drug running pilot out of Mena, Arkansas, death was no accident.
24 – Johnny Lawhorn Jr. – Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.
25 – Stanley Huggins – Investigated Madison Guarantee. His death was a purported suicide and his report was never released.
26- Hershell Friday – Attorney and Clinton fund raiser died March 1, 1994 when his plane exploded.
27 – Kevin Ives and Don Henry – Known as “The boys on the track” case. Reports say the boys may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. A controversial case, the initial report of death said, due to falling asleep on railroad tracks. Later reports claim the two boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.
THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:
28 – Keith Coney – Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck, July 1988.
29 – Keith McMaskle – Died stabbed 113 times, Nov, 1988
30 – Gregory Collins – Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.
31 – Jeff Rhodes – He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989.
33 – James Milan – Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to “natural causes.”
34 – Jordan Kettleson – Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990.
35 – Richard Winters – A suspect in the Ives / Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery July 1989.
THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD: 36 – Major William S. Barkley Jr. 37 – Captain Scott J. Reynolds 38 – Sgt. Brian Hanley 39 – Sgt. Tim Sabel 40 – Major General William Robertson 41 – Col. William Densberger 42 – Col. Robert Kelly 43 – Spec. Gary Rhodes 44 – Steve Willis 45 – Robert Williams 46 – Conway LeBleu 47 – Todd McKeehan
48 -World-renowned “space economist” Molly Macauly was brutally murdered in Baltimore park.
49-John Ashe- The former President of the UN General Assembly was awaiting trial on bribery charges when he turned up dead in June, apparently having crushed his own windpipe while lifting weights in his home…
50-Victor Thorn-Prominent CLINTON Critic VICTOR THORN Found Dead Of Apparent Suicide On His Birthday
51-Seth Rich-Still No Clues in Murder of DNC’s Seth Rich, As Conspiracy Theories Thicken
52- Joe Montano-Filipino American activist and aide to Sen. Kaine, dies at 47
53- Shawn Lucas-Death of DNC Lawsuit Processor Shawn Lucas Adds to Seth Rich Conspiracy Theories
HILL AND HUMA I DONT UNDERSTAND I THOUGHT WE KILLED EVERYONE

Tom Cotton: ‘Susan Rice Is the Typhoid Mary of the Obama Administration’


Tuesday on Hugh Hewitt’s nationally syndicated radio show, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) commented on a report that former National Security Advisor Susan Rice for President Barack Obama was behind the unmasking of the identities of members of Donald Trump’s transition team.

trump fried rice lol

Cotton noted Rice’s involvement in this story and her involvement in what he suggested were other Obama administration foreign policy missteps and likened her to “Typhoid Mary.”

“Susan Rice is the Typhoid Mary of the Obama administration foreign policy,” Cotton said. “Every time something went wrong, she seemed to turn up in the middle of it, whether it was these allegations of improper unmasking, intentional or improper surveillance, whether it’s Benghazi or the other fiascos over the eight years of the Obama administration.”

“If Eli Lake’s reporting is correct, it is hard to square what Susan Rice said in that PBS interview,” he added.

Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/04/04/tom-cotton-susan-rice-typhoid-mary-obama-administration/

Judge Openly LAUGHS At Bundy Ranch Defendants Rights


We have CORRUPT federal judges. Everyone, please read this and realize this is happening in America right now. You may find yourselves one day in the same type of kangaroo court. I’m sickened by this.
By Shari Dovale
what you allow the government do to others they will do to you
Judge Gloria Navarro made a mockery of the judicial system today.

The first Bunkerville trial is underway in Las Vegas, Nevada. The prosecution has had over five weeks to present their case. Now that the defense is ready to put on their case, Judge Gloria Navarro has shut them down.

Out of the entire witness list, there is one witness, other than the defendants, that she will allow to testify. Garrett Frenner was a witness to the slaughter of the Bundy cattle. However, Judge Navarro will not allow him to testify to those events. The prosecutors and the FBI spent a couple of hours harassing this man, threatening him with prosecution if he dared to testify. She has made it clear that he can ONLY testify to which of the defendants he saw with guns.

Every witness that the defense tried to proffer today was questioned by the Judge. She stressed to each one of them that she was ready to have them removed from the courtroom in handcuffs, if she thinks they are committing perjury.

Judge Navarro then backed up the prosecution when they threatened witnesses by naming them as “UNindicted Co-conspirators”. Navarro allowed this bullying, and took part in it herself.

buny remind me again who pointed guns at who

After the intimidation of their witness, the defense believes he has been compromised and stated they are unsure of calling him as a witness. This made Eric Parker so distraught and upset that they have no witnesses for their defense that he broke down and cried in the courtroom. This, of course, made his wife and supporters cry as well.

Judge Navarro showed no sympathy. Reports are that she actually laughed out loud at their distress. The prosecutors also laughed and joked at the defense. She continued to reiterate that they have no rights as defendants.

Navarro also stated in the courtroom that no one is guaranteed their first amendment rights or their second amendment rights. Additionally, she told everyone that there is Never a time when anyone is allowed to defend themselves against a Law Enforcement Officer, even if they caught him breaking into their home. If he even sees a gun near them, they are guilty of assaulting him.

The defense had plans to call numerous witnesses, including Carole Bundy, Shawna Cox, Michele Fiore and more. Judge Navarro refused to allow them to testify because she feels their testimony might risk her jury to nullify.

blm sent 200 thugs to ranch over turtles

Jury Nullification is her worst fear. She continues to tell the defense that she will not allow them to put on any defense that might sway her jury to nullify. This includes any information of why these men came to Bunkerville, the abuses of the BLM agents, and more.

Judge Navarro is quoted as saying, “The risk of jury nullification… for the jurors to hear about different defense witnesses, that can’t happen!” Navarro mentioned this at least three times during the day.

When the defense team attempted to object, she shut them down again, saying “Don’t bother to object.” as she intendeds to side with the prosecution each time.

And she carried through with this threat, not allowing the defense any leeway at all.

Dan Love was the Special Agent in Charge of the operation in Bunkerville, and his testimony was the main evidence in front of the Grand Jury. However, because he is under investigation for abuses, Judge Navarro has ruled his testimony is irrelevant and will not allow him to be called to testify.

Eric Parker has now decided that he has no choice but to testify. He may very well be the only witness in the defense case. This case could end up in the jury’s hands as early as tomorrow.

The heavy-handed judge has ruled these men do not deserve the right to defend themselves.

BLM JAIL BONANZA COWBOYS

On Friday, July 29, 2016. It was revealed that the FBI does not actually have any evidence against the Bundy’s or their co-defendants.


Nevada Assemblywoman Michele Fiore dropped a bombshell today in the Bundy case.

Citing personal anonymous sources, Fiore confirmed that the Federal government has no actual case against rancher Cliven Bundy, or any of the other defendants in the 2014 Bunkerville standoff case.

A lead FBI agent working with the prosecutor in the Bundy case revealed information about the case on Friday, July 29, 2016. It was revealed that the FBI does not actually have any evidence against the Bundy’s or their co-defendants.

The main reason that the judge has sealed the evidence is because there is none!

The only evidence in this case is from Facebook. There is no actual evidence of a crime being committed in Nevada.

The plan is to delay the trial for as long as possible so that the defendant’s spirit gets broken. The FBI is counting on these regular people needing to be home to take care of their families.

Being incarcerated for over six months is taking it’s toll on the cowboys and their families. Their parents, spouses and children are having to deal with the effects of not having the major breadwinner in the home. Some of them are said to be homeless.

It has been revealed that Joseph O’Shaughnessy was threatened with never seeing his 80 year old mother alive again.

Is it any wonder that these good Patriots are settling for making deals and plea bargains. The actions of the FBI are coercing the patriots to flip on the Bundy’s, as well as make up stories in order to straighten out their home situations.

Theses tactics make people believe they are in trouble, and could spend over 100 years in prison, when they haven’t done anything to warrant this, at all.

“However, when you have an authoritarian agent terrorizing you, and trained to do so,” Fiore explains, “one can become traumatized and cooperate believing that is the only way out.”

These American citizens are being held hostage in jail with no actual evidence. They are just hoping to break them into submission. They have sealed evidence from the press and the American people. They are frightening innocent men into taking plea bargains.

This is the country we have become. These tactics are against the very fabric of our law. Would you be able to handle this if one of your family members were locked up under these circumstances?

This must stop! The government is out of control and running as if they are above the law!

The Americans Are Coming!

View Video Here
https://vimeo.com/177442679/71ac6086a9

http://redoubtnews.com/blog/2016/08/03/fiore-reveals-bombshell-bundy-case/

OUTRAGEOUS Feds Released Nearly 20K Criminal Aliens in 2015; 200 Convicted of Murder


As seen on Happening Now

Illegal Immigrant Goes Free After Fatal DUI Crash, May Now Be in Honduras

124 Illegal Immigrants Released by Obama Admin Later Charged With Murder


Lawmakers are grilling Obama administration officials on why Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has released more than 86,000 criminal aliens in the past three years.

The House Oversight Committee hearing comes after the release of statistics for 2015, which show that ICE released 19,723 criminal illegal immigrants, rather than deporting them.

The more than 64,000 convictions include 196 that were homicide-related, 216 for kidnapping, more than 600 sex offenses and more than 800 robberies, Fox News chief congressional correspondent Mike Emanuel reported.

ICE releases nearly 20,000 criminal aliens in 2015.The Center for Immigration Studies reports that those released totaled more than 8,000 convictions for violent crimes.

ICE releases illegal criminals 20000 feds 2015

The map above shows the releases state by state, with California and Texas leading the way.

Critics say the highest levels of the Obama administration are to blame for the lax policies.

“The law is crystal clear. You are making these discretionary choices in releasing these people out into the public and they’re committing more crimes. I don’t understand why you don’t deport them,” said committee chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah).

Emanuel said lawmakers are scheduled to hear from family members of those killed by illegal immigrants.

At the hearing, ICE director Sarah Saldana pushed back, arguing that the issue stems from countries like Haiti refusing to take back their criminals.

Saldana said it’s “absolutely unforgivable” to suggest that ICE law enforcement agents are choosing to put criminals back on the streets.

Watch Emanuel’s report above.

Last night on The O’Reilly Factor, Bill discussed the ongoing problem with Rep. Trey Gowdy, who chaired a House hearing last week on the issue.

O’Reilly asked Gowdy about the status of Kate’s Law, which the host proposed last year after the murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco.

Watch the interview below.


CA Cops: Illegal Immigrant with 4 Prior Arrests Charged in Fatal Sex Attack

Former Border Patrol Officer: U.S. Heroin Epidemic Fueled by Illegal Immigration

Father of Man Killed by Illegal Immigrant: San Fran Sheriff ‘Belongs in Jail’

New Security Concerns After Syrian Refugees Reach Texas Border


http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/28/feds-released-nearly-20k-criminal-aliens-2015-200-convicted-murder

Globalists Continue To Push The Lie That Treaties Are Binding Upon The United States Citizens: Treaties Can Be Nullified By States Or Statutes & Obama Removed From Office!


Our Senate and President (not to mention that he is a usurper) lack lawful authority to enter into a treaty that conflicts with The Constitution so even signed and ratified it would not be a valid treaty.

Reblogged from Political Vel Craft dated July 2012

The following qualifies as one of the greatest lies the globalists continue to push upon the American people. That lie is: “Treaties supersede the U.S. Constitution“.

The Second follow-up lie is this one: “A treaty, once passed, cannot be set aside”. HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that

1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution. 2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last, 3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you’ve read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone — anyone — claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth. “This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution? Keep reading. The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that,

“… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…’

“There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…

“It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See:Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

“In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article VI. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined.”

Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question! At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that,

“The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent.”

Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our government wish, without our acquiescing to it. The Reid Court continues with its Opinion:

“This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.”

The U.S. Supreme court could not have made it more clear : TREATIESDO NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT, IN ANY FASHION, AMEND IT !!! CASE CLOSED. Now we must let our elected “representatives” in Washington and the State legislatures know that we no longer believe the BIG LIE… we know that we are not bound by unconstitutional Treaties, Executive Orders, Presidential Directives, and other such treasonous acts.

[Note: the above information was taken from Aid & Abet Police Newsletter, with limited revision. P.O. Box 8712, Phoenix, Arizona. Acknowledgment given to Claire Kelly, for her good assistance and in depth treaty research. The use of this information is not to be construed as endorsement of Aid & Abet Police Newsletter. Claire Kelly is a trusted and knowledgeable friend. – CDR]

__________________________________________

Here’s what Thomas Jefferson said on the right to renounce treaties:

“Compacts then, between a nation and a nation, are obligatory on them as by the same moral law which obliges individuals to observe their compacts. There are circumstances, however, which sometimes excuse the non-performance of contracts between man and man; so are there also between nation and nation. When performance, for instance, becomes impossible, non-performance is not immoral; so if performance becomes self-destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others”.

pg 317 – “The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” A. Koch & Wm. Peden, Random House 1944, renewed 1972. Jefferson also said in a letter to Wilson C. Nicholas on Sept. 7, 1803, Ibid. pg 573

“Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction [interpretation]. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.” ______________________________________________________________Further evidence:

Excerpt from a letter from U.S. Senator, Arlen Specter, (R. Penn.) to constituent, November 3, 1994.

“Dear Mr. Neely:”Thank you for contacting my office regarding the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. … I have signed on as a cosponsor of Senator Bradley’s resolution [SR 70, which urges the president to seek the advice and consent of the Senate for ratification] because I believe that the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child is an appropriate step in the direction of promoting the well-being of children throughout the world. [he goes on to mention concerns that the treaty would subjugate familial and parental responsibility to an international entity, which he denies] “… Secondly, the Convention would not override the U.S. Constitution; rather, as in the case of any treaty, any provision that conflicts with our Constitution would be void in our country… “

[CDR Note: It is our belief that Arlen Specter would not have been as truthful regarding Constitutional Supremacy over treaties if he had a clue that this letter to a constituent would have found its way into the hands or eyes of the public.]

_________________________________________________

Logical deduction:      No law or treaty supersedes the Supreme Law of the Land.  ‘Supreme’… meaning ‘highest or greatest’.  What is higher than highest or greater than greatest, other than our Creator?  The Constitution acknowledges our God-given, unalienable rights, and secures those rights in that acknowledgement.         The Constitution gives the US Senate authority to ratify treaties with other nations. Americans have been propagandized into believing that those treaties become the supreme law of the land superseding the Constitution. Let’s examine this deception closely and dispel the myth once and for all. Article VI of the Constitution states:

Clause 2 – “This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution [of any state] or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”Clause 3 – “The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executives and judicial officers, both of the United States and the several states, shall be bound by oath of affirmation to support this Constitution .”

Laws made in pursuance of this Constitution are laws which are made within the strict and limited confines of the Constitution itself. No federal, state, or international law, rule or bureaucratic regulation and no state constitution can supersede B or be repugnant to B this Constitution.

Treaties made under the authority of the United States… the United States (federal government) was authorized by and on behalf of the people and in pursuance of this Constitution to enter into certain treaties with other governments. The United States (federal government) obtains its authority solely from the Constitution. It would be ludicrous to think that it has the power to circumvent (via treaties) that which grants it its authority.

In Clause 3, it is made clear that every elected official, both federal and state, is bound by oath to support this Constitution. Who can rightly, and genuinely claim to be given the power to destroy that which they are elected and sworn to uphold?

The powers granted by the Constitution cannot sanely be construed to provide the authority to usurp, pre-empt or eradicate it.       The U.S. Supreme Court as cited above correctly ruled that the supremacy of the Constitution overrides treaties. It should be noted that if any Court, be it a State, Federal or the U.S. Supreme Court, should ever rule otherwise, the decision would be repugnant to the Constitution and the ruling would be null and void.

The answer to this question is self-evident.

The Constitution authorizes the United States to enter into treaties with other nations B the word Anation@ although not explicit, is certainly implied. The United Nations is an Organization – a Global Corporate Bureaucracy.The ‘experts’ in international law, commerce, banking, environment, etc.; and a cadre of alleged conservative / Christian-conservative leaders — lawyer, Dame of Malta, Phyllis Schlafly being a prime example — have been spewing forth propaganda to instill and further the myth of ‘treaty-supremacy’ for decades.

Their ‘expertise’ is an illusion created apparently with hopes to instill a sense of inferiority in the ‘common man’ (their term) so we will all defer to their superior intelligence. Let’s not go there. Here’s a perfect example of ‘expert’ propaganda on the supremacy question: On April 11, 1952, Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles (cfr), speaking before the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky said…

“Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land…. Treaty law can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, …can cut across the rights given the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.”

Mr. Dulles is confused about the People’s rights. To repeat an earlier statement of fact: the Constitution doesn’t ‘give’ us rights. The Constitution acknowledges and secures our inherent, Creator-endowed rights. What Creator gives, no man can take away. The Dulles brothers worked (lied) long and hard to firmly establish the treaty-supremacy myth. And they realized it would have to be done by deceit — propaganda. Admittedly by propaganda.

“There is no indication that American public opinion, for example, would approve the establishment of a super state, or permit American membership in it. In other words, time – a long time – will be needed before world government is politically feasible… This time element might seemingly be shortened so far as American opinion is concerned by an active propaganda campaign in this country…”

Allen W. Dulles (cfr) from a UN booklet, Headline Series #59 (New York: The Foreign Policy Association., Sept.-Oct., 1946) pg 46.      The question of “nationhood” in reference to the United Nations seems to have been addressed by the errant Congress.  A quick fix apparently took place in the U.S. Senate on March 19, 1970. According to the Anaheim (Cal) Bulletin, 4-20-1970, the Senate ratified a resolution recognizing the United Nations Organization as a sovereign nation. That would be tantamount to recognizing General Motors as a sovereign nation. Are we beginning to get the picture? Case Closed Sweet Liberty

Second Important Article About The Treaty Myth.

Treaties do not override the Constitution.
By Don Fotheringham In anticipation that our president may sign one or more treaties that conflict with the U.S. Constitution’s limited grant of power, several voices of alarm are contending that a treaty can override, or in effect amend, our Constitution. Although that view has gained some currency, it is a myth that contradicts the intent of those who framed the Constitution. And it violates any reasonable interpretation of that document. Origin of the Myth The frightful idea that U.S. treaties with foreign nations supercede the Constitution has been regularly promoted since the Eisenhower era.
 divider gif
1 It was given a big boost in 1952 when Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), made the following statement:
divider gif
2 … congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, whereas treaty laws can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the states and give them to the Federal Government, or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given the people by the Constitutional Bill of Rights.
 divider gif
3 It would be hard to find a more preposterous assertion. Sadly, however, many citizens have been led to believe that treaties do override the Constitution. Could anyone really think our founding fathers spent four months in convention, limiting the size, power and scope of government, and then provided for their work to be destroyed by one lousy treaty?
 divider gif
But one might object, what about Article VI? Article VI establishes the supremacy of U.S. laws and treaties made within the bounds of the Constitution. It is called the Supremacy Clause, because it places federal laws and treaties that are made pursuant to the Constitution above state constitutions, laws. and treaties. Some Important History This was needed because, contrary to their agreement under the Articles of Confederation, certain states had violated their trust and entered into treaties with foreign powers.
 divider gif
During the convention,
Madison said: “Experience had evinced a constant tendency in the States to encroach on federal authority; to violate national Treaties, to infringe the rights and interests of each other.”
divider gif
4 State-made pacts often conflicted with peace and trade treaties wanted by the Confederation Congress for the benefit of all thirteen states, making it hard for Congress to consummate better agreements with other nations. This also led to fierce contention between the states in their effort to monopolize the import of goods from Europe and the Indian tribes. But more serious dangers arose in matters of security, for should one state be at war with a foreign power while a sister state honors its peace agreement with the same enemy, the security of the entire Confederation would be threatened.
divider gif
5 In an effort to head off such dangers, the Confederation Congress frequently attempted to nullify
state-made treaties in the state courts (there were no federal courts). But as might be expected, the state judges ruled inevitably in favor of their own states, pursuant to the state laws and constitutions.
divider gif
The 1787 Convention corrected that problem by making certain only federal treaties would be recognized as valid. In this light, it is not hard to understand why paragraph two of Article VI is worded as follows: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. Upon ratification of the Constitution, the state treaties were nullified.
divider gif
Thereafter, only federal treaties were recognized as supreme, regardless of any remaining state provisions to the contrary. Moreover, under the new Constitution the founders established a Supreme Court, granting it original jurisdiction over treaty controversies, and thereby removing from state judges jurisdiction over treaty cases. In addition to quelling strife among the states, Article VI accomplished a major objective of the Convention, mainly that of placing the United States in a position to speak to the world with one voice.
 divider gif
United States treaties are created when proposed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The power of the President and the Senate, in their treaty-making capacity, was never intended to be a power greater than the Constitution. Citizens who met in the state ratifying conventions (1787 to 1790) to examine with great care the provisions of the proposed Constitution had a correct understanding of the Supremacy Clause.
divider gif
During the ratifying debates, James Madison answered questions regarding the new national charter and commented on the extent of the treaty-making power under Article VI: “I do not conceive that power is given to the President and Senate to dismember the empire, or to alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority have this power. The exercise of the power must be consistent with the object of its delegation.”
 divider gif
6 In the same discussion
Madison said: “Here, the supremacy of a treaty is contrasted with the supremacy of the laws of the states. It cannot be otherwise supreme.” That is, a treaty cannot in any other manner or situation be supreme. Thomas Jefferson: “I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of treaty- making to be boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.”
divider gif
But we do have a Constitution. Its life and viability depend entirely on the small number of citizens who 1) understand the document, and 2) who equally understand the forces at work to destroy it. At this point enough time has passed, and enough false teachings have been promulgated, to cause modern Americans to fall for the treaty power ploy. It is not surprising that John Foster Dulles, a ranking member of the CFR, should in 1952 circulate the treaty-power heresy that yet prevails.
divider gif
It is time for serious reflection on the words of Edmond Burke, “The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” Those who seek to preserve the sovereignty of the United States must work energetically to expose the Dulles delusion — the ridiculous idea that treaties have intrinsic powers greater than the Constitution.
 divider gif
1 In decades immediately prior to the Dulles speech, Supreme Court decisions had already begun to enunciate the idea (see, for example, Missouri v. Holland in 1920 and United States v. Pink in 1942).
 divider gif
2 Dulles actually made this statement during a speech in Louisville on April 2, 1952, shortly before Eisenhower appointed him Secretary of State.
 divider gif
3 Quoted by Frank E. Holman, Story of the Bricker Amendment, (New York Committee for Constitutional Government, Inc., 1954), pp. 14, 15.
divider gif
4 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Farrand, Vol. I, p. 164.
 divider gif
5 Benjamin Franklin’s Plan of Union, America, Vol. 3, p. 47.
 divider gif
6 Debates on the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed., second edition, Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott Company, 1907, Vol. III, p. 514. Robert Welch University
divider gif
Founding Fathers

divider gif

Related articles:

Border Patrol Agents Are Being Ordered To Stand Down By Obama Administration


Published on Feb 4, 2016

Video Transcript:

Trey Gowdy and the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing Thursday about the Obama administration’s inability to secure the southern border.

The Obama administration has revived the maligned illegal immigrant “catch-and-release” policy of the Bush years, ordering Border Patrol agents not to bother arresting and deporting many new illegal immigrants, the head of the agents’ labor union revealed Thursday.
 
Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, told Congress that Homeland Security was embarrassed by the number of illegal immigrants not showing up for their deportation hearings, but instead of cracking down on the immigrants, the department ordered agents not to arrest them in the first place — meaning they no longer need to show up for court.
immigration senate hasnt read
 
Mr. Judd said the releases are part of President Obama’s “priorities” program, which orders agents to worry chiefly about criminals, national security risks and illegal immigrants who came into the U.S. after Jan. 1, 2014. Mr. Judd said illegal immigrants without serious criminal convictions have learned that by claiming they came before 2014 — without even needing to show proof — they can be released immediately rather than being arrested.
 
“Immigration laws today appear to be mere suggestions,” Mr. Judd testified to the House Judiciary Committee’s immigration subcommittee. “That fact is well known in other countries.”
 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which oversees the Border Patrol, did not deny Mr. Judd’s claim but said agents have been instructed to prioritize whom they arrest.
 
“The Border Patrol’s resources are most effectively focused on the border — prioritizing the apprehension and removal of individuals attempting to unlawfully enter the United States,” said Michael Friel, a CBP spokesman. “Our removal numbers reflect that. Border Patrol agents are issuing notices to appear, consistent with law, regulation and the department’s enforcement priorities.”
deport illegals no moslem refugees
 
The White House declined to comment. Spokesman Josh Earnest said he hadn’t seen the testimony.
 
Mr. Obama has pushed for Congress to grant citizenship rights to most illegal immigrants, but after Capitol Hill failed to deliver he took action on his own to carve most illegal immigrants out of danger of deportation.
 
He and Mr. Johnson said deportation and border agents should worry chiefly about dangerous immigrants and new arrivals. Those with deeper ties to the U.S. who have not amassed criminal records should be passed over, Mr. Obama said.
 
Mr. Judd said there are holes in that policy. He said agents have been ordered not to ask for proof when an immigrant says he or she has been in the U.S. since 2013, and migrants have quickly learned to assert that claim without having to worry about having it challenged.
thomas jefferson on immigration
 
He said on the northern border, where he is stationed, agents arrested an illegal immigrant who had recently been charged with felony domestic violence. He had to be released because he hadn’t gone to trial yet, so he hadn’t been convicted.
 
“Under the law, he should have been set up for removal proceedings, but under the policy he was let go,” Mr. Judd testified. “And he was let go even though he first proved that he cared so little about our laws that he entered the United States illegally, and once here, he proved further disdain by getting arrested for a serious violent act against another.”
 
Mr. Judd was testifying at a hearing called to examine the surge of illegal immigrants — unaccompanied children and families traveling together — who have overwhelmed agencies. After peaking in early summer 2014, the numbers dropped. But 2016 is on pace for a record year.
 
Mr. Judd and Jessica Vaughan, policy studies director at the Center for Immigration Studies, said criminal cartels are using the families and children to flood the border to distract agents and create chances to smuggle drugs.
 
The cause of the surge is heatedly debated.
 
Immigrant rights advocates said the children and mothers are fleeing horrific violence and should be considered asylum-seekers, not illegal immigrants. The advocates point to spiking homicide rates.
 
El Salvador leads the Western Hemisphere with 103 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants. Honduras is third worst with a rate of 57 homicides, and Guatemala is fifth worst with 30 per 100,000 people.
 
San Pedro Sula in Honduras recorded 885 homicides out of a population of just less than 800,000 people last year, according to a Mexican nongovernmental organization that tracks the statistics. San Salvador, the capital of El Salvador, recorded 1,918 homicides among its 1.8 million people — a rate of 109 per 100,000.
 
The U.S. city with the highest homicide rate per capita, St. Louis, recorded a rate of 59 per 100,000 inhabitants.
 
Wendy Young, president of Kids in Need of Defense, which handles cases of children applying for protection in the U.S., detailed horrific stories of children being enslaved by gangs, tracked down if they try to leave and being killed as retribution for crossing the gangs.
 
She recounted the story of one 14-year-old girl who was abducted by a gang and gang-raped for four days before she escaped. Her family fled to another location inside the country, but the gang tracked her down, and her family sent her north to the U.S.
 
“These children are doing the only thing they can — they are running for their lives,” Ms. Young said.
 
Mr. Judd said children wanting to claim asylum can go to a border entry point and present themselves to CBP officers. Instead, the cartels deliver them to some of the remote parts of the border before sending them to find Border Patrol agents, keeping the agents occupied while the cartels smuggle their goods, the agent said.
 
Border Patrol agents used to interview the children and ask them why they came, and the overwhelming majority said they believed enforcement was lax and they would be allowed to stay.
 
Ms. Young said the children were likely frightened by agents and officers in uniforms, so the information they gave was not to be trusted.
 
Regardless, Mr. Judd said, agents have now been banned from asking those questions.
 
⦁ Dave Boyer contributed to this report.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Published on Feb 4, 2016

Video Transcript:

Trey Gowdy and the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing Thursday about the Obama administration’s inability to secure the southern border.

TREY GOWDY: Secretary [Jeh] Johnson testified before the appropriations committee: “The message we are sending to people crossing the border is you will be sent home.” Either that message has not been communicated or it has not been received because the border cross, the unlawful border crossings continue.

According to U.S. Border Patrol, the Obama administration is ordering the release of illegal immigrants, effectively allowing them to stay.

BRANDON JUDD: The willful failure to show up for court appearances by persons that were arrested and released by the Border Patrol has become an extreme embarrassment for the Department of Homeland Security. It has been so embarrassing that DHS and the U.S. Attorney’s office has come up with a new policy. Simply put, the new policy makes mandatory the release, without an NTA, of any person arrested by the Border Patrol for being in the country illegally, as long as they do not have a previous felony arrest conviction and as long as they claim to have been continuously in the United States since January of 2014. The operative word in this policy is “claim.” The policy does not require the person to prove they have been here which is the same burden placed on them during deportation proceedings. Instead, it simply requires them to claim to have been here since January of 2014. Not only do we release these individuals that by law are subject to removal proceedings, we do it without any means of tracking their whereabouts. In essence, we pull these persons out of the shadows and into the light just to release them right back to those same shadows from whence they came. Immigration laws today appear to be mere suggestions. There are little or no consequences for breaking the laws and that fact is well known in other countries. If government agencies like DHS or CBP are allowed to bypass Congress by legislating through policy, we might as well abolish our immigration laws altogether. In the absence of consequences and enforceable laws innocent people are hurt, criminals are rewarded, chaos abounds, and cartels reap huge financial benefits.

Are you concerned that the Border Patrol is being prevented from doing its job? Share and comment below.

BREAKING: FBI Official Just Issued TERRIFYING Warning For Those Who Live Near “Peaceful” Mosques


Dec. 12,2015

A former FBI counter-terrorism special agent named John Guandolo has gone public with a BOMBSHELL and has issued a terrifying warning for the American people about Islamic centers and mosques around the country exposing that most are part of a broad “jihadi network.”

In an interview with Breitbart, Guandolo claimed that almost every jihad attack inside America has has the support of local Islamic centers and mosques.

Guandolo says that the cast majority of the more than 2,200 mosques and Islamic centers here in America “are part of this hostile network- they’re HOSTILE!”

He went on to say that over 75% of these centers, based on their property records, are a part of the “Muslim Brotherhood network” since they are “owned by the North American Islamic Trust, which is the bank for the Muslim Brotherhood here” and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

Guandolo said that the San Bernardino terrorists attended the Islamic Center of Riverside, which he said was a “a Muslim Brotherhood Center.” He noted that the Boston Bombers attended the Islamic Society of Boston, which he said was a subsidiary of the Islamic Society of North America that was founded by an al-Qaeda guy who used to advise former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore and is now in prison.

~amosque6

(Distribution of Mosques in USA 2015 – Via Islamthreat.com) The map above shows the current distribution of Mosques in the United States as of April 2015, which totals 3, 186.

Guandolo even set up training courses to educate FBI agents and government officials but those were squashed by Hussein Obama, of course.

Conservative Tribune reports that in the course of his investigations, Guandolo also discovered via internal documents that “the purpose of this network is to wage civilization jihad… until the entire world, and specifically the United States, is under Shariah law and the Islamic State is established here.”

He went on to explain how the leaders of these Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Islamic organizations have worked themselves into various levels of the federal government as advisers in sensitive departments like the FBI, Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security staffs.

Guandolo said that these advisers have immense input on the writing of terrorism-related policies and have made numerous changes to existing policies due to some aspects being “offensive” to Muslims.

He also warned against focusing too much on terror organizations like the Islamic State group, as they are merely “part of a much broader movement” that is bigger than simply one group or organization.

Guandolo is astonished at how ignorant government officials are about the widespread threat saying that the majority of them had no idea what is going on in the Muslim community.

The reason these overpaid ‘officials’ are ignorant is because Obama’s people are the ones advising them, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Al Qaeda who are necessarily hostile to our system, our war fighting and our way of life.

“That’s the problem,” he said.

You can read more from our friends at All News Pipeline.

(H/T Right Wing Tribune)

Please share this post with friends on Facebook and Twitter!

Dean James III% AMERICA’S FREEDOM FIGHTERS

France Closes 3 Mosques, Finds Hundreds Of Weapons

http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/12/09/france-closes-3-mosques-finds-hundreds-weapons

%d bloggers like this: