Government Corruption Prosecutes Bundys


John R. Houk

© March 18, 2017

 

I am guilty of not following the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) persecution of the Bundy family over grazing rights for their cattle and attempts to protect those cattle from BLM confiscation.

 

There are those that truly believe the Bundys are criminals for not paying exorbitant grazing fees and then resisting the BLM for attempting to take the Bundy cattle to pay for those back exorbitant fees.

 

Catherine Crabill pretty much sums up how the government has gone from protecting U.S. citizens to thrive to using Big Brother tactics for Leftist environmentalism, Crony Capitalism or both:

 

While many remain oblivious to the strangulation of our most fiercely independent and productive citizens, the American Rancher, this last week’s news cycle sputtered out incomprehensible sound bites about Nevadan Rancher, Mr. Cliven Bundy.

 

Sometime in the mid 1800’s, long before Nevada was a territory, much less a state, Cliven Bundy’s ancestors settled a tract of land to raise a family and provide a livelihood ranching cattle.

 

In 1946 another debacle of a government agency was created, The Bureau of Land Management.

 

Like every single government agency, without exception, the BLM became a bloated bully who’s main contribution to the western states, in particular, was to destroy life, liberty and personal property.

 

52 other families in Clark County Nevada alone, had long since given up fighting the BLM. Grazing rights were/are typically denied under the guise of protecting “endangered species”, (a common practice nationwide to destroy watermen, farmers, and ranchers), or grazing fees are raised until those, like the Bundy’s, who dug the wells, fenced the land, and managed it just fine, are driven off or bankrupted.

 

The BLM also threatened the Bundy’s because they declared he owed them more than a million dollars in said “grazing fees”. I’ll say it again, for using the land that has been in his family for 7 generations.

 

THERE IS MORE (NOTHING LESS THAN TREASON, SEDITION AND EXTORTION IN NEVADA! Posted by DEAN JAMES – By Catherine Crabill; American Freedom Fighters; 4/15/14)

 

I was gratified when all those defendants were exonerated by jury trial pertaining to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge standoff. Unfortunately right after their jury exoneration the BLM and other Federal Agents arrested them for another trial over a standoff that took place prior to Malheur in Bunkerville Nevada area of the Bundy Ranch cattle operations.

 

This government persecution continues with the appearance of COVER-UP:

 

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has requested an investigation into allegations that employees of the Bureau of Land Management destroyed federal records, tampered with witnesses and obstructed a congressional investigation.

 

 

The original report details how BLM employee Danial Paul Love [aka Dirty Dan] used his position to gain entrance for family and friends to the Burning Man festival — held on BLM-managed land — and assign a security detail to his party and provide overnight lodging for these attendees.

 

 

It then goes on to document ways Love attempted to instruct witnesses and influence the testimony of colleagues questioned by investigators.

 

The Oversight Committee’s letter cites the report’s allegations of email scrubbing, conspiracy to change and withhold records for an impending congressional inquiry, and coaching witnesses as having the potential to taint the investigation and undermine trust in BLM’s law enforcement office. For this reason, Chaffetz asked for further scrutiny of Love’s actions.

The entire letter can be read on Oversight’s websiteREAD ENTIRETY (Committee to investigate whether feds obstructed probe into Burning Man fraud; By Tony Ware; Federal Times; 2/21/17)

 

More on Dirty Dan:

 

An investigation accusing a federal agent of misconduct and ethics violations could derail one of the most high-profile land-use trials in modern Western history.

 

 

But a Jan. 30 report by the Department of Interior’s Office of the Inspector General appears to raise serious questions about the BLM special agent in charge of operations during the standoff, who is expected to be a key witness for the government in the case.

 

The report, which does not identify the agent by name [Yup, it was Special Agent In Charge Dirty Dan], cites ethical violations that occurred in 2015 at the annual Burning Man event in Northern Nevada’s Black Rock Desert.

 

Federal investigators said the agent wrongly used his influence to obtain benefits for himself and his family members at Burning Man, abused federal law-enforcement resources and intimidated other BLM staff to keep quiet about his conduct. They also accused the agent of manipulating BLM hiring practices to help a friend get hired.

 

 

Whipple said the report paints a picture of an agent with a personal agenda and no regard for the rule of law. He said his client long has maintained that Love dangerously orchestrated events during the Bundy standoff to “enhance and enrich” his personal profile and “to make a name for himself.”

 

 

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Las Vegas also declined comment. Spokeswoman Trisha Young said Friday the witness list in the Bundy Ranch trials has been sealed and is not open to the public, and she declined to speak about Love’s role in the case.

 

Individual federal prosecutors assigned to the cases did not return calls.

 

 

“It’s in an ethics report. I think everything is up for grabs — misuse of the vehicles, using intimidation,” Gordon said. “This stuff, it suggests that he’s willing to cheat and lie for his job.”

 

She said defense attorneys involved in the Bundy Ranch trials might not be able to show juries the inspector general’s report [Why the H-E-Double Hockey Sticks NOT! Where’s the justice in suppressing the IG Report?] but could question Love about specific incidents raised in it.

 

 

Investigators said when they began looking into the complaints, the agent called other employees and encouraged them not to cooperate. He told them “I don’t recall” was a valid answer to investigators’ questions, the report said.

 

Investigators said the agent used intimidation to discourage his co-workers from speaking with investigators, telling one: “You know, if you don’t side with me, grenades are going to go off and you’ll get hit.”

 

 

On websites and social-media posts dedicated to the Bundy Ranch standoff, Love is accused of ratcheting up the conflict.

 

Recorded exchanges purportedly between Love and right-wing internet radio host Peter Santilli during the standoff show just how quickly events escalated as each man threatened the other with arrest.

 

Love maintained he had the federal courts on his side and wanted to end the standoff peacefully. Then he told Santilli that the protesters didn’t have enough people to hold off law enforcement, saying, “You better hope that 10,000 show up,” according to one website.

 

Santilli is one of the 17 facing charges.

 

 

For two decades, the BLM repeatedly ordered Bundy to remove his cattle from federal lands and in 2014 the agency obtained a court order to seize Bundy’s cattle as payment for more than $1 million in back fees. In April, the BLM, led by Love, implemented a roundup of 1,000 head of Bundy’s cattle ranging on public land.

 

Bundy fought back, issuing a social-media battle cry to help defend his land rights against federal agents. Supporters, including members of several militia groups, streamed to the ranch from several Western states, including Nevada, Arizona, Idaho and Montana. They showed up with rifles and handguns, determined to keep government agents at bay.

 

READ ENTIRETY (BLM misconduct probe may derail Bundy Ranch standoff trial; By Jenny Kane and Robert Anglen; azcentral.com; 2/3/17 9:58 p.m. MT – Updated 2/4/17 11:45 a.m. MT}

 

Journalist Pete Santilli was arrested under the Obama Administration DOJ claims he did not have a Free Press right for reporting on the Bunkerville Standoff:

 

Reporter Pete Santilli had his hearing in Nevada on Monday on trumped up charges he is facing for his reporting on the Bundy Ranch Siege in 2014. As he left the courtroom in chains, he cried out, “I’m a journalist. This is what they do in Communist China!”

 

READ THE REST (Federal Government Throws Journalist into Prison for the “Crime” of Covering BLM Protests! By Tim Brown; Eagle Rising; May 2016)

 

The corruption can be seen with Defense Attorneys and the Prosecution sparing about what evidence is admissible and about which witnesses will be allowed to testify:

 

A downtown Las Vegas courtroom provided scenes as wild as a Western movie Monday when federal prosecutors and defense attorneys battled over nearly every piece of evidence presented in the trial against six of rancher Cliven Bundy’s supporters.

 

Defense attorneys tried to block a government witness from testifying. A prosecutor invoked an evidence rule that led even the judge to flip open a legal handbook. A juror made a wisecrack that caused one lawyer to raise concerns of potential bias.

 

By 4 p.m., U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro had sent the jury home early and told them not to return until Wednesday.

 

The day’s most hotly disputed footage was played outside the presence of the jury when defense lawyer Todd Leventhal tried to bring into evidence a video from the April 2014 standoff in Bunkerville. The video was captured by a Fox News cameraman, and Leventhal, who represents Bundy supporter O. Scott Drexler, wanted the judge to let him play it when he cross-examined Bureau of Land Management Ranger Gregory Johnson.

 

Johnson testified as a government witness Monday. On April 12, 2014, he was recorded on dashboard camera footage using a megaphone to repeatedly order protesters to disperse.

 

The protesters, who were gathered near the site where federal authorities had been impounding Bundy’s cattle, screamed angrily. At one point on the footage, authorities referenced a man walking towards them — “blue shirt, looks like press.”

 

The cameraman was identified in court only by his surname, Lynch. Defense lawyers tried to use the footage he captured to bolster their arguments that protesters could not understand law enforcement’s instructions from 200 yards away on a windy day.

 

On the video, Lynch walks toward the cattle impoundment site where federal authorities were headquartered.

 

“I do not have a weapon — I am shooting for Fox News,” he yelled. “May I approach so this doesn’t end in bloodshed … the people don’t want to get hurt.

 

“You are in violation of a U.S. District Court order,” Johnson’s voice boomed over the megaphone.

 

“I am the press!” Lynch shouted.

 

“Go back.”

 

“Why? Why can’t you talk to me?!”

 

“You are in violation

 

“I have no weapon! Are you really gonna shoot these people?” Lynch exclaimed. “We can’t hear your announcement that far away.”

Navarro would not allow the video into evidence Monday, but she told Leventhal he could play it for jurors if he calls Lynch as a defense witness.

 

READ THE REST (Tempers flare, nerves fray in trial against Bundy supporters; By JENNY WILSON; Las Vegas Review-Journal; 3/6/17 8:54pm)

 

Recall above info in which Special In Charge Dirty Dan Love is accused of ethics violations and witness intimidation. Dirty Dan is the guy in charge yelling at the Fox News cameraman for documenting the standoff. Dirty Dan’s BLM Agents tried to confiscate the Bundy Cattle and intimidated the Ranchers into arming themselves with vicious actions against the protestors.

 

Guess what? The Federal Prosecutor is trying to prevent Defense access to Dirty Dan at the trial:

 

It appears the government wants to hide the illegal actions it has taken, along with those of the Bureau of Land Management in the Bundy Ranch trial that is soon to begin.

 

On Tuesday, Prosecutors in Las Vegas filed a Motion In Limine  in the case of The United States vs Cliven Bundy et al.  They are hopeful that Nevada District Court Judge Gloria Navarro will allow the US central government to “cover-up” any wrong doing by Bureau Of Land Management agents during the 2014 Bundy Ranch siege.

 

An attorney for one of the defendants told Guerilla Media Network, “It’s a shocking blatant attempt by the Government to cover-up the brutal conduct of BLM agents that caused a near catastrophe in Bunkerville, Nevada during the impoundment of rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle.”

 

Guerilla Media Network reports:

 

The motion is a draconian attempt at best to “protect” government agents from being exposed to further scrutiny during the upcoming Nevada trials in which they will be under-oath to tell the truth.

 

 

The defense in this case is centered around civil rights violations of the Bundy family and protestors who came to Bunkerville, Nevada to protest an overreaching government agency who had beaten and incarcerated Cliven Bundy’s son Dave Bundy and other protestors, used a stun gun on his son Ammon Bundy, viciously attacked Mr. Bundy’s sister Margaret, and terrorized peaceful protest with threat of snipers and military force.

 

“It is what it is and we will fight it,” said Chris Rasmussen, attorney for reporter and radio show host Pete Santilli.  “The government wishes to eliminate anything we could use that goes to the defendants’ state of mind .. and we cannot allow that to happen. These people were frightened and there was a reason they reacted the way they did.”

 

“Do we or do we not still live in America?” said former Nevada State Assemblywoman Michele Fiore on Tuesday in response to the motion.  “One way or the other the truth will be told and I would like to see them stop me from voluntarily giving my testimony when this trial begins.”

 

Fiore has already told about some of the evidence that is known to exist concerning the criminal BLM, including audio and video from body cameras, and even spoken out on their crimes on the Nevada Assembly floor.

 

VIDEO: Michele Fiore: Government Alters Dashboard/Body Cam Video In Nevada Bundy Case

 

Posted by Pete Santilli Show

Published on Oct 3, 2016

*** Please help support our mission in Nevada by contributing at http://thepetesantillishow.com/donate or direct to our Paypal account: peter@petersantilli.com .

Defendants in the case of United States vs Cliven Bundy et al .. are accusing the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] and the FBI of altering dashboard and body-cam video in an attempt to cover-up their aggressiveness during the 2014 protest that led to the arrest of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and 18 others.

Defendants are also accusing the FBI “infiltration team” who posed as a documentary film crew called Long Bow, of editing video at crucial moments to make defendants who gave interviews look guilty of crimes they did not commit.

On at least 5 different occasions the defendants in the case say that video used to gain their indictments and create the Governments narrative that has kept them all in jail pending trial, was clearly altered at crucial moments to hide what they believe would expose the BLM as the aggressors and not the “victims” as Prosecutor Steven Myhre contends.

We have found at least 5 different clear cases of evidence tampering and have only viewed 1/4 of the discovery that was recently released to us by the Prosecutors office say defendants, who have begun the process of creating a power point demonstration that will be viewed by defense attorney’s on October 7, 2016.

… MORE VIDEOS

 

Carol Bundy, Cliven Bundy’s wife, reacted in a similar manner, “So what kind of defense are we allowed to have if we can’t tell the truth?  Because if the Government has it’s way it looks like we will not be allowed to have any defense at all.”

 

 

Judge Navarro has demonstrated that she is just as corrupt as the BLM and the politicians surrounding what is going on in Nevada.  Just look at what she has done to Santilli and Cliven Bundy.  Does anyone really believe she is not going to accept this motion? READ ENTIRETY (Prosecutors Seek to Protect BLM from Scrutiny in Bundy Ranch Trial; By TIM BROWN; Freedom Outpost; 1/28/17)

 

Now for the article that got me started on this brief excursion of government cover-up and corruption. This article is specifically about the Prosecutors preventing Dirty Dan to be confronted by the Defense as the accuser of the Bunkerville Standoff Defendants.

 

JRH 3/18/17

Please Support NCCR

*****************

The Utter Hypocrisy of the Government in the Bundy Ranch Trial

 

By TIM BROWN

MARCH 16, 2017

Freedom Outpost

 

The utter hypocrisy that is being demonstrated in the Bundy Ranch trial by those who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from both foreign and domestic enemies is quite telling as to the level of corruption we are seeing in our land today.  Furthermore, it is demonstrating that many of those who have taken that oath not only don’t know what the Constitution says, but also have become the very domestic enemies they proclaim to oppose because of their ignorance.

 

First, take this update from Guerilla Media Network’s Deb Jordan.

 

VIDEO: Bundy Trial Update: Judge May Not Allow Defendants Biggest Accuser To Be Questioned In Front Of Jury

 

Posted by Pete Santilli Show

Published on Mar 10, 2017

 

call Daniel P. Love to the stand she is leaning heavily toward not allowing the defense to call him to the stand either. In a shocking statement made outside the earshot of the Jury this past Friday, Navarro said that she has no obligation to allow the defense to call the former Special Agent in Charge of the Bundy cattle impoundment to the stand for the purpose of impeaching his testimony to the grand jury .. Also this week Dennis Michael Lynch took the stand ..

Please help support us in Nevada by contributing at http://thepetesantillishow.com/donate or READ THE REST

 

“Judge Gloria Navarro presiding over USA vs Cliven Bundy says, if the Prosecution does not call Daniel P. Love to the stand she is leaning heavily toward not allowing the defense to call him to the stand either,” Jordan wrote.  “In a shocking statement made outside the earshot of the Jury this past Friday, Navarro said that she has no obligation to allow the defense to call the former Special Agent in Charge of the Bundy cattle impoundment to the stand for the purpose of impeaching his testimony to the grand jury.”

 

No obligation?   This is the government’s star snitch, I mean witness, Bureau of Land Management agent Daniel P. Love.  Perhaps, the reason lies in the fact that the BLM’s conduct at Bundy Ranch was thuggish and tyrannical (Watch Video evidence of their misconduct here and here).  Perhaps, the reason lies with the fact that Love was found guilty of misconduct by the Inspector General on a number of issues, including using his influence to obtain tickets and special passes to the Burning Man festival in the Nevada desert.  He was also instrumental in driving Dr. James Redd to the point of suicide over his collecting of Indian Artifacts in 2009.

 

As for Judge Navarro, citizens are planning to issue a letter to Congress calling for her impeachment due to her conduct in the case.

 

However, that is not the whole of what is taking place in Nevada.  The Nevada Independent reports:

 

Although no shots were fired that day, federal officers previously testified that alarming investigative intelligence, combined with the guns present in the agitated crowd and para-military dress of some of the protesters, made them afraid for their safety. Six defendants the government describes as Bundy’s gunmen are on trial accused of  threatening and intimidating BLM and U.S. Parks Service law enforcement officers.

 

In recent weeks, on cross examination, the defense has managed to portray the federal cops as inexperienced wannabes who lacked judgment and overreacted under stress. After the decision was made to discontinue the roundup, some of BLM rangers and Park police initially refused orders to put away their weapons, stand down and pack up. Some of their responses under oath made them appear more fearful than professional.

 

But the defense this past week had little success with Metro Sgt. Tom Jenkins and none at all with Sheriff Joseph Lombardo.

 

Additionally, there was testimony by Metro Sgt. Tom Jenkins, who claimed that protesters were flashing handguns and rifles “from the time we got there until the time we left.”  However, he remained steadfast in his claims even though lengthy recorded exhibits didn’t always agree with his testimony.  Someone is not being truthful or has a really bad memory that cannot be trusted.

 

Jenkins claims his officers were “scared” and “crying.”  Really?

 

I wonder if Sgt. Jenkins thought there was fear in the hearts of the Bundys and their supporters over this?

 

https://youtu.be/9p0YemhFnw8

 

or this?

 

https://youtu.be/LhJ6H9vlEDA

 

Then there was testimony from Lombardo.  Again, from The Nevada Independent:

 

When Lombardo’s took the stand Thursday, he reminded those who have followed his career that the public needn’t worry about his leadership skills. An assistant sheriff at the time of the standoff, Lombardo accompanied Sheriff Doug Gillespie to Bundy’s makeshift stage outside his ranch in an attempt to cool the heated rhetoric and avoid bloodshed. He stood patiently during Bundy’s windy grandstanding and impossible demands — disarm all federal law enforcement and bulldoze the entrance booths at the region’s federal conservation and recreation areas — and then returned to Las Vegas believing the botched cattle roundup was reaching a peaceful resolution.

 

For the first time jurors saw video of the elder Bundy holding forth with armed, uniformed members of the Arizona State Militia, who call themselves the “Praetorian Guard,” standing guard. Dozens of his hundreds of followers were armed with handguns and rifles.

 

When Bundy instructed his followers to go get his cattle, Lombardo’s day grew complicated and dangerous. He attempted to negotiate with one of Bundy’s sons, Dave Bundy, in a plea for patience and enough time to allow the BLM to make a safe exit.

 

It was Lombardo, jurors learned, who essentially put his career on the line to overrule BLM Supervisory Special Agent Dan Love and press for the release of the impounded cattle during the height of the armed standoff’s tensions.

 

“He advised me they were federal cattle and it was his decision,” Lombardo said.

 

Fortunately, Lombardo prevailed.

 

On what constitutional basis do Cliven Bundy’s cattle become “federal cattle”?  There is no victim any what the government is portraying here.  Furthermore, just because a video shows armed citizens protecting one another from a tyrannical BLM, something that even Sheriff Lombardo was willing to stand up to, doesn’t mean they were breaking the law.  Seriously, is no one reading the Second Amendment?  Do none of these people know why we have it and what provoked the writing of the Second Amendment?  or the First? or the Third? or the Fourth, etc. etc.?

 

While the author of the Nevada Independent piece concluded, “Bring guns to a peaceful protest, and you’re bound to get everyone’s attention,” what he failed to identify is who brought them first.  The response of protesters with guns was an equal and measured defensive response to tyrants, period.  Now, you can see the utter hypocrisy and lack of moral compass that is on display in this case.

 

________________

Government Corruption Prosecutes Bundys

John R. Houk

© March 18, 2017

_________________

The Utter Hypocrisy of the Government in the Bundy Ranch Trial

 

Copyright © 2017 FreedomOutpost.com

 

Judge Watson’s TRO is teeming with Evidence of Bias and PREJUDGEMENT!


Paul Sutliff cites from Judge Watson’s TRO to demonstrate the injunction does not even come close to Constitutional mustard and thus should be disqualified immediately by SCOTUS. Sutliff goes further and demands that Judge Watson’s blatant politicization above the Constitution is grounds for impeachment from his Judiciary Office. For that matter, it should be grounds for impeachment of any Judge or Justice that cites non-constitutional circumstances above the U.S. Constitution.

 

JRH 3/17/17

Please Support NCCR

******************

Judge Watson’s TRO is teeming with Evidence of Bias and PREJUDGEMENT!

 

By Paul Sutliff

March 16, 2017 3:38 PM

Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad

 

Judge Derrick Watson TRO against Trump EO Travel Ban

 

As I read the Order Granting the Temporary Retraining Order (TRO) in STATE OF HAWAI‘I and ISMAIL ELSHIKH vs. Donald J. Trump, et. al., I began to wonder how this document was written with any assemblance of juris prudence professionalism. I say this knowing it is practically impossible for a judge to write a 42 page document excluding the title page which makes 43 in a matter of two hours. I took an extra step to verify this by talking to lawyers who had seen judges using their clerk’s assistance to complete maybe 12 pages in two hours due to needed discussion and citation verification not to mention proof reading.

 

I suggest every American read this ruling to discover what I did. Namely, that US District Court Judge Derrick Watson who awarded the TRO had the majority of the decision pre-written prior to entering the court! This TRO then becomes an example of unethical conduct of a judge.

 

The State of Hawaii presented a case claiming economic hardship should these six countries be banned. Among the claims of economic hardship was a statement that tourism declined by 100 persons from the Middle East. Notably absent is whether there was an increase or decrease in tourism for the month in question as compared to last year.

 

Yet, even Judge Derrick Watson admits in a FOOTNOTE:

 

Footnote 8: This data relates to the prior Executive Order No. 13,769. At this preliminary stage, the Court looks to the earlier order’s effect on tourism in order to gauge the economic impact of the new Executive Order, while understanding that the provisions of the two differ. Because the new Executive Order has yet to take effect, its precise economic impact cannot presently be determined.” (pgs. 20-21)

 

The State of Hawaii made the outlandish claim that the University of Hawai’i would suffer economical hardship. Absent is a statement of how many students from these six countries currently are enrolled and how many are generally recruited a year. Somewhat humorously, the state claimed:

 

… that any prospective recruits who are without visas as of March 16, 2017 will not be able to travel to Hawaii to attend the University. As a result, the University will not be able to collect the tuition that those students would have paid.

 

Oh, the insanity! The college can NOT collect from students who can NOT legally enter the United States is a hardship??? Well just how many students are we talking about? Better yet, are these foreign students being given state or federal grants that enable them to attend the University of Hawai’i?

 

The State of Hawaii went on and stated that if the ban goes into effect it will likely cause the closing of the Persian Language and Culture program. Oh the insanity in deleting a program that requires TWO instructors!!! Below is a screenshot pulled from their site listing their academic instructors! ALL TWO OF THEM!!!

 

Persian Language & Culture Profs screen shot

 

Dr. Ismail Elshikh is listed as the co-litigant. Interestingly this name is misspelled possibly purposefully because his name is listed in news articles as “Ismail El Sheikh.” While it is not uncommon for Arabs to use various transliterations of English for their name, it is not acceptable for someone who has lived in America for some time to do this. I want to have this issue resolved and to understand the meaning behind the misspelling.

 

Dr. Ismail El-Sheikh claims that his children are suffering hardship because his mother-in-law is not able to come to America, though it was established that she is in the process of being able to come due to family being here.

 

Dr. Ismail El-Sheikh is quoted in the TRO as having stated:

 

  • … that the effects of the Executive Order are “devastating to me, my wife and children.” Elshikh Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 66-1.

 

  • “deeply saddened by the message that [both Executive Orders] convey—that a broad travel-ban is ‘needed’ to prevent people from certain Muslim countries from entering the United States.” Elshikh Decl. ¶ 1

 

  • “Because of my allegiance to America, and my deep belief in the American ideals of democracy and equality, I am deeply saddened by the passage of the Executive Order barring nationals from now-six Muslim majority countries from entering the United States.”; id. ¶ 3

 

  • [“My children] are deeply affected by the knowledge that the United States—their own country—would discriminate against individuals who are of the same ethnicity as them, including members of their own family, and who 25 hold the same religious beliefs. They do not fully understand why this is happening, but they feel hurt, confused, and sad.”

 

I am further at a loss when I read on page 23-24:

 

Vasquez v. Los Angeles Cty., 487 F.3d 1246, 1250 (9th Cir. 2007)  (“The concept of a ‘concrete’ injury is particularly elusive in the Establishment Clause     context.”). “The standing question, in plain English, is whether adherents to a religion have standing to challenge an official condemnation by their government of their religious views[.] Their ‘personal stake’ assures the ‘concrete adverseness’ 24 required.” Catholic League, 624 F.3d at 1048–49.

 

The TRO was awarded with the claim that it violates Dr. Ismail El-Sheikh’s First Amendment rights! Yet his rights have never been in violation! At no time, and in no place in the TRO does it state that his rights were in question!! Rather the statement is that NON-Citizens First Amendment rights are being violated!!!

 

The bill makes no illusions to religion at all. Even though they do quote an adviser to the president they do not provide proof that there is a ban on a religion. Which of course can be easily disproved by naming off Muslim countries that have no ban!

 

On Page 27 the ruling states:

 

(“Plaintiffs’ alleged injury is not based on speculation about a particular future prosecution or the defeat of a particular ballot question. . . . Here, the issue presented requires no further factual development, is largely a legal question, and chills allegedly protected First Amendment expression.”); see also     Arizona Right to Life Political Action Comm. v. Bayless, 320 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]hen the threatened enforcement effort implicates First Amendment [free speech] rights, the inquiry tilts dramatically toward a finding of standing.”). The Court turns to the merits of Plaintiffs’ Motion for TRO.

 

The mentioning of freedom of speech makes no sense here! Is this evidence that Judge Derrick Watson could not find judicial reasoning to support his conclusion?? Can anyone see logic in this ruling?

 

The TRO decision states:

 

“Indeed, the Government defends the Executive Order principally because of its religiously neutral text —“[i]t applies to six countries that Congress and the prior Administration determined posed special risks of terrorism. [The Executive Order] applies to all individuals in those countries, regardless of their religion.” Gov’t. Mem. in Opp’n 40. The Government does not stop there. By its reading, the Executive Order could not have been religiously motivated because “the six countries represent only a small fraction of the world’s 50 Muslim-majority nations, and are home to less than 9% of the global Muslim population . . . [T]he suspension covers every national of those countries, including millions of non-Muslim individuals[.]” Gov’t. Mem. in Opp’n 42.

 

The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment 31 Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise. See Aziz, 2017 WL 580855, at *9 (rejecting the argument that “the Court cannot infer an anti-Muslim animus because [Executive Order No. 13,769] does not affect all, or even most, Muslims,” because “the Supreme Court has never reduced its Establishment Clause jurisprudence to a mathematical exercise. It is a discriminatory purpose that matters, no matter how inefficient the execution” (citation omitted)). Equally flawed is the notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam because it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries. It is undisputed, using the primary source upon which the Government itself relies, that these six countries have overwhelmingly Muslim populations that range from 90.7% to 99.8%.12 It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam. Certainly, it would be inappropriate to conclude, as the Government does, that it does not. (p. 30-31)

 

Interestingly, this statement quotes the last judge who ruled against President Trump’s Executive Order on immigration restrictions but tries to hide doing so in not revealing the citation:

 

the Supreme Court has never reduced its Establishment Clause jurisprudence to a mathematical exercise. It is a discriminatory purpose that matters, no matter how inefficient the execution.

 

Worse still is the lack in understanding that they are using math to justify their reasoning while stating that math should not be used for this purpose. This also demonstrates that the judgement was given prejudicially be not applying statistical analysis in math to examine why those six countries were deemed to be terrorist supporter countries. This provides a one-sided view. Something judges are not supposed to do.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

This TRO’s standing is based on a belief that people who are not American citizens are under the US Constitution! This is highly misleading, unethical and teem of nothing but judicial activism!

 

Where is the outrage? Why are the major media outlets not asking these questions? Because it would not fit their narrative? If Judge Derrick Watson is not removed for unethical and unConstitutional activism, all of America will suffer! Call your Senator ask for Judge Derrick Watson to be impeached today! The evidence is all in the TRO.

__________________

Edited by John R.  Houk

 

About Paul Sutliff

 

I am writer and a teacher. Here is a link to my publisher and my latest book portraying the truth about Civilization Jiihad

 

#OBAMAGATE: EXPOSING THE OBAMA DEEP STATE


Daniel Greenfield has an opinion piece about the Obama operated Deep State (Shadow Government, etc.) that is based on what is known yet disavowed by the Leftist Mainstream Media. This is a good read worth pondering if you want to live under Liberty given to Americans by our Founding Fathers.

 

JRH 3/7/17

Please Support NCCR

****************

#OBAMAGATE: EXPOSING THE OBAMA DEEP STATE

Obama’s third term has begun. Our Republic is in danger.

 

By Daniel Greenfield

March 7, 2017

FrontPageMag.com

 

Political Cartoon by Bosch Fawstin

 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

 

After Trump secured the nomination, Obama’s people filed a wiretapping request. As he was on the verge of winning, they did it again. After he won, they are doing everything they can to bring him down.

 

It was always going to come down to this.

 

One is the elected President of the United States. The other is the Anti-President who commands a vast network that encompasses the organizers of OFA, the official infrastructure of the DNC and Obama Anonymous, a shadow government of loyalists embedded in key positions across the government.

 

A few weeks after the election, I warned that Obama was planning to run the country from outside the White House. And that the “Obama Anonymous” network of staffers embedded in the government was the real threat. Since then Obama’s Kalorama mansion has become a shadow White House. And the Obama Anonymous network is doing everything it can to bring down an elected government.

 

Valerie Jarrett has moved into the shadow White House to plot operations against Trump. Meanwhile Tom Perez has given him control of the corpse of the DNC after fending off a Sandernista bid from Keith Ellison. Obama had hollowed out the Democrat Party by diverting money to his own Organizing for America. Then Hillary Clinton had cannibalized it for her presidential bid through Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Brazile. Now Obama owns the activist, OFA, and organizational, DNC, infrastructure.

 

But that’s just half the picture.

 

Obama controls the opposition. He will have a great deal of power to choose future members of Congress and the 2020 candidate. But he could have done much of that from Chicago or New York. The reason he didn’t decide to move on from D.C. is that the nation’s capital contains the infrastructure of the national government. He doesn’t just want to run the Democrats. He wants to run America.

 

The other half of the picture is the Obama Deep State. This network of political appointees, bureaucrats and personnel scattered across numerous government agencies is known only as Obama Anonymous.

 

Obama Inc. had targeted Trump from the very beginning when it was clear he would be the nominee.

 

Trump had locked down the GOP nomination in May. Next month there was a FISA request targeting him. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court denied the request, and it is still unknown whether the request targeted Trump, or only his associates, but it’s silly to pretend that the submission of such a request a month after he became the presumptive GOP nominee was apolitical.

 

The second, narrower, FISA request came through in October.  This one was approved. The reason for getting a FISA request in October was even more obvious than June. October is the crucial month in presidential elections. It’s the month of the “October Surprise” when the worst hit pieces based on the keenest opposition research is unleashed. Obama’s opposition research on Trump involved eavesdropping on a server in Trump Tower. Nixon would have been very jealous.

 

After the election, Obama Inc. began to spread out its bets. Some of his people migrated into his network of political organizations. Others remained embedded in the government. While the former would organize the opposition, the latter would sabotage, undermine and try to bring down Trump.

 

An unprecedented campaign for full spectrum dominance was being waged in domestic politics.

 

Political opposition wasn’t a new phenomenon; even if a past president centralizing control of the organizational and activist arms of his party to wage war on his successor was unprecedented. But weaponizing unelected government officials to wage war on an elected government was a coup.

 

Obama Anonymous conducted its coup in layers. The first layer partnered congressional Democrats with OA personnel to retain control of as much of the government as possible by the Obama Deep State. They did it by blocking Trump’s nominees with endless hearings and protests. The second layer partnered congressional Democrats with the deeper layer of Obama operatives embedded in law enforcement and intelligence agencies who were continuing the Obama investigations of Trump.

 

This second layer sought to use the investigation to force out Trump people who threatened their control over national security, law enforcement and intelligence. It is no coincidence that their targets, Flynn and Sessions, were in that arena. Or that their views on Islamic terror and immigration are outside the consensus making them easy targets for Obama Anonymous and its darker allies.

 

These darker allies predate Obama. The tactics being deployed against Trump were last used by them in a previous coup during President Bush’s second term. The targets back then had included Bush officials, an Iran skeptic, pro-Israel activists and a Democrat congresswoman. The tactics, eavesdropping, leaks, false investigations, dubious charges and smear campaigns against officials, were exactly the same.

 

Anyone who remembers the cases of Larry Franklin, Jane Harman and some others will recognize them. Before that they were used to protect the CIA underestimates of Soviet capabilities that were broken through by Rumsfeld’s Halloween Massacre and Team B which helped clear the way for Reagan’s defeat of the Soviet Union.

 

Under Bush, the Deep State was fighting against any effort to stop Iran’s nuclear program. It did so by eliminating and silencing opposition within the national security establishment and Congress through investigations of supposed foreign agents. That left the field clear for it to force a false National Intelligence Estimate on President Bush which claimed that Iran had halted its nuclear program.

 

Obama broke out the same tactics when he went after Iran Deal opponents. Once again members of Congress were spied on and the results were leaked to friendly media outlets. Before the wiretapping of Trump’s people, the NSA was passing along conversations of Iran Deal opponents to the White House which were used to coordinate strategy in defense of the illegal arrangement with Islamic terrorists.

 

The same wall between government and factional political agendas that Nixon’s “White House Plumbers” had broken through on the way to Watergate had been torn down. NSA eavesdropping was just another way to win domestic political battles. All it took was accusing the other side of treason.

 

And worse was to come.

 

During the Iran Deal battle, the NSA was supposedly filtering the eavesdropped data it passed along.

 

In its last days, Obama Inc. made it easier to pass along unfiltered personal information to the other agencies where Obama loyalists were working on their investigation targeting Trump. The NSA pipeline now makes it possible for the shadow White House to still gain intelligence on its domestic enemies.

 

And the target of the shadow White House is the President of the United States. [Blog Editor’s bold text]

 

There is now a President and an Anti-President. A government and a shadow government. The anti-President controls more of the government through his shadow government than the real President.

 

The Obama network is an illegal shadow government. Even its “light side” as an opposition group is very legally dubious. Its “shadow side” is not only illegal, but a criminal attack on our democracy.

 

When he was in power, Obama hacked reporters like FOX News’ James Rosen and CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson. He eavesdropped on members of Congress opposed to the Iran Deal. Two men who made movies he disliked ended up in jail. But what he is doing now is even more deeply disturbing.

 

Obama no longer legally holds power. His Deep State network is attempting to overturn the results of a presidential election using government employees whose allegiance is to a shadow White House. Tactics that were illegal when he was in office are no longer just unconstitutional, they are treasonous.

 

Obama Inc. has become a state within a state. It is a compartmentalized network of organizations, inside and outside the government, that claim that they are doing nothing illegal as individual groups because they are technically following the rules within each compartment, but the sheer scope of the illegality lies in the covert coordination between these “revolutionary cells” infecting our country.

 

It is a criminal conspiracy of unprecedented scope. Above all else, it is the most direct attack yet on a country in which governments are elected by the people, not by powerful forces within the government.

 

We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain,” President Lincoln declared at Gettysburg.  “That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” [Italics added]

 

Obama’s shadow government is not just a war on President Trump. It is a war on that government of the people, by the people and for the people. If he succeeds, then at his touch, it will perish from the earth.

 

Obama’s third term has begun. Our Republic is in danger. [Blog Editor’s bold text]

_____________________

© COPYRIGHT 2017, FRONTPAGEMAG.COM

 

About FPM

 

FRONTPAGE MAG IS A PROUD PROJECT OF THE DAVID HOROWITZ FREEDOM CENTER

 

The DHFC is dedicated to the defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by enemies both secular and religious, at home and abroad.

 

The David Horowitz Freedom Center combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror.  The leftist offensive is most obvious on our nation’s campuses, where the Freedom Center protects students from indoctrination and intimidation and works to give conservative students a place in the marketplace of ideas from which they are otherwise excluded.  Combining forceful analysis and bold activism, the Freedom Center provides strong insight into today’s most pressing issue on its family of websites and in the activist campaigns it wages on campus, in the news media, and in national politics throughout the year.

 

David Horowitz began the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in 1988 to READ THE REST

The 9th Court Usurps Power!


Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and William Canby.
Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and William Canby.

9th Circuit Appellate Justices Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and William Canby.

 

Justin Smith reasoning demonstrates the hypocrisy and idiocy of the American Left’s rabid reaction to President Trump temporarily banning immigration and refugees from seven nations that Islamic terrorism is a hotbed of death.

 

JRH 2/14/17

Please Support NCCR

**************

The 9th Court Usurps Power!

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 2/13/2017 7:19 AM

 

President Trump doesn’t need to issue any new travel ban order, that may or may not please the anti-American activist judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal or other supporters of Islam and Sharia law (see Justice Elena Kagan’s tenure at Harvard University), open borders and international communism in the Supreme Court and within America’s own population. His original order was well within the U.S. Constitution and the law, and, in order to stop this current intrusion on the President’s authority in areas of foreign policy and national security, a usurpation of power and a judicial coup d’état, President Trump should defy the 9th Court and set to work with the Republican majority and any agreeable Democrats to limit the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution and reclaim stolen legislative powers for Congress.

 

It has universally been acknowledged for over 230 years that the President, the United States Commander-in-Chief, has broad authority and great leeway in all matters of immigration and foreign policy and national security [Judge Napolitano & NRO], which places the recent ruling of leftist activist judges Michelle Friedland (Obama appointee) and William Canby Jr. (Carter appointee) on par with an act of treason. These two judges are so willing to give President Trump a political black eye, allowing Trump’s “Muslim ban” campaign statements to be used in the evaluation of his executive order, that they have ignored the law, circumvented the Constitution and violated the separation of powers clause between coequal branches of government; and, they have blatantly dismissed the reality  of refugees, who can’t prove who they are and whether or not they have any ties to Islamic terrorist groups, while allowing district judge James Robart, another leftist activist judge (notwithstanding being a Bush appointee), to absurdly overrule the President of the United States on border security during wartime.

 

There is not any manner of violation against the U.S. Constitution and the 1965 Immigration Act in President Trump’s travel ban. Trump isn’t discriminating against anyone, but rather, he is looking at seven nations from a security threat assessment, which were already determined to be state sponsors of terror by former President Obama and his advisors, addressed in Section 1187 (a) (12) of an Obama-era provision of the immigration law.

 

And also in his executive order, President Trump expressly cites 1182 (f), enacted in 1952, which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such time as he may deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants … “. [Blog Editor: bold-italics is Editor’s]

 

In 1893, America was detaining approximately 20 percent of all hopeful immigrants reaching Ellis Island, due to sickness and disabilities, and anarchists and the insane were automatically rejected [Blog Editor: History.com point 4-  Immigrants were subject to physical and mental exams to ensure they were fit for admittance to the United States]. About two percent of these immigrants were judged unfit to become U.S. citizens and sent home on the next ship. By the 1920s, our government established quotas based on nationality and skill. And the majority of Americans have always understood that just like anyone has the right to decide who enters their home, so too, our nation has that same sovereign right.

 

No “moral obligation” to these refugees exists that can compel us to allow them to enter without knowing for certain who they are. The moral obligation to open our doors, often mentioned by the Leftists and International Communists, doesn’t mean America must throw reason and caution to the wind.

 

People who do not share our values — Islamofascists seeking to reach America’s shores and murder Americans — and anti-American “refugees” seeking to transform America into a Balkanized hell are not welcome here.

 

Why weren’t all of these anti-American leftist judges evoking Emma Lazarus and Lady Liberty lifting her lamp “beside the golden door” when President Clinton sent little 6 year old Elian Gonzalez back to a communist dictatorship in Cuba, under the executive branch’s broad power? Or when President Obama turned away real refugees fleeing Castro’s oppression “yearning to breathe free“? [Blog Editor: See Also Breitbart & 100% Fed Up]

 

America doesn’t have to destroy its cultural identity by helping foreigners, but this is precisely what Democrat commie bastards such as President Johnson and Senator Ted Kennedy intended to accomplish through the 1965 Immigration Act. This one law has eroded our cultural identity severely and created extremely detrimental demographic changes over time. And most recently, former President Obama specifically brought in one million immigrants from Muslim majority countries like Kosovo, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan, even though these countries were the origin of terrorists that have already attacked America.

 

Many of America’s “progressive” Leftists consider the destruction of America, as we know it, to be a desirable goal, however, most Americans reject their fundamental change. Americans who love this country want a strong America, that will be able to defeat the dangerous ideologies currently threatening Western Civilization.

 

Rebuke the disingenuous pious progressives who decry those of us supporting the President’s executive order as anti-immigrant and issue flowery utterances on sanctuary, when sanctuary is for the truly persecuted innocents, like the Christians in the Middle East. Exercising our first responsibility to protect ourselves and Our Beloved America bears no shame.

 

Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ala) stated that Trump’s executive order was “plainly legal” under both statute and the Constitution, adding: “No foreigner has a constitutional right to enter the United States and courts ought not second-guess sensitive national security decisions of the President. This misguided ruling is from the 9th Circuit, the most notoriously left-wing court in America and the most reversed court at the Supreme Court.

 

Representative Mo Brooks (R-Ala) said, “Unfortunately, American lives are at risk until this unfounded and reckless [9th Court restraining] order is reversed by the Supreme Court.”

 

How can Americans trust unreliable and corrupt courts with our national security? The Supreme Court ruled Obamacare to be both constitutional and a tax, after Obama called it a “penalty” for years. The courts have overturned the will of ‘We the People’ in numerous referendums and centuries of traditions and hundreds of state and federal laws, so that they could manufacture non-existent rights to abortion and deviant, perverse homosexual “marriage” [coupling], rights that cannot and never will be found in Madison’s Constitution.

 

Judges and justices are not empowered by the Constitution to make U.S. law or govern the nation. Those duties fall solely to Congress and the President.

 

Pat Buchanan observed on February 10th that President Andrew Jackson defied Chief Justice John Marshall’s “prohibition” against moving the Cherokee Indians across the Mississippi and to the western frontier. He also noted President Lincoln considered sending U.S. troops to arrest Chief Justice Roger Taney, when Taney declared Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional.

 

President Trump must simply defy U.S. District Judge Robart’s overly broad and illegal restraining order, upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal. He must order Homeland Security and his State Department and Justice Department to continue executing his executive order which is in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and existing law, because his act is a rare and righteous moment in this war against terrorism, the Islamofascists, the Radical Left of America and the International Communists, who seek our demise. And a Constitutional crisis is much preferred over more murdered innocent Americans.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_____________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text embraced by brackets and source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

9th Circuit Uses Semantics to Deceive Americans


e-pluribus-unum-vs-multiculturalist-left

When the 9th Circuit Appeals Court upheld a Lower Court stay on President Trump’s Executive Order temporarily banning citizens, refugees, and immigrants from seven nations that are hotbeds of Islamic terrorism, it demonstrated how Leftist Activist Judges ignore the Constitution in favor of Leftist utopianism. The American Left might as rip up the Constitution and burn the scraps of paper.

 

Paul Sutliff demonstrates how the 9th circuit is torching the U.S. Constitution with misinformation to justify Multiculturalist utopian goals.

 

JRH 2/11/17

Please Support NCCR

*****************

9th Circuit Uses Semantics to Deceive Americans

u-s-9th-circuit-deceives-american 

By Paul Sutliff 

February 9, 2017

Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad

 

The New York Post wrote an article on February 9th that clearly shows the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, carefully choosing words for the purpose of creating misinformation for the media to share with their readers and viewers regarding their actions against President Trump’s Executive Order. According to that article the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stated:

“The Government has pointed to no evidence that an alien of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States,” the three-member panel wrote.”

 

The terminology “perpetrated a terrorist attack” explicitly excludes all actions prevented or attempted that did not result in a terror attack. Why is this important? There are at least 38 terrorists who were killed or arrested as they worked to be supportive of the Islamic State AND who were also classified as immigrants/refugees at one time. In addition, there are at least 6 persons who were killed or arrested for attempting an act of terror who were second generation Americans refugees. I filed this information in a federally filed affidavit in September 2016 as an Expert Witness. You will notice people from countries other than the seven countries listed in Trump’s ban.

All the information in the graphs below originated in the Threat Knowledge Group last accessed in September 2016, whose site was disabled recently with President Trump’s appointment of Sebastian Gorka, with the exception of the information in the last column which I found. Actual sources for the information cited in the last column is provided in my Affidavit.

 

APPENDIX C 1

 is-terrorists-arrested-were-refugees

 

APPENDIX C 2

is-terrorists-arrested-were-refugees-2 

 

APPENDIX C 3

is-terrorists-arrested-were-refugees-3 

 

APPENDIX C 4

 is-terrorists-arrested-were-refugees-4

 

APPENDIX C 5

is-terrorists-arrested-were-refugees-5

 

____________________

Paul Sutliff

 

I am writer and a teacher. Here is a link to my publisher and my latest book portraying the truth about Civilization Jiihad! https://www.tatepublishing.com/bookstore/book.php?w=978-1-68237-562-4

 

Lady Liberty Cried


tears-of-lady-liberty

Justin Smith makes a very cogent defense of President Trump’s ban on immigration from seven nations that are Islamic terrorist havens.

 

JRH 2/7/16

Please Support NCCR

************

Lady Liberty Cried

The Moral and Intellectual Clarity to Win

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 2/6/2017 12:37 PM

 

Lady Liberty had a single tear trickle down Her cheek on January 27th as Her breasts heaved with happiness and relief that a U.S. President, Donald Trump, was finally implementing a sound, logical and sane common-sense approach to who receives visas and permission to enter the United States. However, Lady Liberty cried profusely, upon learning that President Trump’s ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations was only temporary.

 

On January 27th, Pres. Trump placed a 120 day block on all refugees and a 90 day ban on travel from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia. Three of these countries are U.S.-designated sponsors of terror and the rest are war zones; this is about the safety and security of the American people, and it is far from discrimination against Muslims.

 

Congressional members of both parties have promised a biometric entry-exit tracking system on visas for over two decades, and the 9/11 National Commission on Terror Attacks on the United States recommended it thirteen years ago, noting that forty percent of all illegal aliens simply overstayed their visa just like many of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists. Section 7 of President Trump’s executive order calls for this biometric system that has long been delayed by lobbyists from foreign governments, universities, immigration legal firms and the ACLU.

 

And now, with the flames of violence fanned by the Leftist media, America is witnessing violent social convulsions from Berkeley, CA to New York City. Violent communists and anarchists, supported and largely financed by the American Communist Party and the billionaire trouble-maker George Soros, are attacking any conservative counter-protester with pepper-spray and poles, and they are setting fire to their cities.

 

The Washington Post quoted protesters outside the White House saying, “Islamophobia is unpatriotic” and chanting “Let them go … Let them in”.

 

Videos out of the University of California at Berkely show protesters screaming, “No borders, no nations, f— deportations! … No walls, no borders, f— executive orders!”

 

The Left fears that Trump’s executive order is the first step towards a return to pre-1965 immigration policies that favored Western Christians. The Progressive Communists of the Democratic Party have advocated their anti-Western, anti-Christian ideology for over four decades, and they have promoted open borders, globalization and endless immigration from the Third World, in order to destroy America’s Founding Principles through a dangerous form of multiculturalism that encourages ethnic separation and authoritarian government in a hellish “utopia”. [Blog Editor: I’m not always a fan of Natural News as a source nevertheless, this article paints a picture Americans are witnessing right before their eyes.]

 

If this executive order was truly a “Muslim” ban, as asserted by the Leftist “mainstream” media, why didn’t it include forty other Muslim majority countries, including Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, where Christians are regularly intimidated and persecuted?

 

Even if this had been the full Muslim ban once proposed by Trump, so what?

 

An indisputable fact, America is a nation of immigrants, but entering America is a privilege, not a right, and since 1882, Congress was seen as having broad authority over this issue, as our nation’s lawmaker. The U.S. President, too, has broad discretion, under the law, for national security purposes to bar a class of person detrimental to the U.S. from entering the country. Any country, including America, cannot maintain its national security, traditions, cultural identity – its heritage – unless it approves or denies entrants based on the country of origin.

 

Isn’t it revealing that every country listed by President Trump bans Israeli citizens?

 

Reuters reported on January 31st that the Council on American – Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood organization, was preparing a legal challenge. CAIR contends “the order targets Muslims because of their faith, contravening the U.S. Constitutional right to freedom of religion”.

 

Contrary to the assertions of Islam’s apologists, the so-called “religion of peace” is a manifest and existential evil ideology, and the Muslim Brotherhood is just as committed to the destruction of America and the West as its Al Qaeda and Islamic State associates. Islam and its followers are at the center of this debate regarding America’s national security, because they are at the center of so much terror and death around the world, a “religion” [ideology] that professes to be good and “peaceful” with millions of its faithful followers actively supporting or waging violent jihad, killing apostates, hanging homosexuals and stoning women.

 

Senator Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi  shed fake tears over President Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban”, and yet Pres. Obama banned Iraqis in 2011 after two Iraqi terrorists were discovered in Bowling Green, KY selling arms to terrorists back home in Iraq. Did they cry then? Did they cry for the victims of 9/11? Boston? San Bernadino and a litany of other U.S. cities? And have they shed a tear or castigated Japan for its nearly complete ban on Muslims? Americans might like to hear those answers.

 

Several independent studies (Rasmussen, Harvard, PEW) show that a full quarter of the 230,140,996 million “moderate” Muslims of Indonesia (total population 258,316,051 million) support the goals of the terrorist groups of Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah. Overall, approximately one-third of all Muslims approve of Hamas and one-quarter hold Hezbollah in high esteem. And, just as troubling, 15 percent of Muslims in Turkey, a NATO ally, support suicide bombings.

 

Thousands of educated Muslims worldwide probably acknowledge that the violent terrorism of the Islamofascists, who are fighting in North Africa and the Middle East, is driven by a political ideology embedded in Islam, the Koran and the Hadith (the teachings of Mohammed). [Oxford & IrqaSense.com – pro-Islam] And while a few hundred of these enlightened Muslims might actually seek the reform of Islam, millions more of devout Muslims still follow the Koran quite literally, quickly dismissing any attempt to reform Islam as heresy; many of these are the same Muslims who refuse to fully integrate into any host nation they reside, as blatantly witnessed in the United Kingdom and France, and even in some parts of the United States.

 

From the Hadith: “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror …” — Sahih al Bukhari 4:52:220

 

President Trump’s travel ban is more about the preservation of everyday ordinary American lives and liberty, and it has nothing to do with Islamophobia, racism, fascism or xenophobia. Anyone with a modicum of common-sense can understand that Muslim immigrants require greater scrutiny, especially in light of several past visa screenings that failed to identify foreign nationals who later committed Islamic-inspired terrorist attacks in America.

 

Isn’t now the time for the majority of Americans to demand an immediate and permanent ban on all Muslim immigration?

 

“We only want to admit those into our country who will support our country and love deeply our people,” President Trump said, shortly after announcing the travel ban.

 

President Donald Trump has the moral and intellectual clarity to win this religious war, because he can name the enemy, and he has the courage of his convictions. He is already reminding Americans of their country’s proud heritage and exceptionalism, while he refuses to allow the intolerant Islamofascists to turn our tolerance and charity  —  our strength — into weakness.

 

America’s leaders cannot be so overly sensitive in defending other cultures that they stop defending ours. A sane immigration and refugee policy won’t make the Muslims hate America any more than they already do; they hate us simply because we exist. And in the end, if we follow President Trump’s lead, America will be kept safe and Americans will rediscover their Western identity and the Judeo-Christian principles that made America the Greatest Nation on Earth.

 

And Lady Liberty will smile again.

 

By Justin O. Smith

+++

lady-liberty-patriotism

Blog Editor: Quite separately from Justin’s submission, I found a video that might be of interest to readers that share my opinion that the American Left has an agenda to reshape America away from our Founding principles and traditional American values.

 

VIDEO: America Under Siege: Civil War 2017

 

Post by Capital Research Center

Published on Jan 19, 2017

 

They’ve fought to stop the inauguration
They’re fighting to destroy our nation

While 700,000 protesters are converging on Washington D.C. for Inauguration Day—in addition to anti-Trump rallies planned in dozens of cities across the country—the political groups behind the protests remain shrouded in mystery. As Fox News Channel first reported, Civil War 2017 uncovers an extensive network of neo-Marxist operatives coordinating highly disruptive and potentially violent protests from coast to coast.

Working with Dangerous Documentaries, director Judd Saul and conservative commentator Trevor Loudon have compiled a team of researchers and undercover operatives to probe the roots of the anti-Trump movement, highlighting the ultimate goals and ulterior motives. Mr. Loudon, a regular contributor to Glenn Beck’s online programming, is the foremost expert on the left-wing organizers of mass protests.

DangerousDocumentaries.com
CapitalResearch.org

________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links and text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

One Quiet Man’s Fight for Freedom


in-memory-of-lavoy-finicum-american-patriot

It was about a year ago that LaVoy Finicum was shot to death by Federal and Oregon State law enforcement UNJUSTLY. Justin reminds us that government tyranny is very possible in America – especially in an America that has a Dem Party Administration that has consistently lied to Americans for EIGHT YEARS.

 

JRH 1/24/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

One Quiet Man’s Fight for Freedom

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 1/23/2017 7:38 AM

 

Destroyers are they who lay snares for many, and call it the state … ” — Nietzsche

 

Americans should pause and take some time to recall and celebrate the life of Robert LaVoy Finicum, an American patriot, who loved his family, God and country. He placed his life on the line in defense of all Americans’ right to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’, joining the ranks of thousands of other ranchers who have been fighting the overreaches of the federal government and the tyranny of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the past forty years. Robert LaVoy Finicum died on January 26th, 2016, one day before his 55th birthday, defending the U.S. Constitution and this America he loved so well.

 

By all accounts, LaVoy Finicum was “a quiet man who worked his to-do list from sun-up to sundown” (The Oregonian) and had a “light reading” list that included many history books, the U.S. Constitution and Alexis de Tocqueville’s ‘Democracy in America’. He also thoroughly enjoyed his big family – his wife and eleven children – and their evening discussions on the Scriptures, the Constitution and the Founding Fathers’ ideas on freedom.

 

Although Finicum had generally viewed his interaction with the BLM to be “very good” over the years, he became active in opposing them in 2014, after the BLM fined him $12,000 and claimed his cattle had grazed on federal lands past his allotted permit time. He was also heavily influenced by his own research into the BLM and the high-handed tactics he witnessed the BLM employ against the Bundy family in 2014.

 

Finicum rode with Cliven and Ammon Bundy on their Nevada Ranch in April of 2014, along with hundreds of other supporters, in order to reinforce the fact that Bundy’s grazing and water rights, documented in an 1878 title, predated any BLM claims and had to be honored by the BLM. And when the BLM moved along Interstate 15 to confiscate Bundy’s cattle on April 5th, Finicum, the Bundy family members and well-armed supporters stopped them cold where they stood; this would become a sore-point for the FBI that carried over to the Malheur Wildlife Reserve occupation in 2016 and the stand-off near Burns, Oregon.

 

After the Bundy Ranch Stand-Off, LaVoy Finicum said: “I had to do a lot of soul searching. I realized that Cliven Bundy was standing on a very strong constitutional principle, and yet, here I was continuing to pay a grazing fee to the BLM.”

 

Finicum and the Bundy clan understood that the Enclave Clause [Thoughts from 2014 & 2016] (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution) did not allow government bureaucrats to act like kings and ignore the 9th and 10th Amendments, and it did not authorize the BLM to arbitrarily seize the water rights, cattle and property of ranchers and arrogantly nullify 200 years of constitutional history. They understood, much like the U.S. Supreme Court (New York v. U.S.), that the Constitution is not a tool to protect the sovereignty of the State or for the benefit of government officials, but rather, the Constitution secures all Americans’ liberties through the diffusion of sovereign power.

 

However, the BLM sees things differently. Many cases spanning the years can be found, that are similar to Raymond Yowell’s experience. The BLM garnished the $200 Social Security check of this former chief of the Shoshone Indian Tribe and seized 132 head of his cattle in 2002, for grazing “unlawfully” on government lands. The BLM sold Yowell’s cattle at auction and pocketed the money.

 

Between 2006 and 2012, the BLM had intimidated and finally charged Steven and Dwight Hammond with nine federal counts of arson for setting backfires on their own lands that supposedly spread to federal land. The Hammonds were subsequently imprisoned, released and then sent back to prison, even though the facts illuminated that some of those out-of-control backfires actually originated with BLM employees, in an attempt to stop several lightning strike fires such as the Granddad fire that burned 46,000 acres.

 

Politics played heavily in the cases regarding Steven and Dwight Hammond, because the BLM wanted the Hammond ranch. Gold mining companies like Calico Resource USA out of Vancouver, Canada and uranium mining concerns like Australian owned Oregon Energy LLC had their eyes on the area, and the BLM was hoping to profit and grow more powerful through the General Mining Law of 1872.

 

All the great ideas and principles that shaped America went with LaVoy Finicum, as he and many other American Patriots occupied Oregon’s Malheur (French for “misfortune” or “tragedy”) National Wildlife Refuge, about 30 miles from Burns, Oregon, in order to force the return of 188,000 acres to local control and the release of the Hammond brothers from prison. They acted through peaceful, political protest, even though they were armed to ensure the security of their protest, and they advocated for property and states’ rights, as they took a hard stand against federal ownership of 250 million acres in America and years of oppression by the BLM and several other government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency.

 

Twenty-five days into the protest, Robert LaVoy Finicum, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox, Ryan Payne and Victoria Sharp headed to John Day, Oregon for a “singing” and a meeting with Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer to discuss their demands, explain their views to local people and seek a peaceful end to the stand-off. But they were ambushed along the way by the Oregon State Patrol and the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team, which used combat-grade operation protocols rather than “civilian” deadly force standards, firing once without warning at the initial stop, according to many witnesses, and numerous times at the second roadblock using concussion and live rounds.

 

Does this remind anyone else of Ruby Ridge and the murders of Randy Weaver’s wife and son by the FBI?

 

If the federal authorities had been serious about desiring a peaceful resolution to this conflict, they could have coordinated with Sheriff Palmer to arrest Finicum, if just cause existed for an arrest (they knew Finicum’s destination). Instead they chose to shoot him numerous times and refuse him medical attention from Victoria Sharp, a trained EMT and his friend, as he lay on the snowy ground dying. They murdered LaVoy on a lonely, desolate stretch of Highway 395.

 

If the FBI had negotiated LaVoy Finicum’s peaceful surrender, as they certainly could have, he would simply have been taken into custody and released after his acquittal by a jury, just in the same manner that a jury acquitted his so-called “co-conspirators” in October 2016, including Ammon Bundy and a friend and activist, Shawna Cox. And, it should alarm everyone that the HRT agents initially concealed the fact they had fired their weapons during the stop.

 

Upon her release, Shawna Cox made a plea before a mass of TV cameras and supporters, imploring: “We have to be vigilant people. Wake up America, and help us restore the Constitution. Don’t sleep with your head in the sand.

 

Isn’t it odd that FBI agents, who are sworn to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution — lawyers all — regularly side with government imposed tyranny against U.S. citizens?

 

Arianna Finicum Brown, LaVoy’s 27 year old daughter, stated shortly after his death: “My Dad was such a good man, through and through. He would never want to hurt somebody, but he does believe in defending freedom and he knew the risks involved.

 

During LaVoy’s funeral, his brother, Guy Finicum remarked on LaVoy’s deep faith in God, adding: “He has absolute confidence that he will be with his family again. He believes that as much as he believes the sun will rise. And that’s what gave him the ability to do what he did. He always looked at a higher goal.”

 

When any government, including ours, puts forth its strength on the side of injustice and murders fine men like LaVoy Finicum, it reveals itself as a mere brute force, and it becomes apparent more than ever that tyranny rules. And other patriots are served warning to desist their opposition or meet the same fate.

 

And what are Americans to think of a government to which all the truly brave and just men in the land are enemies, standing between it and those whom it oppresses?

 

Robert LaVoy Finicum did not recognize unjust human laws, and he persistently stood for the dignity of human nature, knowing himself for a man, the equal of any government. He regularly fought against established injustices and the hypocrites of bureaucracies who seemed to ask, “Why do you assault us”. And LaVoy’s death — the death of an American hero — was like the planting of a good seed, and it is giving rise to a new crop of American heroes.

 

By Justin O. Smith

+++

Youtube video added by Blog Editor:

 

VIDEO: Video shows two camera angles of LaVoy Finicum shooting

 

Posted by The Oregonian

Published on Mar 8, 2016

 

In a video shown at a Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office press conference today, the aerial FBI video of the LaVoy Finicum shooting has been synced with a cellphone video Shawna Cox recorded from within Finicum’s truck.

 

The rest is The Oregonian subscription & social media information

_______________

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links are by the Editor and all text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith