Posts Tagged ‘law’

Obama signals he’s ‘pulling a fast one’ on Americans for illegal aliens

by Jim Kouri on Saturday, September 13th, 2014

This is article 462 of 462 in the topic Immigration

Presidents Barack Obama and his minions, such as Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, are all but out-and-out telling American voters that they are preparing to “pull a fast one” on the nation by waiting until after election day to implement Obama’s immigration plan by fiat, according to a number of critics in law enforcement and immigration reform organizations. Obama’s White House chief of staff promised Latino congressmen in a closed meeting on Thursday that Obama will act on his own by the end 2014.

President Obama spent the week assuring immigration activists and illegal aliens that he still plans to fundamentally change the immigration system and go as far as he can under the law as he understands the law. “That means Obama is going to do what he pleases, U.S. Constitution be damned,” warns former police officer and public safety director Jan Kirby.

“This administration treats the Constitution as if it were a license to do whatever they feel is good for the country even if a majority of Americans oppose their actions to give upwards of 11 million lawbreakers a very Merry Christmas this year,” said Kirby.

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough allegedly told members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus that they shouldn’t blame Obama since the request to “hold off” on his immigration plan by fiat is a result of squawking by Senate Democrats who may lose their seat if they go along with Obama’s illegal alien giveaway.

After the meeting with Latino lawmakers, McDonough briefed reporters saying, “It was good to catch up with the caucus and underscore to them our continuing commitment to resolve the challenges with our broken immigration system and underscore to them that the president will act on this before the end of the year.”

Law enforcement and immigration reform officials see this as the Democrats telegraphing that once they are safely ensconced in office, they will push for amnesty for their future voting block, according to several police officials such as Iris Aquino, a Hispanic police officer. “We spend billions of dollars on border security and immigration enforcement and for what? Border security is an illusion and immigration enforcement is a game of Russian Roulette without the bullet,” she quipped.

After the meeting, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Illinois, visibly angry, said, “No more excuses. I don’t care what senator is dangling in the wind, I don’t care what Republican proposal is being put forward, I don’t care what happens, we are moving forward. The holiday season must be a season of blessings for millions of undocumented families across America.”

Gutierrez is the congressman who called Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents the “Gestapo,” and regularly denigrates Border Patrol agents, according to a 2011 Examiner news story. “He is more interested in the welfare of lawbreaking illegal aliens than the American citizens who are losing their childrens’ inheritance,” said Jan Kirby. “The fact is Obama and the left-wing of his party want to pull a fast one on voters.

Click to continue reading “Obama signals he’s ‘pulling a fast one’ on Americans for illegal aliens”
Go straight to Post

Homegrown female jihadist pleads guilty to ISIS conspiracy

by Jim Kouri on Thursday, September 11th, 2014

This is article 791 of 790 in the topic Terrorism

A Colorado teenager on Wednesday evening — just hours before President Barack Obama’s speech on fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) — pleaded guilty to one count of providing material support to ISIS, according to Justice Department officials. Shannon Conley, a 19-year-old woman residing in Arvada, Colorado, pleaded guilty to just one count in the terrorism conspiracy with the understanding that she will lead federal law enforcement and intelligence officers to other homegrown radicalized Muslims.

According to the Justice Department, her primary goal was to assist ISIS terrorists in Syria. Law enforcement officers arrested Conley in April when she attempted to board an airliner at Denver International Airport on her way to Syria. She was charged by the FBI agents with attempting to aid a terrorist organization on both the State Department and Treasury Department terrorist organization lists.

On the condition that she will help U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agents she is only facing about five years in federal prison and pay a $250,000 fine.

Conley’s arrest and prosecution legitimizes the fears many Americans share regarding ISIS attacks on the homeland. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies claim they don’t have the exact number of Americans fighting alongside ISIS jihadists, but the United Nations says the number of foreign fighters from Western nations numbers about 12,000.

As part of the terrorism conspiracy, Conley signed-up as a U.S. Army Explorer to gain knowledge of military tactics and firearms prowess. She also confessed to obtaining nursing certification and National Rifle Association (NRA) certification.

Conley told agents from the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force that if she couldn’t fight with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS, also known as ISIL,) she hoped to use her nurse’s aide training to help “patch up” wounded terrorists, according to court documents. Conley told her interrogators that she had wanted to marry a Muslim man she met on the Internet, who she claims is a Tunisian national who fought for ISIS, a group that the U.S. is currently attacking. Law enforcement officers said they are “still investigating the suitor, identified in court documents only as Y.M.”

Go straight to Post

Divided We Stand

by Daniel Greenfield on Wednesday, September 10th, 2014

This is article 140 of 140 in the topic History

Time brings distance to all events. No pain is as fresh twenty years later as on the day it happened. The shock of the impossible becomes the new normal and then it becomes more background noise.

“A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic,” Joseph Stalin said. The statisticians in Doha, Tehran and Riyadh know it quite well when they count up their numbers. Compound death is more than a statistic; it is incomprehensible.

The banal media coverage of September 11 grapples with a story too big to tell that can only be broken down into human fragments of personal stories.

This is true for most of the dark footprints of history. There is no story of the Holocaust, there are only countless personal stories of survivors and the procedural story of the Nazi killing machine. These perspectives never come together into a single story only human fragments and procedural details, the departments and mechanisms, how many milligrams of Zyklon B it takes per kilogram to kill a person and how many people can be loaded on a train in how much time.

The coverage of 9/11 breaks down into these same mini-stories, survivors describing how they escaped, the families of the dead relating how they reacted to the news, the stories of firefighters and officers, and the procedural questions, how long it takes a falling body to achieve terminal velocity and what happens to the human body when it breathes in enough ash and soot. On the other side are the killers who plotted and planned, checked flight schedules, got their boxcutters and their korans and killed thousands for Allah.

The story of the attacks cannot be told because there is no boundary to it. Where do we begin, with a handful of upper class Muslims in Hamburg? With a scion of the Bin Laden clan becoming a Ghazi or with Hassan Al-Banna finding inspiration in Third Reich propaganda to modernize Islamism? With the Gates of Vienna, the Shores of Tripoli or Mohammed in Mecca? All but the last are incomplete, and even the last leaves too much out.

When a murder happens we trace back the motives of the killer. Was he abused as a child, did the authorities fail to act in time, what made a once sweet boy turn into a killer? To do the same for September 11 is to travel back over a thousand years and still come away with few answers except that sometimes human evil can be congealed into an ideology and passed along from generation to generation like a virus of hatred and cruelty.

“Where were you when the planes hit,” attempts to orient us in time. But the question is only an attempt to make the impossible seem real. The businessman covered in ash and stumbling over the Brooklyn Bridge and the Seattle housewife waking up to see news coverage of it on television are more human fragments of a thing that is more than human. War.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Probe of inspectors general complaints against Obama Justice Dept. to begin

by Jim Kouri on Wednesday, September 10th, 2014

This is article 456 of 457 in the topic Government Corruption

On Tuesday, the House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee will hold a special hearing titled, “Access to Justice?: Does DOJ’s Office of Inspector General have Access to Information Needed to Conduct Proper Oversight?” to investigate allegations that the Obama Administration has been stonewalling the investigations conducted by its own Inspector General at the Department of Justice, according to lawmakers.

According to a number of news reports including one by the Examiner, 47 of the 73 federal Inspectors General wrote a letter to congressional leaders complaining about the Obama administration’s limitations placed on getting access to records that in turn interferes with oversight by the Inspectors General at federal agencies, including the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice.

While federal law makes it clear that an Inspector General should receive timely and “unfettered access to all records that relate to its official activities,” in their letter of complaint they claimed that “the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General had essential records withheld by agency components in three different reviews” and that the Department of Justice leadership only produced the requested documents after it decided that “the three reviews were of assistance to the Department of Justice’s leadership.”

A key witness who will testify at the hearing is the Inspector General for the Department of Justice, Michael Horowitz, who is expected to focus attention on a problem that has plagued the United States and its people almost from the start of the supposedly “most transparent White House in history.”

During an interview on Fox News, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, called the letter unprecedented. “I’ve never seen a letter like this, and my folks have checked — there has never been a letter even with a dozen IGs complaining. This is the majority of all inspectors general saying not just in the examples they gave, but government wide, they see a pattern that is making them unable to do their job.” Issa chairs the House Oversight Committee which has been at the forefront of numerous probes of Obama-related scandals.

“It’s deeply troubling that Department of Justice leadership has stonewalled the Inspector General’s investigations several times and only produced requested documents after officials concluded that it would help them. The Inspector General’s activities should not be dependent upon the whims of a particular administration. Efforts to restrict or delay an Inspector General’s access to key materials in turn deprive the American people and their elected representatives of timely oversight information with which to evaluate an agency’s performance,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Virginia.

“Limiting access, except in very narrow instances, is at odds with the necessary independence of Inspectors General and is contrary to Congressional intent. Efforts to reduce transparency, such as those described by the Inspectors General, will leave agencies vulnerable to mismanagement and misconduct, and will not be tolerated,” Goodlatte noted.

Several observers, especially those working in law enforcement, find the stonewalling and lack of cooperation criminal. “There are people in prison who have done the same things this President and his minions do on almost a daily basis. It’s called obstruction of justice,” stated former police detective, now a corporate security director, Matthew Hyland, Jr.

Go straight to Post

The Media at War With the Obama Administration?

by Roger Aronoff on Friday, August 29th, 2014

This is article 568 of 570 in the topic Media

While the media are usually doing the bidding of President Obama and the Democrats, and are deep in the President’s pocket, there are cases in which they are very unhappy with his actions. New York Times reporter James Risen has become famous not only for his ongoing Espionage Act case, but also for his willingness to call President Obama the “greatest enemy to press freedom in a generation.”

In the case of Fox News reporter James Rosen, the government “monitored Rosen’s movements in and out of the State Department,” according to CBS News. They also “searched his personal emails and combed through his cell phone records.” Risen received similar treatment: his computer was subjected to forensic analysis and his phone calls were investigated.

Yet President Barack Obama’s press secretary recently had the temerity to joke to another Fox News White House correspondent that “We are always watching.” Rosen was labeled a “criminal co-conspirator” alongside Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, who recently went to jail for his crime. Clearly, the Obama administration has either not learned from its mistakes—or doesn’t care.

As I mentioned in an earlier article about Obama’s ongoing war on journalists, Risen appealed to the Supreme Court to carve out special immunity for reporters in the courts. But his bid to be heard by the Supreme Court failed, leaving him no more legal options.

Now, he has “exhausted all his legal options against the Justice Department’s pursuit of him under the controversial Espionage Act,” reports The Guardian this month. If pursued, Risen could end up in jail for his act of “journalistic defiance” as early as this fall, reports the Guardian.

Journalists are rallying to Risen’s side as he becomes a media darling for his defiance in the face of Obama administration pressure. Fourteen Pulitzer Prize winners have issued statements in support of him, 100,000 petitioners have voiced their concerns about his case to the Department of Justice, and The Washington Post editorial board has come to his defense.

But one of the disturbing developments of the Risen case is the push for a media shield law to create special protections for journalists. “The Risen case, [Gregg] Leslie [of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press] said, provides a clear picture for why a federal shield law is needed to complement similar laws in 49 states,” reported Business Insider on August 27. “The Supreme Court’s dismissal of his petition, Leslie said, is more evidence of what he called a ‘disturbing’ trend—federal courts have been less and less willing to side with reporters’ arguments.”

This is not the first time the media have called for a shield law. Back in 2008 Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid called the proposed law what it really is: not the Free Flow of Information Act, but the “Special Rights for Journalists Act.” “The bill puts in the hands of federal politicians and judges the ability to define a ‘legitimate’ journalist or blogger who is deserving of federal protection,” wrote Kincaid in 2008. “As such, it restricts First Amendment rights to a certain group of people currently in favor with federal authorities.”

The legislation could create an unhealthy relationship between the media and the federal government.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Update on state waiting periods. Judicial decision in California provides a useful summary of waiting period laws.

by John Lott on Monday, August 25th, 2014

This is article 558 of 562 in the topic Gun Rights
The court’s decision in SILVESTER v. Harris has

ten states and the District of Columbia impose a waiting period between the time of purchase and the time of delivery of a firearm.  Three states and the District of Columbia have waiting period laws for the purchase of all firearms: California (10 days), District of Columbia (10 days), Illinois (3 days for pistols, 1 day for long guns), and Rhode Island (7 days).  Four states have waiting periods for hand guns:  Florida (3 days), Hawaii (14 days), Washington (up to 5 days from the time of purchase for the sheriff to complete a background check), and Wisconsin (2 days). Connecticut has a waiting period for long guns that is tied to an authorization to purchase from the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. Minnesota and Maryland have a waiting period for the purchase of handguns and assault rifles (7 days). There is no federal waiting period law.  See18 U.S.C. § 922(s) (Brady Act‟s 5-day waiting period expired in 1998).

For California, the history of waiting periods is given as such:

In 1923, the California Legislature created awaiting period for handguns,whereby no handgun, pistol, or other concealable firearm could be delivered to its purchaser on the day of purchase. . . .

In 1953, the 1923 handgun waiting-period law was codified into the California Penal Code with no substantive changes. . . .   One California court has cited legislative hearing testimony from 1964 in which witnesses testified that this 1953 law was “originally enacted to cool people off,” but that this law was “not enforced with regard to individual transfers through magazine sales nor at swap meets.”  . . . .

In 1955, the California Legislature extended the handgun waiting period from 1 day to 3 days. . . . No legislative history has been cited that addresses why the waiting period was extended from 1 to 3 days.

In 1965, the California Legislature extended the handgun waiting period from 3 days to 5 days.  . . . The legislative history indicates that the Legislature extended the waiting period from 3 days to 5 days in 1965 because the 3-day waiting period did not provide Cal. DOJ sufficient time to conduct proper background checks on prospective concealable firearms purchasers, before delivery of the firearms to the purchasers.   . . .

Additionally, a report from the 1975-1976 session of the Senate Judiciary Committee indicates that the “purpose of the 5-day provision is to permit the law enforcement authorities to investigate the purchaser’s record, before he actually acquires the firearm, to determine whether he falls within the class of persons prohibited from possessing concealed firearms.”  . . .  No legislative history relating to the 1965 law has been cited that relates to a “cooling off” period.

In 1975, the California Legislature extended the handgun waiting period from 5 days to 15 days. . . .  The legislative history indicates that the California Legislature extended the waiting period from 5 days to 15 days in order to “[g]ive law enforcement authorities sufficient time to investigate the records of purchasers of handguns prior to delivery of the handguns.”

In 1991, the California Legislature expanded the waiting period to cover all firearms. . .

Click to continue reading “Update on state waiting periods. Judicial decision in California provides a useful summary of waiting period laws.”
Go straight to Post

OBAMA: AMNESTY FOR UNDOCUMENTED SHOPPERS?

by Stephen Levine on Monday, August 25th, 2014

This is article 334 of 336 in the topic Criminal Activity

bo

Will President Obama grant amnesty to undocumented shoppers?

looters

“Undocumented Shopper Compelled by Racial Outrage to Loot Beauty Store”

FIX

Radical progressive socialist democrats in the progressive media forgive looting …

WTOP – “My Take with Clinton Yates” — August 21, 2014

CLINTON YATES: I’ve gotten a lot of emails recently regarding my thoughts about the situation in Ferguson, Missouri, many from former or current law enforcement officials, arguing one of two things: either they believe that the social contract that they think grants them near absolute power is something that everybody should buy into, or they can’t understand why anyone would loot in the wake of a controversial death.

On the first point, of course being a police officer is a difficult and risky job. But there’s an argument that if you believe that resorting to trigger-happy overzealousness is the lone way to guarantee your own safety then maybe law enforcement is not what you should be doing. The goal is to help people, and they will then respect the marginal level of authority you’re given over their lives. If they live in fear, that’s what we call a police state.

As for looting, material goods, by definition, are typically replaceable. Of course, the violence associated with the act of vandalism and then theft is not desirable, but think of it this way: In this case, saying that looting is never acceptable is implicitly saying that personal property is worth more than life itself. I’m Clinton Yates and that’s my take.

Of course, progressive socialists democrats often believe that there is no such thing as private property – and everything is owned by the state and subject to distribution on the basis of the Marxist dictum: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Governed by enlightened individuals for the collective good of the people.

Bottom line …

In the Orwellian world of the progressive socialist democrat, good is evil, evil is good, right is wrong, and wrong is right – when a White breaks a window and steals, it’s felony burglary; when a Black breaks a window and steals, it’s an expression of racial outrage.

The truth is simple to see …

OBAMA-N1

— steve

Go straight to Post

Bergdahl swap: Federal agency says Obama administration are lawbreakers

by Jim Kouri on Sunday, August 24th, 2014

This is article 1001 of 1004 in the topic Obama

The Obama administration violated U.S. law when it secretly exchanged five Guantanamo Bay imprisoned terrorists for a U.S. Army soldier — who was captured by the Taliban after allegedly deserting his post — and the violation is punishable by jail time, suspension and removal from office, according to a report from an Inside the Beltway watchdog group on Friday.

Judicial Watch obtained a copy of a government investigation summary that reveals the U.S. Department of Defense violated section 8111 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2014 when its officials traded five terrorists being detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the release of a U.S. prisoner of war being held by members of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

According to a Examiner news report on the prisoner swap, the five terrorists were turned over to the nation of Qatar — a nation considered by counterterrorism experts to be highly suspect — without giving notice to members of certain congressional oversight committees. What Section 8111 prohibits is the Defense Department “using appropriated funds to transfer any individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay unless the Secretary of Defense notifies certain congressional committees at least 30 days before the transfer.” Because officials at the DOD used its appropriations to break the law, in addition to violating a provision of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2014, officials also violated the Anti-Deficiency Act.

The investigative arm of the House of Representatives , Government Accountability Office (GAO), accused President Obama, acting in his capacity as Commander in Chief, of breaking a “clear and unambiguous” law when he authorized the swapping of five high-level terrorists for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who is accused of deserting his guard post and going AWOL in Afghanistan in 2009.

According to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the GAO described a violation that is a serious breach of federal law which may have severe consequences for the perpetrator or perpetrators. Penalties may include fines, imprisonment, administrative discipline, suspension from duty without pay or removal from office, the rules specifically state.

“Congress must be notified before acts of this magnitude are committed and the president completely disregarded the legislative branch. In fact the Department of Defense (DOD) failed to notify Congress at least 30 days in advance of the exchange, a flagrant violation of the law, and misused nearly $1 million of a wartime account to make the transfer,” the GAO report says.

“They held positions of great importance within the hard-core anti-American Taliban, including the Chief of Staff of the Taliban Army and the Taliban Deputy Minister of Intelligence. They have American blood on their hands and surely as night follows day they will return to the fight. In effect, we released the ‘Taliban Dream Team.’ The United States is less safe because of these actions,” according to Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Judicial Watch officials stated:.

“In a nutshell, Obama and his appointees flipped the finger at Congress, the American public and the rule of law. We’ve seen this many times during this president’s two terms and will likely see it over and over again before he moves out of the White House.

Click to continue reading “Bergdahl swap: Federal agency says Obama administration are lawbreakers”
Go straight to Post

Georgia dad files lawsuit to allow him to carry gun when visiting his daughter’s school

by John Lott on Saturday, August 23rd, 2014

This is article 557 of 562 in the topic Gun Rights
Georgia’s current law about schools and gun-free zones seems pretty clear, but there was sufficient ambiguity that a court decision is necessary to clear things up.  Well, it looks like that such a legal challenge might be at hand.  From Fox News:

A Georgia father has filed a lawsuit after he says the principal at his daughter’s elementary school told him he was not allowed to bring his gun on school grounds.

MyFoxAtlanta.com reported Friday that the lawsuit claims that the principal told Hugh Myers that he could not bring his gun onto the campus of Beulah Elementary School other than when he is dropping off or picking up his daughter. The principal allegedly threatened to have him arrested if he did so.

Myers’ attorney John Monroe is arguing that Myers is allowed to bring his gun under a new Georgia law that took effect last month, according to MyFoxAtlanta.com. . . .

Go straight to Post

Police Shoot First And Cover Up The Questions Later

by Bob Livingston on Friday, August 22nd, 2014

This is article 50 of 50 in the topic Police/Fire
Police Shoot First And Cover Up The Questions Later

SCREENSHOT
A police officer shot and killed Dillon Taylor outside this 7-Eleven in Salt Lake City on Aug. 11.

On Aug. 11, Dillon Taylor, a 20-year-old white man, exited a Salt Lake City 7-Eleven with two friends. The three were confronted by a black police officer barking orders. Taylor was almost immediately shot dead.

According to the Salt Lake Police Department, the officer was responding to a report of a man waving a gun in the area of the store and Taylor matched the description of the reported suspect. Taylor’s friends say he (Taylor) was wearing headphones and likely didn’t hear the officer’s commands. Police say the officer thought Taylor was reaching for a gun. Taylor’s friends say he was likely either hitching up his pants or reaching for his phone. Regardless, Taylor — and his friends — were all unarmed, or at least that’s what his friends say. The SLPD won’t say one way or the other.

Two days before Taylor was murdered by a police officer, 18-year-old Michael Brown, a young black man, was shot down by a white police officer. He, too, was unarmed.

Brown’s shooting resulted in protests and riots and recognition — by some people (finally) — that American has morphed into a police state. This is something I have been telling you for some time, and it’s why we created our Power of the State section.

But most so-called “law and order” conservatives still fail to get it. After the Ferguson Police Department released a video that purported to show Brown committing a strong-armed robbery just prior to his police encounter, many of the so-called “law and order” conservatives immediately determined (if they had not already done so on the basis that Brown was a large black man) that he was simply a thug and “got what he deserved.” This very comment was made many times in our articles on the subject and on our Personal Liberty Facebook page. In fact, no single subject causes us to lose as many subscribers and Facebook followers as our “liberal” articles on the police abuses.

Although the SLPD won’t say whether Taylor was armed and won’t release video from the officer’s camera, it did manage to leak this tidbit to the media: Taylor had a $25,000 bench warrant for a probation violation in connection with a felony robber and obstruction of justice conviction.

Note the commonality in the aftermath of both the Taylor and Brown shooting. Police leaked information that called into the question the character of the victims after they had been shot. This is a common propaganda ploy employed by the LEOs (legally entitled to oppress) in order to provide justification for their latest shooting. Lost is the fact that neither Taylor’s shooter nor Brown’s shooter knew anything about the prior “criminal” history of their targets, so this history played no role in the shooting.

There are about 500 people killed by police in America each year. Granted, some of the killings are justified.

Click to continue reading “Police Shoot First And Cover Up The Questions Later”
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin