Sanctuary Cities Ignore ICE Orders in order to to Free 9,295 Criminal Aliens.

Sanctuary Cities Ignore ICE Orders in order to Free 9,295 Criminal Aliens. HT : JudicialWatch.

In less than a year 340 sanctuary cities, counties and states around the U.S. released 9,295 alien offenders that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was seeking to deport

As the U.S. Senate considers a bill to slash funding for local governments that protect violent illegal immigrants, a new study reveals that hundreds of sanctuary cities nationwide released thousands of criminal aliens from jail rather than turn them over to federal authorities for deportation.

This proves that legislation to crack down on jurisdictions that obstruct enforcement of federal immigration law is long overdue.

Federal lawmakers want to send those municipalities a message, says the senator that introduced the measure, Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act.


If it passes federal funding will be withheld from sanctuary states or cities that fail to comply with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued detainer requests for illegal aliens. The money would be redirected to states and localities that follow the law. 

“There is absolutely no reason that any U.S. city should be allowed to ignore our nation’s immigration laws and provide a safe harbor for illegal immigrants,” said Louisiana Senator David Vitter, in a statement introducing the measure this month. Read the full story here.

"CHANGE" - Vital Anti-Terrorism Program at “High Risk” for Years.

"CHANGE" - Vital Anti-Terrorism Program at “High Risk” for Years. HT: JudicialWatch.

For two and a half decades critical federal programs with serious flaws have been singled out as “high risk” in a biennial audit that’s largely discounted by Congress even though many are longtime offenders, including a crucial anti-terrorism initiative designed to protect the homeland.

The 2015 report was released today and it’s an exhausting 404 pages long, but Judicial Watch has plucked out some examples of those celebrating their silver anniversary on the “high risk” roster.


Here are a few of the scarier ones that have also been deemed high risk for years; since 2005 the U.S. government has failed to establish effective mechanisms for sharing and managing terrorism-related information to protect the homeland, according to the report.

Since 2003 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not been able to strengthen security management functions and since 2007 Uncle Sam has not adequately ensured the effective protection of technologies critical to U.S. National Security interests.Read the full story here.

Turkish Whistleblower Fuat Avni exposes 'regime's' plan to control high judiciary.

Turkish Whistleblower Fuat Avni exposes 'regime's' plan to control high judiciary.(FOT).

A Turkish government whistleblower who writes under the pseudonym of Fuat Avni and who claims to be in the inner circle of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has exposed a government plan which he says aims to hold full control of the high judiciary.

In his tweets posted on Saturday, Fuat Avni recalled that a government-endorsed judicial bill has been recently approved in Parliament which will deal a huge blow to the independence of the courts.

The law includes articles that are to give the government greater control over the judiciary as iincludes a provision to have a new round of elections at the Supreme Court of Appeals– despite the fact that they were held only four months ago, in June — and envisages ending the positions of existing members.

The law also includes articles requiring new elections to be held for the Council of State and gives the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK) to appoint judges as it wishes without respecting the long-held tradition of asking the opinion of the high courts.

Fuat Avni says, after the approval of the law by Erdoğan, the HSYK will convene on Monday to appoint new judges to the Supreme Court of Appeals and the Council of State. 

Stating that 144 new judges will be elected to the Supreme Court of Appeals and 36 will be elected to the Council of State, Fuat Avni claims that all of the new members have been carefully selected by the government and that all are loyal to the AK Party.

“Those who will be elected are all known. The marked lists [of judges to be elected] are at the hands of the [HSYK] members. An election will be held in formality and will be completed until the afternoon. If anyone applies the Constitutional Court on Monday, the election will be already completed before the court announces its decision and even if the court annuls the law, it will not be applied due to the non-retroactive character of the laws,” he said.

He also claimed that he has the list of the judges to be elected by the HSYK and that will make it public if needed be. Hmmm....Do the new 'Judges' swear an oath of allegiance to the new 'Fuhrer'? Read the full story here.

NAZI Judicial system. Actions were similar to the civil service. Judges were also forced to take the oath of allegiance to Hitler. Also, new, separate tribunals (especially new tribunals to define who Jews were and to enforce anti-Jewish laws.) were set up headed by rabidly racist Nazi Party members. Of course, similar people were appointed to regular courts whenever the opportunity arose. Thus, independence of judges was whittled away.

- of course, another means was to change the laws themselves and to give judges little leeway in enforcing and interpreting these new laws. If the laws are blatantly discriminatory, judges are supposed to enforce the law. The movie, “Judgment at Nuremburg,” dealt with the dilemmas of this situation.

Yes we can....No you can't? Justice Department Expert, Paid $70,000, Belittles Black Voters.

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Mathew 7.2

Yes we can....No you can't? Justice Department Expert, Paid $70,000, Belittles Black Voters. HT: JudicialWatch.

In an astonishing piece of election news from North Carolina, a Justice Department expert took the stand in a voting laws case to repeatedly suggest that that black voters were “less sophisticated” than white voters.

Charles Stewart, a political scientist hired by the Justice Department at a cost of around $70,000, also belittled black voters’ education, competence, and public awareness.
A sampling:

Mr. Stewart: People who register to vote the closer and closer one gets to Election Day tend to be less sophisticated voters, tend to be less educated voters, tend to be voters who are less attuned to public affairs. That also tells me from the literature of political science that there are likely to be people who will end up not registering and not voting. People who correspond to those factors tend to be African Americans . . .
[Referring to same-day registration,] this is particularly a mechanism and a time that’s well situated for less sophisticated voters, and, therefore, it’s less likely to imagine that these voters…can figure out or would avail themselves of other forms of registering and voting.
* * *
Q. Okay. So your testimony is that African Americans are less sophisticated than white voters; is that right? 

Mr. Stewart: My understanding is that African Americans have lower levels of education in North Carolina, and I know from the public opinion work that African Americans report that they paid less attention to public affairs on average than white voters do probably because of the differences the education.
* * *
Q. Did you ever take a survey – did you ever do a survey in the case of African American voters in North Carolina to see if they were less able to understand the rules for voting and registration? 

Mr. Stewart: I have not done any survey that asks directly about understanding the rules of registering and voting.

More of his testimony can be found here and here.

Black voters should be furious at the suggestion they are somehow less able to navigate the basic rules governing democratic elections—and all taxpayers should be furious that they paid big bucks for this condescending nonsense. Hmmmm........Yes we can....No you can't?



The post Justice Department Expert, Paid $70,000, Belittles Black Voters appeared first on Judicial Watch.

Video - Eric Holder 1995: We Need to “Just Really Brainwash People Into Thinking About Guns in a Vastly Different Way”

Senator Reid’s Special Obamacare Staff Exemption

Senator Reid’s Special Obamacare Staff Exemption.HT: Heritage.

In case you didn’t think it could get any worse, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) is apparently exempting his congressional leadership and committee staff from Obamacare, which specifically provides that “notwithstanding any other provision of law, all Members of Congress and congressional staff shall enroll in a Federal health insurance program” created under Obamacare.

This was supposed to mean that Congress would have to finance its health care on the Obamacare exchanges in the same way as average Americans.

But earlier this summer, President Obama pushed to allow Members of Congress and their staff to continue to receive Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) premium support for their plans on the Obamacare exchanges. This fix, issued by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), is flatly illegal.

Now, however, Senator Reid has brought the issue once again into sharp relief. OPM will not only issue illegal subsidies to Members of Congress and their personal staff; it will also continue to administer FEHBP plans for some congressional staff that were expressly denied to them under Obamacare.

Senator Reid’s fix for his staff apparently rests on his belief that the phrase “congressional staff” in section 1312(d)(3)(D) of the law means congressional staff in a personal office and does not include congressional leadership or congressional committee staff. From the language of the statutory text, this distinction is not clear, as the Congressional Research Service has indicated and independent analysts have also noted. Under the statutory language, the phrase “congressional staff” means “all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, D.C., or outside of Washington, D.C.”

When Obamacare was passed, Members of Congress had intentionally repealed the old FEHBP as applied to Members of Congress and their congressional staff (unless of course, they didn’t read the bill). The only legal plans for these persons—and all of these persons—are those created under Obamacare. If Members of Congress are having buyer’s remorse, the appropriate remedy is to change the law—in broad daylight, with an up or down vote—not to ask OPM to create something out of nothing or shovel the American taxpayers’ money into their pockets without statutory authorization.

How can this illegal scheme be stopped? Back when President Obama granted the special subsidies to Members of Congress, the phones of Senators and Representatives rang off the hooks. Senator Reid’s recent decision will surely shine another bright light on this ugly business, and popular outrage may yet exact a price on the White House and its congressional allies for this self-serving scheme.

However, there might also be a few new legal hooks to challenge this abuse. In particular, congressional staff who are not allowed to illegally remain on the FEHBP might sue to get put back on it. This entire process is arbitrary. After all, if “congressional staff” excludes Senator Reid’s congressional leadership and committee staff, why doesn’t it exclude all other House and Senate staff in a similar situation?
Whether this dispute will make it into the courts, one thing is clear: Duly enacted statutes should not be overridden by executive fiat simply for political expediency. That would truly make ours a nation ruled by men, not laws.


The post Senator Reid’s Special Obamacare Staff Exemption appeared first on The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation.

Video - Expert Testifies to Congress that Obama’s ‘Ignoring Laws’ Could Lead to Overthrow of Government.

Video - Expert Testifies to Congress that Obama’s ‘Ignoring Laws’ Could Lead to Overthrow of Government.HT: InfidelBloggers.

• Mediaite:

• During a congressional committee hearing about the constitutional limits imposed on the presidency and the implications of President Barack Obama’s disregard for implementing the Affordable Care Act as written, one expert testified that the consequences of the president’s behavior were potentially grave. He said that the precedent set by Obama could eventually lead to an armed revolt against the federal government.
  On Tuesday, Michael Cannon, Cato Institute’s Director of Health Policy Studies, testified before a congressional committee about the dangers of the president’s legal behavior.
  “There is one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restrains that the constitution places on the government,” Cannon said. “Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it.”

RELATED: Jonathan Alter Links Egyptian Military’s Overthrow Of Muslim Brotherhood To Promise Of Obama

“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate,” he continued. “If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws then they will conclude that neither are they.”
“That is a very dangerous sort of thing for the president to do, to want only ignore the laws,” Cannon concluded, “to try to impose obligation upon people that the legislature did not approve.”

Video - Mark Levin: "Holder Lied Under Oath - I Assume House Committee Will Charge Him With Perjury."

On Friday’s Mark Levin Show: Mark talks about AG Eric Holder’s testimony regarding the Associated Press and says that he lied when he said he didn’t know about them targeting journalists. We know that Holder signed off on the DOJ going after James Rosen of Fox News. Will Holder be held accountable for deliberately lying to Congress? Mark calls for a Special Prosecutor in the IRS case, the Associated Press case and others.

Darrell Issa to Sue Eric Holder Monday.

Darrell Issa to Sue Eric Holder Monday.(RC).House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa plans to sue Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday for refusing to provide documents related to the "Fast and Furious" gun-smuggling operation. "The committee expects to file the civil contempt suit against the attorney general Monday," a Republican source said. The suit will be filed in the federal district court for the District of Columbia. The action is the latest escalation in the dispute between House Republicans and the Justice Department over the documents, which relate to a botched gun-smuggling operation. On June 28, the House voted to hold Holder in contempt of Congress and authorized the Oversight panel to bring suit to enforce its rights.Read the full story here.

Barack Obama is not a "nice guy".

Barack Obama is not a "nice guy".(AT).Jack Kerwick says Barack Obama is not a "nice guy."

From Republican campaign strategist Ed Rollins and Republican House Speaker John Boehner to Republican presidential contenders John McCain and Mitt Romney, far too many Republicans have fueled the popular perception that Obama is a nice guy.

This perception is an illusion. But it is a most dangerous illusion, for it has permitted our President to advance his militantly leftist agenda.

In The Republic, Socrates engages several friends in a discussion over the nature of justice and its relationship to the good life. The question to which they attend is:

Which is more beneficial for its possessor, justice or injustice?

Glaucon, a brother of Plato, contends that the unjust man is actually better off than the just man -- so long as he is not recognized as an unjust man. Injustice is superior to justice, Glaucon reasons, because the unjust man knows no limits while the just man imposes constraints upon himself. So, for example, the just person will abide by the terms of a contract even after he realizes that he may have more to gain by violating them. The unjust man, in sharp contrast, will have no such reservations.

But if the unjust man is recognized as such, then others will not only deprive him of the opportunity to treat them unjustly; in addition to this social ostracism, he could as well face legal punishment.

To substantiate his position, Glaucon alludes to the legendary figure of Gyges.

Gyges was said to have been a poor, obscure shepherd who happens to stumble upon a magical ring, a ring that endows him with the ability to become invisible at will. With his new found power, Gyges manages to have the King murdered, seduce his wife, and assume control over the kingdom.

Glaucon's point is clear. As long as a person is thought by all to be just, his unjust character is essentially invisible. He then has both the ability and the will to pursue his wants at all costs -- including and particularly the cost of treating others unjustly.

Thus, injustice is better than justice, and the unjust person is better off than the just person -- as long as injustice goes undetected.

This debate that transpired close to 2500 years ago assumes new significance in light of the rise of Barack Obama.

Obama became nationally recognized eight years ago when he gave the keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention. Immediately, something like a trans-partisan consensus emerged on the speech's inspirational character, and both Democrat and non-Democrat alike began to view Obama as a rising star, a "new" kind of politician.

Even in 2008, when Obama became a presidential contender in the Democratic primaries, few and far between were those Republicans who were disposed to assail him with just a fraction of the aggression with which they attacked Hillary Clinton. In fact, Obama was regularly being depicted by Republican commentators as the beleaguered contestant in that race, the unsuspecting and undeserving victim of the Clinton killing machine.

Then Obama became the Democrats' presidential nominee.

He became the focus of Republicans' attacks, it is true, but even so, the tendency on the part of his opponents -- including John McCain -- to qualify their criticisms with assurances that Obama was a good and talented man persisted.

When Obama became the first black American president, it seemed that the entire planet erupted in rapture.

And Republicans went right along with it, joining the celebration of this "historic" election.

Obama's election to the office of the presidency promised to redeem America of her checkered racial history. He was going to be our first "post-racial" president, a bipartisan politician who would usher in a new millennium full of "hope and change."

To this day -- after four years of a disastrous first term comprised of effort after effort to fulfill his promise to "fundamentally transform" the country -- Obama's personal likeability numbers remain reasonably high. And though it has been a couple of months since he has said as much, even the presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney had expressed on more than one occasion his admiration for Obama as a person: "He's a nice guy; he's just in over his head."

Romney is no longer referring to Obama as a nice guy. Indeed, he should not, for in doing so, he flatters no one while revealing himself to be astonishingly naïve.

Given the relentless campaign that Obama is currently waging against him, and, specifically, the latest super PAC ad that implicates Romney in the death of the wife of a steel worker, it is no longer possible (if it ever was) to sustain either the claim that Obama is a nice guy or the claim that Romney really believes that he is a nice guy.

Obama is most emphatically not a nice guy.

Some of us -- those of us who actually looked into Obama's past -- have always known this.

In Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins, the lead character's love interest tells him: "It's not who we are underneath, but what we do, that defines us." Nice guys, or good guys, do not do the sorts of things that Obama has done over the course of his career.

A nice guy does not ally himself with all manner of anti-Americans, from unrepentant domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers to self-avowed "Black Liberation" theologians like Jeremiah Wright.

More tellingly, a nice guy doesn't ally himself with anti-Americans while trying to convince voters that he is actually a great American patriot, let alone someone who deserves to become the President of the United States of America.

In other words, a nice guy is not a person who is chronically deceptive.

A nice guy does not make promises -- like the promise of a "transparent" administration -- that he does not keep.

A nice guy does not seek, as Obama successfully sought to do in 1996 while running for a State Senate office in Illinois, to eliminate three of his Democratic rivals from the ballot while invalidating the legions of signatures that they accumulated in voters' petitions.

A nice guy doesn't use his position of power to bully the operators of businesses and coerce millions upon millions of people to acquiesce in "the fundamental transformation" -- the destruction, as David Limbaugh more aptly puts it -- of their homeland, their lives.

A nice guy doesn't exacerbate racial tensions by availing himself of "the race card" whenever it suits his purposes to do so.

And a nice guy most certainly does not exploit the tragedy of a person's death by baselessly accusing his competitor of being complicit in it.

Like Gyges, Obama has heretofore managed to preserve for himself the image of the just man. But unlike Gyges, that façade is cracking.

If we would only open our eyes and connect the dots, we will readily discover for ourselves that Obama is not a just man at all.Read the full story here.

White House removes petition with over 22,000 signatures calling for the TSA to follow the law before the petition was set to expire.

White House removes petition with over 22,000 signatures calling for the TSA to follow the law before the petition was set to expire.(AP).

Yet again, the Obama administration has made it quite clear that they couldn’t care less about the law, separation of powers or the opinions of the American people by turning their “We the People” petition site into a cruel farce.

When I first mentioned the petition in my August 1, 2012 article, “Federal court calls for TSA to explain defiance of naked body scanner order,” the petition had just over 16,000 signatures. According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), the White House removed the petition at around 11:30 am EDT, August 9, 2012, with about 22,500 signatures.

As I mentioned in my article linked above, this isn’t the first time the official We the People website has been shown to be a complete joke.

The responses to the genuine concerns and opinions of significant numbers of Americans are treated as completely meaningless by the political establishment, which is hardly surprising seeing as they have decided that they can assassinate American citizens with no explanation whatsoever based on classified evidence.

Interestingly, EPIC seems to indicate that the White House actually removed it before the petition was set to expire.

If this is true, it would mean that the White House is very clearly abusing their already farcical petition system in order to avoid even having to respond to the genuine concerns of Americans.

EPIC also reported that the White House’s petition website went down for “maintenance” shortly after Wired’s Threat Level blog posted an article which linked to the petition. However, this could very well be pure coincidence.

I believe that the most disturbing aspect of this is that a petition actually had to be created in order to call on our government to follow a court order around a year old.

Is there anything more repugnant than a system in which people actually have to create and sign a petition (which is later removed) in an attempt to get the government to honor the law? I think not.By comparison, removing a petition from an official website calling for the government to actually follow a court ruling after a year of ignoring it is hardly worth getting in a huff about. On the other hand, I think we should be bringing attention to all of the ways in which the government is proving itself to be a complete joke and this is yet another example to add to the growing list.Hmmmmm.....“Withholding information is the essence of tyranny. Control of the flow of information is the tool of the dictatorship.” ~ Bruce Coville.Read the full story here.

High Ranking Cartel Member Says Operation Fast And Furious Was Meant To Supply Guns To The Sinaloa Cartel.

High Ranking Cartel Member Says Operation Fast And Furious Was Meant To Supply Guns To The Sinaloa Cartel.(BI).A high-ranking member of the Sinaloa drug cartel operative currently in U.S. custody alleges that Operation Fast and Furious was part of an agreement to finance and arm the Sinaloa cartel in exchange for informationused to take down rival cartels, according to court documents.
The statement was made by Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla, the Sinaloa cartel’s “logistics coordinator” in charge of arranging massive drug shipments from Latin America to the United States as well as the son of cartel leader Ismael “Mayo” Zambada-Garcia and a close associate to kingpin Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman.
Zambada-Niebla was arrested by Mexican authorities in March 2009 and extradited to Chicago to face drug trafficking charges.
From the court document:

[T]he United States government at its highest levels entered into agreements with cartel leaders to act as informants against rival cartels and received benefits in return, including, but not limited to, access to thousands of weapons which helped them continue their business of smuggling drugs into Chicago and throughout the United States, and to continue wreaking havoc on the citizens and law enforcement in Mexico.

Zambada-Niebla believes that he, like the leadership of the Sinaloa cartel, was "immune from arrest or prosecution" because he also actively provided information to U.S. federal agents.Hmmm........Read the full story here.

Obama's 'Amnesty' - Arrested illegals who were released charged with 16,226 subsequent crimes.

Obama's 'Amnesty' - Arrested illegals who were released charged with 16,226 subsequent crimes.(DC).President Barack Obama‘s decision not to deport some arrested illegal immigrants has enabled a crime wave — but no American or immigrant victims have been publicly identified, and GOP politicians have mostly remained mute.

Illegal aliens who have been released from custody between 2008 and mid-2011 have been charged with 16,226 subsequent crimes, including 19 murders, 142 sex crimes and thousands of drunk-driving offenses, drug-crimes and felonies, according to a new report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

“Rather than protect the American people he was elected to serve, President Obama has imposed a policy that allows thousands of illegal immigrants to be released into our communities,” said a statement from Rep. Lamar Smith, the chairman of the House judiciary committee.
The criminals “were in the government’s custody, were identified as illegal immigrants and then let go because this administration has refused to request the resources to hold them and deport them,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
The White House press office did not respond to The Daily Caller’s questions.
Over a 33-month period, from October 2008 and July 2011, roughly one-sixth of those let go were later arrested for crimes.

The data shows that 26,412 of the 159,286 released legal and illegal immigrants were arrested later for 57,763 crimes, said the CRS.
The CRS found the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency “likely” had authority to deport only 7,283 — or 40 percent — of those repeat offenders. The other 19,129 had some form of legal status, and would not be liable for deportation until after conviction in a civil court.

After being released, the 7,283 deportable aliens were later charged with 16,226 crimes, including 19 murders, 142 sex crimes — such as rape or child molestation — almost 1,000 other major criminal offenses or violent crimes, plus 489 cases of theft, 551 traffic violations, 1,929 DUI violations and 156 parole violations.

Together, the released 26,412 illegal and legal immigrants were charged with 59 murders, 542 sex crimes, 6,270 drug crimes and up to 5,342 “major criminal offenses … [or] other violent crimes.”
“It is amazing to me there hasn’t been more fallout … [but] it is the Messiah’s administration [and] the media isn’t making a fuss,” Krikorian said. “It’s appalling.”
Chairman Smith, however, has pushed the issue. Obama’s “unwillingness to enforce immigration laws puts our communities at risk and costs American lives. We elect leaders to protect us — not put us in danger,” he said.Hmmm......And then shall that Wicked be revealed  "the wicked one," referring to the "man of sin," and called "the wicked one" because of the eminent depravity of the system of which he was to be the head; see the notes on 2 Thessalonians 2:3.Read the full story here.