VIDEO Support for First Amendment Eroding Among College Students – Disrupt Law School Lecture on Free Speech

Support for First Amendment Eroding Among College Students

April 9, 2018  by  

Support for First Amendment Eroding Among College Students

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it,” Evelyn Beatrice Hall once wrote. Hall’s pithy, concise quote is considered by many to be the ultimate defense of free speech. It was a truism; something we all, liberal and conservative alike, agreed upon in America. But on American college campuses in recent years, it appears as if an unseen editor has added the clause “unless what you say offends me” to Hall’s quote.

A recent Gallup/Knight Foundation survey gives some interesting insights into how today’s college students view our First Amendment-protected rights.

Twenty-nine percent of college students said it is acceptable for colleges to “promote a postive environment” by prohibiting certain speech, up from 22 percent in 2016, while 70 percent said they favored an “open learning environment” that allowed offensive speech, down from 78 percent in 2016.

Inclusion is apparently more important to today’s college students than free speech. When asked which is more important, protecting free speech rights or promoting an inclusive environment, students chose inclusion 53 percent to 46 percent. While being inclusive is certainly important, there’s no way it should more important than a person’s right to speak their mind without fear of retribution.

And that retribution is not simply a matter of being shouted down by oversensitive fellow students or marginalized by leftist professors. Many universities have now enacted speech codes, which prohibit certain speech on campuses. Failing to comply with these speech codes often comes with real life penalties, including fines, academic probation, and even expulsion. With America’s universities now “abridging the freedom of speech” on campuses, are such restrictions on everyday Americans far behind?

Thirty-seven percent of college students believe that it is sometimes acceptable to shout down speakers with whom they disagree. More startling, 10 percent of students believe that it is acceptable to use violence in order to shut down a speech. While 10 percent seems like a low number, if the poll is correct, it means that more than two million American college students believe that it is ok to use violence in order to shut down a speaker they disagree with. This is what happened last year when Charles Murray attempted to speak at Middlebury College in Vermont.

It’s easy to forget how good we’ve had it in America. While many places in the world claim to cherish the concept of free speech, the United States is really the only place where it is codified in law that the right exists. On that note, while the majority of college students surveyed did support the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech, they feel those rights are becoming less secure in America. Sixty-four percent of students believe that the right to free speech is secure, down from 73 percent in 2016. Belief that the freedom of religion is secure is more stable, but still dropped from 68 percent in 2016 down to 64 percent. Belief that the freedom of the press is secure dropped radically, from 81 percent in 2016 down to 60 percent today.

Canada offers a good example as to where free-speech rights in this country could be headed. In June of 2017, our neighbor to the north passed bill C-16, a law which compels Canadians to use the pronouns that transgender people prefer under penalty of law. Misuse of such pronouns (including manufactured pronouns such as ze, zir, hir, and mer) is considered a “hate crime” in Canada.

University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson caused an internet firestorm with his video arguing against the law. “I’m nervous about doing this lecture and I’ve also become nervous about some of the things that I’m teaching,” Peterson said. “I think that some of the things that I say in my lectures now might be illegal…. I think that they might even be sufficient for me to be brought before the Ontario Human Rights Commission under their amended hate speech laws. And that scares me….”

Such laws may seem to be the problem of other countries. After all, in America we have the First Amendment to protect our free speech. Maybe, but as far as our Bill of Rights goes, one need only look to the Second Amendment to see how rights can be whittled away. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” seems pretty clear. But that right has been infringed upon many times in the form of restrictive purchasing laws. Now, groups such as March for our Lives look to restrict gun ownership even further.

So, it’s prudent to keep a watchful eye on all assaults on our free speech, especially on college campuses where, presumably, the leaders of our next generation are being groomed.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall’s quote remains the gold standard of words in defense of free speech. But Peterson recently uttered another truism that deserves to go beside it. When asked by British talking head Cathy Newman why his freedom of speech should trump a transgendered person’s right not to be offended, he offered this zinger: “Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive.”

‘F*** the Law!’: CUNY Law School Students Disrupt Professor’s Lecture on Free Speech

April 20, 2018

A law professor was heckled and shouted down during a recent speech at the City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law by students who opposed his conservative views.

Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law, was invited last month by CUNY Law’s Federalist Society chapter to give a lecture on “The Importance of Free Speech on Campus.”

As he tried to give his talk, Blackman was repeatedly interrupted by protesters holding signs with slogans like “Rule of Law = White Supremacy” and “Oppressors are not welcome here.”

At one point during his lecture, a protester yelled, “F*** the law!”

Blackman responded that it was a “bizarre” thing for a law student to say.

Blackman documented the incident on his blog, writing that conservative speech is often stifled on campus by students who “swarm on anyone who does not toe the progressive line.”

“I tried to come on campus to talk about free speech, and I was shouted down,” Blackman said on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” “They yelled at me, they screamed at me, they called me a fascist, a white supremacist, a Nazi.”

He said he sees a troubling “generational shift,” and many young people don’t understand the importance of the First Amendment.

“Today’s generation thinks free speech is a shield for supremacy, a shield for fascism. And they don’t understand why free speech is important,” Blackman said. “And that’s why I was there. I wanted to engage them in a discussion. And when I tried to engage them, they filed out of the room, they couldn’t handle the truth.”

He noted that CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek defended the students after the event and said that they were engaging in a reasonable protest.

“This was not a reasonable protest,” Blackman stated.

Importance of Free Speech on Campus [Prof. Josh Blackman]

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

VIDEO Rudy to rescue? Giuliani vows wrap up Mueller probe – Ken Starr ‘All Americans Should Be Concerned’ about Raid

Rudy to the rescue? Giuliani vows to wrap up Mueller probe

Giuliani joins Team Trump, vowing to bring an end to Mueller probe in 'a week or two'

April 20, 2018 By Brooke Singman


Former New York City mayor and U.S. attorney Rudy Giuliani is vowing to bring to an end Robert Mueller’s longrunning Russia investigation as he joins President Trump’s legal team, touting his personal relationship with the special counsel.

Whether Giuliani will be a gamechanger for the president’s ever-changing legal lineup and the ever-expanding probe remains to be seen. But he voiced confidence as the news broke he’d been hired.

It shouldn’t take more than “a week or two” to come to a resolution on the probe, Giuliani said.

“I’m going to join the legal team to try to bring this to a resolution,” Giuliani told The New York Post. “The country deserves it. I’ve got a great admiration for President Trump.”

Giuliani announced Thursday that he would join Jay Sekulow and White House liaison Ty Cobb on Trump’s team, amid the probe of Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump team associates in the 2016 election.

Giuliani was a surrogate for the president during his 2016 presidential campaign. The two have been close friends for years.

The former New York City mayor said Thursday he hoped to “negotiate an end” to the investigation with Mueller.

ARCHIVO - En esta fotografía de archivo del 21 de junio de 2017, el ex director del FBI Robert Mueller, quien ahora funge como fiscal especial que investiga la interferencia rusa en los comicios estadounidenses de 2016, sale del Capitolio tras una reunión a puerta cerrada en Washington. (AP Foto/Andrew Harnik, archivo)

Special Counsel Robert Mueller served as FBI director while Rudy Giuliani was mayor of New York City.  (AP)

“I’ve had a long relationship with Bob Mueller. I have great respect for him. He’s done a good job,” Giuliani told The Post. Giuliani served as mayor of New York City while Mueller headed the FBI. “I don’t know yet what’s outstanding. But I don’t think it’s going to take more than a week or two to get a resolution. They’re almost there.”

He vowed to ask Mueller what he would need to “wrap it up,” but also told The Washington Post on Thursday that Mueller “should be allowed to do his job, he’s entitled to do his job.”

Giuliani was mayor of New York City from 1994 to 2001 and served as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York from 1983 to 1999.

FILE PHOTO: Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump walks with former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (L) through the new Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, U.S., September 16, 2016. REUTERS/Mike Segar/File Photo - RC1C0D53C210

Rudy Giuliani, shown here with President Trump in September 2016, is joining his legal team.  (Reuters)

“The President said, ‘Rudy is great. He has been my friend for a long time and wants to get this matter quickly resolved for the good of the country,” Sekulow told Fox News in a statement Thursday. “I have had the privilege of working with Mayor Giuliani for many years, and we welcome his expertise.”

Sekulow added that Giuliani “expressed his deep appreciation to the President for allowing him to assist in this important matter.”

A source with knowledge of the situation told Fox News that Giuliani made the decision to join Trump’s legal team in the past few days, following a dinner with the president earlier this month at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort.

The addition of Giuliani to Trump’s outside legal team comes after a tumultuous time for the unit. Last month, Trump’s lead attorney John Dowd resigned, following Dowd’s strong opposition to the president doing an interview with Mueller.

Trump has said he would “like to” interview with Mueller. But it is unclear whether the president might still consider an interview with the special counsel, especially after the raid on his longtime attorney Michael Cohen’s properties.

A source said Thursday, though, that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told Trump last week that the president is not a target in the Cohen investigation, and that the investigation is focused solely on Cohen.

Trump has been told previously that he is not a target of Mueller’s investigation.

Also last month, former U.S. attorney Joseph diGenova and his wife and law partner Victoria Toensing joined the president’s legal team. However, due to “conflicts of interest,” the team withdrew from defending Trump in the Russia probe.

Fox News’ Matt Richardson and John Roberts contributed to this report.

Brooke Singman is a Politics Reporter for Fox News. Follow her on Twitter at @brookefoxnews.

Ken Starr on ‘Troubling’ Cohen Raid: ‘All Americans Should Be Concerned’

April 20, 2018

Former Solicitor General Kenneth Starr said Thursday that the investigation into President Trump’s personal attorney is “very troubling.”

“Any time that a lawyer’s office is raided, I believe all Americans should be concerned about that,” said Starr, who investigated then-President Bill Clinton as independent counsel in the 1990s.

FBI agents raided Cohen’s home, hotel room and offices last week, reportedly obtaining documents related to Cohen’s payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels, who alleges she had an affair with Trump in 2006.

“I’m very concerned about the process that’s going to be followed to protect the attorney-client privilege, which is sacrosanct in American law, and it should be,” Starr said.

Cohen’s attorneys said in a letter to a federal judge that attorney-client privilege is not being protected, as the documents seized were about Cohen’s clients and did not have to do with the president.

They wrote in the letter, in part, “A special master should be appointed in the interest of the administration of justice to ensure that the Government does not have access to materials for which they have not yet shown would be obtained through a valid search warrant through a showing of probable cause.”

Starr said that people should be concerned about the process going forward in Cohen’s case, and to make sure that process is carried out “with great care and sensitivity to individual liberty.”

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who signed off on the Cohen raid, told Trump he is not a target of the Cohen investigation.

Watch more from “The Story with Martha MacCallum” and read more about the investigation into Michael Cohen.


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

VIDEO Comey Memos Released, Helpful to Trump – Memos ‘Not Incriminating’,‘Will Help’ the President if he Faces Charges

Breaking: Five James Comey Memos Released (Full pdf enclosed)…

A few hours ago the DOJ released five memos to congress from the files of fired FBI Director James Comey.  The total number of memos and emails is uncertain, presumably seven, however the DOJ released five (full pdf below).

Several of the emails and memos are sent to the Former FBI chief legal counsel James Baker (now a cooperating witness with IG Horowitz and Federal Prosecutor Huber); and/or Comey’s chief-of-staff James Rybicki (he resigned after the Page/Strzok texts surfaced).   The publicly released versions contain redactions due to their classified nature:

Breaking: Five James Comey Memos Released (Full pdf enclosed)…


Devin Nunes, Bob Goodlatte and Trey Gowdy Respond to Release of Comey Memos…

Washington, D.C. – Today House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Ca.), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) issued the following statement:

“We have long argued former Director Comey’s self-styled memos should be in the public domain, subject to any classification redactions. These memos are significant for both what is in them and what is not.

Former Director Comey’s memos show the President made clear he wanted allegations of collusion, coordination, and conspiracy between his campaign and Russia fully investigated. The memos also made clear the ‘cloud’ President Trump wanted lifted was not the Russian interference in the 2016 election cloud, rather it was the salacious, unsubstantiated allegations related to personal conduct leveled in the dossier.

The memos also show former Director Comey never wrote that he felt obstructed or threatened. While former Director Comey went to great lengths to set dining room scenes, discuss height requirements, describe the multiple times he felt complimented, and myriad other extraneous facts, he never once mentioned the most relevant fact of all, which was whether he felt obstructed in his investigation.

The memos also make certain what has become increasingly clear of late: former Director Comey has at least two different standards in his interactions with others. He chose not to memorialize conversations with President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, Secretary Clinton, Andrew McCabe or others, but he immediately began to memorialize conversations with President Trump. It is significant former Director Comey made no effort to memorialize conversations with former Attorney General Lynch despite concerns apparently significant enough to warrant his unprecedented appropriation of the charging decision away from her and the Department of Justice in July of 2016.

These memos also lay bare the notion that former Director Comey is not motivated by animus. He was willing to work for someone he deemed morally unsuited for office, capable of lying, requiring of personal loyalty, worthy of impeachment, and sharing the traits of a mob boss. Former Director Comey was willing to overlook all of the aforementioned characteristics in order to keep his job. In his eyes, the real crime was his own firing.

The memos show Comey was blind to biases within the FBI and had terrible judgment with respect to his deputy Andrew McCabe. On multiple occasions he, in his own words, defended the character of McCabe after President Trump questioned McCabe.

Finally, former Director Comey leaked at least one of these memos for the stated purpose of spurring the appointment of Special Counsel, yet he took no steps to spur the appointment of Special Counsel when he had significant concerns about the objectivity of the Department of Justice under Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

As we have consistently said, rather than making a criminal case for obstruction or interference with an ongoing investigation, these memos would be Defense Exhibit A should such a charge be made.”  (link)


Devin Nunes, Bob Goodlatte and Trey Gowdy Respond to Release of Comey Memos…

Dershowitz: McCabe Case ‘Another Example of the Criminalization of Political Differences’

20 April 2018 by Ian Hanchett

On Friday’s “MSNBC Live,” Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz stated that he hopes former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe isn’t prosecuted and stated his case “is another example of the criminalization of political differences.”

Dershowitz said he agreed with McCabe, adding, “I think this is another example of the criminalization of political differences. You don’t start charging people with perjury for expressing statements or views that other people may have expressed different views. In order to go after somebody for perjury, you really have to prove the most deliberate, willful, material lies. So, I’m hoping he doesn’t get prosecuted. I’m not a fan of prosecuting people in the political context unless it’s an absolute slam-dunk case, whether they’re Republicans or Democrats or Trump or Clinton.”

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett

Dershowitz: Comey Memos ‘Not Incriminating’ – ‘Will Help’ the President if he Faces Charges

On Friday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “America’s Newsroom,” Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz argued that former FBI Director James Comey’s memos aren’t incriminating and “will help, not hurt the president if he were to face any kind of legal charges.”

Dershowitz said, “I think the memos are not incriminating. They are somewhat ambiguous. They’re self-serving. But in the end, I think they will help, not hurt the president if he were to face any kind of legal charges. Because you’d expect the head of the FBI to be a lot firmer about alleged criminal conduct if he was a direct witness to it. And of course, Comey has provided the Trump defense with the greatest possible weapon if he ever takes the stand against Trump, and that is manuscripts of his book, earlier drafts, all would subject him to cross-examination, plus the memos, which will be unredacted when it comes to trial. So, I think this is probably a benefit to the president rather than a detriment.”

(h/t Grabien)

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett

Alan Dershowitz, Gregg Jarrett on the release of Comey memos


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

VIDEO Comey on Tour … or on Trial? – Unhinged – What Are We Doing? – Heal America, Prosecute Comey

James Comey: Should He Be on Tour … or on Trial?

April 18, 2018 by  

“A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.” So wrote the great Roman historian Titus Livius (59 B.C.-17 A.D.), better known to us moderns as Livy. Former FBI Director James Comey may do well to keep Livy’s observation in mind, as there is ample evidence that he has engaged in colossal fraud, deceit, and treachery. For the moment he is riding high, already well on his way to fame and fortune: a book deal worth over $2 million, glowing reviews in the New York Times and the rest of the establishment media, and of course, obsequious “interviews” by network anchors and star reporters of flagship newspapers.

Even before his highly hyped inaugural network interview with ABC’s 20/20, on Sunday, April 15, Comey did a pre-book release sit-down video and print interview with USA Today’s Susan Page and Kevin Johnson, in which he previewed many of the scathing charges he would level at President Trump in subsequent media appearances. According to certain opinion polls, Comey is viewed by the American public as more trustworthy than President Trump, the man who fired him. Sweet revenge. To top it off, according to the All-American Speakers Bureau, the ex-FBI chief now commands a speaking fee of $100,000-200,000 per event. So Comey can now rake in more in a single speech than he did in a whole year at his top FBI salary ($185,000). With a non-stop Big Media interview circuit underway, his speaker fees can only go up, perhaps even to the Hillary Clinton level ($325,000 per event).

In his interviews and in his book, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership, James Comey presents himself as a pillar of rectitude, an innocent, honest man heroically standing up against a lying, immoral, White House bully — President Donald Trump — whom he compares to a mafia boss. The selection of ABC’s George Stephanopoulos as his first interviewer was, assuredly, a deliberate decision, with an eye toward getting the friendliest interview possible on a mainstream platform. Stephanopoulos did not disappoint Comey and his promoters; his treatment was powder puff, not bare knuckles. The ABC anchor was the chummy cheerleader for a pal, not a professional journalist asking the types of serious, probing questions one would expect for someone such as Comey, who is leveling serious charges and slimy innuendo against the president of the United States — while carrying considerable baggage of his own. Stephanopoulos conveniently never mentioned Comey’s baggage (which we’ll get to momentarily). Naturally. Nor did Stephanopoulos bother to disclose to viewers that he is far from being an unbiased observer. Indeed, he is a lifelong Democrat, and has been an advisor to the Democratic Party, as well as serving as White House communications director and senior advisor to President Bill Clinton. He has remained a close friend of Bill and Hillary, was a big Hillary supporter in the last election, and caused a conflict-of-interest scandal at ABC in 2015 for failing to disclose that he had donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Stephanopoulos’ wife, Hollywood actress Ali Wentworth (famous for flashing her breasts on Jimmy Kimmel Live), declared that the Stephanopoulos family would be moving to Australia if Trump won. Alas, as with all the other emotive glitterati who made similar faithless pledges to depart our shores if the red MAGA wave prevailed at the polls, they stayed, and we continue to suffer their self-righteous blatherings.

In view of the fact that Comey — in his book and in his interviews — states that President Trump “lies constantly,” and inasmuchas Comey constantly brandishes honesty as his touchstone virtue, Stephanopoulos could have (and should have) asked the former FBI head to explain his own problems with veracity. After all, Comey put “Truth” and “Lies” in Klieg lights on his book cover’s subtitle. As just one example, of which Stephanopoulos is surely aware, Comey lied about leaking to the press. During televised testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in May, 2017, Committee Chairman Charles Grassley asked Comey if he had ever leaked information. Comey’s immediate reply: “Never!” Senator Grassley pushed further, asking if he had authorized anyone else to leak information to the press regarding the FBI’s investigation. “No,” was his terse response. To put the questions and responses in context, this came at a time when persons within the D.C. “Swamp” were leaking information on a daily basis to damage the new Trump administration, a practice that has continued. “If I find out that people were leaking information about our investigations, whether to reporters or to private parties, there’ll be severe consequences,” Comey pledged.

Later, however, before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Comey admitted that he had leaked a memo of his privileged conversation with President Trump. “I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter,” Comey said. That friend turned out to be Columbia University Law Professor Daniel Richman. The reporter worked for the New York Times. Comey said he leaked the document “because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel” — which, of course, it did. The Times ran with the Comey-Richman leak, and the rest of the media shills jumped on the bandwagon, ginning up a fake public outcry for an investigation into “Russian collusion” and “obstruction.” Robert Mueller — a comrade of Comey at the FBI and DOJ — was appointed as special counsel the day after the Times story broke.

But Comey didn’t leak just once, he leaked at least four times — that we know about thus far. And at least one of those leaks, according to Senator Grassley, involved classified information. On January 3, 2018, Senator Grassley raised questions about when the memos memorializing interactions between former FBI Director James Comey and President Trump were classified and the chain of custody for the classified memos.

“After a review of the seven memoranda created by former Director Comey, it is now clear that four are marked classified at various levels of sensitivity,” Grassley said in a press statement. “Former Director Comey reportedly provided copies of four memos to Columbia Law School Professor Daniel Richman. If true, that would mean at least one disclosed memo contained information now-marked classified.”

On the same day, January 3, the senator sent a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, asking for responses to 14 important questions about the Comey memos, their classifications, and the way they have been handled. Stephanopoulos — and the other selected media interviewers — could have asked Comey about these pertinent issues, but instead have merely operated as facilitators for Comey’s attacks on President Trump.

James Comey not only leaked the memos to the New York Times, but has talked about them openly in his interviews and in his book. Yet if Senator Grassley, who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wants to read these memos, he is required to go to a secure room, a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) at the Office of Senate Security. Ditto for any other member of Congress, the elected representatives of the American people. As with their stonewalling on so many other related matters, the FBI and DOJ, still filled with Obama holdovers, are doing everything possible to foil and undermine the Trump administration.

Rod Rosenstein, of course, is the man who appointed Robert Mueller (who, like Comey, is a former FBI chief) to be special counsel in charge of the Trump-Russia investigation. However, as former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy and other legal experts have pointed out, Rosenstein has failed to properly limit, according to the Department of Justice’s own regulation, the scope of the investigation, and has failed to rein in what many critics have rightly called Mueller’s “fishing expedition.” Or as President Trump calls it, a “witch hunt.” Rosenstein also signed off on the very problematical FISA warrants that were used by the Obama administration to spy on Donald Trump.

The Leakers, Liars Club
James Comey’s sanctimonious narrative has been further undercut by the actions and claims of his underling, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who was fired by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Like Comey, McCabe deviously leaked information to the press, and then denied it. And then, after getting caught, justified it. McCabe’s credibility, already in tatters, was further demolished with the recent release of the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General report on McCabe.

Among other things, the OIG report exposes McCabe’s duplicity not only in leaking information to the press, but then denying it and attempting to shift attention and blame to other underlings who were innocent of these dealings. Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a member of the Justice and the Oversight and Government Reform committees, has been a longtime critic of McCabe. On April 16, on the Laura Ingraham Show, he lambasted McCabe’s deceit. “To cover his own tracks, the next day when this story is printed, he calls up the assistant director in charge of the Washington field division and the assistant director in the New York office — he calls them up and yells at them, and says, ‘What are you guys doing leaking information?’” Jordan said. “Think about that. He sends someone out to do it and then he’s blaming someone else.”

The problem for Comey is that McCabe claims he committed the leaks with his boss’s knowledge. Comey denies that. So it’s he said versus he said. When you have two proven liars accusing each other of lying, what do you do? Well, you just give the other liar a lucrative book deal also, and put him on the gravy train speech circuit too, right? That hasn’t happened yet, but we shouldn’t be surprised if we hear something along those lines in the near future.

“James the Righteous”

James Comey’s unctuous sanctimony is made all the more off-putting by his very transparent effort to smear President Trump at every opportunity, using devious innuendo when not accusing him outright. Perhaps the most notable example is his repeated references to the sordid (and discredited) “Steele dossier,” the “Trump-Russia” hit-piece financed by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, which among other things, came up with the fantastical claim that Donald Trump had engaged in a disgusting urine romp in a Russian hotel on a bed that had been slept in by Barack and Michelle Obama.

Questioned about the fake “dossier” during his Senate testimony, Comey characterized it as “salacious and unverified.” Yet he continues to salaciously reference it in order to advance his charge that President Trump is “morally unfit” to lead the nation. “I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I don’t know whether the — the — current president of the United States was with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013,” Comey said In his ABC interview. “It’s possible, but I don’t know.”

It’s also “possible” James Comey is a pornography addict and a pedophile, and that there are photographs and video recordings to prove it. And if that “possible” charge were repeated a sufficient number of times on major media platforms, it would acquire a certain “factual” status in many minds. Which is precisely what Comey and his Deep State co-conspirators intend.

However, despite the massive promotional rollout and adoring reviews salted throughout the controlled media, not everyone is totally smitten with the Comey mystique. Surprisingly, even a few journalists in the major media have broken loose from the rigid group-think to register some less-than-enamored takes of Comey’s smarmy facade. In her interview with Comey, NBC’s Today host Savannah Guthrie, for instance, challenged him on being vindictive, “bitter,” and “catty” in his personal slights of President Trump. Comey tried to slough it off, but Guthrie returned again and again, pressing him about getting into the “gutter” and asking him if he didn’t feel that he had “diminished” himself by his mudslinging. Although she failed to delve into Comey’s lying and leaking record, Guthrie’s interview was a welcome relief in that it showed not every single talking head on the network news programs is marching in party-line lockstep.

Time to prosecute Comey, McCabe, Hillary Clinton, Loretta Lynch
Livy may yet be proven right, and those who appear to be untouchable now may soon have their fraudulent deeds exposed. Some members of Congress are pushing Attorney General Jeff Sessions to initiate investigations for the prosecution of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Hillary Clinton, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Agent Peter Strzok, FBI Counsel Lisa Page — and others. On April 18, Representative Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) announced that he and 10 of his House colleagues had sent a letter to Sessions urging him to start the process, citing the massive evidence that is already available. “The political elite are not immune from the rule of law, and those in positions of high authority should be treated the same as any other American,” DeSantis said. “We ask that the Department of Justice move swiftly to ensure that violations of federal statutes by high officials are identified and prosecuted.”

James Comey is coming unhinged: Robert Ray

April 20, 2018

James Comey is bitter and biased: Robert RayFormer Whitewater independent counsel Robert Ray on former FBI Director James Comey’s released memos and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe facing potential criminal charges.

Former Whitewater independent counsel Robert Ray said former FBI Director James Comey’s behavior towards President Trump is unacceptable.

“That’s someone coming unhinged,” Ray said during an appearance on FOX Business’ “Mornings with Maria.”  “I know Jim well, but that to me is beyond the pale.”

President Trump tweeted on Friday that Comey can “General Michael Flynn’s life can be totally destroyed” by his media blitz.

On Thursday Trump tweeted that Comey’s newly released memos “shows clearly” no collusion with Russia in the 2016 election and no obstruction into the investigation. Ray said the presidents comments were “substantially right.”

“The president saying I hope you can see your way to letting Flynn go,” he said. “Whatever Jim Comey may think that means, I think, to me I don’t see how you make an obstruction [of justice] case out of that.”

Ray added it would be in the country’s best interest to get past the investigation before the October election.

“[Trump’s} clearly ratcheting up the pressure now,” he said. “I think all of this now properly is correctly leading toward the Mueller investigation needs to be brought to a relatively prompt conclusion.”


‘What Are We Doing?’: Levin Explains Why Trump Can’t Be Indicted

April 20, 2018

Mark Levin had a fiery reaction to the revelation that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told President Trump last week that he is not a target in the Michael Cohen investigation.

This came weeks after Trump was told that he was not a target of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to reports.

Levin pointed to two memoranda — one from the Nixon administration and one from the Clinton administration — that clearly spell out that a sitting United States president cannot be indicted.

The October 2000 memo from the Clinton Justice Department says:

In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination. We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution.

“Did they issue another memo over there at the Justice Department reversing these two memos during the NIxon administration and the Clinton administration? No!” Levin said on “Hannity” on Thursday.

He said that despite that, Rosenstein — the deputy attorney general of the U.S., who’s been overseeing Mueller’s investigation — told Trump that he’s not a criminal target.

“Dammit, he can’t be a criminal target under the memoranda that have been written by the Justice Department!” Levin said.

He added that Justice Department regulations require a special counsel to follow the rules, regulations and policies of the department.

“Mr. President, don’t sit down with this special counsel. This special counsel doesn’t have the power to indict you, and for good reason,” Levin said. “So what are we doing?”

Watch his comments above

Steve Hilton: Without a Comey prosecution, there’s no hope for healing America

April 20, 2018

As fired FBI Director James Comey continues his self-centered, self-abasing book tour, it’s clear that he’s on a path to self-destruction as well – destroying his own reputation.

Hillary Clinton supporters hate Comey more than ever as he digs deeper into the hole he made for himself in the 2016 election.

And President Trump’s supporters are becoming ever more incensed by Comey’s spectacularly unbecoming tirade of petty – and in the perfectly apt words of NBC’s Savannah Guthrie, “catty” – insults directed at the president.

With each passing day of this ill-advised public therapy session, Comey’s narcissistic personality disorder becomes more apparent.

Who cares? Comey is just another pompous bureaucrat with the arrogant impulse to lord it (or should I say, “Lordy it”) over democratically elected officials in a self-appointed role as guardian of the “public interest.” I’ve seen plenty of those.

But there’s something much bigger at stake than Comey’s reputation. It’s the reputation of our most important institutions and foundational principles.

You hear President Trump’s critics complain the whole time that he is “undermining the rule of law” and “subverting democratic norms.”

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and Comey has not been convicted of anything at this point. But what, exactly, could be more undermining of the rule of law than a senior law enforcement official who may have broken the law, who is publicly glorying in the fact of his own possible lawlessness, and who is using it to enrich himself?

What, exactly, could be more undermining of democratic norms than half the country believing – on the basis of ample circumstantial evidence – that America’s ruling political establishment conspired with the security services and law enforcement at the highest levels to try to prevent an outsider from being elected president? And when that failed, to try to render him illegitimate and ineffective?

There are several charges that could be investigated involving Comey – and others including former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (who himself may have broken the law by lying to Congress over government spying), and various FBI and Department of Justice officials.

We examined Comey’s potential crimes in our special edition of “The Next Revolution,” titled “The Trial of James Comey” last Sunday.

But what potential charges could Comey could face?

Obstruction of justice over the handling of the Clinton email investigation; lying to Congress over the conclusion of that investigation; theft of government property, in the form of his leaked memos; and abuse of power over the infamous Steele dossier. These are among the crimes that there are strong grounds to argue James Comey committed.

Worse even than that, the more that we learn – from Comey and others – about the conduct of the Obama administration and its senior officials during the late stages of the 2016 presidential election, and in the transition period before President Trump’s inauguration, the more it appears that a truly frightening usurpation of the democratic process might have been attempted.

Any fair-minded person would acknowledge that there is at least as much reason to suspect that the FBI, Department of Justice and others in the federal bureaucracy colluded with the Obama administration and Clinton campaign to influence the 2016 election as there are reasons to suspect that Donald Trump and his associates colluded with the Russians in similar vein.

And yet in this 50-50 swamp of suspicion and confusion – one that is so darkly emblematic of our deeply divided country – 100 percent of the investigative and prosecutorial energy is going in one direction only.

This is not just obviously absurd and unfair. It is: making America’s divisions deeper by the day.

If we want to truly understand what happened in the 2016 presidential election, and if we want to somehow move beyond this viciously polarized and angry political moment, then we have to see equal justice done.

James Comey, John Brennan, James Clapper, Hillary Clinton, President Obama and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch all must be investigated and – if justified by evidence turned up in investigations – prosecuted.

And these investigations must be undertaken with exactly the same intensity that we are seeing applied to President Trump, his presidential campaign, and his associates. Anything less than that will leave America as divided and angry as it is today – for at least a generation if not longer.

For the sake of our democracy, the rule of law and faith in America’s institutions, we need fair treatment for all the potential crimes associated with the 2016 election, not just half of them.

Steve Hilton is the host of FOX News Channel’s “The Next Revolution with Steve Hilton” (Sundays at 9PM/ET). Follow him on Twitter @stevehiltonx and the show @NextRevFNC.

Geraldo Rivera: There is no nobility in James Comey

James Comey CONFRONTED By Laura Loomer First Day Of Book Tour


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

VIDEO Bill, Hillary, Janet Reno Gassed Children At Waco, 25 years ago

First Lady Hillary Clinton gave the order to Attorney General Janet Reno to Gas, Burn, and Kill

A look into one of the worst moments in American history

Waco Survivors Speak Six Years After The Massacre – Alex Jones Interviewed In eXtra TV Exclusive

A Waco Survivor Describes What Really Happened (1999)

The Waco Massacre

Note regarding links: Much of the Waco information once available on the web has “disappeared” and many of the links on this page have expired (a few are marked as such) or no longer lead to the original page. An expired link at least shows that the page once existed. Some pages which no longer exist on the web can still be recovered by entering the URL (right mouse click on the link to get the URL) into the Wayback Machine.This page censored at WikipediaAnd as an amusing exercise in provoking censorship try adding a link to this page from Wikipedia’s Waco Siege page and see how long it takes to be deleted.


Many people believe that David Koresh (or the Branch Davidians) were responsible for the deaths of the 74 men, women and children who died in the inferno at Waco on April 19, 1993. This is the story that the FBI put out. It is a lie. The guns they had were legal. The local sheriff investigated and found no basis for complaints against them. These were law-abiding American citizens, even if they thought differently to most other folks. They trusted the U.S. Constitution to ensure their political rights, but they were murdered by agents acting under the authority of the U.S. government. Read this page if you believe otherwise. If you still have doubts, get the video Rules of Engagement for visual evidence. Or read the book Armageddon in Waco. Or see the film Waco: A New Revelation.

Waco occurred under the presidency of Bill Clinton, with Janet Reno and Wesley Clark in supporting roles. Already back in 1993 the US government demonstrated its contempt for the American people by carrying out a massacre in order to “demonstrate” (on prime time TV) its supposed “authority” (a tactic favored by fascist governments). Following the usurpation of the presidency in 2000 by the psychopath George W. Bush, and the subsequent installation of the insane John Ashcroft as Bush’s Himmler, things became much worse. On 9/11 about forty times as many people were murdered as at Waco. In both cases the murderers have so far gone unpunished.

Few Americans realize that on February 28, 1993 when BATF agents in National Guard helicopters zoomed in on the Branch Davidians’ church and home, Mount Carmel Center, they did so with guns blazing, like Americans raiding a Vietnamese village in that far off war. … It is likely FBI agents deliberately sabotaged negotiations with Davidians to prevent their exiting Mount Carmel. Their goal was to destroy the building and its damaging evidence, even if that meant the massacre of dozens of men, women and children, all witnesses to the brutal attack. — Carol Moore: Overview of Davidian Massacre

After the February raid by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) of David Koresh’s dissident religious community at Waco, Texas, the FBI and the U.S. Army took over, mounting a 51-day siege. This included such psy-war tactics as sleep deprivation of the inhabitants of the community by means of all-night broadcasts of recordings of the screams of rabbits being slaughtered.

Finally, despite David Koresh’s pledge to surrender upon completion of his written explanation of the meaning of the Seven Seals, the FBI and the Army attacked. At dawn on April 19, 1993, and throughout the morning, tanks rammed holes in the main building and pumped (in the FBI’s words) “massive amounts” of CS gas into the building, despite knowing that inside were more than a dozen children. The tanks demolished parts of the compound and created tunnels for the wind to blow through. The buildings at this point were saturated with inflammable CS gas and spilled kerosene.

Around midday two U.S. military pyrotechnic devices were fired into the main building, igniting a fire which (because of the holes in the walls allowing the wind to gust through) spread rapidly through the complex of buildings and became an inferno. 74 men, women and children died — including twelve children younger than five years of age. Fire trucks were prevented by the FBI from approaching the inferno. After the compound had burned down the BATF flag was hoisted aloft to signify ‘victory’. Subsequently the burned-out ruin was razed in an attempt to remove all evidence of this premeditated murder of innocent civilians by agents of the U.S. government. Thus occured an atrocity which many Americans believe could never happen in their country. A look at the evidence presented in the film Waco: Rules of Engagement (and in the BBC documentary broadcast in the U.K. on November 28, 1998) shows that it did happen.

The lawyer for one of the survivors said at one of the U.S. government ‘investigations’ (or rather, whitewashes): In this country when people are accused of a crime they are arrested and given a trial — that’s ‘due process’. If found guilty of murder then maybe they are killed. We don’t just kill them first — which is what happened at Waco.

Here are links to documents on this website concerning this tragedy.

  • Linda Thompson: What Happened at WacoAfter the BATF and FBI learned that the American Justice Federation had released a press release stating that the use of military troops against United States citizens violated federal law, specifically, the Posse Comitatus act, the BATF released a cover story, claiming that the tanks were “really” not Army, they were national guard, and had been brought in under the “Drug interdiction act” because they had heard there was a “methamphetamine lab” — three weeks after the FBI had already publicly announced there was never any question whatsoever of drug involvement.
  • By Carol Moore:
  • Burning Questions, a review by Jacob Sullum, a senior editor of REASON, of Armageddon in Waco and two other books about Waco: The Ashes of Waco: An Investigation and Why Waco?: Cults and the Battle for Religious Freedom in America.
  • Transcript of Waco Negotiations

Armageddon in Waco
Critical Perspectives on the Branch Davidian Conflict
Edited by Stuart A. Wright
The University of Chicago Press, 1995

On February 28, 1993, the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) launched the largest assault in its history against a small religious community in central Texas. Approximately eighty armed agents invaded the compound, purportedly to execute a single search and arrest warrant. The raid went badly; six Branch Davidians and four agents were killed, and after a fifty-one-day standoff, the United States Justice Department approved a plan to use CS gas against those barricaded inside. Tanks carrying the CS gas entered the compound. Later that day, fire broke out, and all seventy-four men, women and children inside perished.Could tragedy have been prevented? Was it necessary for the BATF agents to do what they did? What could have been done differently? Armageddon in Wacooffers the most detailed, wide-ranging analysis of events surrounding Waco. Leading scholars explore all facets of the confrontation in an attempt to understand one of the most confusing government actions in American history.

The book begins with the history of the Branch Davidians and the story of its leader, David Koresh. Chapters show how the the Davidians came to trouble authorities, why the group was labeled a “cult,” and how authorities used unsubstantiated allegations of child abuse to strengthen their case against the sect.

The media’s role is examined next in essays that consider the effect on coverage of lack of time and resources, the orchestration of public relations by government officials, the restricted access to the site or to countervailing evidence, and the ideologies of the journalists themselves.

— From the back cover of the book.

Here is the Summary at the end of the chapter “Self-Fulfilling Prophecies” by James R. Lewis:

The implications of these studies and supporting arguments for the Waco situation should be clear. The Branch Davidians’ chances for a fair hearing were severely damaged as soon as the label “cult” was applied. After that, the mass media selectively sought out and presented information about Koresh and his community that conveniently fit the stereotype. It was only a matter of time before law enforcement and the media had completely demonized Koresh and his followers. Anticult organizations provided ample fodder for the ritual and symbolic castigation of this little-known religious sect, simplistically reducing the beliefs and practices of the community to vapid, inane categories of brainwashing rhetoric. After this demonization had been successfuly accomplished, the entire community — men, women, and children — could be consigned to their tragic fate with little more than a peep of protest from the American public, a public which overwhelmingly approved of the FBI’s tragic final assault on Mt. Carmel.

Or more exactly, a public which would appear to consist mostly of gullible idiots, with no sense of injustice (except when it affects themselves), believing what they were told (with the help of a willing media) by their ill-informed, ill-advised and violence-obsessed (and, as it turned out, murderous) government, a public which overwhelming approved of a shameful instance of government-sanctioned slaughter of people who had broken no law (it is legal to protect oneself against attack), including twenty-one children under the age of 16:

 Lisa Martin  13  Sheila Martin, Jr.  15
 Rachel Sylvia  12  Hollywood Sylvia  1
 Joseph Martinez  8  Abigail Martinez  11
 Crystal Martinez  3  Isaiah Martinez  4
 Audrey Martinez  13  Melissa Morrison  6
 Chanel Andrade  1  Cyrus Koresh  8
 Star Koresh  6  Bobbie Lane Koresh  2
 Dayland Gent  3  Page Gent  1
 Mayanah Schneider  2  Startle Summers  1
 Serenity Jones  4  Chica Jones  2
 Little One Jones  2

Click here for the complete list of Branch Davidian victims.

Waco, The Rules of EngagementFor those who more or less know what happened at Waco this film supplies impressive visual corroboration, from footage of David Koresh (not a wild-eyed madman) explaining the Book of Revelation to his followers to pictures of the charred and contorted corpses of the Branch Davidians who died in the inferno. For those who don’t know what happened — those who still believe the stories put out by various U.S. federal government agencies — this film will at the very least induce a re-evaluation of those stories, perhaps even a realization that the U.S. government lied in its account of its role in this matter.


Here are some reviews of this film:

  • Jon Lebkowsky: Waco, Cults, and Ordinary Madness
  • Ian Goddard: Review of Rules of Engagement
  • Fiona Hughes: Unsettling Waco uncovers truths media reports left out

    Using 911 tapes, infrared surveillance footage, televised congressional hearings and survivor testimonies, the filmmakers mount a strong case against the ATF ([Bureau of] Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) and FBI, and paints them as cold-blooded murderers who clearly had the intent of killing people who stubbornly stood up to them. The FBI gassed the people who remained in the Branch Davidian compound and then let them burn to death.

Waco, The Rules of Engagement has, however, been severely criticised for ignoring available evidence and for promoting the view that the deaths of the women and children at Waco were the result of government negligence and incompetence rather than deliberate murder by government agents. For further details see:

  • Carol A. Valentine: Waco “Documentary” Is A Hoax!

    [This film] is an effort to misdirect protest over Waco while pretending to be a protest piece. WTROE hides the most damaging truths and directs attention to false issues. Thus it neutralizes the outrage that would be felt if the true facts were known. It forwards murder charges based on weak evidence; once the charges are discredited, the public will be inoculated against considering real evidence that the Davidians were murdered.

Further commentary:

  • Roger Ebert: Review of Waco, The Rules of Engagement [link expired]

    Those who attack the government are not simply lawyers for the Branch Davidians or muckraking authors (although they are represented) but also solid middle-American types like the county sheriff, the district Texas Rangers, the FBI photographer on the scene, and the man who developed and patented some of the equipment used by the FBI itself to film devastating footage that appears to show its agents firing into the buildings — even though the FBI insists it did not fire a single shot.

The late Linda Thompson’s video (on YouTube) The Big LiePart 1Part 2 and Part 3.

In April 2003, marking the tenth anniversary of the Waco Massacre, a new film was released. According to the producer:

Waco: A New Revelation is a film so disturbing that before it was even released, it triggered new investigations in both houses of Congress and prompted the United States Department of Justice to reopen its own investigation into the events at Waco.

Here are links to documents on other websites.

New developments since July 1999 are given below. Note which news sources describe David Koresh, not as a “sect leader”, which he was (America has had many respectable religious sects, e.g., the Baptists), but rather as a “cult leader”, thereby demonizing him.

Branch Davidian VictimsFree the Branch Davidians!

A copy of the entire Serendipity website is available on CD-ROM.  Details here.

New Declaration of Independence
Liberty and Democracy Serendipity Home Page

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

Soros in Retreat: Billionaire’s University to Move from Budapest to Vienna


After a sustained campaign against the influence of left-wing billionaire George Soros by the Hungarian government, Soros’s Central European University has announced its plans to move from Budapest to Vienna.

The Central European University (CEU) has come under fire from the Hungarian government which had previously claimed it was unfair that the institution was allowed to give out both Hungarian and U.S. diplomas while not operating a campus in the USA.

Now, the university has announced that it has plans to leave Budapest and move to neighbouring Austria where a new campus will be set up, Swedish radio broadcaster Sveriges Radio reports.

Éva Fodor, Deputy Rector at CEU said that the university had already signed an agreement with a landlord in Vienna but some were still hopeful the university would not have to move as the administration had set up a  branch in New York state, as requested by the Hungarian government.

Hungary has yet to approve the move by the CEU according to Fodor who said: “If the government still has not signed this agreement in mid-June, then we will start planning to move the entire university to Vienna.”

“It’s hard to recruit new staff when we can not even tell where their workplace will be,” Fodor added.

At a press conference earlier this week, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said the government had yet to make a final decision on the fate of the university.

The planned move comes just after Mr. Orbán and his Fidesz party won a massive two-thirds majority in the Hungarian parliament allowing them to put forward constitutional changes.

A major pillar of the Fidesz election campaign was directed at the influence of foreign NGOs, many of which are part of the network of Soros and his Open Society Foundations.

Prime Minister Orbán has denounced Soros’s influence on the migration policies of the European Union claiming that the “Soros Plan” would see millions of migrants enter Europe.

“The Soros network has an extensive sphere of influence within the European Parliament and other EU bodies,” Mr. Orbán said last October and added: “Its aim is to build a Europe of mixed population and to condemn the Hungarian government for opposing their view on migration.”

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

Sanctuary County Declared, For Gun Owner!

Effingham County, Illinois, Declares Itself a Sanctuary…. for Gun Owners!


 April 19, 2018  by  


Joe Thoele, an Effingham County, Illinois board member, was tired of his state’s continued assault on the Second Amendment and decided to do something about it. On Monday he persuaded seven of the other eight board members to declare his county a “sanctuary” county, ordering county employees not to enforce any new infringements coming from Springfield, the state’s capitol. Said Thoele, “I would just like to send a statement to Springfield that I don’t want them to be infringing on our Second Amendment rights as legal gun owners.” After all, echoed Effingham state’s attorney Bryan Kibler, “If you can be a sanctuary county for undocumented immigrants, why can’t you be one for firearms?”

The board meeting was attended by a near-record number of Effingham County’s 34,000 residents, according to local news sources. The Fox News affiliate reported that the resolution was motivated by a similar resolution passed by Iroquois County, Illinois, in March, “opposing the passage of … any bill where the 100th Illinois General Assembly desires to restrict the individual right of U.S. citizens as protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.” That resolution resolved

that the People of Iroquois County, Illinois, do hereby oppose the enactment of any legislation that would infringe upon the Right of the People to keep and bear arms and consider such laws to be unconstitutional and beyond lawful Legislative Authority.

BE IT FURTHER RESOVLED, that the Iroquois County Board demands that the Illinois General Assembly cease further actions restricting the Right of the People to keep and bear arms, and hereby demand that the Governor of Illinois veto all such legislation which restricts the Right of the People to keep and bear arms.

Effingham County’s resolution may also have been prompted as a response to the nearly complete ban by Deerfield, Illinois, on anything that remotely looks like an “assault” weapon, effective in early June.

The resolution is mostly symbolic, as are the other declarations of “sanctuary” cities and states (as California is discovering) passed by liberals in their haste to enact laws to protect the guilty while infringing on the rights of the innocent. But it was enough to inspire an anti-gun writer at the Chicago Tribune, Rex Huppke, to relieve himself of his disgust over such silliness, using ridicule as his weapon of choice in attacking Effingham’s resolution. He wrote:

The idea of a sanctuary city or county for gun owners has bubbled up in other states. It’s a not-so-subtle repurposing of the term “sanctuary city,” which is a city that limits its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agents, offering some protection to residents who are in the country illegally….

Do you think minor changes to gun laws [are] … a threat to your personal safety? Then pack your bags (of guns) and head on down to Effingham County. It will soon be a veritable haven of heavily armed people who think the government is out to get them.

Huppke should have done a little homework before suggesting such a move. Back in 1982 Morton Grove, Illinois, passed a virtual ban on guns, causing Kennesaw, Georgia, to reciprocate with an ordinance requiring “every head of household residing in the city limits to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition.” Since then Kennesaw has enjoyed a violent crime rate that is 60 percent below the national average and a property crime rate that is about 50 percent before both national and state averages.

In addition Kennesaw has enjoyed a population growth rate that is far higher than both the state and national averages.

Huppke has offered (tongue in cheek) to help gun owners to pack up and move to Effingham County, thus virtually guaranteeing that the county will shortly become the safest in the state, and one of the most prosperous, both of which Illinois desperately needs.

Huppke may also be onto something else: If Effingham County can declare itself a “sanctuary county,” why couldn’t the entire country declare itself a “sanctuary country” where the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment, is not abridged and infringed but instead supported and encouraged?

Photo: JannHuizenga/iStock Unreleased/Getty Images Plus

An Ivy League graduate and former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at

Related article:

Deerfield, Illinois, Passes “Assault Weapons” Ban Effective June 13

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