DOJ Releases Biden Gun Confiscation Order Legislation

NRA-ILA AR-15 Locked

In May, Attorney General Merrick Garland told lawmakers that the Department of Justice’s civil rights work was “critical to protecting the American dream.” IMG NRA-ILA

BY NRAHQ

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/06/doj-releases-biden-gun-confiscation-order-legislation/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- In May, Attorney General Merrick Garland told lawmakers that the Department of Justice’s civil rights work was “critical to protecting the American dream.” Since then DOJ has made clear that Garland’s selective definition of “civil rights” has no room for the Second Amendment or even basic due process under the law. Moreover, contrary to recent messaging, Garland and the DOJ appears to support an increase in civilian-police confrontations – so long as the civilian involved is not actually suspected of having committed any crime.

On June 7, the DOJ released model state gun confiscation order legislation – sometimes referred to as “extreme risk protection order,” “gun violence restraining order,” or “red flag” legislation. Regardless of the marketing, such laws empower the government to extinguish a person’s Second Amendment rights and confiscate their firearms without due process. Those subject to these orders are stripped of their rights without being convicted of any crime. By releasing this model language, the Biden administration has endorsed these unconstitutional measures.

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms; in the Fourteenth Amendment context, a liberty. A respondent’s firearms are, of course, their property

Ex Parte Orders

The Biden gun confiscation order language provides that a,

court shall issue an emergency ex parte extreme risk protection order upon submission of an application by a petitioner, supported by an affidavit or sworn oral statement of the petitioner or other witness, that provides specific facts establishing probable cause that the respondent’s possession or receipt of a firearm will pose a [significant danger/extreme risk/other appropriate standard established by state law] of personal injury or death to the respondent or another person.

An ex parte hearing takes place without notice to respondents and without their ability to participate in the proceedings. The court is only presented the statements of the individual petitioning to strip the respondent of their rights. There is no opportunity for the respondent to challenge the veracity of the petitioner’s statements. This one-sided procedure is ripe for abuse.

The Biden administration proposes a “probable cause” evidentiary standard for the ex parte gun confiscation order procedure. This means that the petitioner need not establish proof that the respondent poses a “risk” in order for the court to issue a confiscation order.

Moreover, a “probable cause” standard makes no sense in this context. In order to make an arrest or acquire a search warrant, police need to cite specific facts that establish probable cause that a crime has been committed. Crimes, of course, have specific elements. In the Biden gun confiscation order context, no crime has been alleged. Vague claims about a person’s strange but lawful behavior giving rise to “probable cause” of “risk” is a ridiculous perversion of the long-established legal process.

Orders Pursuant to a Hearing

Biden gun confiscation orders issued after a full hearing, where the respondent had an opportunity to participate, would strip a person of their Second Amendment rights and firearms for at least one year. Under the Biden language, such an order could be renewed indefinitely in one-year increments – empowering the government to strip a person of their Second Amendment rights in perpetuity without a trial.

Moreover, in the full hearing context, the Biden administration endorses a “preponderance of the evidence” evidentiary standard. In other words, the petitioner must prove that there is a greater than 50-percent chance the respondent meets some nebulous level of “risk.” Of course, this weak evidentiary standard is in stark contrast to the traditional evidentiary burden used in circumstances where individuals face a lengthy and indefinite loss of a fundamental right: “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

During the course of an order, a respondent would have one opportunity to petition for the termination of their gun ban. In order to prevail,

The respondent shall have the burden of proving, by the same standard of proof required for issuance of such an order, that he or she does not pose a [significant danger/extreme risk/other appropriate standard specified by state law] of personal injury or death to himself or herself or another.

In a sick perversion of our constitutional order, under the Biden legislation, the state would be relieved of its burden to prove that the respondent poses a “risk” that necessitates the continued deprivation of a fundamental right. Rather, the respondent would be required to prove that they do not pose a “risk.”

Such a bastardized legal procedure based on a flimsy evidentiary standard combined with an ill-defined concept of “risk” endangers all gun owners’ right to keep and bear arms.

Petitioners

In many jurisdictions with gun confiscation order legislation, only close family members and law enforcement officers may petition for an order. This helps to ensure that the petitioner has a significant relationship with and knowledge of the individual, or in the case of law enforcement, will face professional consequences if they have been found to have abused the procedure.

In its draft legislation, the Biden administration has made clear that they want the categories of petitioners to be far broader. The legislation would define eligible petitioners to include,

(E) A health care provider [as defined by state law] who has provided health services to the respondent; 

(F) An official of a school or school system in which the respondent is enrolled or has been enrolled within the preceding [six months/one year/two years/other appropriate time period specified by state law]; or

(G) [Any other appropriate persons specified by state law.]

Under such a regime, a doctor, nurse, dentist, optometrist, or EMT might be able to petition the court to strip an individual’s Second Amendment rights regardless of how fleeting their interaction with the respondent may have been or whether or not they have any mental health assessment training.

Worse, the Biden administration endorses granting any school employee a veto on a student’s right to keep and bear arms up to two years after they were enrolled. Consider the danger of empowering one of the most partisan left-wing occupational fields to adjudicate millions of current and former students’ Second Amendment rights.

Dangerous Confrontations Between Citizens and Police

The Biden gun confiscation order legislation would create confrontations between armed individuals in their homes and the law enforcement officers tasked with disarming them. The problem is potentially even more acute in the ex parte context, where the arrival of an officer may be the individual’s first notice that their rights have been abrogated.

At 5:17 a.m. on November 5, 2018, police served a “Red Flag” protective order at the home of 60-year-old Gary J. Willis in Anne Arundel, Md.  According to the Baltimore Sun, Willis brought a firearm when he answered the early morning knock at his door. The confrontation ultimately ended with police shooting and killing Willis in his own home.

Confiscation of Non-Prohibited Persons’ Guns

The Biden gun confiscation order legislation contemplates the confiscation of all firearms in a location which a respondent has access to, regardless of whether those firearms are owned by the respondent.

The Biden legislation provides,

(1) If the evidence presented at the hearing establishes probable cause that the respondent has access to a firearm, on his or her person or in an identified place, the court shall concurrently issue a warrant authorizing a law enforcement agency to search the person of the respondent and any such place for firearms and to seize any firearm therein to which the respondent would have access.

(3) If the owner of a firearm seized pursuant to this subsection is a person other than the respondent, the owner may secure the prompt return of the firearm by providing an affidavit to the law enforcement agency affirming his or her ownership of the firearm and providing assurance that he or she will safeguard the firearm against access by the respondent.  The law enforcement agency shall return the firearm to the owner upon its confirmation, including by a check of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and the applicable state firearm background check system, that the owner is not legally disqualified from possessing or receiving the firearm.

The legislation anticipates that law enforcement would be empowered to confiscate firearms owned by individuals who are not covered by a confiscation order. The legislation places no burden on law enforcement to determine whether the firearms at a location accessed by the respondent are in fact the respondent’s property. To add further insult, those whose firearms are erroneously confiscated would be required to undergo an FBI background check before the return of their lawful property.

No Solid Evidence Supporting Biden’s Gun Confiscation Legislation

In a “commentary” released alongside the draft Biden gun confiscation order legislation, the DOJ pronounced, “research has shown that states can save lives by authorizing courts to issue [gun confiscation orders].” In reality, research on the effectiveness of gun confiscation order laws has been limited.

Research does show that the absence of due process has practical consequences for those wrongfully targeted under gun confiscation orders. Connecticut adopted an ex parte gun confiscation order procedure in 1999. An examination of the law found that 32 percent of ex parte orders issued in Connecticut were overturned following a hearing.

The RAND Corporation conducted a comprehensive study that surveyed the available research on several gun control policies. As part of the study, RAND researchers sought to determine “How Extreme Risk Protection Orders Affect Gun Use Outcomes.” The study stated, “We found no qualifying studies showing that extreme risk protection orders decreased any of the eight outcomes we investigated.” The “gun use outcomes” studied included “violent crime” and “suicide.”

The draft Biden gun confiscation order legislation is an overt attack on the Second Amendment and the due process rights that protect all Americans, regardless of whether they own firearms.

Attorney-General Garland appears all too willing to selectively undermine civil rights by executive fiat at Biden’s request. However, gun owners can strike a blow against Biden’s executive gun control efforts by denying him his choice to lead ATF – longtime anti-gun activist David Chipman.

Please contact both of your United States Senators and ask them to vote against David Chipman.


About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

FIREARM CONFISCATION: Conservative Action Project Comes Out Swinging Against Chipman

ABOVE: David Chipman’s nomination to head the ATF just attracted some powerful opposition.

(Screen snip, YouTube, Sen. Mike Lee)

BY DAVE WORKMAN

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/06/conservative-action-project-comes-out-swinging-against-chipman/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- The Washington D.C.-based Conservative Action Project (CAP) came out swinging against the nomination of David Chipman, the former federal agent-turned-gun control advocate, to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, stating “He has a long history of misconstruing key details of how firearms work, and has laid out an aggressive anti-gun ownership platform.”

In a “Memo for the Movement” signed by nearly 100 prominent conservatives and Second Amendment advocates led by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, the group is telling the U.S. Senate to reject the nomination of gun control extremist David Chipman.”

Also among those signing the memorandum are Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin (Ret.), executive vice president of the Family Research Council; Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness; L. Brent Bozell, founder and president of the Media Research Center; Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation; Kathleen A. Patten, president and CEO of American Target Advertising, Inc.; David N. Bossie, president of Citizens United; Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project; Tim Macy, chairman of Gun Owners of America; Martha Boneta, president at Vote America First, and Dawn Wildman, director of policy for the Coalition for Policy Reform, and dozens of others.

The full list reads like a Who’s Who of conservative politics and Second Amendment activism.

Gottlieb, who also chairs the grassroots Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, told AmmoLand News that this memo, with all the signatures, is “a major development.”

The CAP memorandum pulls no punches.

“Conservatives join with Second Amendment advocates in strongly opposing David Chipman to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF),” the message states.

“A former ATF special agent, Chipman currently serves as a senior policy advisor to a pro-gun control lobbying group. He has a long history of misconstruing key details of how firearms work, and has laid out an aggressive anti-gun ownership platform.”

“Critically, it is unclear whether Chipman fully understands the technical details of firearms and the firearm markets he so eagerly looks to regulate. In 2018, Chipman argued in favor of subjecting all AR-15s and potentially all semi-automatic rifles to regulation under the National Firearms Act – a hugely punitive taxation and regulation measure on the country’s most popular rifle, hugely difficult to implement and police.

“In his recent confirmation hearing, Chipman reasserted his support for mass confiscation of semi-automatic rifles – especially troubling considering that, when asked by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) to define a semi-automatic assault rifle, his answer would cover every single modern sporting rifle in America today.

“Though Chipman walked back the claim in his confirmation hearing, he has previously advocated for arresting prospective gun purchasers in gun stores following a failed background check – regardless of whether or not the prospective purchaser has done anything wrong. This is a highly dubious proposal given a Department of Justice report from 2011, which found the “false positive” denial rate for background checks was roughly 95 percent.

“Chipman has also made false claims about both the nature and intent of firearms suppressors, as well as falsely stating in front of Congress that the American gun market is ‘flooded’ with ‘foreign made ARs.’

“David Chipman is a gun control extremist whose views on firearms and the Second Amendment are wildly out of step with constitutional interpretation and widely held social norms. It is clear that Chipman intends to use the position as Director of the ATF to further an aggressive anti-gun agenda, rather than implement the law as written. The Senate must oppose his nomination.”

According to The Hill, Chipman “is facing intense opposition from gun rights groups that are pushing key senators to reject his nomination.”

The Capitol Hill newspaper explained that “pro-gun organizations are protesting his nomination over his support for stricter gun laws and previous work as a policy adviser for Giffords, a gun control group.” Those organizations, the article added, “are now focused on moderates who could swing the outcome, namely Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.),Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.).”

In an article blasting Chipman for his answers during his May hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the National Rifle Association asserted the nominee “worked to obscure the woeful record of the 1994 Clinton ‘assault weapons’ ban.” Chipman, according to NRA, “described the data regarding the ban’s efficacy as ‘mixed.’”

“In truth,” NRA said in the article, “the Clinton semi-auto ban was a failure that even the federal government has acknowledged as ineffective.”

“The evidence is clear,” the article concluded, “banning commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms and their accessories doesn’t work. Chipman and the broader gun control movement’s continued advocacy for a failed policy measure reveals that their political project isn’t motivated by a desire for ‘gun safety,’ reducing violence, or ‘public health,’ but rather a religious passion for civilian disarmament.”

If the Senate rejects Chipman’s nomination, it will be a major defeat for the Biden administration and a setback for Joe Biden’s gun control agenda. Throughout his political career, Biden has never been a friend of the Second Amendment, and his nomination of Chipman is seen by many in the firearms community as a deliberate attempt to pick a fight with gun owners.

In a statement to the media last month, Gottlieb observed, “Out of all the potential candidates to lead the agency, Joe Biden has picked the one individual whose nomination was guaranteed to ignite a political firestorm. At this point, it is fair to question why the president has done this. It looks like the president wants to put the gun prohibition lobby in charge of firearms regulation and enforcement.”

RELATED:


About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

Dave Workman

So, when will the Feds raid Fauci’s home as part of a criminal investigation?

BY ETHAN HUFF

SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-06-07-when-feds-raid-fauci-home-criminal-investigation.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) There is a good chance that Anthony Fauci is currently under criminal investigation, which begs the question: When will his house be raided by the Feds like Roger Stone’s was?

During a recent segment of his Fox News show, host Tucker Carlson revealed that some of Fauci’s emails obtained via Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) bear redactions that suggest he could be the subject of a criminal inquiry – which he clearly should be.

Fauci is a career criminal and a fraud, and millions of people are now dead because of what he has done. The world is rapidly figuring this out, finally, but we wonder if true justice will ever be served?

While many mistakenly believed that Fauci was here to help us stay “safe” against the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19), the reality is that Fauci is the reason why we were plagued with it in the first place.

As Carlson puts it, Fauci is “just another sleazy federal bureaucrat” who is “deeply political and often dishonest.” This is probably too kind, as Fauci seems to always be dishonest.

Thanks to Buzzfeed, of all places, we now know that Fauci lied about the origins of the Chinese Virus, lied about his involvement in its creation, lied about hydroxychloroquine, lied about face masks, lied about lockdowns, and lied about vaccines.

There is pretty much nothing that Fauci told the truth about this past year, which resulted in business failures, economic collapse, millions of deaths and societal chaos. Fauci really did play the role of the grim reaper in 2020.

The world deserves to see justice delivered to Fauci

Fauci also lied about gain of function research, which he offshored to Wuhan after it was banned here in the United States. He also covered for Ralph Baric, Peter Daszak, Bill Gates and other co-conspirators concerning their involvement in the scheme.

Fauci ruined so many lives this past year with his lies that many are calling for swift and appropriate justice. Perhaps that justice is soon to come.

What Fauci has done is nothing short of treason against the United States, and against humanity at large. The guy is a villain of the worst kind, and he must be held accountable for his actions.

To call him a “doctor” is remiss, which is why this writer never refers to him as such. Fauci is a con man and someone who absolutely cannot be trusted, especially in matters of life and death.

Still, there are some out there who believe that Fauci should be thanked for his contributions to the plandemic. There are some who believe that Fauci is some kind of savior, despite what has been revealed.

“Tony Fauci is no longer a scientist, assuming he ever was one,” Carlson says. “Tony Fauci is a figure of religious veneration. He is ‘Jesus’ for people who don’t believe in God.”

The jig is up, though. Fauci is done. He will never again hold a position like he currently does, and if there is anything decent and right still left in the world, he will soon be behind bars – at best.

Fauci lied under oath on numerous occasions concerning his involvement in creating and fomenting the spread of the Wuhan Flu. Were it not for his existence, there probably never would have been a Chinese Virus in the first place.

“At this point … we do know that Fauci hasn’t simply lied about the origins of COVID, pretending to know things he could not know,” Carlson added during the segment. “He has also lied about vaccines in key ways,” denying the existence of natural immunity.

To keep up with the latest news about the Fauci emails, visit Pandemic.news.

Sources for this article include:

FoxNews.com

NaturalNews.com

High-Ranking Chinese Defector Working With DIA Has ‘Direct Knowledge’ of China’s Bioweapons Program—and It’s Very Bad

BY PAULA BOLYARD

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/columns/paula-bolyard/2021/06/04/report-high-ranking-chinese-defector-working-with-dia-has-direct-knowledge-of-chinas-bioweapons-program-and-its-very-bad-n1452251;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

In an exclusive story at RedState, Jen Van Laar reports that sources inside the intelligence community say a high-ranking defector from China has been working for months with the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). According to Van Laar’s confidential sources, that high-ranking defector claims to have knowledge of special weapons programs in China—that include bioweapons.

Adam Housley first reported via Twitter on Thursday that “the increased pressure on China in recent days is due to a defector with intimate knowledge” of the program. According to Housley, FBI director Christopher Wray “didn’t know right away because they wanted to make sure they got all they needed before telling him.”

In fact, Wray was “ambushed” with the information, according to Van Laar’s sources, as was the CIA. “Sources say DIA leadership kept the defector within their Clandestine Services network to prevent Langley and the State Department from accessing the person, whose existence was kept from other agencies because DIA leadership believes there are Chinese spies or sources inside the FBI, CIA, and several other federal agencies,” according to the report.

Why was the defector so important that he had to be kept under wraps?

Housley says it’s because the defector has information on the origins of the Wuhan virus: “China is trying to produce variants that suggest it came from bats to cover up that coronavirus originally came from a lab.” He later clarified: “US intelligence has a Chinese defector with Wuhan info. AND China is trying to produce variants that suggest it came from bats to cover up that coronavirus originally came from a lab.”

Related: Xi Demands Even More Communist Influence Over American Media—and He’ll Probably Get It

According to RedState’s sources, “the defector has been with the DIA for three months” and has provided “an extensive, technically detailed debrief to US officials.”

“In DIA’s assessment, the information provided by the defector is legitimate,” wrote Van Laar. “Sources say the level of confidence in the defector’s information is what has led to a sudden crisis of confidence in Dr. Anthony Fauci, adding that U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) personnel detailed to DIA have corroborated very technical details of information provided by the defector.” 

All of this raises many questions. Why, “suddenly,” did the U.S. legacy media en masse turn-tail and start pointing fingers at China and doubting Fauci?  Why did left-wing outlets like the Washington Post and BuzzFeed “suddenly” decide it was the right time to drop Fauci’s emails—just days after the lab-leak story was “suddenly” no longer verboten on social media? Fauci’s emails revealed what we’ve been reporting here at PJ Media for months (mostly behind the paywall for our VIP subscribers to avoid the Gestapo social-media censors): that Fauci was working with a Chinese scientist from the Wuhan lab; that he asked Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg to help with COVID messaging; and that he signed off on funding for dangerous gain-of-function research in Wuhan.

Related: The Five Biggest Bombshells (So Far) From Fauci’s Emails

One gets the sense that a dam the size of Three Gorges on the Yangtze River is about to blow. The question will be, as it almost is when political figures are caught in a coverup: What did they know and when did they know it? And who knew what was really going on?

If any of this turns out to be true—particularly the suggestion that China may have intentionally unleashed the most deadly bioweapon in world history—you might want to begin thinking about where you’re going to spend the U.S.-Sino War. If, as Housley claims, the FBI, CIA, and other federal agencies are swarming with Chinese spies, it would constitute the biggest national security failure in U.S. history—and the most deadly.

The implications are terrifying.

You Knew DOJ’s Kristen Clarke Was a Radical, But It’s Much, Much Worse Than They’re Letting On

BY J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2021/05/27/justice-departments-kristen-clarke-all-about-skin-color-n1450172;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Newly confirmed Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Kristen Clarke is a thoroughly modern woman. She could never have been confirmed even during the Clinton administration because of her racially-soaked radical worldview.

But these are revolutionary times, where skin color has gained newfound importance in a way we haven’t seen since June 1964 when segregationists chased civil rights marchers down the streets of St. Augustine, Florida.

If you think the comparison doesn’t work, then you haven’t been paying attention, or you are watching too much MSNBC.

I suppose everything old is new again. Content of character is out. Color of skin is in.

And thus Clarke squeaked by this week on a 51-48 vote to manage the most powerful division of the Justice Department.

The Civil Rights Division has its tentacles in every single aspect of American life – schools, jails, elections, hotels, mortgages, movie theaterschurch sermons, bathrooms, computer software, rent rates, service animals on planes, pool chair lifts, mental hospitals and forcing police departments to adopt radical policing policies. I left 100 other topics off the list.

And now, another racialist radical is in charge in the division where I was once an attorney.

Clarke is no ordinary racialist radical, though. She brings a reputation for being racially greedy. I have some personal experience with her on this point.

In 2007, I was working on what would become the Voting Rights Act case of United States v. Georgetown School Board.  I was one of the lawyers who spent many days in South Carolina investigating violations of the Voting Rights Act. Georgetown had a voting-age black population of 34 percent but the at-large elections for school board resulted in no blacks ever being elected to the nine at-large seats.  While there is no right to proportional representation, in theory, blacks could conceivably have won three of nine seats.

Regardless, they had none, and in a school district where the students were almost majority black, this created a system that stoked discontent and lack of responsiveness. No matter how you feel about these sorts of lawsuits, it was the law under the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act—an amendment even Strom Thurmond voted for.

The plan adopted in a DOJ settlement agreement created three majority-black districts out of seven (two seats remained elected at large) where it was likely a black preferred candidate would be elected.

Back to Clarke’s racial greed. The DOJ team got wind that Clarke—representing the NAACP—was shadowing the DOJ lawyer interviews in the field with local African-American stakeholders, disrupting the progress the DOJ was making and urging locals to hold out for four or more black seats. Four seats out of seven (or nine) would have been well in excess of the general proportion of the black population.  Clarke wanted more black seats than the law would allow and was willing to disrupt a settlement that created three black seats where none had existed before.

I highlight this instance of racial greed not as a mere anecdote, but rather as a warning.

Sometime, soon, the Justice Department Voting Section will be on the prowl looking for counties or school districts to sue. You might be a lawyer representing them (call me). In the past, even under Democrat leadership, the DOJ has largely been fair and sought only minority districts that could be supported by the law. Expect Clarke to jettison compliance with the law, because she takes it all personally, and it is all about skin color.

Attorney General Merrick Garland defended Clarke, calling her a “person of integrity” who has views in line with his own.

Garland hasn’t spent much time around her. Lawyers at the Voting Section who worked with her characterize her as a brutish and uncouth racial activist. She seethed racial animosity toward whites (who were not liberals) and Southerners. If there is any consolation, she is viewed as “no Tom Perez or Vanita Gupta” in the lawyering department. She’ll leave that to the hundreds of brighter lawyers who work in the Civil Rights Division.

The FBI made a serious mistake when it failed to interview her former husband prior to her confirmation. The police came to Clarke’s house no fewer than six times for domestic abuse. Had they done so, the Senate would have learned who made those 911 calls. (Don’t look for that story at Google because they are hiding it. Here’s a link.)

Much has been written about how Clarke invited black racist anti-Semites to speak at Harvard. Meow. That was indeed in college and she never disavowed it. I was more concerned about her criticism and sabotage of the Justice Department’s voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party, another case I worked on.

Clarke poked around the Voting Section, asking anyone who would listen about when the Panther case was going to be dismissed. Recall that the incoming Obama officials spiked most of the case. Clarke was pleased because she doesn’t want the Voting Rights Act to be used against black defendants.

Her opposition to the Panther lawsuit wasn’t an isolated event. Clarke also opposed the lawsuit by DOJ against Ike Brown, a black Democratic Party official who became the first African-American found liable for violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965. A court found that he manipulated and canceled the valid votes of white voters in Mississippi and allowed defective absentee ballot votes of black voters to be counted. He also engaged in a ballot-harvesting scheme that is documented page after page by the United States District Court and is required reading for anyone who actually wants to know what voter fraud looks like.

Clarke didn’t want anything to happen to Brown. She didn’t want the Justice Department to bring the case.

It’s even worse. Expect Clarke to give preferential treatment to liberal activist groups making FOIA requests to the Civil Rights Division. Why? Because she used to get the same express service herself. Don’t expect Judicial Watch to get the same treatment. As I documented in my book Injustice:

The NAACP’s Kristen Clarke made particularly revealing requests, such as the one she sent by email late on the afternoon of June 17, 2009. Hunting for whatever Louisiana was telling the DOJ about a submission under Section 5, she asked for “any information provided by the State of Louisiana in connection with Submission No. 2008-3512 between January 1, 2009 and this request.” She wanted to know Louisiana’s official views, particularly since the NAACP was so engaged in the matter. As Clarke reminded Justice, the “NAACP Legal Defense Fund submitted a Comment Letter in connection with this submission.” At 6:59 a.m. on June 19, Clarke got just what she wanted, by email no less.

One of the most lawless things that Clarke did at DOJ was cook up a crazy objection against Alabama. This should be a warning to Senators like Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) who want to return power to Clarke to reject state election changes.

Under a now-dormant portion of the Voting Rights Act, the bureaucrats at the Voting Section had power to reject or approve every election change in sixteen states. The Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder invalidated the triggers that decided which states were subject to this obligation. Nevertheless, when Clarke was there, the law was alive.  Again, from Injustice.

[The DOJ Voting Section] sent a letter to Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor warning that Alabama could not enforce a 1994 law because it had not been submitted to the DOJ for preclearance under Section 5. The statute in question required felons to submit to a DNA test as a mandatory precondition to applying to the state’s Board of Pardons and Paroles for a restoration of civil rights, including the right to vote. Part of a nationwide effort to build up DNA databases, the program was facilitated by Congress through federal legislation and through DOJ-administrated federal grants to states.

Clarke was behind the Alabama shakedown, trying to stop the state from collecting DNA from prisoners, using a provision of the Voting Rights Act. Again, Injustice:

[The DOJ] letter was based on a legal memorandum received from deputy Gilda Daniels (now a law professor teaching critical race studies) and from Kristen Clarke. The memorandum cited a New York Times article on voting rights that quoted Pryor’s views of the Alabama statute as well as a critical report by the Sentencing Project, a group that lobbies against felon disenfranchisement laws.

Only through the intervention of Hans von Spakovsky, then counsel at DOJ, was this lawless shakedown stopped.

Expect more shakedowns to come, and even more if the power to reject state election laws is returned to the Justice Department. Giving Kristen Clarke that power would be like giving a toddler a weapon.

Clarke also fought against DOJ deploying assistant United States Attorneys at the polls in the 2008 election, a bipartisan practice that occurred under both Clinton and Bush. This was designed to document problems, deter fraud, and ensure that voting rights were protected.

Clarke’s opposition to federal lawyers observing an election should serve as a warning that this thoroughly modern woman wants nothing to do with ensuring the integrity of our elections. She has other priorities, and it isn’t the content of your character.

Biden’s Priorities Questioned, As DHS Roots Out “Extremists” in Law Enforcement

Biden’s Priorities Questioned, As DHS Roots Out “Extremists” in Law Enforcement

ABOVE: Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco /AP Images

BY RAVEN CLABOUGH

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/bidens-priorities-questioned-as-dhs-roots-out-extremists-in-law-enforcement/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The Biden administration continues to focus its attention on the January 6 protests at the U.S. Capitol instead of the crisis at the U.S. southern border and the violence of Black Lives Matter and Antifa increasingly jeopardizing the lives and livelihoods of Americans. Under the guise of rooting out “extremists,” opportunistic Democrats have been exploiting the January 6 protests to achieve their tyrannical agenda of punishing and silencing critics, particularly those in law enforcement.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a Request for Proposals earlier this year, offering $500,000 to fund research projects to determine how allegedly violent extremists are infiltrating police, the Western Journal reported on Sunday. The deadline for proposal submissions is May 18.

“The goal of this solicitation is to contribute to a comprehensive and extensive understanding of insider threats facing domestic law enforcement agencies,” the Request for Proposals (RFP) reads.

The RFP states the intent is to learn more about threats posed by the police.

“Reviewing and analyzing research from fields such as criminology, mental health, psychology, and sociology will help determine gaps in current knowledge and counter the threats posed by violent extremists and violent ideologies to United States LEAs and the public,” it said.

Moreover, DHS is seeking “recommendations for detecting, deterring, and mitigating the potential for insider threats facing domestic law enforcement agencies through infiltration by violent extremist organizations or lone actors.”

While claiming DHS will be mindful of civil rights and civil liberties, the RFP said it will transfer the findings of the research to federal, state, local, and private organizations “to enable education and awareness to reinforce a whole-of-society prevention architecture.”

“These prevention efforts will equip and empower local efforts — including peers, teachers, community leaders, and law enforcement — to minimize a threat as it evolves while enhancing emergency preparedness and response,” the RFP reads.

The $500,000 research project appears to be motivated by the largely peaceful protests that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

“Recent events, including the January 6th attacks on the U.S. Capitol, have highlighted that domestic violent extremism poses the most lethal and persistent terrorism-related threat to our country today,” said Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in a memo last month. “As we work to safeguard the Nation and our values, we must be vigilant in our efforts to identify and combat domestic violent extremism within both the broader community and our own organization. Violent extremism has no place at DHS and we will work with urgency and focus to address it.”

But in reality, the project is the latest effort in a campaign by leftists to target law enforcement officers who fail to subscribe to leftist ideology.

In California, lawmakers have introduced a bill that proposed to remove police officers engaged in “hate speech” titled the “California Law Enforcement Accountability Reform Act (CLEAR Act),” which would “root out” police offers connected to “hate groups.”

State Assembly Member Ash Kalra (D-San Jose, Calif.), the sponsor of the bill, said the goal is to stop “the infiltration of extremists in our law enforcement agencies,” according to The Federalist.

Kalra claims the bill is necessary to prevent “the apparent cooperation, participation, and support of some law enforcement” in the January 6 protests at the Capitol, ignoring once more the role that leftist organizations played in orchestrating those events.

Predictably, the bill presents the potential for discrimination and free-speech violations, as well as privacy and confidentiality issues.

In addition to the Department of Homeland Security’s project, the Justice Department is reportedly conducting an internal review with the goal of weeding out “extremists” from federal law enforcement, NBC reported.

Attorney General Merrick Garland said Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco “has met with the heads of all our law enforcement agencies to determine how we can carefully vet our own employees.”

As reported by U.S. News and World Report, the attorney general’s disclosure came in response to a question from Illinois Senator and Democratic Deputy Whip Dick Durbin about the arrest of a retired New York Police Department officer who engaged in violent behavior on January 6. It was during that same hearing that Garland described the efforts into the Capitol protests, noting there have been more than 400 arrests and more coming as authorities continue to pour over videos and other evidence.

“This investigation is not over,” he said. “We will pursue each lead until we’re confident that we will have reached the end.”

No such efforts have been made into the violent BLM and Antifa protests that pervaded most of 2020 and continued well into 2021.

Instead, Both Garland and Mayorkas astoundingly claim the greatest domestic threat facing the United States comes from “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists…who advocate for the superiority of the white race.” These assertions wholly ignore the years-long anti-white, anti-American violence driven by Black Lives Matter and Antifa groups.

Perhaps more importantly, this assertion ignores the crisis at the southern border and the unprecedented flow of illegal drugs as a result. In an interview with Fox & Friends last week, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott drew attention to the administration’s failure to address the threat at the border.

“On the national level with regard to the Border Patrol, they apprehended this last month — in the month of April, more than 170,000 people. That is a tenfold increase over the prior April where they apprehended about 17,000 people,” he said, citing data released by Customs and Border Protection. April was the second consecutive month in which border agents encountered more than 170,000 illegal immigrants, according to the data. This includes a growing number of unaccompanied children, many of which are victims of human trafficking, for which adequate homes are unavailable.

“We had almost [an] 800 percent increase April over April of the amount of fentanyl that has been apprehended by the Texas Department of Public Safety,” he added.

Cochise County Sheriff Mark J. Dannels told Border Report border agents are so tied up at processing centers that many such groups are getting away, their drugs reaching the streets of America’s heartland.

“We’ve had over 60,000 get-aways. These are people that are seen on Border Patrol cameras but have not been captured,” says Dannels, whose Southeastern Arizona county borders Mexico. “I don’t fault Border Patrol on that. I fault Congress and this administration because we must have a strong message when it comes to border security. But when you divert Border Patrol into immigration processing, childcare, administrative work, that opens up an opportunity for the cartels.”

But until the Biden administration completes its priority of rooting out “dissidents” in law enforcement, the border crisis and leftist violence will have to wait.

The Big Lie Again: Attorney General Garland Says White Supremacists Top Terror Threat

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/05/the-big-lie-again-attorney-general-garland-says-white-supremacists-top-terror-threat

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

My latest in PJ Media:

It could be worse: he could be on the Supreme Court. But as attorney general, Merrick Garland can do as much damage or more to our fragile and besieged republic than he could if Barack Obama had succeeded in placing him on the high court. A revealing piece in Yahoo News by “journalist” Alexander Nazaryan Wednesday revealed not only Garland’s frankly troubling agenda, but also how the establishment media runs interference and sells that program to a largely unsuspecting American public.

Garland, according to Nazaryan, “told Congress on Wednesday that violence incited by white supremacists poses ‘the most dangerous threat to our democracy.’ That assertion reflects near-universal consensus among national security experts, including those who worked for the Trump administration.”

Yeah, just like those seventeen intelligence agencies that had come to a consensus that Russia had hacked the 2016 presidential election. In both cases, they had a consensus, they just didn’t have any evidence.

But asking for evidence is likely white supremacist now as well. Nazaryan notes that “Garland’s warning came during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, which was conducted by supporters of then-President Donald Trump and incited by white supremacist groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. Five people died as a result of the attack.”

This is false and severely misleading in numerous ways: neither the Oath Keepers nor the Proud Boys are white supremacist groups, and while Nazaryan tries to create the impression that the “white supremacist Trump supporters” killed five people, that’s not what happened.

But Merrick Garland apparently thinks evidence is for the proles. He intoned sententiously: “In my career as a judge and in law enforcement, I have not seen a more dangerous threat to democracy than the invasion of the Capitol.” He said that the Capitol incident was an “attempt to interfere with a fundamental element of our democracy, the peaceful transfer of power.” Consequently, “there has to be a hierarchy of things that we prioritize. This would be the one we’d prioritize.”

Nazaryan then tells us that Garland is an old hand at hunting down and neutralizing those evil white supremacists: “In 1995, Garland investigated the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City by white supremacists, an attack that killed 168 people, including 19 children. The bombing came at a time when militants were galvanized by violent encounters with federal authorities in Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, Idaho.”

That was 26 years ago, but apparently Garland hasn’t managed to completely eradicate the white supremacist threat, which now dwarfs the jihad terror threat in magnitude: “The threat of domestic terrorism receded in the public imagination after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which were carried out by Islamic fundamentalists from Saudi Arabia and other nations. But as that threat has diminished in recent years, militant white nationalism has returned as a top concern.”

And so at the hearing, Garland declared that “the horror of domestic violent extremism is still with us” in the course of his discussion of “his work on the Oklahoma City bombing and the Unabomber case.”

As far as Nazaryan, and likely Garland as well, is concerned, the white supremacist threat is still with us all these years later because of (who else?) Donald J. Trump, who “infamously told one such group, the Proud Boys, to ‘stand back and stand by’ during a presidential debate when a moderator confronted him on the topic. But instead of taking meaningful steps to address the white supremacist threat, Trump urged officials in his administration to focus on antifa, a loosely organized network of leftist radicals that is not widely considered a threat to national security.”

 

Nazaryan explains it all for us yahoos: “Republicans continue to insist that antifa and Black Lives Matter are as great a threat to national security as white supremacy, though research has shown that most of last summer’s Black Lives Matter-inspired protests were peaceful. While some violence and looting did occur, intense media coverage — in particular by conservative outlets like Fox News — may have provided a distorted image of those protests.”

Yeah, that’s it. It’s all right-wing media bias. That’s it. Antifa and BLM would be positively cuddly were it not for Fox News.

The realities bear restating: the January 6 Capitol riot was not an insurrection. The protesters were unarmed. There was no plan to overthrow the government, no ringleader, no actual incitement or call to violence from Trump. Nothing. And aside from that, they have to go back to Oklahoma City, Waco, and Ruby Ridge, all of which took place over two decades ago, which in itself demonstrates that they don’t have any recent incidents of “white supremacist terrorism” to invoke. The Proud Boys are not white supremacists. They aren’t terrorists, either; if they had been responsible for any actual terrorist act, you can be sure Alexander Nazaryan would have mentioned it.

Meanwhile, there has been the Boston Marathon jihad attack, and the Orlando and Fort Hood and San Bernardino jihad massacres, and numerous others that have gotten little or no media attention, and no demonstration of concern from Merrick Garland.

So this is what we get from Yahoo News: actual violence from jihadis is not mentioned. Actual violence from leftists is dismissed as minor or unimportant amid “mostly peaceful” protests. The fact that there is virtually no violence from white supremacists is glossed over with claims that groups that aren’t white supremacist actually are, and assertions that they’re terrorist, with no evidence offered at all.

This is not just Yahoo News’ scenario; it’s clearly Garland’s and the Biden administration’s as well. This is deception and deflection at the highest level of government. The agenda of Garland and his colleagues is obvious and insidious: they’re going to find those white supremacist terrorists, and they’re going to prosecute and destroy them. If they don’t find any white supremacists in sufficient numbers, they will claim that law-abiding conservatives are white supremacists, and defame and destroy them accordingly. Garland’s spurious assessment of the domestic terror threat must be seen against the backdrop of the left’s increasingly common habit of referring to virtually anyone who opposes the hard-left, socialist agenda of Biden’s handlers and the establishment media as a white supremacist. This isn’t just a smear. It’s a smear with a definite purpose, and is heading us straight to the persecution of dissidents. That would be us.

Arizona Senate receives letter from DOJ questioning the election audit

Rumble — After numerous lawsuits and complaints, the Arizona Senate has prevailed and is moving ahead with their full forensic audit. However, that has not stopped Democrat special interests groups from appealing to the Department of Justice to try to intervene.

The Department of Justice wrote to the Arizona Senate expressing concerns over the audit. OAN's Christina Bobb spoke with Arizona Sen. Sonny Borrelli about the senate's response.

Nunes: Biden DOJ effort to halt Arizona ballot audit is frightening

Rumble — California Rep. Devin Nunes says it's frightening that Joe Biden's DOJ is getting involved to stop Arizona's Maricopa County ballot audit. One America's John Hines has more from Tulare, California.

Whistleblower: Dominion Rigged 2020 Election~Biden’s DOJ Moves to Interfere the Maricopa County Election Audit

Rumble — Alex Newman interviews Melissa Carone, a whistleblower and former employee from Dominion. She discusses her observation of several counts of fraud in the 2020 election, including how she overheard her manager discuss fraudulently filling out ballots on Election Night. Carone notes how the media attempted to discredit her allegations and how Dominion tried to silence her. Carone calls for conducting audits in the states where election fraud may have occurred, and she states that Americans cannot wait until 2024. Lastly, Carone discusses her run for Michigan state representative.

______________________________________________________

Arizona Audit official shocked county supervisors

Rumble — Officials at the Ariz. election audit are expressing shock and concern over the Maricopa County's' response to their request for the administrative password to the dominion machines. One America's Christina Bobb spoke with the director of Audit USA and has more from Phoenix.

Arizona Senate spokesman Ken Bennett discusses Maricopa County voting machines

Rumble — Officials in Maricopa County, Arizona were allegedly forced to acknowledge they did not have any control over the voting machines during the 2020 elections. One America's Christina Bobb spoke with Senate spokesman Ken Bennett to get the details.

WOAH: Biden's DOJ Moves to Interfere the Maricopa County Election Audit

BY MATT MARGOLIS

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/05/07/woah-bidens-doj-is-trying-to-stop-the-maricopa-county-election-audit-n1445422;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Joe Biden’s Department of Justice (DOJ) is trying to stop the 2020 election audit in Maricopa County, Arizona, according to a report from the Washington Post.

In a letter to the president of the Arizona State Senate, Pamela S. Karlan, the head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, suggested that the recount is illegal.

“We have a concern that Maricopa County election records, which are required by federal law to be retained and preserved, are no longer under the ultimate control of elections officials, are not being adequately safeguarded by contractors, and are at risk of damage or loss,” Karlan wrote.

The Maricopa County Audit’s official Twitter account called the claims baseless.

Karlan also asked whether a plan by the private contractor hired to run the audit to interview voters to verify whether they cast ballots in the election as indicated by county records could “violate” federal laws prohibiting voter intimidation.

Arizona Senate’s liaison for the audit, former Republican Secretary of State Ken Bennett, disputes the need for federal involvement and says that Cyber Ninjas, the Florida-based private contractor hired to lead the audit, hasn’t started interviewing voters but said the company has pledged to do nothing that would constitute intimidation.

“This is a matter between the Arizona Senate and Maricopa County,” Bennett said. “We don’t see any grounds for anyone else to intervene.”

The Audit’s Twitter account tweeted late Wednesday, “Arizona has the authority to conduct this audit without interference from the Feds!”

 

FBI Caught Snooping Through NSA Records to Look for ‘Racially Motivated Violent Extremists’

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/05/fbi-caught-snooping-through-nsa-records-to-look-for-racially-motivated-violent-extremists;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

My latest in PJ Media:

The Daily Beast reported last week that “The FBI, without any court order, sifted through the National Security Agency’s massive troves of foreign communications for information on American “racially motivated violent extremists,” even though the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court warned the FBI in 2018 that its warrant-free queries” were unconstitutional. The first question that springs to mind in connection with this is: to whom can we turn when those who are supposed to be protecting us have been thoroughly corrupted and weaponized against the American people? And the second question is: Why are “racially motivated violent extremists” so hard to find that the FBI has to do an illegal deep dive into NSA material to find them?

The FBI is trying to validate the narrative that Old Joe Biden’s handlers had him enunciate (which he did, remarkably, without getting tongue-tied or saying something incoherent) during his message to Congress. “’As I stand here tonight,” Biden intoned Wednesday, “just one day shy of the 100th day of my administration. 100 days since I took the oath of office, lifted my hand off our family Bible, and inherited a nation in crisis. The worst pandemic in a century. The worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. The worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War.”

The idea that the entry of a group of unarmed people into the U.S. Capitol constituted the “worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War” was not just ridiculous (remember 9/11? Pearl Harbor?); it was insidious. Beyond the silliness and hysteria is an insidious agenda. Biden’s handlers mean to stigmatize, demonize and silence all dissent from their far-left agenda. Wildly exaggerating what happened on January 6, and the concomitant “white supremacist agenda,” is in service of that agenda.

And so the FBI goes fishing in material the NSA obtained without a warrant, trying to validate the left’s claims. And this has been a long time coming: Jana Winter reported in Yahoo News in February that “the U.S. government is acknowledging for the first time that right-wing extremists were responsible for the majority of fatal domestic terrorist attacks last year, according to an internal report circulated by the Department of Homeland Security last week.” But as you might expect, the actual report was long on vague assertions and decidedly short on facts.

There is more. Read the rest here. SEE: https://pjmedia.com/columns/robert-spencer/2021/05/03/fbi-goes-hunting-for-racially-motivated-violent-extremists-n1444256

WITCH HUNT: Federal Agents Raid Rudy Giuliani’s NYC Apartment Looking for “Lobbying” Crimes

BY MEGAN FOX

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/megan-fox/2021/04/28/witch-hunt-federal-agents-raid-rudy-guilianis-nyc-appartment-looking-for-lobbying-crimes-n1443309;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Rudy Giuliani’s apartment in NYC was raided by zealous federal agents on Wednesday as part of a “criminal probe” related to Giuliani’s alleged dealings in Ukraine. I feel like we’ve heard this story before. When the left is in power, they love to weaponize federal agencies against their political enemies. Agents confiscated all of Giuliani’s electronic devices including his computer and phone. They will now dig furiously for anything with which to smear and humiliate him by leaking non-crime personal details to the press (guaranteed).

It’s amazing how fast federal agents can act when they have a political hit job to carry out and at the same time move so slowly or not at all to investigate hundreds of victims’ claims of government corruption in an entire circuit court in St. Louis County, Missouri. But if you’re a political nuisance to the powers that be, like Rudy Giuliani, your garbage cans will be picked through by forensic experts lickety-split. The FBI will search for years looking for or creating process crimes to jail political enemies of the left but they will not lift a finger to help ordinary citizens get justice against corrupt government institutions.

The victims who say they were the target of a money-making shakedown, extortion, perjury, witness intimidation, wrongful death, and more in St. Louis County have gone to every federal agency there is, including the FBI and the DOJ, and the attorney general of Missouri, for help and have been completely ignored or shooed away.

But don’t worry, the FBI is bravely chasing down and harassing Donald Trump’s lawyer for “lobbying crimes,” whatever those are. I bet they won’t find hundreds of victims harmed by a “lobbying scheme” if there was one, but rest easy because they’re going to take a “lobbying criminal” off the streets.

Forget about the corrupt judges who are openly case-fixing and engaging in ex-parte communications and conspiring against litigants in their courtrooms, though. The FBI has no interest in that.

________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO: https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/giuliani-raid-apartment/2021/04/28/id/1019355

________________________________________________________

Dershowitz: DOJ Violated Giuliani’s Rights in Outrageous Raid

Harvard Professor Emeritus and legal scholar Alan Dershowitz discusses the raid of former New York City Mayor and President Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani's apartment - Via Newsmax TV's 'Saturday Report.'

E-mail: Biden DOJ Nominee Might Have Lied to Senate About Knowledge of Cop Killer

E-mail: Biden DOJ Nominee Might Have Lied to Senate About Knowledge of Cop Killer

BY R. CORT KIRKWOOD

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/e-mail-biden-doj-nominee-might-have-lied-to-senate-about-knowledge-of-cop-killer;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Kristen Clarke, President Joe Biden’s hard-left, anti-white nominee to run the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, is more than a black supremacist who would defund the cops.

The nominee for assistant attorney general peddled the lie that convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal is innocent, and she apparently thinks cops are comparable to Klansmen, an e-mail she sent in 1999 shows. Even worse, the e-mail suggests that she lied during her confirmation hearing when she said she was clueless about Abu-Jamal, a much-celebrated hero to the radical left.

Unearthed by the American Accountability Project, the latest on Clarke comes weeks after the AAP produced proof that Clarke helped organize a conference to defend cop killers that same year.

The e-mail by Clarke confirms a simple truth: Biden has nominated an anti-cop radical to help run the Justice Department.

The E-mail

The email, produced at AAP’s BidenNoms.com, included an unhinged rant by the late Amiri Baraka. Baraka was an anti-white, anti-American “poet” who spent his life in brooding resentment.

“Most American white men are trained to be fags,” the pro-Castro Baraka wrote in 1965, but anyway, Clarke forwarded Baraka’s bizarre offering to a professor, Manning Marable, who edited a radical magazine.

Among the gems Clark thought were fit for publication were these:

• “The Klan is now the Police, with Blue uniforms replacing the sheets and hoods.” 

• “The corrupt racist Ludges, are petty Klan administrators, The ‘Kleagles’ of the bourgeois state’s ‘Klaven’, their courts, the midnight torch burning torture sessions, before the neck stretching and black corpse burning.”

• “Black Churches are still being burned by the sons and daughters of the Confederacy.”

Included in the piece — a long string of gibberish, false accusations, and racialist nonsense — was the inevitable defense of Abu-Jamal, who murdered Philadelphia cop Daniel Faulkner in 1982:

Mountains of evidence and testimony show clearly that Mumia is another Black scapegoat, another Lynch victim. The Kleagle, Judge [Albert] Sabo, who like traditional Kleagles, wears no hood, is the leading butcher of black people, by thinly disguised Lynch law.

In fact, “mountains of evidence” show that Abu-Jamal brutally murdered Faulkner, but anyway, Clarke wanted Marable to publish the piece and use it in a panel discussion on race and the death penalty

Always Backed Cop Killers

Two weeks ago, AAP passed documents to Fox News that showed Clarke, as a law-school student in 1999, helped organize an anti-cop, anti-law-and-order conference.

Conference organizers called murderers such as Mumia “political prisoners,” Fox reported of the revelatory documents. 

Other so-called political prisoners were Assata Shakur (Joanne Chesimard), who murdered a New Jersey State Trooper 1973. The murderess escaped prison and is still on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist List

Another favorite of Clarke’s conference speakers and attendees was Susan Rosenberg, a member of the May 19th Communist Organization, that bombed the U.S. Capitol on November 7, 1983. Rosenberg was sentenced to 58 years in prison when she was caught with explosives. President Bill Clinton pardoned her.

Reported Fox, “multiple speakers at the conference referred to the death row inmates as ‘political prisoners,’ or ‘POWs.’”

One of them, of course, was Abu-Jamal, whom Marable actually believed was innocent because, he told conference attendees, he “never received a fair trial and was tried by a racist judge.”

At her confirmation hearing on April 14, Clarke claimed she knows nothing about Abu-Jamal and only provided “logistical support” for the conference. How she could be unfamiliar with Abu-Jamal given the piece from Baraka, which she sent to Marable, we are not given to know.

The claim raises obvious questions: Despite her ideological disposition, wasn’t Clarke curious about the high-profile Abu-Jamal after reading Baraka’s screed? Did she learn nothing about it despite being at Columbia Law School and in the ensuing 20 years, and, as president of the Lawyers’ Committee on Civil Rights Under Law, does she still know nothing?

Can she really be that out of touch, and if she is, what kind of assistant attorney general will she make?

That aside, Clarke’s record of racialist activities goes back to her college days. At Harvard, Clarke wrote that blacks are genetically superior to whites. 

“Human mental processes are controlled by melanin — that same chemical which gives Blacks their superior physical and mental abilities,” Clarke believed. “Melanin endows Blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities — something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards.”

In Newsweek last year, again, she advocated defunding the police.

Mumia Abu-Jamal

As for Abu-Jamal, few if any serious observers believe a conspiracy of racist cops, prosecutors, and judges framed him.

Still, the cop-killer has long been a cause célèbre for the radical left, including the usual Hollywood busybodies. Although Abu-Jamal dodged the hot squat when a judge overturned his death sentence, courts have repeatedly upheld the conviction.

Even if Clarke doesn’t support the cop-killer today, even if she were to disavow her association with advocates for revolutionary violence who think cop-killing terrorists are “political prisoners,” there remains her view of police.

Biden’s nominee to help run the Justice Department wants to defund them.

 

Kristen Clarke Is Unfit to Be in Government

BY David Harsanyi

SEE: https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/04/16/kristen-clarke-is-unfit-to-be-in-government;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Kristen Clarke, President Joe Biden’s nominee for assistant attorney general of the United States, once promoted racist pseudoscientific quackery, arguing that the human brain was structured in a way that makes black people superior to white people, and that “human mental processes” in the brain have chemicals that imbue one race with “superior physical and mental abilities” and “spiritual abilities.”

Rather than owning up to a youthful relationship with radicalism, Clarke, who made these comments in The Harvard Crimson as a 19-year-old, claims that her racist diatribe was merely a parody mocking the controversial book “The Bell Curve.”

“What I was seeking to do was to hold up a mirror,” she says. “Put one racist theory alongside another.”

Purely by chance, Clarke also happened to invite a Holocaust-denying fraud named Anthony Martin—then a professor at Wellesley College whose assigned primary textbook was called “The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews,” which blamed Jews for the slave trade, and who wrote “The Jewish Onslaught,” published by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan—to speak at Harvard.

Around the same time Clarke was writing unrecognizable satire about black supremacy, she was calling Martin an “intelligent, well-versed black intellectual who bases his information on indisputable fact.” Weird that.

Clarke’s contention that she was penning Swiftian letters on race is about as plausible as her assertion today in front of the Senate that her Newsweek op-ed, “I Prosecuted Police Killings. Defund the Police—But Be Strategic,” wasn’t about “defunding the police.”

Clarke said that “the impetus for writing this op-ed was to make clear that I do not support defunding the police.” In the piece, Clarke literally defines what “defund the police” means and then offers her ideas about redistributing funds. Maybe that, too, was satire.

Clarke now says, “Let me be clear, I denounce anti-Semitism wherever and whenever it shows up.” Which would mean a lot more if she hadn’t signed a letter—not in 1999 but in 2019—supporting Farrakhanite Women’s March co-founder Tamika Mallory, who, according to Tablet, “asserted that Jewish people bore a special collective responsibility as exploiters of black and brown people—and even, according to a close secondhand source, claimed that Jews were proven to have been leaders of the American slave trade.” Mallory sounds a lot like Martin.

Indeed, there is not a single shred of contemporaneous evidence that her letter was satire. Quite the opposite. Subsequent pieces in the Crimson specifically point out that Clarke refused to concede that she wasn’t serious. The Harvard Crimson staff, in fact, demanded a retraction and noted that it had “searched in vain for a hint of irony in Clarke’s letter.”

In another response, a columnist argued that “Clarke refuses to explicitly deny the theories” and accused her of “disseminating racist theories.”

Now, all of us believe stupid things when we’re young—though perhaps not racial-science-level stupid.

It needs mentioning, though, that we live in a skewed world where a woman can be hounded out of her job at Teen Vogue for making jokes when she was 17, where The New York Times believes it’s newsworthy to track down the prom date of Josh Hawley for comment, and where Supreme Court nominees are attacked for jokes they made in their high school yearbooks. But somehow pointing out that the person put in charge of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division once spouted racist rhetoric, and now supports an anti-Semite, is beyond the pale.

If former President Donald Trump, or any Republican, had picked a nominee who had once promoted a Holocaust-denying white identitarian to an assistant AG position, there would—rightly—be a media meltdown.

Clarke has every right to live free and work where she can, but she has no God-given right to hold a position of power over citizens. With her history, she shouldn’t.

SENATOR CRUZ: Biden AG pick Garland ‘dodged every question’ in Senate hearing~The Fascist Democrats & the Fake Insurrection

The Fascist Democrats & the Fake Insurrection

Why Americans should be afraid. Very afraid.

BY DAVID HOROWITZ

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/02/fascist-democrats-fake-insurrection-david-horowitz/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

In less than a month in office, the Biden administration has clearly defined itself and its party as a fascist vanguard, driven by a racist agenda, and unconstrained by constitutional principle. It chooses to rule by presidential diktat, even though it controls both Houses of Congress.  It is an aggressive pursuer of political division behind a deceptive smokescreen of “healing” and “unity,” It is busily exploiting a fake “armed insurrection” to justify witch-hunts of the military, the capital police, members of Congress and the opposition media, at the moment Fox and Newsmax, whom they want to suppress. Its legislative radicals have called for the expulsion of half the Republican conference, without rebuke from their leaders. Because these actions are indefensible in a democracy, the Democrat Party is brazenly advancing these destructive, anti-democratic measures using Orwellian doublespeak.

Thus, Merrick Garland, Biden’s nominee to be the chief law enforcement officer of the land, has claimed under oath that terrorist acts can only be committed in the daytime – a transparent move to protect the domestic terrorists of the left who laid siege to 220 American cities at night last summer, showing utter contempt for authority and law, while attacking federal buildings and local police offices along the way. In other words the fake insurrection in the Capitol – an event conducted mainly by Trump supporters in which only Trump supporters died – is an act of domestic terrorism because it took place in the daytime. But violent armed insurrections and attacks on federal buildings conducted by leftists at night, cannot be regarded as terrorist events. How can Americans expect blind justice from a sophist like this? The nauseating sophistry has an obvious bottom line. Only violent protests by Trump supporters can justify the political witch-hunts and purges the Democrats are currently conducting against all conservatives and Republicans.

The so-called “armed insurrection” in the Capitol on January 6 was used to impeach Trump? It was allegedly so dangerous as to justify impeaching him after he left office? But it deserves to be called a “fake armed insurrection” because there were no firearms present and no plausible plan to overthrow the government. The malicious fantasy that this effort was an armed attempt to overthrow the government is just that: a malicious fantasy.

Four people died at the event – all unarmed. The one who didn’t die of a heart attack, stroke or medical emergency, Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt, was murdered by a Capitol police officer – with no consequences to the officer. The Capitol police officer who died – Brian Suknick, and was laid in state and honored by Democrats as a defender of their faith, died of indeterminate causes the day after the melee and was a Trump supporter.

The January 6 mob scene, according to investigators, was planned by “Oath Keepers” – a fringe pro-Trump group - two months before Trump gave the speech for which he was impeached under the bogus charge that he had “incited an insurrection.” In fact, he had offered to deploy 10,000 National Guardsmen to defend the Capitol for the January 6 certification. Some insurrectionist!

Trump’s infamous speech was perfectly normal, law-abiding and democratic. It was given a mile from the Capitol and was an appeal to his supporters to stiffen the spines of Republican members of Congress so they would challenge the election result. This was something Democrats and their impeachment leader – the devious Jamie Raskin - had done at the certification hearings in 2017 after Trump’s election (and also in 2001 and 2005 after both Bush elections). Democrats’ hypocrisy apparently knows no limits and no restraints and evidently has no decency filter. If Trump’s supporters failed to stiffen the spines of “weak Republicans” as Trump urged them to do in so many words at the Ellipse, they needed to go back home and primary them in the 2022 elections. Totally respectful of the democratic process.

The reality is that given the three months of violent assaults by Black Lives Matter and Antifa criminals on 220 American cities last summer, January 6 was an unexceptional event. Where was the respect for government courthouses, national monuments, police stations and public order all summer? For three months and more, those violent insurrectionary riots were supported by Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democrat Party leadership, and even funded by them.

Thanks to the Democrats, violent attacks on people and property and government buildings had become a “cultural norm” – to use Biden’s unconscionable phrase for looking away when confronted by Chinese genocide and enslavement of 2 million Uighur Muslims. Yet with the help of cowardly Republicans, afraid to call these aggressions by their proper names, the Democrats were able to turn the Capitol melee into a preposterous Reichstag Fire – the same that provided Hitler, the elected chancellor of the Weimar Republic with an excuse for destroying the Republic and silencing his opponents.

The difference was that for Hitler the phantom enemy that justified his depredations was the Jews, while for the fascist Democrats it is “white supremacists,” whose actual numbers are fewer even than the Jews. The Marxists of Black Lives Matter are the actual authors of the lie that the January 6 melee in the capital was a “white supremacist coup.” But even the pathetic Merrick Garland was forced to repeat the canard - without offering a shred of evidence - at his confirmation hearing. That’s how pervasive this racist ideology has become in shaping the Democrat Party’s drive to destroy our constitutional Republic. The hour is actually late, and Americans better wake up and start fighting for their country or there will soon be nothing left to defend.

 

DHS: ‘Right-Wing Extremists’ Committed Most Deadly Terrorist Attacks Last Year~Not Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Communists or Islamic Jihadists

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/02/dhs-right-wing-extremists-committed-most-deadly-terrorist-attacks-last-year;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

My latest in PJ Media:

In yet another story purporting to confirm the left’s view of the world, Jana Winter reported in Yahoo News Friday that “the U.S. government is acknowledging for the first time that right-wing extremists were responsible for the majority of fatal domestic terrorist attacks last year, according to an internal report circulated by the Department of Homeland Security last week.” But as you might expect, it’s long on vague assertions and decidedly short on facts.

The report was produced by the Joint Regional Intelligence Center, which Winter describes as “a DHS-funded fusion center,” and was sent out to police nationwide. It claims that civil unrest and violence last year were primarily associated with “non-affiliated, right-wing and left-wing actors,” and that “right-wing [domestic violent extremists] were responsible for the majority of fatal attacks in the Homeland in 2020.”

That wretchedly written statement apparently says that most fatal attacks in the U.S. were perpetrated by both “right-wing and left-wing actors,” and yet “journalist” Winter and the “experts” she quotes all concentrate exclusively on the “right-wing extremism.” And to be sure, the report itself appears to be designed to give the impression that “right-wing extremism” is a genuine and major threat, while quietly admitting that there is a bit of violence on the left.

The Yahoo News report asserts that “this appears to be the first known instance of an official government or law enforcement agency clearly acknowledging the trend, though senior officials have noted the rise in white supremacist attacks.” It isn’t really all that new, however: FBI director Christopher Wray claimed back in September 2017 that “white nationalist” violence was at least as much of a danger to the United States as the Islamic State. But now this claim is being codified as policy. Seth Jones of the Center for Strategic and International Studies states of the new report: “What is a little unusual is that they’ve used terms like ‘right- and left-wing’ in a government document, because the government has generally used other terms. The government in 2020 did try to stay away from ‘right-wing’ terms because they were easily politicized.”

There is more. Read the rest here:

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2021/02/20/dhs-right-wing-extremists-committed-most-deadly-terrorist-attacks-last-year-n1427092

Biden Administration Weaponizes Left-wing ‘Research’ to Target Innocent Citizens

WARNING: Biden Administration Weaponizes Left-wing ‘Research’ to Target Innocent Citizens

BY RENEE NAL

SEE: https://rairfoundation.com/warning-biden-administration-weaponizes-left-wing-research-to-target-innocent-citizens/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Under the newly installed president Joe Biden, the federal government is making an aggressive pivot to silence dissent and smear patriotic Americans as white supremacists. Taxpayer-funded grants are being doled out to universities and organizations eager to get the cash for their “research” on “disinformation,” “domestic extremism” and “white supremacy”.

While the establishment media is framing the effort as a response to the events that took place at the Capitol on January 6th, the initiative to deplatform and discredit *certain* Americans is nothing new, and was frankly only barely held in check during President Trump’s administration. Now the already well-funded effort of deplatforming citizens with the wrong opinions has the full backing of the federal government, often justified as combatting “disinformation.”

American University

One of the recipients of over $500,000 taxpayer dollars is American University, for a project that studies the “growing threat of violent white supremacist extremist disinformation.” According to an article at NBC News, “[T]he program is aimed at preventing the spread of the disinformation through what researchers call ‘attitudinal inoculation.'” “Attitudinal inoculation” is described with the vague, yet condescending goal to “give people who may be vulnerable to disinformation the skills to recognize it and argue against it, much as a vaccine builds antibodies to a virus before the body encounters it.”

American University’s Kurt Braddock is an expert on “attitudinal inoculation”, and he has also written about how President Trump is a “stochastic terrorist,” which he defines as someone who “makes comments that promote terrorism without explicitly asking people to engage in violence.”

Under that broad umbrella, anyone can be promoting violence, like the people in this video, perhaps:

The concept is reminiscent of “hate incidents” which are often used in place of “hate crimes” because there are frankly so few actual, convicted hate crimes committed by white people (the only group that matters in this context).

Braddock also dredged up the completely debunked, tiresome lie that President Trump referred to the pro-socialist nazis of Charlottesville as “very fine people.” Should Braddock be in charge of what constitutes “disinformation”?

Deplatforming Movement

There are many, many groups that have been actively and obsessively involved in justifying the deplatforming of conservatives since President Trump was elected in 2016. Deplatforming, or squashing conservative voices, is justified by these partisan actors as removing so-called disinformation. Those who engage in deplatforming smear their ideological opposition by falsely labeling them as “nazis,” “white supremacists,” “far-right,” “right-wing extremists,” or “white nationalists.”

The Deplatforming movement exists at the highest levels, and includes groups like Hillary Clinton’s Accountable Tech, the Trusted News InitiativeHOPE not hateData & SocietyMedia Matters for AmericaNARAL Pro-Choice AmericaMoveOn.orgCenter for Media and DemocracyCommon CauseDefeat Disinfo and countless others. Many deplatforming advocates signed a letter dated December 21, 2020 to Joe Biden asking that his administration “treat disinformation as a fundamental and intersectional threat…”

The Department of Homeland Security Will Persecute Conservatives

Author Nick Miroff of the Washington Post reports that the long-time left-wing effort to get the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to focus on “domestic terrorism” has finally paid off. In an article titled “The agency founded because of 9/11 is shifting to face the threat of domestic terrorism,” Miroff mentions Patrick Crusius, who murdered 23 innocent human beings in El Paso, Texas on Aug. 3, 2019 as an example of domestic terror. Miroff forgot to mention the subsequent mass murder of nine people by Dayton shooter Connor Betts the very next day. Betts was a radical leftist. The Washington Post “journalist” also has referred to “Trump’s rhetoric as the gasoline of extremism.”

The problem with the DHS focusing on domestic issues instead of guarding the homeland from external threats including illegal immigration is clear. Joe Biden’s administration is completely compromised.

Taxpayers are funding universities and organizations actively engaged in “research” designed to harm Americans by deplatforming them and painting them as “white supremacists” and “domestic extremists”. Those who conduct the research are often invited to participate in congressional hearings and take part in drafting legislation. Citizens must start paying attention before pro-American voices are silenced completely.

Support our work at RAIR Foundation USA! We are a grassroots activist team and we need your help! Please consider making a donation here: https://rairfoundation.com/donate/

FBI Agent Accuses Justice Department of ‘Systemic Corruption’

A local FBI agent who investigated former St. Charles Parish District Attorney Harry Morel told a judge last year that he has been hamstrung by “systemic corruption” within the U.S. Department of Justice, saying he’s come under pressure at times to cover up the misconduct of federal prosecutors.  The agent, Michael Zummer, outlined those grievances and others in a 31-page letter he wrote last year to U.S. District Judge Kurt Engelhardt before the judge sentenced Morel for attempting to derail a years-long FBI probe into the former district attorney’s sexual misconduct. https://thepetesantillishow.com/archives/16950 

sarah corriher: 10 Years in Prison for a Meme?

The Department of Justice is showing that it has become a political weapon in the earliest days of the Biden Presidency. The F.B.I. has arrested a pro-Trump meme maker (artist), who now faces a 10-year sentence for posting a comical image four years earlier. They are outright beginning to arrest people for political speech. Get reliable notification options and further information at Sarah's home site: https://SarahCorriher.com/

Blue-Check Lib FREE, While Meme Poster Faces PRISON Time!

Florida Man Arrested and Charged for Posting 2016 Hillary Clinton Meme, DOJ Calls it 'Disinformation Campaign'

BY NICK KANGADIS

SEE: https://www.mrctv.org/blog/florida-man-arrested-and-charged-posting-2016-hillary-clinton-meme-doj-calls-it-disinformation;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

It’s amazing to watch the federal government devolve into authoritarian levels of censorship that we typically see from places like the U.K. and China. But when the federal government begins arresting people because of “memes,” it’s time to take notice because “tyranny” is here. Essentially, the feds are moving ahead with punishing the American public in different ways because their pre-approved presidential candidate didn’t win in 2016.

Florida resident and “conservative journalist” Douglass Mackey, 31, was arrested and charged with “conspiring with others in advance of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election to use various social media platforms to disseminate misinformation designed to deprive individuals of their constitutional right to vote,” according to a Department of Justice (DOJ) press release.

The simple response is that Mackey didn’t deprive anyone of anything.

Here’s what the DOJ is reporting about Mackey:

As alleged in the complaint, between September 2016 and November 2016, in the lead up to the Nov. 8, 2016, U.S. Presidential Election, Mackey conspired with others to use social media platforms, including Twitter, to disseminate fraudulent messages designed to encourage supporters of one of the presidential candidates (the “Candidate”) to “vote” via text message or social media, a legally invalid method of voting.

For example, on Nov. 1, 2016, Mackey allegedly tweeted an image that featured an African American woman standing in front of an “African Americans for [the Candidate]” sign.  The image included the following text: “Avoid the Line. Vote from Home. Text ‘[Candidate’s first name]’ to 59925[.] Vote for [the Candidate] and be a part of history.”  The fine print at the bottom of the image stated: “Must be 18 or older to vote. One vote per person. Must be a legal citizen of the United States. Voting by text not available in Guam, Puerto Rico, Alaska or Hawaii. Paid for by [Candidate] for President 2016.”

The tweet included the typed hashtags “#Go [Candidate]” and another slogan frequently used by the Candidate. On or about and before Election Day 2016, at least 4,900 unique telephone numbers texted “[Candidate’s first name]” or some derivative to the 59925 text number, which was used in multiple deceptive campaign images tweeted by the defendant and his co-conspirators.

The DOJ did everything they could in this press release to make Mackey sound super scary, but it leaves a couple of questions. So Mackey was arrested because people were stupid enough to believe a meme that told them to text their vote? How is that his fault? Mackey didn’t “deprive” anyone of anything.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. You know why they’re really going after Mackey? Because the “Candidate” whose name was redacted by the DOJ was non-other than failed presidential nominee, former senator and former First Lady Hillary Clinton.

As Fox News host Tucker Carlson said in a segment concerning Mackey on Wednesday evening, “Mockery online is now illegal when it’s aimed at the wrong people. Doug Mackey hurt their feelings, so they put him in jail.”

Bingo! Everything the current federal government is instructed to do and will continue to do is based on identity politics and to see who can virtue signal the most. Remember those "lists" the left kept talking about after the 2020 presidential election.

This should scare you, folks. It shouldn’t scare you to the point that you should watch what you say, it should scare you to the point that you have no choice but to keep speaking.

________________________________________________________________________

JUDGE BRUCE REINHART: 

Judgereinhartfromcourtblog300x400

Biden Justice Department arrests and charges man for anti-Hillary social media posts from 2016 election

SEE: https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2021/01/biden-justice-department-arrests-and-charges-man-for-anti-hillary-social-media-posts-from-2016-elect.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Arrested and charged for "amusing or interesting items through social media".

Screen Shot 2021-01-28 at 1.49.53 pm

Screen Shot 2021-01-28 at 1.49.53 pm

Screen Shot 2021-01-28 at 1.49.53 pm

 

A Florida man was arrested this morning on charges of conspiring with others in advance of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election to use various social media platforms to disseminate misinformation designed to deprive individuals of their constitutional right to vote.

Douglass Mackey, aka Ricky Vaughn, 31, of West Palm Beach, was charged by criminal complaint in the Eastern District of New York. He was taken into custody this morning in West Palm Beach and made his initial appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart of the Southern District of Florida.

“According to the allegations in the complaint, the defendant exploited a social media platform to infringe one the of most basic and sacred rights guaranteed by the Constitution: the right to vote,” said Nicholas L. McQuaid, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “This complaint underscores the department’s commitment to investigating and prosecuting those who would undermine citizens’ voting rights.”

“There is no place in public discourse for lies and misinformation to defraud citizens of their right to vote,” said Seth D. DuCharme, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. “With Mackey’s arrest, we serve notice that those who would subvert the democratic process in this manner cannot rely on the cloak of Internet anonymity to evade responsibility for their crimes. They will be investigated, caught and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”

“Protecting every American citizen’s right to cast a legitimate vote is a key to the success of our republic,” said William F. Sweeney Jr., Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s New York Field Office. “What Mackey allegedly did to interfere with this process – by soliciting voters to cast their ballots via text – amounted to nothing short of vote theft. It is illegal behavior and contributes to the erosion of the public’s trust in our electoral processes. He may have been a powerful social media influencer at the time, but a quick Internet search of his name today will reveal an entirely different story.”

The complaint alleges that in 2016, Mackey established an audience on Twitter with approximately 58,000 followers. A February 2016 analysis by the MIT Media Lab ranked Mackey as the 107th most important influencer of the then-upcoming Election, ranking his account above outlets and individuals such as NBC News (#114), Stephen Colbert (#119) and Newt Gingrich (#141).

As alleged in the complaint, between September 2016 and November 2016, in the lead up to the Nov. 8, 2016, U.S. Presidential Election, Mackey conspired with others to use social media platforms, including Twitter, to disseminate fraudulent messages designed to encourage supporters of one of the presidential candidates (the “Candidate”) to “vote” via text message or social media, a legally invalid method of voting.

For example, on Nov. 1, 2016, Mackey allegedly tweeted an image that featured an African American woman standing in front of an “African Americans for [the Candidate]” sign.  The image included the following text: “Avoid the Line. Vote from Home. Text ‘[Candidate’s first name]’ to 59925[.] Vote for [the Candidate] and be a part of history.”  The fine print at the bottom of the image stated: “Must be 18 or older to vote. One vote per person. Must be a legal citizen of the United States. Voting by text not available in Guam, Puerto Rico, Alaska or Hawaii. Paid for by [Candidate] for President 2016.”

The tweet included the typed hashtags “#Go [Candidate]” and another slogan frequently used by the Candidate. On or about and before Election Day 2016, at least 4,900 unique telephone numbers texted “[Candidate’s first name]” or some derivative to the 59925 text number, which was used in multiple deceptive campaign images tweeted by the defendant and his co-conspirators.

The charges in the complaint are allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Erik Paulsen and Nathan Reilly of the Eastern District of New York, and Trial Attorney James Mann of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section are prosecuting the case.

ENDS

 

2021.01.22 Mackey Complaint... by Michael Smith

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT Rescinds ‘Zero Tolerance’ Policy For Illegal Immigration

BY RICK MORAN

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2021/01/27/doj-rescinds-zero-tolerance-policy-for-illegal-immigration-n1412766;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

In his eagerness to overturn every Donald Trump policy within reach, Joe Biden is substantially changing some valuable policies.

The “zero-tolerance” policy relating to illegal immigrants is a good example. It was a deterrent to illegal immigration in that it left no doubt in any illegal’s mind that they would be sent home if caught. It’s hard to prove how many people didn’t cross the border because of it, but it clearly had an effect.

The policy was referred to as “cruel” by open-border advocates, but the fact is, the United States has a fundamental, universally-recognized right to safeguard its border. And forcing everyone who enters the United States to do it legally is as fundamental as it gets.

Prosecuting those who break the law is a no-brainer. If you think the law is unfair, change it. But when you can prove your moral superiority by declaiming against “heartless” immigration enforcement, it becomes a matter of politics — not security.

Associated Press:

“Consistent with this longstanding principle of making individualized assessments in criminal cases, I am rescinding — effective immediately — the policy directive,” Wilkinson wrote.

Wilkinson said the department’s principles have “long emphasized that decisions about bringing criminal charges should involve not only a determination that a federal offense has been committed and that the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, but should also take into account other individualized factors, including personal circumstances and criminal history, the seriousness of the offense, and the probable sentence or other consequences that would result from a conviction.”

Let’s examine that statement: Has a federal offense been committed and is there admissible evidence? It’s a federal crime to enter the United States illegally and the “admissible evidence” is the illegal alien’s presence in a country that he entered illegally.

“Personal circumstances. criminal history, the seriousness of the offense, and the probable sentence or other consequences that would result from a conviction” all relate to the fundamental tenet of security. The most lenient sentence should be for the illegal alien criminal to be allowed to go back to his country of origin and apply for entry into America legally. If other circumstances apply, have the illegal alien claim refugee status and look to be accepted legally into the country that way.

Open-border advocates talk as if there are no other options than sneaking into the country illegally. It’s a bogus argument and shows how unserious they are about the law and security.

While the rescinding of “zero tolerance” is in part symbolic, it undoes the Trump administration’s massively unpopular policy responsible for the separation of more than 5,500 children from their parents at the U.S-Mexico border. Most families have not been prosecuted under zero tolerance since 2018, when the separations were halted, though separations have continued on a smaller scale. Practically, the ending of the policy will affect mostly single men who have entered the country illegally. Prosecutions had dropped sharply after the Trump administration declared a pandemic-related health emergency that allows them to immediately expel Mexicans and many Central Americans without applying immigration laws.

The “family separation” policy will go down in history as the most deliberately misrepresented policy in history. The alternative — the one that open-border advocates wanted — was to let the parents and children enter the country with no strings attached except a piece of paper telling them when their court date was going to be — usually 3-5 years from the date of their illegal entry.

Whose fault was “family separation”? Weren’t the parents at fault for knowingly trying to bring their families into the United States illegally? How can we absolve the parents of all responsibility for their own actions? It is illegal to enter the United States without being minimally vetted and obtaining the proper documentation — just like it’s illegal to enter Mexico or Guatemala or Honduras, or any other country where these illegals come from without the proper clearances.

If you don’t like the system — and I agree it’s truly screwed up — work to change it legally. And that includes enforcing the laws on the books against illegal entry into the U.S.

Help us STOP Joe Biden’s radical agenda by becoming a PJ Media VIP member. Use promo code AMERICAFIRST to receive 25% off your VIP membership.
 

Trump Should Have Pardoned This Pro-Family Hero~He Didn’t

Philip Zodhiates is a Christian who was aggressively railroaded for a phony "crime" by the Obama Justice Dept, the LGBT lobby, and the SPLC.

ALT TEXT

ABOVE: Philip Zodhiates and his wife Kathie Lee Zodhiates

Note: This article first appeared in American Thinker.

BY BRIAN CAMENKER

SEE: https://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen4/21a/Free-and-pardon-Philip-Zodhiates/index.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

We have all seen the corrupt US Justice Department aggressively prosecute and imprison political opponents such as General Michael Flynn and former Texas Congressman Steve Stockman on the flimsiest of “crimes.” Meanwhile, left-wing figures such as Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden, who commit serious crimes remain untouched. The full truth is worse than most people are aware. Here is just one case we’re familiar with.

Philip Zodhiates is recognized as one of America’s best direct-mail professionals for conservative and Christian non-profits. His company, Response Unlimited, has sent out tens of millions of fundraising letters regarding the homosexual agenda and other anti-Christian movements. (Several years ago his company helped us!) Prior to and during the Obama administration his company sent out over 80 million fundraising letters targeting various suspect issues concerning Barack Obama, including his status as a “natural born citizen” and his ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. In addition, Zodhiates operated the Conservative Petitions website that generated impactful feedback and millions of email messages opposing leftist programs.

Zodhiates is a committed Christian who adopted six children from Central America and has generously donated money to, and volunteered for, Christian causes.

On Sept. 21, 2009, Zodhiates gave a young woman he knew from church, Lisa Miller, a car ride from Virginia (where they all lived) to New York. At the time, Miller was under emotional stress and was accompanied by her 7-year-old daughter Isabella.

That was the beginning of Zodhiates’ nightmare. The Obama Justice Dept. and major liberal and LGBT groups used the incident to manufacture an outlandish charge against him, leading to a tremendously expensive trial, and landing him in federal prison where he is today.

But the story began almost ten years earlier. It’s not surprising that a “gay rights” dispute is involved.

In December 2000, Lisa Miller and another young woman, Janet Jenkins, were in a lesbian relationship. They traveled from home in Virginia to Vermont to enter into a “civil union” which was not legally recognized in Virginia.

Lisa wanted to have a child and was artificially inseminated. Janet did not participate in that. In April 2002 when Isabella was born, Janet was not listed as a parent on the baby’s birth certificate. Since then, Jenkins also declined to adopt Isabella on at least two occasions, according to published documents.

In July 2002, the couple and child moved from Virginia to Vermont. But in September 2003, the relationship broke up and Lisa and Isabella moved back to Virginia. In November 2003, the domestic partnership was dissolved. After that, according to documents, Janet only saw Isabella once in 2003 and twice in 2004. Soon after, Lisa became a Christian. In 2004, a Virginia judge officially recognized Lisa as Isabella’s sole parent. Lisa decided not to allow Janet to have any further visits with Isabella. And according to published papers, Janet expressed little interest in Isabella.

Then the LGBT movement stepped in.

The ACLU along with the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund sought to make it a test case to establish that same-sex partners in civil unions could have “parental rights” over children – even if they were not biologically related and had never legally adopted them. In addition, according to documents, the Southern Poverty Law Center convinced Janet to allow them to make this case the precedent-setting attempt to nullify the Virginia Marriage Amendment and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Starting in 2007, these groups funded Janet Jenkins’ protracted custody battle over Isabella in the courts of Virginia and Vermont. A Vermont judge ordered that Janet should be allowed unsupervised overnight visits with Isabella, even though at that time she had not seen Isabella for 2½ years.

Lisa initially complied with these orders. But then she noticed that Isabella was acting very disturbingly after these visits. According to published documents, after one visit in 2007 (when Isabella was 5 years old) Lisa noted (published later in an affidavit):

Isabella has been crying at night asking me to promise that she doesn’t have to take a bath or shower with [Janet] … Since I picked her up on Sunday, Isabella has been exhibiting severe behaviors of stress, including pushing a comb against her stomach and telling me she is going to kill herself. She has been excessively and openly masturbating since she returned on Sunday and at one point tried to put a pen in her vagina.

When Lisa could see that Isabella was obviously being sexually abused during the visits with Janet, she declined to yield to the orders of the Vermont court. She continued trying to fight, but the massive legal force of the national groups was no match for Lisa’s meager resources.

Three licensed social workers in Virginia submitted affidavits stating that they believed Isabella was in danger with these visits, but that did not sway the courts. The Vermont court would not even allow those affidavits to be introduced as evidence.

The Virginia courts were persuaded to go along with the Vermont decision on visitation. In 2008, Lisa fought it all the way up to the Virginia Supreme Court. The court ruled in favor of continuing visitation rights for Janet!

Lisa still refused to comply. In 2009 a judge warned that if Lisa did not allow the visitations, he would transfer full custody of Isabella to Janet. In November 2009, the judge followed through with his threat and ordered Lisa to hand Isabella over to Janet.

But by then it was too late. Lisa and Isabella had left the country.

On Sept. 21, 2009, Lisa asked her friend from church, Philip Zodhiates, to drive her to Buffalo, NY. The next day Lisa and Isabella took a taxi across the border to Canada. They apparently flew from there to Central America, but their exact whereabouts are still unknown, according to reports.

At that point, the LGBT groups got the Obama Dept. of Justice (DOJ) to get involved, which they did with enthusiasm. They charged Zodhiates with International Parental Kidnapping and Conspiracy. The two-week jury trial was largely a sham. Among other things:

  • The DOJ got the jury trial moved from conservative Lynchburg, Virginia to liberal Buffalo, New York. But the supposed “kidnapping” took place in Virginia. Buffalo was simply the endpoint of the ride.
  • Lisa had full legal custody of Isabella, they had legal passports, and there were no travel restrictions.
  • Virginia's Defense of Marriage Amendment to its Constitution forbade the Virginia courts from recognizing the Vermont civil union, and Isabella's Virginia birth certificate lists Lisa as her only parent. Lisa lived in Virginia when Isabella was born.
  • The trial was largely on ad hominem characterization, not points of law. During the trial, the SPLC helped introduce “evidence” that Zodhiates was a horrible Christian bigot. But the judge refused to allow evidence of Zodhiates’ philanthropy and charitable work.
  • The jury never heard any evidence of the horrible sexual abuse regarding Isabella (or the affidavits from the social workers) which was the reason Lisa was escaping with her daughter. More important, fear of sexual abuse is a legal defense for alleged “parental kidnapping.” But Zodhiates’ lawyers purposefully chose not to tell the jury about that – an act of apparent legal malpractice which Zodhiates brought up in his appeal.

By any normal measure, Philip Zodhiates committed no crime. And certainly, by the normal standards of today’s legal system, he wouldn’t have been charged even if he had. But that’s not how things turned out.

The massive DOJ, SPLC, and LGBT legal team was too overwhelming, and Zodhiates’ lawyers were frankly unimpressive. The jury convicted Zodhiates.

The appeal was also shameful. The court rejected all of the problems with the trial that Zodhiates brought up. Petitions to the US Supreme Court were also rejected. In 2018 he was sentenced to three years in federal prison, where he sits now until the end of 2021. They would not even let him out early for Covid, even though thousands of other inmates were released.

Philip Zodhiates is also hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt for legal fees and lost income. It is likely that the SPLC will bankroll a further lawsuit against him on behalf of Janet for “damages.”

In December 2019, Zodhiates filed a Petition for Pardon to President Trump. Since then, there were numerous letters and emails from the Trump administration. On Dec. 23, 2020, President Trump pardoned 15 people and commuted the sentences of 5 others. Then on Jan. 20, 2021, President Trump granted 73 pardons and commuted the sentences of an additional 70 people. Philip Zodhiates was not among them.

Many of these people had been convicted of drug trafficking, securities fraud, and similar crimes. A friend of a famous rapper got pardoned.

But no one who got pardoned, that we could determine, had committed a transgression against the LGBT movement. We have a disturbing feeling that President Trump – or his staff – did not want to offend that “constituency.” It’s a terrible shame, and bad for America.

Facebook Twitter Email Print

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!




Biden’s Disastrous Pick to Head DOJ Civil Rights Division

Senate must reject Kristen Clarke’s nomination.

BY JOSEPH KLEIN

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/01/bidens-disastrous-pick-head-doj-civil-rights-joseph-klein/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Kristen Clarke, President-elect Joe Biden’s nominee for Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, is a disastrous choice. Clarke has a long record of making racially charged-comments, going back to her time in college and continuing to this day. She also has spoken out in favor of anti-Semites. Back in college, Clarke led a student group that provided an anti-Semitic professor a platform to spew his vile remarks. Much more recently, Clarke supported an advocate of the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. If Clarke’s name is not withdrawn from consideration, the Senate must reject her nomination.

Back in the day when Clarke served as the president of the Black Students Association (BSA) at Harvard, she co-authored a letter to the Harvard Crimson asserting that blacks are born with “superior physical and mental abilities.” It’s all due to the chemical melanin, Clarke claimed, which “endows [b]lacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities -- something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards." The Harvard Crimson editors at the time called for Clarke to resign her position at the BSA unless she was “prepared to retract her statements, and apologize publicly for making them.” The furthest that Clarke was willing to go at that time was stating that "The information [contained in the letter] is not necessarily something we believe.” [Emphasis added] There was no public retraction back then.

Clarke also invited the late Wellesley Professor of Africana Studies Anthony Martin to speak at a 1994 Black Students Association-sponsored event. Clarke’s guest used his time to slander Jews with the accusation that Jews had a “tradition” of persecuting blacks. "There was a Jewish monopoly over Blacks being cursed," Martin said during his address.

Clarke defended the choice of Martin to speak after receiving criticism from the Harvard-Radcliffe Hillel. "Professor Martin is an intelligent, well-versed Black intellectual who bases his information on indisputable fact," Clarke said. The real indisputable fact is that Jews have put their lives on the line in the cause of the black civil rights movement. For example, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman served in 1964 as voting-registration volunteers in Meridian, Mississippi and were murdered by Klansmen.

Now that Clarke is craving for the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights position in the Biden administration, she wants a do-over. In a recent interview, Clarke said that she realizes it was a mistake to invite Martin to speak at Harvard. “Giving someone like him a platform, it’s not something I would do again,” Clarke said, adding that “I unequivocally denounce antisemitism.”

Clarke’s recantation comes way too late. If Democrats had an ounce of intellectual honesty, which they do not, Clarke’s invitation to an anti-Semitic professor to speak at Harvard when she was a student would be reason enough for them to “cancel” Clarke now. After all, Democrats in the Senate were willing to throw Trump nominees’ alleged behavior in college and high school back at them when their nominations were being considered. The worst case involved the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. But there were others as well who were targeted by the cancel culture crowd.

In any case, we don’t even have to look back at Clarke’s college days to find proof of her support for radicals who espouse anti-Semitic views. In 2018, for example, Israel denied Vincent Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, entry to the country because of his organization’s support for the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. Clarke tweeted, “Incredibly disturbed to hear that @VinceWarren was detained and denied entry into Israel on a trip that was carefully and thoughtfully planned out over the course of several months. #CivilRights Lawyers should not be penalized for their work to promote justice.”

As for the letter to the Harvard Crimson Clarke co-authored, claiming that blacks have “superior physical and mental abilities,” Clarke is now saying that it was all a misunderstanding. She claims that the letter was intended as a satirical response to the book The Bell Curve, which posited genetic differences between whites and blacks. Clarke wants us to believe that her letter’s references to melanin as the cause of black superiority “was meant to express an equally absurd point of view — fighting one ridiculous absurd racist theory with another ridiculous absurd theory.” That’s disinformation. At the time when the letter was written, Clarke said that she was uncertain whether the melanin theory of black superiority was true or not. There wasn’t a hint of sarcasm in the letter.

Putting aside her comments about melanin back in college, Clarke certainly shows no uncertainty today in embracing critical race theory, which posits that America is inherently racist. In her capacity as president and executive director of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Clarke condemned the Trump administration’s decision to remove critical race theory from federal government training programs. "Our nation stands at an inflection point as communities are grappling with the ongoing threat of racism, white supremacy and police violence," Clarke said in a statement. "President Trump's latest federal directive is an attempt to discredit, condemn and silence important conversations happening in communities and workplaces about anti-racism and about our nation's history of white supremacy. By banning government support for these discussions, he sends a dangerous message to the country that racism is a fallacy."

Last year, Clarke denounced what she claims is “systemic racism that pervades every aspect of our lives, especially when it comes to policing and the operation of the criminal justice system of our country.” She supports defunding of the police. “I advocate for defunding policing operations that have made African Americans more vulnerable to police violence and contributed to mass incarceration while investing more in programs and policies that address critical community needs,” she wrote last June for Newsweek. She called the concerns regarding the violence that broke out last year in the wake of the George Floyd killing a “distraction.”

Clearly, if Clarke were to become Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and have her way, she would push to put the police on trial all over the country. She would also force-feed critical race theory to all federal employees and beyond. She would support the BDS movement as a civil right.

The Senate must reject Kristen Clarke’s nomination.

 

Biden to Nominate Anti-Gun Judge Merrick Garland for Attorney General

Anti-2A judge Merrick Garland is Biden's likely pick for Attorney General

Judge Merrick Garland NRA-ILA

BY NRAHQ

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/01/biden-to-nominate-anti-gun-judge-merrick-garland-for-attorney-general/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- At a news conference on January 7th, President-elect Joe Biden announced he will nominate U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Judge Merrick Garland for Attorney General. Biden’s choice of a noted Second Amendment opponent to lead the Department of Justice is an overt assault on gun rights and gun owners.

Following the death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2013, President Barack Obama nominated Garland as Justice Scalia’s replacement. With an understanding of Garland’s unacceptable jurisprudence, NRA strongly opposed Garland’s nomination and the Senate wisely chose not to consider the nomination.

Garland’s anti-Second Amendment position is clear from his record. Garland does not believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. On March 9, 2007, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a ruling in Parker v. District of Columbia, the precursor to Heller v. District of Columbia. The opinion struck down the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the civilian ownership of handguns and recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Expressing disapproval of the panel’s ruling, Garland voted to rehear the case.

Moreover, Garland has worked to undermine a federal statute meant to protect gun owners from firearms registration. In the 2000 case NRA v. Reno, NRA sued to stop the Department of Justice from retaining successful National Instant Criminal Backgrounds Check System (NICS) transaction records in what the agency termed an “audit log.” In relation to NICS, federal law (18 U.S.C. 922(t)(2)(c)) requires the government to “destroy all records of the system with respect to the call (other than the identifying number and the date the number was assigned) and all records of the system relating to the person or the transfer.” In a three-judge panel, Garland joined a colleague to uphold this Department of Justice practice, imperiling the privacy of gun owners.

Given his long history of hostility towards the Second Amendment and gun owners, Judge Garland is the wrong choice to lead our nation’s Department of Justice.


About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)



1 2 3