Saturday, December 3, 2016

Department of Justice

by -
gun control

Two years ago I wrote about an idiot politician publicly making a fool of himself at his own scripted press conference. The politician was California State Sen. Kevin de León, and his topic was “Ghost Guns.” The press conference was to publicize de León’s latest gun control bill, a proposal to require anyone making a gun in his or her garage to register it with the state Department of Justice and engrave a DOJ-supplied serial number on the gun. His primary justification for this proposal was that a mentally disturbed young man who had been denied purchase of a firearm had subsequently manufactured a firearm from purchased parts and fabricated components, and used that homemade gun to murder several people before committing suicide.

As disturbing and compelling as that story might be, de León’s “solution” was absolutely laughable. Could he possibly believe that his law would have prevented this tragedy? Is it remotely conceivable that this disturbed young man, having been turned down for a firearm purchase at a dealer based on his mental history, would have then requested permission from the DOJ to construct a gun from parts in his bedroom?

As idiotic as that idea is, de León’s manic performance at the press conference overshadowed any obvious flaws in his reasoning. Along with repeated mispronunciations and misapplication of words, de León consistently conflated “detectability” with “traceability” as he tried to demonize both homemade 3D-printed guns and homemade guns manufactured with more traditional machining methods. But the money shot came when de León explained the awesome firepower of one of his prop “Ghost Guns.” Holding up one of the guns, de León declared;

“This is a ghost gun. This right here has the ability, with a .30 caliber clip, to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second.” He then reiterated, to drive home the point, “Thirty magazine clip in half a second.”

The reason I bring up this 2-year-old news conference now is that Sen. de León, this stellar example of a politician whose only apparent noteworthy skill is that of being elected, is now, along with being one of the most rabid – if poorly informed – proponents of radical gun control, the president pro tempore of the Senate, the highest ranking and most powerful role in the California Legislature.

This is as irrational and inexplicable as the elevation of “Groping Joe” Biden to the office of vice president. At least Biden serves the security function of being a deterrent to anyone considering assassination of the president. Sen. de León doesn’t even have that going for him. What he does have is good looks and impeccable Spanish. He’s probably also really good at remembering names and asking for money, and he is an extreme radical on a variety of political topics. An avowed “liberal progressive” and Hillary Clinton supporter, de León is a champion of massive restrictions on carbon emissions, a tireless advocate for citizenship rights and benefits for immigrants illegally in the country, and a supporter of the environmental policies that mandated diverting millions of metric tons of water from reservoirs and farmers in favor of an ineffective effort to improve habitat for a subspecies of smelt, resulting in the current severe water shortage. He is also a vocal advocate of additional restrictions on tobacco smokers, additional rights for marijuana smokers and a strong proponent of raising the minimum wage to at least $15 an hour. That the people of California and their elected representatives would, during a time of economic struggle and budget challenges, when the state is effectively beyond broke, select such a radical destroyer to lead their Senate is beyond comprehension.

In May, de León helped to push through yet another round of gun control tightening in the state, on top of some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Included in the package is a blanket ban on possession of any magazine capable of holding over 10 rounds. Unlike the current law, which forbids the sale of such magazines, this law criminalizes possession, requiring that all existing magazines of greater than 10-round capacity be sold, destroyed, or surrendered without compensation.

Tell me again that confiscation is not the eventual objective of gun control.

Another bill in the package passed by the Senate requires a background check and record-keeping for ammunition purchases. This is probably the most sinister in the group because it not only adds complication and expense to a protected constitutional right, but by retaining records of ammunition purchases it creates a de facto gun owner registration system. You can be sure that de León and his ilk would use this information to further harass gun owners.

The rest of the package includes de León’s “Ghost Gun” registration bill, a bill banning so-called “bullet button” magazine systems – effectively outlawing numerous currently legal rifles – a bill that makes the victim of a firearm theft a criminal if they fail to report the theft in what some bureaucrat considers a timely manner, a bill that makes simply loaning a gun to a friend or even a family member in most cases, a criminal offense, a technical correction that moves theft of a firearm back up to felony status, and a bill creating a Firearm Violence Research Center at the University of California.

The whole package is designed to compete with an even worse ballot initiative Lt. Gov. (and gubernatorial candidate) Gavin Newsom is championing. The gun control package is now in the hands of the State Assembly where even more gun control legislation is already pending.

We should probably be grateful to California’s gun control zealots for proving that control freaks are never satisfied. No matter how many laws they pass, they will always come back for more. We in the rest of the country need to recognize the warning and understand that gun control is back on the front burner as a political issue. We must mobilize to shut this nonsense down.

by -
Department of Justice

Reports of campaign donations are coming in and it turns out that the Department of Justice, the same people who are involved in the Clinton email investigation, are the same people who donated almost $75,000 to the presidential hopeful.

228 employees at the Department of Justice have given Hillary a total $73,437 for this campaign. Which is way up from 2008 when only 23 people supported Hillary with $15,930.

This year she has 12 people who paid the max $2,700 for an individual payment.

How is the Department of Justice supposed to look at Hillary’s email investigation objectively when it is clear they are rooting for the former Secretary?

Bernie Sanders has only had 51 donations from people working at the Department of Justice for a total of $8,900. The 51 donations to Bernie and the 228 to Hillary make up a large group of the clearly Democratic-leaning DOJ.

Compare the numbers and donations to Hillary and Bernie to what employees at the DOJ have given to Donald Trump: just two donations for a total of $381.

Considering that the Department Of Justice is going to be responsible for indicting Hillary, the fact that the employees have given Hillary almost $75,000 doesn’t seem like it is something they are going to be pushing.

Why would so many employees, who clearly support Clinton, try to push for an indictment? The opposite will happen and they will fight it tooth and nail.

The problem is, the trust in the Department of Justice is in the balance. Is the DOJ agency just Obama’s culture police or does it serve a real purpose?

The FBI has questioned Hillary’s aides, and soon Hillary will be meeting with them too. This investigation is not over, and every day we learn something new, but it will all come down the Department of Justice on whether to indict or not.

Do you think that the Democrat-filled Department of Justice will indict Hillary?

by -
justice department

Coinciding with the mass release of federal inmates, the Obama administration is spending $1.7 million on a “re-entry program” to ease the transition from prison and ordering public housing facilities not to reject tenants with criminal records.

The goal is to reduce barriers to public housing, employment and educational opportunities by promoting rehabilitation and reintegration for the formerly incarcerated, the feds explain in an announcement. A key component of the program is a joint venture between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to help public housing residents expunge or seal their criminal records. The administration considers these “Americans who’ve paid their debt to society” and need the government’s help to “rehabilitate and reintegrate back into their communities.”

A criminal record severely limits a person’s ability to seek higher education, find good employment, qualify for credit and secure affordable housing, the administration states in its announcement. This creates unnecessary barriers to economic opportunity and productivity for the convicts after they leave jail and President Obama is determined to ensure those returning from prison become “productive, law-abiding citizens.” His Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, says the DOJ is “committed to giving formerly incarcerated individuals the tools they need to become productive members of society.”

For starters, the cons must find a place to live after getting released from jail so the administration has issued updated rules for taxpayer-subsidized housing essentially prohibiting the exclusion of tenants who have been arrested or criminally convicted. “…arrest records may not be the basis for denying admission, terminating assistance or evicting tenants…,” the new rules say, adding that HUD does not require the adoption or enforcement of “one-strike rules that deny admission to anyone with a criminal record or that require automatic eviction any time a household member engages in criminal activity in violation of their lease.” The message from the administration to federally-assisted housing facilities appears to be to condone criminal behavior.

This is part of Obama’s broader effort to reform the nation’s criminal justice system as a way of ending racial discrimination. Back in 2010 the president signed a measure that for the first time in decades relaxed drug-crime sentences he claimed discriminated against poor and minority offenders. This severely weakened a decades-old law enacted during the infamous crack cocaine epidemic that ravaged urban communities nationwide in the 1980s. As part of the movement the U.S. Sentencing Commission lowered maximum sentences for drug offenders and made it retroactive.

This month the administration began releasing 6,000 drug convicts it claims are “non-violent” offenders whose sentences were too long under the old guidelines. News reports have already surfaced contradicting the administration’s assessment that the newly released convicts are not violent. Among them is the leader of a multi-million dollar operation that smuggled drugs from Canada to Maine. Prosecutors refer to the 29-year-old con as a “drug kingpin” who was one of “America’s Most Wanted.”

Shortly before the administration’s mass release of drug convicts, federal prosecutors warned that drug trafficking is inherently violent and therefore the phrase “non-violent drug offenders” is a misnomer. The nation’s prosecutors also cautioned that reducing prison sentences for drug offenders will weaken their ability to bring dangerous drug traffickers to justice.

by -
justice-department

Watchdogs assigned to root out fraud and corruption inside federal government agencies encounter so many barriers during their investigations that they’re calling on Congress to pass legislation that will guarantee the access they’re already supposed to have.

The cry comes on the heels of a new Justice Department restriction on information that its inspector general (IG) can access during agency probes. Remember that President Obama promised to run the most transparent administration in history yet the Department of Justice (DOJ), an extension of the executive office, is limiting what its watchdog can see during what’s supposed to be an independent investigation. This goes contrary to a 1978 law requiring that inspectors general act autonomously when they conduct probes of the federal agencies they’re assigned to keep in check.

This is hardly the case. In fact, Judicial Watch has reported for years about the obstacles that inspectors general have faced as they do their job to crack down on waste, fraud and corruption in government. There are 73 IGs and, although they report to Congress, each is appointed by the president. For years current and former employees at IG offices have alleged that the watchdogs work too closely with the leaders of the agencies they investigate and that many have succumbed to political pressure, in both Republican and Democrat administrations.

In fact, a few years ago a number of IGs came under fire and faced retaliation and scrutiny after exposing wrongdoing at the agencies they were charged with investigating. This led Congress to contemplate legislation to protect the watchdogs by, among other things, requiring the president to notify Congress 30 days before firing an inspector general to guard against terminations for political reasons. As is often the case in Washington, no action was taken to solve the matter so the problem persists.

Now IGs are calling on begging Congress to do its job and help. In a letter to lawmakers this month, the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, which represents the nation’s IGs, asks that legislation be passed to guarantee their independence when conducting probes at federal agencies. “Without timely and unfettered access to all necessary information, Inspectors General cannot ensure that all government programs and operations are subject to exacting and independent scrutiny,” the letter states. “Refusing, restricting, or delaying an Inspector General’s independent access may lead to incomplete, inaccurate, or significantly delayed findings and recommendations, which in turn may prevent the agency from promptly correcting serious problems and pursuing recoveries that benefit taxpayers, and deprive Congress of timely information regarding the agency’s activities. It also may impede or otherwise inhibit investigations and prosecutions related to agency programs and operations.”

The move comes after the DOJ’s legal counsel issued a ruling creating new limits on information that its watchdog can access during investigations of the agency, which has been embroiled in a number of scandals during the Obama administration. Under the new guidelines the DOJ’s IG can only obtain what may be considered “sensitive” information if DOJ officials in charge of the cases being probed give permission. In some instances permission could be granted but in others the information could be completely kept from the IG under the new rules, which were initially proposed by Obama’s first Attorney General, Eric Holder.

The Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency refers to the DOJ’s new policy in its letter to Congress, writing that it “sharply curtails the authority of the Inspector General for the Department of Justice (DOJ-IG) to independently access all records necessary to carry out its oversight responsibilities.” Furthermore, the IGs point out, it “represents a serious threat to the independent authority of not only the DOJ-IG but to all Inspectors General.” These watchdogs must have access, without delay, to all information and data in an agency’s possession that is deemed necessary to conduct oversight functions, the letter states.

by -
obama-saudi-king

The Obama-tied leftist group that helped a gunman commit an act of terrorism against a conservative organization has assembled a starter kit for Islamists to attack American women who refuse to comply with Sharia law, the authoritarian doctrine that inspires Islamists and their jihadism.

It’s the summer special from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an extremist nonprofit that lists conservative organizations that disagree with it on social issues on a catalogue of “hate groups.” A few years ago a gunman received a 25-year prison sentence for carrying out the politically-motivated shooting of the Family Research Council (FRC) headquarters after admitting that he learned about the FRC from the SPLC “hate map.” Prosecutors called it an act of terrorism and recommended a 45-year sentence.

Now the SPLC, which has conducted diversity training for the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ), is targeting female bloggers, activists and television personalities who refuse to comply with Sharia law which is rooted in the Quran. The European Court on Human rights has repeatedly ruled that Sharia is “incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy” yet politically-connected radical Muslim groups—such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)—keep pushing to implement it in the United States and the movement has gained steam.

Among those resisting this effort publicly are the high-profile women being targeted by the SPLC. Some of them are colleagues or friends of Judicial Watch and now they must fear for their safety simply for practicing their rights under the U.S. Constitution. The new hate list is titled Women Against Islam/The Dirty Dozen and includes illustrations and detailed information on all the women, who are branded “the core of the anti-Muslim radical right.” The new SPLC hate brochure further targets them by claiming that they’re “a dozen of the most hardline anti-Muslim women activists in America.”

Political activist and commentator Pamela Geller is branded the “country’s most flamboyant and visible Muslim-basher” for, among other things “smearing and demonizing Muslims.” Blogger Ann Barnhardt is identified as one of the “most extreme Muslim-bashers in the United States” and radio talk-show host Laura Ingram made the list for saying that hundreds of millions of Muslims were delighted that 12 people were massacred by Islamic terrorists in the Paris headquarters of a satirical magazine. Former CIA agent Clare Lopez, who runs a Washington D.C. think-tank focusing on national security issues, made the list for saying that the Muslim Brotherhood has “infiltrated and suborned the U.S. government to actively assist…the mission of its grand jihad.”

Others appearing on the anti-Sharia docket include television personality and former judge and prosecutor Jeanine Pirro, former chairwoman of the Texas Republican Party Cathie Adams, talk-show host Sandy Rios of the American Family Association, syndicated columnist Diana West, attorney and columnist Debbie Schlussel, blogger Cathy Hinners, ACT! for America founder Brigitte Gabriel and conservative writer and TV personality Ann Coulter. Among her biggest offenses, according to the SPLC, is proclaiming that “not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims—at least all terrorists capable of assembling a murderous plot against America.”

Incredibly, the SPLC is one of a number of leftist special interest groups that has colluded with the DOJ since Obama moved into the White House. A few years ago JW uncovered government records that show the DOJ Civil Rights and Tax divisions engaged in questionable behavior while negotiating for SPLC co-founder Morris Dees to appear as the featured speaker at a 2012 “Diversity Training Event.” JW pursued the records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to determine what influence the SPLC’s branding of hate groups has had on government agencies.

by -
sharpton-hunger-strike

As Loretta Lynch, President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Eric Holder as Attorney General, languishes in Senate confirmation limbo, her supporters led by “Rev.” Al Sharpton have launched a “hunger strike” of sorts that will continue until she is confirmed by the Senate.

While experts disagree about how much weight Sharpton needs to loose, the do agree that he could be waiting weeks for his next Big Mac if the “Hunger Strike” is real and Republicans follow through on their threat to hold up Lynch’s confirmation until certain confirmation preconditions are met.

These preconditions include issues related to Lynch’s confirmation testimony, abortion funding language in a sex trafficking bill and President Obama’s end run around the Senate’s right to “advise and consent” on the Iran nuclear deal before it can take effect.

These are big issues that could add months to Lynch’s five month wait to become the nation’s top cop.

So says Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) who warned Wednesday that the Senate could bypass a sex trafficking bill and postpone a vote on Lynch’s nomination to free up time to review the Iran nuclear deal reported out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a unanimous bipartisan vote on Tuesday. Cornyn told reporters that:

“Iran is a special case. So I’m not suggesting we hold up Iran for this”…“but I am suggesting we come back to it after Iran, particularly if [Democrats] want to release Eric Holder so they can let him make a lot of money in the private sector.”

The “Rev.” Al Sharpton is having none of it. In fact, he is so serious about standing on principal that he will abstain from food on “alternate days” until Lynch is confirmed to replace Eric Holder at the Justice Department.

Dubbed “Confirm Loretta Lynch Fast,” Sharpton’s stunt means to mirror the actions of true civil rights leaders that include Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi organizers said.

Sharpton said in a statement that:

“As long as the Senate refuses to take fifteen minutes to confirm someone for Attorney General that they have already confirmed twice for U.S. Attorney,” National Action Network and its allies “will do everything in our power to draw attention to this completely unfair and unnecessary delay to vote to confirm Loretta Lynch.”

National Action Network executive director Janaye Ingram, added:

“We stand with Loretta Lynch and are so in support of this cause that we are willing to sacrifice our daily meals to impress upon the U.S. Senate that it’s time to call a vote.”

Sharpton’s “every other day” hunger strike stunt is part of a wider campaign to “pressure” Republican leaders to send Lynch’s nomination to the floor for an up or down vote – a vote stuck in limbo since her confirmation was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in February.

There are other factors in play as well.

During her confirmation hearing, Lynch raised eyebrows when she said President Obama’s Executive Amnesty for illegal aliens was constitutionally sound… did not violate the separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches of government… and that she would support it at Attorney General.

Some Senators are also holding up a vote on Lynch because President Obama has said he will veto a bill to battle the scourge of sex trafficking if it excluded funding for abortion – language similar to the Hyde Amendment the prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars for abortion.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) repeated earlier this week that the Senate would not vote on Lynch until it resolves the abortion-funding dispute over the bill. McConnell said:

“Democrats couldn’t possibly justify voting for Hyde language in order to help doctors, as they did hours ago, but then look an abused victim in the eye and tell her she’s not worth it…” “All that’s needed now are a couple more Democrats willing to show the same level of compassion to enslaved victims they offered to doctors just a few hours ago (on an unrelated Medicare bill).”

TRENDING STORIES

We have not heard much from Hillary after she lost the most incredible election in modern history, but now she surfaces to reach a...