SCOTUS Immigrants Who Lie to Feds to Become Citizens May Lose Citizenship

24 June 2017 by by Ken Klukowski

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Thursday held that federal law authorizes courts to strip immigrant citizens of their U.S. citizenship if they obtained it as a result of making false statements to the federal government.

Federal law found at 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a) makes it a crime to “knowingly procur[e], contrary to law, the naturalization of any person” to become a U.S. citizen. (“Naturalization” is the legal term for becoming a citizen.) Moreover, a second federal statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1451(e) adds that a foreigner who obtains U.S. citizenship through such a violation will lose that newly granted citizenship.

Divna Maslenjak is a Serb who, along with her husband and two children, sought refugee status in 1998 to flee Bosnia. As part of seeking protected status, she swore under oath that the family feared persecution because her husband evaded military service. They were admitted to the United States in 2000 as refugees.

In 2006, she applied for U.S. citizenship. One question on her application asked if she had ever given “false or misleading information” while applying for immigration benefits. Another asked if she had “lied … to gain entry or admission” in this country. She answered “no” to both and became an American citizen in 2007.

Those answers were false. Her husband had served in the Bosnian Serb Army. A third federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1015(a), criminalizes making a false sworn statement during naturalization. The U.S. government argued that her statement violating § 1015(a) also counts as a violation of § 1425(a), which meant she must lose her citizenship under § 1451(e).

A judge on the federal district court accepted that argument and stripped Maslenjak of her citizenship. The Sixth Circuit appeals court affirmed.

In an opinion written by Justice Elena Kagan, the Supreme Court in Maslenjak v. United States vacated (i.e., set aside) the lower court’s decision and remanded the case back down for more proceedings.

The federal government had argued that the citizenship-stripping provision is triggered whenever an immigrant commits a crime during the process of seeking citizenship.

All nine justices rejected that argument. “The most natural understanding is that the illegal act must have somehow contributed to the obtaining of citizenship,” Justice Kagan wrote. In other words, “§ 1425(a) demands a means-ends connection between a legal violation and naturalization.”

“We hold that the Government must establish that an illegal act by the defendant played some role in her acquisition of citizenship,” the Court declared. “When the illegal act is a false statement, that means demonstrating that the defendant lied about facts that would have mattered to an immigration official.”

The Court concluded that the contrary instructions given to the jury were faulty and that, instead, the jury should have been told that they needed to decide the factual question of whether Maslenjak’s lying about her husband’s military service was part of the cause of obtaining her own citizenship.

The majority vacated the lower court’s decision and remanded back to the trial court for a new jury proceeding where a correct explanation of the law would be provided to the jury.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a decision concurring in part, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Gorsuch wrote that the majority created a framework that was too elaborate, consisting of two complex tests with multiple parts. These new tests focus on causation, which was not the focus of the parties’ legal briefs or oral arguments.

He struck a note of judicial modesty, explaining:

Respectfully, it seems to me at least reasonably possible that the crucible of adversarial testing on which we depend, along with the experience of our thoughtful colleagues on the district and circuit benches, could yield insights (or reveal pitfalls) we cannot muster guided only by our own lights.

Justice Gorsuch added that he believes the Supreme Court should send the case back down with a less-elaborate holding, and allow the lower courts to flesh out additional details as necessary over time. After a period of trial and error, the Supreme Court could then in future cases review aspects of those legal interpretations.

“This Court often speaks most wisely when it speaks last,” he concluded.

Justice Samuel Alito also wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment, writing that when it comes to false statements, the immigration statute is violated when a person says something that is “material” to the naturalization process of obtaining citizenship. But contrary to the Court’s majority, Justice Alito believes that the statement need not actually be part of the cause of obtaining citizenship.

The case is Maslenjak v. United States, No. 16-309.

Ken Klukowski is senior legal editor for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

VIDEO Patriots Rally At WH Against Political Violence

Watch: Patriots Stand Against Political Violence - #RallyForPeace at WH

June 25, 2017


Watch the Rally Against Political Violence outside the White House:

Speaker List:

Roger Stone
Corey Stewart (R-VA)
Mike Cernovich
Jack Posobiec
Tanya Tay
Cassandra Fairbanks, Big League Politics
Laura Loomer, Rebel Media
Lucian Wintrich, Gateway Pundit
Michael Flynn Jr
Kyle Prescott, Proud Boys
Ali Akbar, Conservative activist
Alicia Powe, WND
Anna Khait, Survivor


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VIDEO “Trump’s War” And How It’s Going – President Trump Fox and Friends… – Dem Rage Result in Assassination Attempt

“Trump’s War” And How It’s Going

“Trump’s War” is the title of an excellent, well-reviewed book by Michael Weiner, a.k.a. Michael Savage of The Savage Nation fame, describing everything Trump is, and will be, up against. The list of opponents is not only huge but daunting. Most normal human beings would have thrown in the towel by now. I believe that even such stalwart conservatives as Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, had they been elected President, would have been overwhelmed by them.

They include but are not limited to the power elites in Washington, their useful tools the establishment Republicans both in Congress and in the media who detest Trump, thousands of “Never Trumpers” in the electorate, and the George Soros-funded “Resistance” which includes many of the furthest-left college professors (some of whom are actual leaders of Antifa, the rabidly violent extremist organization that believes in beating the crap out of conservatives), and unhinged celebrities who daily call for his murder or beheading and even portray it in Shakespeare-in-the-Park. And then there are the usual suspects, most Democrats and their partners-in-crime the mainstream media. This opposition is hammering on Trump daily.

And yet he persists—and makes progress on his agenda.

How is he able to do this? How can he continue to move along with his plan to revitalize America and help the working people of this country when he is so obviously making “mistakes,” such as leaving Obama appointees in their positions within the “deep state,” allowing James Comey to stay in as FBI Director when he probably knew he was being a weasel and betraying him, and allowing an avowed far-left Democrat, Robert Mueller, to head up a “special investigation” into his collusion using 13 former Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton supporters and donors? Even as seasoned a veteran as radio host Rush Limbaugh can’t understand some of Trump’s moves because, to him, they are illogical.

And yet, like Old Man River, Trump keeps on rolling along.

Trump has repealed dozens of burdensome Federal regulations on businesses small and large. He has reversed most of the Obama Administration’s open-door policy to Cuba, refusing to recognize them politically until the evil Castro regime is gone. His ICE agents are cracking down big-time on illegal criminals, dope dealers and gang members in this country, rounding them up and deporting them in record numbers. He has made significant improvements to the VA system, providing funds and a program to allow returning vets to transition to civilian security positions, drastically shortening wait times for their health care, and making it legal to fire VA employees who aren’t doing their job properly. He is moving ahead on infrastructure planning and is already talking about building the wall. What seemed like a dead issue for him, the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, is now suddenly on the move and will probably go through before the summer is over. Another issue that looked dead for him, the temporary ban on migrants from seven countries that sponsor terrorism, is going to the Supreme Court this coming Monday and will probably be approved. School reform is moving well under the watchful eye of Betsy DeVos; HUD reform is coming along under Dr. Ben Carson; and Secretary of Defense James Mattis has ISIS bottled up in Afghanistan and on the run in Syria. Most world leaders whose names are not Macron or Angela Merkel respect him and, appropriately, some fear him. He is following through on his agenda to restore the American economy, despite a few mishaps here and there.

Trump has managed to win his “war” by virtue of one thing: his 30-plus years of experience fighting his way through the jungle of New York real estate. In order to not just survive but win in that asphalt jungle, you have to be more than just tough. You have to out-think your opponent, to stay three moves ahead of him. It’s not just a method for survival, but the only way to win.

Neither the media nor his multiple opponents have figured out how to destroy Trump because, unlike even Paul and Cruz, he’s not a politician. He’s a master manipulator and CEO who has learned how to round-end his competitors and kneecap them without them even knowing that he has swung the axe. He’s the security guard who meets you at the exit of your favorite department store with handcuffs already on your wrists before you realize that he not only knows you’ve shoplifted but has the evidence on tape. And NONE OF HIS OPPONENTS KNOW HOW TO COPE WITH THAT.

So he fires FBI Director James Comey, and Comey runs to go squeal before Congress? Fine. Suggest that you may have tapes of your private conversations with him. This forces Comey to admit that Trump was never under investigation, and moreover that Trump asked him to open an investigation to clear his name and Comey refused. BOOM! There goes the Russian Hacking story. Comey then also admits, under oath, that he leaked the details of private conversations to a “friend” so he could then leak it to the New York Times.

Then, two weeks later, Trump announces: No tapes! Ha ha ha! Fooled you all!

Mueller sets up an investigation into collusion with his baker’s dozen of Democratic demons. Everyone in the press is waiting for Trump to fire Mueller, which of course would PROVE he has something to hide. For a week and a half, they print daily stories: “Will Trump Fire Mueller?” “Should Trump Fire Mueller?” “Why DOESN’T Trump Fire Mueller?” Finally, one of them gets the brilliant idea to actually ask Trump. And Trump tells the reporter, No, I’m not going to fire him. Let him investigate. Do his worst. This way, I’ll be cleared.

And the media just doesn’t get it.

How bad has it gotten? The New York Times is bloodletting. They’ve lost so much money over the past year that they’re laying off “unnecessary” personnel in batches and offering “buyouts” to many of their reporting staff. The word is that they’ll soon lay off reporters who don’t accept the buyout. But this still isn’t stopping them from making up daily lies about Trump, including a so-called “definitive” list of TRUMP lies.

There have been five special elections since February to fill vacancies in Congress created by Trump naming the holders of the seats to cabinet positions. The Democrats thought they would win at least three of them: the one in California, the one in Montana and the one in Georgia. They purposely sent an inflammatory reporter to the campaign headquarters of Republican candidate Greg Gianforte the day before the Montana election with the express instructions to make Gianforte assault him…which the candidate did, pushing him to the ground and breaking his glasses. This wasn’t one-20th as bad as the multiple beatings that members of Antifa had given peaceful attendees at conservative events on the campus of Berkeley, but the media made it sound as if Gianforte had all but killed the reporter. The Democrats poured millions into the campaign of Democratic contender Rob Quist, who still lost.

But the sweetest win of all was that of low-key Republican candidate Karen Handel against whiz-kid Jon Ossoff in Georgia. This was a campaign into which the Democratic Party AND Hollywood poured $40 million into Ossoff’s coffers. Two days before the election, the polls were still showing Ossoff with a seven-point lead. Yet Handel won by four.

And that brings us to Trump’s greatest and most secret weapon: his supporters. The media and the Democrats keep thinking that the Daily Trump Dump will separate them from the President, that they’ll regret having voted for him and turn away from him. Yet every time they’re asked—which isn’t often—they continually tell the press that they haven’t regretted their vote for one moment and would do it all over again.

This is where Trump differs greatly from Hillary Clinton and even from Barack Obama. Like Obama, Trump draws huge crowds wherever he goes to talk; but Obama only drew them, and continues to draw them, because he is polite and soft-spoken and has charisma. His supporters are not emotionally attached to him. Trump’s supporters ARE emotionally attached to him.

And everywhere he goes, he’s still getting adulation, love and unwavering support, whether it be in Miami in front of 20,000 screaming Cuban-Americans or in Grand Rapids, Iowa before 30,000 adoring supporters. The media is losing its collective mind over this. They can’t understand it, so all they do is what they know how to do, which is to ramp up the vitriol and print more and more lies about him.

But if you look inside the Trump support, you’ll see that they’re waging a psychological war of their own—and they’re winning because they’re far craftier and more subtle than the head-bashing liberals.

How is this possible? Easy. They lie to pollsters about who they support. Then, when the polls show the Democrat leading and everyone is expecting a rout, BOOM, they come out of hiding and vote Republican. This tactic worked so well in Georgia on June 20 that the media was as much in the throes of depression as they were the night of November 8, 2016, when Trump routed Hillary Clinton to win the Presidency. And the media, like the Democrats, never saw it coming.

Which only goes to prove that Trmup supporters are a lot smarter than the media gives them credit for. I liked them to the snipers during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 who defeated the heavily favored and better-armed British by knowing where to hide in the brush and ambush them. That is exactly what they’re doing in all these elections, and will continue to do next year and in 2020. It’s a good old-fashioned bushwhacking, and the Left doesn’t know how to handle it because they think most Trump supporters are morons who can’t even add up the change in their pockets to buy gas for their pickup trucks.

And so the Trump War goes on being waged, the Left using tired old attacks and lies that aren’t working any more while Trump runs rings around them and his supporters bushwhack them in the underbrush of elections. Remembere that Nazi Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, the “Desert Fox,” was defeated by the brilliant gambles of British General Montgomery to attack the most heavily protected areas of the German lines. This “suicide” mission turned out to be a brilliant coup; the German soldiers, expecting nothing at those points, were in a panic. Nazi General George Strumme died of a heart attack in the midst of the battle, and his replacement, Wilhelm Ritter von Thoma, couldn’t withstand the attack of Montgomery’s forces, which were hitting them from all sides.

Bushwhacking works, folks. The element of surprise overcomes the most powerful of foes. The ultimate bushwhack of the 20th century was D-Day, when Allied forces accidentally landed at the wrong spot on the beaches on Normandy which turned out to be exactly the right spot to win.

So keep on truckin’, Trump supporters. DO NOT GIVE UP. The media is lying to you and will continue to lie. Their polls are skewered to favor Democrats. And in the meantime, folks…


They haven’t a clue who to run for President in 2020…Corey Booker? That died. Hillary again? Not after she blamed the Democratic Party for her defeat. Oprah Winfrey? Yes, they were serious about that one. Elizabeth Warren? She’s not interested. Lately it’s Eric Holder, the failed Attorney General who Obama had to fire. Now they’ve thrown a former icon, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, under the bus because she’s considered “toxic” to them, and sent Field Marshal Obama himself in the fray to rouse the troops. But even Obama doesn’t know how to handle Trump supporters because he’s never met anyone in his life who won’t give up America without a good fight.


Sunday Talks: President Trump Interviews with Fox and Friends…

The drop in ratings for corporate Fox News is unfamiliar territory for them.  It takes a while for corporate suites to react to losses in position.  In the era of Roger Ailes, losing was unfamiliar.  Broadcast perspectives modify based on finances. President Trump is bigger than the media who report on him.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Big Win for Religious Freedom in Circuit Court Case on Gay Marriage

June 23, 2017 By Ryan T. Anderson

(Wikimedia Commons Photo)

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously on Thursday that a Mississippi law that protects religious liberty and the rights of conscience in light of the redefinition of marriage may go into effect.

In the decision, the circuit court overruled a previous judgment from a district court judge who had declared the Mississippi law unconstitutional for violating the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.

But as the circuit court pointed out, the challengers to Mississippi’s law lack standing because they “have not clearly shown injury-in-fact.” In other words, they did not show how the Mississippi law protecting liberty for people who hold to the pre-Obergefell v. Hodges definition of marriage harmed them.

The court explained that the “failure” of the “plaintiffs to assert anything more than a general stigmatic injury dooms their claim.”

While the ruling focused on the lack of standing of the plaintiffs, there are plenty of reasons to rule in favor of the constitutionality of laws like Mississippi’s on the merits.

As Sherif Girgis and I explain in our new book, “Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination,” there is nothing scandalous about protections for particular views that are at odds with those on which the government acts.

When the government takes Americans to war, exceptions cover pacifists. When the government guarantees abortion, exceptions cover pro-lifers. These exemptions don’t amount to establishments of any religion, and neither do laws protecting dissenters after Obergefell.

Indeed, as law professor Richard Epstein explains, the Establishment Clause—meant to “knock down state coercion for religion”—can’t be used to invalidate “a statute whose whole purpose was to insulate private parties from any form of coercion.”

So, what does the Mississippi law do? As previously explained at The Daily Signal:

  • Religious organizations, like churches, cannot be forced to use their facilities to celebrate or solemnize weddings that violate their beliefs.
  • Religious convents, universities, and social service organizations can continue to maintain personnel and housing policies that reflect their beliefs.
  • Religious adoption agencies can continue to operate by their conviction that every child they serve deserves to be placed with a married mom and dad.
  • Bakersphotographersflorists, and similar wedding-specific vendors cannot be forced to use their talents to celebrate same-sex weddings if they cannot do so in good conscience.
  • State employees cannot be fired for expressing their beliefs about marriage outside the office, and individual state clerks can opt out of issuing marriage licenses so long as no valid marriage license is delayed or impeded.
  • Counselors and surgeons cannot be required to participate in gender identity transitioning or sex-reassignment surgeries against their faith and convictions, while guaranteeing that no one is denied emergency care or visitation rights.
  • Private businesses and schools, not bureaucrats, get to set their own bathroom, shower, and locker room policies.

This is a reasonable bill. It protects the consciences of people who hold to the historic definition of marriage in the aftermath of the Supreme Court redefining marriage, and it does so while avoiding the awful outcomes that critics fear. The bill provides that the government cannot punish, fine, or coerce specific people and organizations, in specific contexts. It doesn’t harm anyone.

Other states should follow Mississippi’s lead in protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience after the redefinition of marriage. So, too, should Congress pass protections at the federal level.

Longstanding Precedent on Abortion

There is great precedent for such protections on the abortion issue, as Girgis and I explain in “Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination.”

In 1973, just months after Roe v. Wade was handed down, Congress passed the Church Amendment, named for Sen. Frank Church, a Democrat from Idaho.

While Roe shielded the choice to have an abortion, the Church Amendment protected doctors’ and nurses’ choices not to perform one. It provided that health care organizations receiving federal funds could not force their doctors or nurses to perform or assist abortions.

Some 20 years later, Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the Coats–Snowe Amendment. It prohibits the government from discriminating against medical students who refuse to perform abortions and medical residency programs that leave out abortion training.

And in 2004, Congress passed the Hyde-Weldon Amendment, which keeps the government from discriminating against health care institutions that don’t offer abortions.

Since 1973, then, U.S. policy has protected a right to choose an abortion right alongside an individual and institutional right to choose against facilitating one.

Our law should now do the same on marriage. It needn’t and shouldn’t penalize private associations for their beliefs on this issue. Doing so would make no appreciable difference to the ability of same-sex couples to receive the goods and services they seek, but it would undermine conscience rights for some.

So lawmakers can and should grant a categorical accommodation.

Current Legislation

A proposed federal law would do that. Much like the Church, Coats-Snowe, and Hyde-Weldon amendments, the First Amendment Defense Act would protect the freedoms of citizens and organizations who hold a belief at odds with one enshrined by courts.

Protecting pro-life consciences did not violate the Constitution—by establishing a religion or engaging in viewpoint discrimination or otherwise. Nor do laws protecting pacifists. Their only aim is peaceful coexistence in the face of disagreement.

The same goes for the First Amendment Defense Act. It would enact a bright-line rule to keep government from penalizing someone just for acting on her belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife. It would protect people who hold that belief for religious or secular reasons, and it would shield organizations from losing nonprofit tax status, licensing, or accreditation for operating by these beliefs.

But even the First Amendment Defense Act’s categorical protections reflect a careful balance. They protect individuals, nonprofit charities, and privately held businesses, but not publicly traded corporations, or federal employees or contractors in the course of their work.

The First Amendment Defense Act makes clear that it does not relieve the federal government of its duty to provide services, medical care, or benefits to all who qualify. It must simply respect conscience in the course of doing so.

Mississippi has shown the way forward on this issue at the state level. And on Thursday, the 5th Circuit allowed that law to go into effect.

Other states should offer similar protections at the state level, and Congress should do the same at the federal level.

Protecting a New Minority

America is in a time of transition. The Supreme Court has redefined marriage, and beliefs about human sexuality are changing.

During this time, it is critical to protect the right to dissent and the civil liberties of those who speak and act in accord with what Americans had always previously believed about marriage—that it is the union of husband and wife.

Good public policy is needed at the local, state, and federal levels to protect cherished American values. Good policy would help achieve civil peace amid disagreement and protect pluralism and the rights of all Americans, regardless of what faith they may practice.

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, where he researches and writes about marriage, bioethics, religious liberty and political philosophy. Anderson is the author of several books and his research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices in two separate cases.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

VIDEO Both Sides Aren’t Violent – Dems trapped in their hate-filled corner – Anger Privilege

All need to remember Thomas Jefferson’s words: “I have sworn on the altar of God eternal enmity against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” Nothing will change until you do

Both Sides Aren’t Violent

June 22, 2017 By

Free speech is under assault in America. And in California, free speech is being bushwhacked. People are attacked just for having patriotic bumper stickers on their cars. Trump supporters who attend rallies are threatened, assaulted, beat up, and in a weekend attack in Santa Monica, a 28-year old man was knifed nine times! The only people being attacked are Trump supporters. The media lie “both sides do it” is repugnant; both sides are not violent.

The Navy Jack flag flying from my house was set on fire shortly before the November 8th presidential election. We fly it at the behest of our son, a Naval officer, who was deployed to the Middle East at the time. It’s an historical flag. But the dunderheads who set it afire have no idea that the Navy Jack flag is flown from all commissioned naval vessels. Duh.

In my urban Sacramento neighborhood of 6,000 homes, I counted three Trump signs and one Trump flag being displayed during the election. However, it appeared that every other house had HILLARY signs displayed, and every Prius and Subaru wagon displayed I’m With HER bumper stickers next to COEXIST, BOYCOTT ISRAEL, Proud Witch, and Obama 2008.

Nasty Women Get # Done PDX: A group who fancy themselves enlightened feminist resisters

Following the election, that obnoxious, preachy “In Our America” sign popped up all over my neighborhood. The sign is from the “Nasty Women Get # Done PDX” group who fancy themselves enlightened feminist resisters. However, they really are just batty deniers, still whining about losing the election, and ignorant of the Electoral College.

“Nasty Women Get # Done” push ridiculous messages like 7 Reasons Why Patriarchy Is Bad (And Feminism Is Good) For Men , and 4 ways you as a white person can reduce your complicity in white supremacy.

This is life in urban California. It’s hostile, full of angry liberals still in shock that Hillary lost, who see no problem destroying property if it supports their anti-Trump “resist” game plan.

Yet media elites, talking heads and Democrat strategists continue to tell us that “both sides do it.”

Au contraire mon frère. Both sides do not do it. It is this attitude that propelled Trump to win the presidential election. I understood Trump’s populist appeal early on, and embraced it along with middle and rural America, because after the last eight years, and the lily-livered Republican choices for President, the people wanted a fighter because the people are fed up. The people are fed up with the lying media. They are fed up with Democrat and Republican operatives, and with the political establishment, which has gotten rich while ignoring the will of the people.

This election was simple: Trump spoke directly to the people whose concerns were jobs, immigration, and Islamic terrorism. The agenda of the previous eight years ignored these basic issues. This election, Democrats had no playbook and no solutions to these bipartisan problems.

When George W. Bush was running against Al Gore in the 2000 election, there were a good amount of Bush/Cheney lawn signs in my neighborhood—not as many as the Gore/Lieberman signs, but people in my urban neighborhood didn’t hesitate to show support for either political side.

However, that didn’t last. In 2000, I was berated at my local polling station by a few boorish, loudmouthed neighbors for being Republican, thanks to the poll worker who loudly announced (sneered) my Republican Party status. I had my then-11-year old son with me, and that may have been the first time he showed his protective side for mom. He was disgusted at their behavior, and demanded to know why the incident happened. Needless to say, we had an interesting discussion about it.

Today it’s even worse. The liberal left is no longer liberal; they aren’t progressive, they aren’t enlightened, and they are not tolerant—once terms used to describe liberals. They are corrupted, radicalized and make daily use of “the ends justify the means.” They have become incendiary, domestic,  subversive malcontents, only happy when anyone right-of-center is cowed into silence. Ordinary decency is dead on the left. And those who deny this look the other way when it is in front of them.

The Democrat Party is Destroying America

The Democrat Party has adopted many communist intentions to destabilize and destroy America, from cultural rot, to demonizing prayer and religion, to socializing and destroying public education, to open contempt for the rule of law.

Following Trump’s victory, Democrats and the media should have done a serious introspection, because his win was not a surprise; they just refused to see the signs, and instead ramped up manipulations to get Hillary into the White House. They ignored the obvious. And if they are incapable of reading the obvious signs in an election, imagine how bad Democrats in the White House again would be

Camille Paglia: Democrat Party has destroyed American journalism

Camille Paglia, the feminist liberal media studies college professor says the Democrat Party has destroyed American journalism, and won’t stop there. “Democrats are doing this in collusion with the media obviously, because they just want to create chaos,” she said. “They want to completely obliterate any sense that the Trump administration is making any progress on anything.”

I’ve long said that Democrats always overreach when they are in power. Paglia agrees. Her assessment of media bias in the Trump era leaves little room for optimism. “I am appalled at the behavior of the media,” she declared. “It’s the collapse of journalism.”

Paglia, who voted for Jill Stein last November, is predicting Trump will win re-election in 2020. “I feel like the Democrats have overplayed their hand,” she said.

If elite Democrats and the radical left continue to insist the President doesn’t deserve unbiased news coverage—if they continue down their vulgar pathway claiming Trump committed incest with his daughter—if the left continues to produce vile videos mimicking Trump’s beheading—if they continue sharing their dreams of blowing up the White House—if they continue producing vulgar plays in which the President is stabbed to death Caesarian style—if they continue to assault American patriots and Trump supporters and continue to destroy property, they will surely usher in another four years for Trump in 2020.

Elitist Democrats and the radical left continue to insult Middle Americans

If the elitist media leftists (Democrats with bylines) continue to write articles demanding Trump’s trial and execution—if leftist college professors continue to call for Trump to be hanged, or fantasize about Trump’s murder—they can expect an uprising from the hard working, decent people on the right who are disgusted and fed up with their abhorrent behavior.

And if elitist Democrats and the radical left continue to insult Middle Americans, the Middle Class, the working classes and those who want to work, they will be in for an even bigger surprise. While leftists are so wrapped up in their collective angry meltdowns and adult temper tantrums, Trump is working hard to overturn job and business killing regulations, and get Americans back to work. “Drunk with words, spin, and snark, middle-class journalists can’t be bothered to notice the complex physical constructions that make modern civilization possible,” Camille Paglia said. “The laborers who build and maintain these marvels are recognized only if they can be shoehorned into victim status. But if they dare to think for themselves and vote differently from their liberal overlords, they are branded as rubes and pariahs.”

Meanwhile good Americans need to stand up, speak out, and fight back. All need to remember Thomas Jefferson’s words: “I have sworn on the altar of God eternal enmity against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” Nothing will change until you do.

Katy Grimes — Bio and Archives |Articles with Megan Barth

Katy Grimes is an investigative journalist, Senior Correspondent with the Flash Report, ReaganBaby, and Senior Media Fellow with Energy and Environmental Institute. A longtime political analyst, she has written for The Sacramento Union, The Washington Examiner,, The Pacific Research Institute’s CalWatchdog, The San Francisco Examiner, The Business Journal, E&E Legal, The Sacramento Bee, Legal Insurrection, Canada Free Press, and Laura Ingraham’s LifeZette, and can be heard regularly on many talk radio shows each week.

Democrats will be tearing their own hair out now that the citizenry can clearly see what they are. Stay safe America

Democrats trapped in their hate-filled corner

June 22, 2017 By

So-called ‘White Obama’ Jon Ossoff’s defeat in the special election for Georgia’s 6th Congressional district yesterday makes it clear that the Democrats are going down in the water for the third time with no lifeguard coming to save them.

Resistance leaders Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the hordes of entertainment industry celebrities, mainstream media puppets, their hate-spewing and violence are killing the Democrat Party and driving it deeper into exile.

People have had it up to here with an ex-president using paid activists to revive his policies

CNN’s Don Lemon, who compared Ossoff to Barack Obama: “His cadence is almost the same”, did the deplorables a favor.

People have had it up to here with an ex-president using paid activists to revive his policies after he’s no longer in office.

Media smearing of ‘the citizen enemy’ don’t cut it any more. Protests aren’t getting the progressives what they demand and the ability to raise and spend more than $30-million on what was arguably most expensive House race in history did not bring the progressive left out of their post presidential election exile, and likely won’t in our lifetime.

Voters knew that the more than $30-million raised and spent came from mostly out of state donations and from malcontent Hollywood liberals, who will never follow through on their melodramatic promises to leave the country.

In spite of the caterwauling of the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC and other Fake News providers, Republicans are now 4 of 4 in special election outcomes since Donald Trump won the White House.

You can slap the word ‘special’ on anything but that won’t make your mission any more special.

Take notice, Mr. Special Counsel Mueller.

The continued hateful rhetoric, intimidation, threats of violence, calls for assassinations and impeachment have boomeranged right back on the deranged Democrats where it truthfully belongs.

Their piercing screams of outrage have awakened the sleeping giant known as The Electorate, who see clearly through pantsuit-wearing feminist Hillary Clinton and an ex-president who defiantly refuses to go away and has an army of malcontents awaiting his direction.

The Democrat party has refused to infuse any positive in their message and spend the majority of their time on a Russian conspiracy in which there is no there, there.

Liz Peek of Fox News said it best: ‘Message from Georgia: Hating Trump is not a platform’.

“Turns out…money can’t buy you love. Or a House seat in Georgia’s 6th District.

“Democrats pulled out all stops in their effort to show that the #Resistance isn’t just about marches and slogans and insulting the president, but also about flipping the House in 2018. They poured tens of millions of dollars into what became the most expensive House race ever, trying to elect 30-year-old nonentity Jon Ossoff to fill the seat of HHS head Tom Price. They cast the race as a referendum on Donald Trump, and a bellwether for 2018. Republicans will be elated with the outcome, and hopeful that both those claims are true.

“What is undoubtedly true is this: despising Donald Trump is not much of a platform.

“Ossoff, who received gobs of money from outside Georgia and doesn’t even live in the 6th District, started his campaign by exhorting voters to “Make Trump Furious.” But more recently he backed off that attack line, and ran what even the New York Times called a “milquetoast” campaign. He portrayed himself as a centrist, with a platform about as thin as his resume.”

The same activist politicians who once so quickly declared ‘You can’t put lipstick on a pig’ are now the pigs wearing the lipstick

The progressives have done an effective job in getting the MSM to disseminate the message in every corner of the world that Trump’s a buffoon, a misogynist, an agent provocateur who worked with the Russians to “steal the 2016 presidential election” from Obama protégé Hillary Clinton.

Sit in any barber’s chair in London, England, hang out with the guys at the corner pool hall in Lisbon, Portugal, wander into the subject of politics at the dinner table of your own relatives and the subject inevitably turns into Trump trashing.

Problem for the Democrats immortalizing the Trash Trump message is that members of the chattering classes in London, Lisbon, etc., can’t vote for over-the-top Democrats, they can only hopelessly mouth their message.

The same activist politicians who once so quickly declared ‘You can’t put lipstick on a pig’ are now the pigs wearing the lipstick.

The leaders of their Resistance, Obama and Clinton are so 1960s.  They can’t move off the resentment and hatred where November 8, 2016 left them, and can’t find their way back to power, while the citizen world moves on without them.

Coming up with the money for the rent and the mortgage, finding good paying jobs, getting on with life in economic challenged times is more important to them than listening to the laments of well-paid politicians.

Newt Gingrich: “Democrats said Georgia was a referendum on Trump. They’re right – Trump won.”

In spite of the media hype,  the coming protests over the months ahead, this is the bleak corner into which the progressives have painted themselves.

“A win was vital to Democrats, who need to rebuild their demoralized party.  (FoxNews) They have virtually no chance of retaking the Senate in 2018, given the seats that are in play. Thus, the focus is on reclaiming the House, for which they will need to win 24 seats.  So far, they are batting zero. In the just-concluded South Carolina contest, the GOP candidate running to fill the seat of Budget Director Mick Mulvaney won, as expected.

Also, on April 11, Democrats lost the race for Kansas’ 4th District seat, called to replace Mike Pompeo who became head of the CIA.”

The bragging and false bravado of the Democrats took a nosedive under the bright spotlights of the public stage last night.

As Newt Gingrich reminds them: “Democrats said Georgia was a referendum on Trump. They’re right – Trump won.”

Democrats will be tearing their own hair out now that the citizenry can clearly see what they are.

Stay safe America.

Judi McLeod Copyright © Canada Free Press

RSS Feed for Judi McLeod

Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh,, Drudge Report,, and Glenn Beck.

Leftist revolution ended, as all leftist revolutions do, in blood and violence

Anger Privilege

June 22, 2017 By

If you want to know who has privilege in a society and who doesn’t, follow the anger.

There are people in this country who can safely express their anger. And those who can’t. If you’re angry that Trump won, your anger is socially acceptable. If you were angry that Obama won, it wasn’t.

James Hodgkinson’s rage was socially acceptable. It continued to be socially acceptable until he crossed the line into murder. And he’s not alone. There’s Micah Xavier Johnson, the Black Lives Matter cop-killer in Dallas, and Gavin Long, the Black Lives Matter cop-killer in Baton Rouge. If you’re black and angry about the police, your anger is celebrated. If you’re white and angry about the Terror travel ban, the Paris Climate treaty, ObamaCare repeal or any leftist cause, you’re on the side of the angry angels.

But if you’re white and angry that your job is going to China or that you just missed being killed in a Muslim suicide bombing, your anger is unacceptable.

If you’re an angry leftist, your party leader, Tom Perez will scream and curse into a microphone, and your aspiring presidential candidate, Kirsten Gillibrand, will curse along, to channel the anger of the base. But if you’re an angry conservative, then Trump channeling your anger is “dangerous” because you aren’t allowed to be angry.

Not all anger is created equal. Some anger is privileged rage.

Good anger gets you a gig as a CNN commentator. Bad anger gets you hounded out of your job. Good anger isn’t described as anger at all. Instead it’s linguistically whitewashed as “passionate” or “courageous”. Bad anger however is “worrying” or “dangerous”. Angry left-wing protesters “call out”, angry right-wing protesters “threaten”. Good anger is left-wing. Bad anger is right-wing.

Socially acceptable displays of anger, from Occupy Wall Street to Black Lives Matter riots to the anti-Trump marches to the furious campus protests, are invariably left-wing.

Left-wing anger over the elections of Bush and Trump was sanctified. Right-wing outrage over Obama’s victory was demonized. Now that left-wing anger led a Bernie Sanders volunteer to open fire at a Republican charity baseball practice outing. And the media reluctantly concedes that maybe both sides should moderate their rhetoric. Before listing examples that lean to the right like “Lock her up”.

Not all anger is created equal. Anger, like everything else, is ideologically coded

Why were chants of “Lock her up” immoderate, but not Bush era cries of “Jail to the chief”? Why were Tea Party rallies “ominous” but the latest We Hate Trump march is “courageous”? Why is killing Trump on stage the hottest thing to hit Shakespeare while a rodeo clown who wore an Obama mask was hounded by everyone from the Lieutenant Governor of Missouri to the NAACP?

Not all anger is created equal. Anger, like everything else, is ideologically coded. Left-wing anger is good because its ideological foundations are good. Right-wing anger is bad because its ideology is bad.

It’s not the level of anger, its intensity or its threatening nature that makes it good or bad.

And that is why the left so easily slips into violence. All its ideological ends are good. Therefore its means, from mass starvation to gulags to riots and tyranny, must be good. If I slash your tires because of your Obama bumper sticker”, I’m a monster. But if you key my car because of my Trump bumper sticker, you’re fighting racism and fascism. Your tactics might be in error, but your viewpoint isn’t.

There are no universal standards of behavior. Civility, like everything else, is ideologically limited.

Tone policing is how the anger of privileged leftists is protected while the frustration of their victims is suppressed

Intersectionality frowns on expecting civil behavior from “oppressed” protesters. Asking that shrieking campus crybully not to scream threats in your face is “tone policing”. An African-American millionaire’s child at Yale is fighting for her “existence”, unlike the Pennsylvania coal miner, the Baltimore police officer and the Christian florist whose existences really are threatened.

Tone policing is how the anger of privileged leftists is protected while the frustration of their victims is suppressed. The existence of tone policing as a specific term to protect displays of left-wing anger shows the collapse of civility into anger privilege. Civility has been replaced by a political entitlement to anger.

The left prides itself on an unearned moral superiority (“When they go low, we go high”) reinforced by its own echo chamber even as it has become incapable of controlling its angry outbursts. The national tantrum after Trump’s victory has all but shut down the government, turned every media outlet into a non-stop feed of conspiracy theories and set off protests that quickly escalated into street violence.

But Trump Derangement Syndrome is a symptom of a problem with the left that existed before he was born. The left is an angry movement. It is animated by an outraged self-righteousness whose moral superiority doubles as dehumanization. And its machinery of culture glamorizes its anger. The media dresses up the seething rage so that the left never has to look at its inner Hodgkinson in the mirror.

The angry left has gained a great deal of powerThe left is as angry as ever. Campus riots and assassinations of Republican politicians are nothing new. What is changing is that its opponents are beginning to match its anger. The left still clings to the same anger it had when it was a theoretical movement with plans, but little impact on the country. The outrage at the left is no longer ideological. There are millions of people whose health care was destroyed by ObamaCare, whose First Amendment rights were taken away, whose land was seized, whose children were turned against them and whose livelihoods were destroyed.

The angry left has gained a great deal of power. It has used that power to wreck lives. It is feverishly plotting to deprive nearly 63 million Americans of their vote by using its entrenched power in the government, the media and the non-profit sector. And it is too blinded by its own anger over the results of the election to realize the anger over its wholesale abuses of power and privileged tantrums.

But monopolies on anger only work in totalitarian states. In a free society, both sides are expected to control their anger and find terms on which to debate and settle issues. The left rejects civility and refuses to control its anger. The only settlement it will accept is absolute power. If an election doesn’t go its way, it will overturn the results. If someone offends it, he must be punished. Or there will be anger.

The angry left demands that everyone recognize the absolute righteousness of its anger as the basis for its power. This anger privilege, like tone policing, is often cast in terms of oppressed groups. But its anger isn’t in defiance of oppression, but in pursuit of oppression.

Anger privilege is used to silence opposition, to enforce illegal policies and to seize power. But the left’s monopolies on anger are cultural, not political. The entertainment industry and the media can enforce anger privilege norms through public shaming, but their smears can’t stop the consequences of the collapse of civility in public life. There are no monopolies on emotion.

James Hodgkinson absorbed all this. The left fed his anger. And eventually he snapped

When anger becomes the basis for political power, then it won’t stop with Howard Dean or Bernie Sanders. That’s what the left found out in the last election. Its phony pearl clutching was a reaction to the consequences of its destruction of civility. Its reaction to that show of anger by conservatives and independents was to escalate the conflict. Instead of being the opposition, the left became the “resistance”. Trump was simultaneously Hitler and a traitor. Republicans were evil beasts.

James Hodgkinson absorbed all this. The left fed his anger. And eventually he snapped.

Anger has to go somewhere.

The left likes to think that its anger is good anger because it’s angry over the plight of illegal aliens, Muslim terrorists, transgender bathrooms, the lack of abortion in South Carolina, the minimum wage at Taco Bell, budget cuts, tax cuts, police arrests, drone strikes and all the other ways in which reality differs from its utopia. But all that anger isn’t the road to a better world, but to hate and violence.

Millions of leftists, just like Hodgkinson, are told every day that Republicans are responsible for everything wrong with their lives, the country and the planet. Despite everything they do, all the petitions they sign, the marches they attend, the donations, the angry letters, the social media rants, Republicans continue to exist and even be elected to public office. Where does that anger go?

Leftist anger is a privileged bubble of entitlement that bursts every other election

Either we have a political system based on existing laws and norms of civility. Or we have one based on coups and populist leftist anger. And there are already a whole bunch of those south of the border.

Leftist anger is a privileged bubble of entitlement that bursts every other election. Its choice is to try to understand the rest of the country or to intimidate, censor, oppress and eventually kill them.

James Hodgkinson took the latter course. His personal leftist revolution ended, as all leftist revolutions do, in blood and violence. The left can check its anger privilege and examine its entitlement.

Or his violence will be our future.

Daniel Greenfield Daniel Greenfield is a New York City writer and columnist. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and his articles appears at its Front Page Magazine site.

Daniel can be reached at:

A Former FBI Special Agent Has Just Exposed Robert Mueller and James Comey!

FBI had evidence that Loretta Lynch intended to obstruct Clinton email investigation • 6/12/17

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Institutional Left Loses Again: GuideStar Reverses Course, Removes Inaccurate SPLC Labels Hurting Conservative Groups

24 June 2017 by Matthew Boyle

The institutional left suffered a significant blow on Friday when nonprofit and charity tracker GuideStar withdrew inaccurate labels placed on conservative groups on its website—labels that were pushed by the far left-wing organization, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

“We acknowledge there is a deep, nuanced conversation to be had with Americans of all political, cultural, and religious backgrounds regarding how we address — and identify — hate groups,” GuideStar said in its statement announcing the withdrawal of SPLC labels from its website, a move that will come next week, according to the Associated Press.

GuideStar is an organization that presents itself as objective in rating and providing information about charities and nonprofits that the government and major donors use to make donation and grant and funding decisions. But when it recently made the decision to include inaccurate SPLC data falsely labeling many mainstream organizations, like the Family Research Council (FRC) as hate groups, it came under intense criticism from top leaders of the conservative movement.

The move to use SPLC’s inaccurate information led to GuideStar’s inaccurate smearing of dozens of mainstream conservative organizations as “hate groups” and sparked fierce criticism from top conservatives. The goal of the left in taking such action is to continue to build organizations that push their progressive leftist agenda. They want to also destroy organizations that challenge that leftist agenda while supporting an America First ideology that furthers the goals of Republicans and President Donald Trump.

“The nation’s leading source of information on U.S. charities faces mounting criticism for using a controversial ‘hate group’ designation in listings for some well-known and broadly supported conservative nonprofits,” Rachel del Guidice wrote in the Daily Signal, a Heritage Foundation news publication, this week. “GuideStar, which calls itself a ‘neutral’ aggregator of tax data on charities, recently incorporated ‘hate group’ labels produced by the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center.”

The Daily Signal report included a letter from 41 conservative leaders to GuideStar President and CEO Jacob Harold, detailing the ramifications of his use of inaccurate information:

We, the undersigned organizations and individuals, write to express our strong disagreement with GuideStar’s newly implemented policy that labels 46 American organizations as “hate groups.” Your designations are based on determinations made by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a hard-left activist organization. As such, SPLC’s aggressive political agenda pervades the construction of its “hate group” listings.

The letter continued by demonstrating how the SPLC’s information was inaccurate.

“The SPLC has no bona fides to make such determinations,” the conservative leaders’ letter reads.

It continues:

It is not a governmental organization using a rigorous criteria to create its lists, and it is not a scientifically oriented organization. The SPLC is merely another “progressive” political organization. It gained credibility attacking Klansmen, neo-Nazis, and skinheads–many of whom were engaged in violence. The SPLC is now trying to export the same tactics into areas of mainstream political discourse including debates about immigration and sexual-identity politics. The “hate group” list is nothing more than a political weapon targeting people it deems to be its political enemies. The list is ad hoc, partisan, and agenda-driven.

The letter also notes that the SPLC allows the left’s violent groups, like “antifa,” to skate by with no criticism.

“The SPLC doesn’t even pretend to identify groups on the political left that engage in ‘hate,’” the conservative leaders’ letter continues, adding:

Mosques or Islamist groups that promote radical speech inciting anti-Semitism and actual violence are not listed by the SPLC even though many have been publicly identified after terrorist attacks. Radical, violent leftist environmentalists or speech suppressing thugs–like the rioting “antifa” movement–receive no mention from the SPLC.

It turns out, according to the Daily Signal, that GuideStar’s CEO Harold is a hard leftist activist who has marched in rallies to protest President Donald Trump, including the “Women’s March” the day after his inauguration. Harold’s biography on GuideStar even describes him as a “social change strategist”:

“Prior to joining GuideStar, Harold worked for the Hewlett Foundation’s philanthropy program as a ‘climate change campaigner’ for Rainforest Action Network and Greenpeace USA, and as an organizing director at Citizen Works,” del Guidice wrote in the Daily Signal.

So even as GuideStar withdraws its misplaced usage of the SPLC’s inaccurate labeling of mainstream organizations as “hate groups,” the organization that self-proclaims objectivity finds itself under its own level of scrutiny. As such, GuideStar, in its statement to the Associated Press, noted that the criticism it has received makes it concerned for the “wellbeing” of its staff—and it believes criticism of its questionable claims of objectivity are “threats.”

“Dismayingly, a significant amount of the feedback we’ve received in recent days has shifted from constructive criticism to harassment and threats directed at our staff and leadership,” GuideStar said.

Sources close to this matter tell Breitbart News that the fight is just beginning and to expect many more major developments on this front soon.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

AUDIO Household Names Arrested In Hollywood Child Sex Trafficking Bust

June 23, 2017 by Dave Hodges


Attorney General Jeff Sessions Is Leading the Fight Against the Deep State. He has been called to testify against James Comey. Unlike Comey's public testimony which was carried on all the networks, Sessions is scheduled to testify in secret. This is unacceptable and is a thinly veiled attempt to hide the truth about Comey's criminality and its spill over to Hillary. The public needs to demand transparency. Here is the entire story.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions Is Leading the Fight Against the Deep State  and their Child-Sex-Trafficking. The DOJ combined with several local and state agencies have bused hundreds of pedophiles. According to the DOJ, some of the perps are household names, politicians, high ranking clergy and other people of note. This breaking story is contained in the video below.

Related previous post on this blog

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments