With The Loss Of Our Wisest Supreme Court Justice, I Now Share Some Of His Wisdom With You All


The following is an article I wrote in February of 2005 about a debate on foreign law influences upon the American legal system between originalist Justice Antonin Scalia and activist Justice Stephen Breyer. I hope you find it illuminating.

.

.
WHO WILL SPEAK FOR YOU?
By Edward L. Daley

A few weeks ago I was watching a program on C-Span pertaining to the impact of foreign court opinions upon the U.S. justice system. The primary participants in the discussion were Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer, and the event took place at the American University Law School in Washington D.C.
rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/sc/sc011305_scalia.rm

The debate revolved around questions asked by a moderator named Professor Norman Dorsen, and the first multi-part question asked was, “When we talk about the use of foreign court decisions in U.S. Constitutional cases, what body of foreign law are we talking about? Are we limiting this to foreign constitutional law? What about cases involving international law, such as the interpretation of treaties, including treaties to which the U.S. is a party? When we talk about the use of foreign court decisions in U.S. law, do we mean them to be authority, or persuasive, or rhetorical? If, for example, foreign court decisions are not understood to be precedent in U.S. Constitutional cases, are they nevertheless able to strengthen the sense that U.S. law assures a common moral and legal framework with the rest of the world? If this is so, is that in order to strengthen the legitimacy of a decision within the U.S., or to strengthen a decision’s legitimacy in the rest of the world?

Some question, huh? I don’t think I’d be comfortable trying to answer it all in one fell swoop, and apparently neither did the two justices. Justice Scalia began his reply by stating that most of the parts of it should be posed to Justice Breyer, simply because Scalia does not use foreign law in the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

He stated that he will use it when interpreting a treaty, because treaties are based upon a mutual understanding of the law by the signatories thereof. That seemed like a no-brainer to me, and the point was not argued by Breyer.

Scalia went on to say that, aside from that, he refuses to use foreign decisions in Constitutional law. He argued that some justices refer to foreign law because they want to feel assured that we have the same “moral and legal framework as the rest of the world.” He then pointed out, quite matter-of-factly, that we don’t have the same moral and legal framework, and we never have.

He continued by referring to the Federalist Papers, saying that they are full of statements which make it clear that our founding fathers had little respect for the laws of European countries in that day and age, citing a passage by James Madison to that effect. He then asked the rhetorical question, should we be willing to change our laws based upon the fact that many of them are not in step with the vast majority of foreign law decisions, mentioning the issues of abortion on demand, and the exclusionary rule relative to ‘Miranda’ as examples.
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist
http://www.robertslaw.org/4thamend.htm

He went on to ask the question, why haven’t we changed these laws if the court feels we should use foreign law… or do we just use foreign law selectively, whenever it agrees with what an individual justice would like a particular case to say? He then asked what the criterion is for citing foreign law, if doing so is not meant to be authoritative.

Justice Breyer responded by saying, among other things, that law emerges from conversations among law practitioners, law students, and academics. He recounted an event at which he was first confronted with the question of whether or not foreign law decisions should be considered by U.S. courts. He described a past seminar he’d attended with various judges and law makers wherein a Congressman had remarked that he thought it was a terrible idea to use foreign law in U.S. court decisions.

Breyer reflected that he’d told the Congressman “Of course foreign law doesn’t bind us in Constitutional law. Of course not.” But, he added, these [foreign justices] are human beings who often have problems which are similar to our own.

He mentioned that the societies about which these foreign decisions are concerned, are becoming more and more democratic, and that in a case which is similar to one he might face as a Supreme Court Justice, “why don’t I read what he says, if it’s similar enough?” Apparently the Congressman he was speaking to at the time said fine, go ahead and read it, just don’t cite it in your legal opinion.

Breyer’s response to this remark had been that since foreign courts cite our Supreme Court’s findings in their decisions, he didn’t see anything wrong with citing theirs in his. He added that by doing so, we might actually lend credibility to their laws, or as he put it, “give them a leg up.” The Congressman’s response was that Justice Breyer should simply write them a letter of approval instead, if he felt that way.

At that point, Breyer seemed to stall, relating that the Congressman had “made a point,” and then failing to explain why he felt that position wasn’t essentially correct. He went on to refer to Justice Scalia’s implication that we do not understand enough about any particular foreign decision to cite it responsibly, asking, “how do we know we cite both sides” of an argument in foreign law cases? “How do we know we look for everything?” His answer to both of those questions was that such problems arise in every sort of citation. “A judge can do what he’s supposed to do, or not,” he continued, “and we hope they do what they’re supposed to do.

This is where he lost me, and, apparently, where he lost Justice Scalia as well. After all, the fact that American justices face decisions without looking at every possible viewpoint available in the written law, has nothing to do with the fact that foreign law systems are often completely alien to our own. It’s not a question of whether or not we are able to see every bit of available information, but rather that the systems by which other countries arrive at legal decisions are usually not very similar to ours. Also, as Scalia pointed out, other legal systems may only have adopted part of a law that has originated in the U.S. (e.g. Miranda), and ignored other parts (e.g. the exclusionary rule) that are just as important to the fundamental principle underlying that law.

I found it interesting that Justice Breyer first announced that foreign law is “of course” not binding in Constitutional law, yet followed up that point by giving reasons, ostensibly, why it should be.

Justice Scalia seemed just as confused as I was by certain points that Breyer had made, beginning his retort by declaring, “I don’t know what it means to express confidence that judges will do what they ought to do, after having read the foreign law. My problem is that I don’t know what they ought to do. What is it that they ought to do? You have to ask yourselves, why is it that foreign law would be relevant to what an American judge does when he interprets – INTERPRETS – not writes [the law]… it [foreign law] is very useful in devising a Constitution, but why is it useful in interpreting one?

Scalia then explained his basic theory as it relates to the interpretation of the Constitution, saying that he tries to understand what it means, and what society understood it to mean when it was adopted, adding that his philosophy used to be orthodoxy prior to the 1940s. He stated that foreign law is irrelevant to anyone who embraces that philosophy, with the exception of old English law, because of the fact that many of our legal definitions were taken from that to begin with.

He went on to relate two other approaches to interpreting the Constitution. The first, he explained, was the notion that the Constitution doesn’t mean what it meant when it was first ratified, but that it changes from era to era to conform to, as Scalia then quoted, “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” – Troy v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101

At that point he mentioned that he detests that phrase, arguing that societies don’t necessarily mature, and that “sometimes they rot.” However, he opined, even if you buy into that theory, you are still primarily concerned with the standards of decency of Americans, not foreigners, and that the only way a person would ever be willing to accept the standards of other countries as being applicable to our standards, is if that individual espoused a third way of interpreting the Constitution.

That third philosophical approach, Scalia continued, says “I am not looking for the evolving standards of decency of American society, I’m looking for what is the best answer in my mind, as an intelligent judge. And for that purpose, I look to other intelligent people, and I talk sometimes about conversations with judges, and lawyers, and law students. Do you [the law students in the audience] think you’re representative of American society? Do you not realize you are a small, cream at the top, and that your views on innumerable things are not the views of America at large? And doesn’t it seem somewhat arrogant of you to say I can make up what the moral values of America should be on all sorts of issues?

The whole time he was saying this, Breyer looked as if he’d just swallowed a prune pit, since he clearly understood (as did I, and probably everyone else watching) that Scalia had just implied he was arrogant. Once Justice Scalia had concluded by saying that he did not wish to undertake the responsibility of deciding what is moral and what isn’t for all of society, Justice Breyer commented, “I think that’s pretty good.

It’s really because I think, and I think many judges think, that your own moral views are not the answer, that people look other places for trying to find out – how to find answers,” he added. Yet once again his statement didn’t have any bearing upon the issue raised. The question isn’t whether one should look for answers as to what may be the morally right thing to do, but rather, where it is they’re looking!

Breyer pointed out that there is “nothing in ‘Blackstone,’ ‘Bracton’ or even ‘King Arthur,’ that says that cruel and unusual punishment – to determine that – you cannot look, except to England, or except to the United States… So, there’s nothing barring me.” This statement is a dead giveaway that Breyer believes it is reasonable to define morality in America based upon what other countries think, or upon what members of the legal profession think. Does it really need to be written that American moral issues should be decided by the American citizenry? Isn’t that just plain common sense?
http://www.agh-attorneys.com/4_william_blackstone.htm
http://culaw2.creighton.edu/rarebooks/display1/bracton’s.htm
http://www.gongfa.com/common%20lawbuliedianbaike.htm

Apparently Justice Breyer doesn’t think so. Even though he goes to the trouble of saying once again that he doesn’t look to himself to determine the answers to moral questions within the law, the undercurrent running throughout his remarks is that he’s willing to let someone other than the American people make the call.

But I’m thinking, Well, on this kind of an issue you’re asking a human question, and the Americans are human – and so is everybody else,” Breyer states, “and I don’t know, it doesn’t determine it, but it’s an effort to reach out beyond myself to see how other people have done… So I’d have to say I’d rather have the uncertainties and I’d rather have the judge understanding that he’s looking but it’s not controlling. And I’d rather have him use it with care, hoping that the judges won’t lack the control to do so. Then I would like to have an absolute rule that says legally never. And the fact that I cannot find such an absolute rule – legally never – even in King Arthur – gives me some cause for hope.

Hope? Hope of what?

Justice Scalia carried on the conversation by repeating the points he’d made before, discussing in greater detail certain cases in support of his argument, and stating that “One of the difficulties of using foreign law is that you don’t understand what the surrounding jurisprudence is, so that you can say, you know, Russia follows Miranda, but you don’t know that Russia doesn’t have an exclusionary rule.

He said that it was unfair to compare American death penalty cases, and the issue of whether it is cruel and inhuman for someone to wait a dozen years before being executed, to similar foreign cases. His basic point was that foreign and American cases were not comparable because of the enormous differences in the way each system deals with the death penalty to begin with. The question of what might be considered cruel and unusual in one country would not apply to another for that reason, and, therefore, would be rendered irrelevant.

This argument seemed to be completely lost on Breyer, as was evidenced by the fact that he responded with the following statement: “Well, it’s relevant in the sense that you have a person who’s a judge, who has similar training, who’s trying to, let’s say, apply a similar document, something like cruel and unusual or – there are different words, but they come to roughly the same thing – who has a society that’s somewhat structured like ours.

At that point Justice Scalia wisely decided to ask the moderator for a new question, and the professor’s response was to say that, “Although you have suggested your view about this, I’m still unclear about what the harm or risk is of considering foreign sources that may bear on problems that are common to both countries. For example, you mentioned the – both of you have mentioned the death penalty. Why shouldn’t U.S. constitutional decisions take account of shifting world standards on such things as the death penalty, on the execution of juveniles, on the execution of the mentally ill? Are we that far from the rest of the world in terms of the way life is lived?

The first thing I thought after hearing this was WHAT AN IDIOT! However, even though I suspect that Scalia was thinking the same thing, he showed enough restraint to continue the conversation without becoming insulting to his host, and eventually related that in his dissenting opinion regarding a homosexual sodomy case, he’d pointed out that the court had cited only European law. “Of course,” remarked Scalia, “they [the Europeans] said it not by some democratic ballot, but by decree of the European Court of Human Rights, who was, you know, using the same theory that we lawyers and judges and law students – we know what’s moral and what isn’t.

Breyer attempted to water down the argument, by infusing some mundane legal point into the mix, but the issue’s course was quickly corrected by Scalia when he related that, “it [the matter of selectively citing foreign decisions] lends itself to manipulation. It lends itself – It invites manipulation.” His subsequent remarks on that score were nothing short of eloquent, and were masterfully reproachful of Justice Breyer’s opinion without actually being too insulting to the man personally.

Justice Breyer was quick to change the subject, saying, “Can I go into a different topic? Because I – it’s slightly – it’s still international application. But I’m curious what my colleague thinks of this because I actually do believe, which I’ve said several times, that this is really a very dramatic issue and so forth, but it isn’t really the important issue to me.

Of course it wasn’t the important issue to him at that point in the conversation. He’d just had his head handed to him, figuratively speaking, and was obviously perplexed as to how he could continue to address Scalia’s line of reasoning without either agreeing with him, or looking like a jackass.

Be that as it may, he then went on to talk about a few cases which were, as he put it, “much less glamorous,” rounding out his comments by asserting, “this world we live in is a world where I think it’s out of date for people to teach about foreign law in a course called ‘foreign law.’ I think it’s in date to teach in contract law or in tort law, because those are the cases we’re getting.

I must admit that in certain cases relative to contract law, where companies deal with one another internationally, there are foreign law principles which may well permeate the meat of the matter. But the supposition that the more important and far-reaching moral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, pertaining to American societal norms and conventions, should necessarily be dependent upon the whims of foreign law decision-makers, merely because such is the case in the aforementioned respects, is ridiculous on its face. But then, that’s just my opinion.

Later on, Mr. Dorsen queried, “The question I have in my own mind is whether this question is a naive question. And that is, rather than looking at foreign courts to say Greece decided our way, the United Kingdom decided our way, X country decided a different way, another country has a different view, rather than thinking about these courts and cases in terms of the results to think about them in terms of the persuasiveness of the opinions, just as a New York court might look at a Montana decision and be influenced not by the result of the Montana court or the Wyoming court or the Illinois court but by the cogency of the arguments, by the depth of the reasoning, by the logic.

To which Justice Scalia responded, “Well, you’re begging the question. I mean, your question assumes that it is up to the judge to find THE correct answer. And I deny that. I think it is up to the judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you think it should be amended. If that’s what it says, that’s what it says.

Ask yourself why Antonin Scalia would say such a thing. If you understand the role of a judge in the American system of government, the answer should be obvious. It’s not his job to write the law, only to interpret it. Writing law is the job of the legislative and executive branches. Even if he disagrees with the law he’s considering, he has no lawful authority to change it, nor should it be his desire to do so. You see, Judge Scalia understands the fundamental principle behind the words “separation of powers,” and he actually practices what he preaches.

Furthermore, he proves his allegiance to the Constitution, and to the American people when he contends, “And on these Constitutional questions, you’re not going to come up with a right or wrong answer; most of them involve moral sentiments. You can have arguments on one side and on the other, but what you have to ask yourself is what does American society think?” Although the discussion continued for nearly another half hour, nothing was said by anyone present which was more profound than that, so I won’t bother reiterating further.

Suffice it to say that if I were a Supreme Court Justice, I’d ask myself the following questions:

Do judges in the U.S., at any level of jurisprudence, consider the Constitution to be satisfactory or not?

If not, what other nation has exhibited the capacity to improve upon it, or even to approach its standards of excellence in such a way as to be worthy of my consideration of its views?

Should justices of the highest court in the land be allowed to speak for the attitudes of the American people, while simultaneously ignoring them, respectful only of the opinions of elitists from other countries, and/or the American legal intelligencia?

In short, do we really want these people making moral judgments for the rest of us?

I may not be a law professor, an attorney, a judge, or even a formal student of the practice, but it seems to me that the law should be based, at least in part, on common sense and practicality. It should also be reflective of the will of the American people, if it is to have any true weight at all.

As Ulysses S. Grant once said, “The will of the people is the best law.

.

.

*LIVE STREAMING* CBS News Republican Presidential Primary Debate (02/13/16 – 9:00pm ET)



…………………………Click on image above for live stream.

Alternate Stream 1
Alternate Stream 2
Alternate Stream 2
Alternate Stream 4
Alternate Stream 5
Alternate Stream 6

Participants: Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Donald Trump and Jeb Bush

.

.

A Tragic Loss For The Republic – Originalist Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead At 79

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead At 79 – New York Post

.

.
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia was found dead Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said.

Scalia, 79, was a guest at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a resort in the Big Bend region south of Marfa. MySanAntonio.com said he died of apparent natural causes.

Scalia arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people, the website of the San Antonio Express News said. When he did not appear for breakfast, a person associated with the ranch went to his room and found a body.

The U.S. Marshal Service, the Presidio County sheriff and the FBI were involved in the investigation, according to the report.

Officials with the law enforcement agencies declined to comment.

A woman who answered the phone at the ranch told the Post she was unaware of the justice’s death, and no manager was available to discuss the matter.

A federal official who asked not to be named told the San Antonio Express News paper there was no evidence of foul play and it appeared that Scalia died of natural causes.

Scalia was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan.

.

.

Leftist Louisiana Governor: No More LSU Football If Budget Isn’t Balanced – His Solution? More Taxes

Louisiana Gov. Edwards: Balance Budget Or No LSU Football Next Year – CNS

.

.
In a televised address to the state Thursday, Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) said that “you can say farewell to college football next fall” if the state doesn’t fix a near $2 billion budget deficit for the next fiscal year.

“If the legislature fails to act and we are forced to proceed with these cuts the LSU Ag Center and parish extension offices in every parish, and the Pennington Biomedical Research Center will close by April 1st and the LSU main campus in Baton Rouge will run out of money after April 30th,” Edwards said. “Many students will not be able to graduate, and student athletes across the state at those schools will be ineligible to play next semester. That means you can say farewell to college football next fall.”

Edwards noted in his speech, as found on NOLA.com, that the LSU system is not the only one in danger. Thanks to the $940 million budget deficit that Louisiana faces this fiscal year and the $2 billion budget deficit for the next fiscal year, the Southern University System, University of Louisiana System and the Louisiana Community and Technical College System are in the same boat.

“Without legislators approving new revenue this special session, some campuses will be forced to declare financial bankruptcy, which would include massive layoffs and the cancellation of classes,” stated Edwards.

According to Edwards, the budget deficit threatens other universities the state’s healthcare system and the New Opportunity Waiver program, a program for families with developmental disabilities.

To help bridge the gap Edwards said he plans to increase alcohol and cigarette taxes and also intends to add an extra penny to the state’s four cent sales tax, which he claimed isn’t permanent.

“I am proposing this penny as a bridge that will give us time to stabilize and restructure our state’s tax code,” remarked Edwards. “When that restructuring is complete, this penny sales tax will be removed.”

Alongside tax increases, Edwards called for reducing tax credits, suspending corporate tax deductions and making further cuts in an effort to stabilize the budget. Edwards said this would include a hiring freeze and more than $160 million in cuts in government spending.

He also proposed using $128 million from the rainy day fund and $200 million from non-coastal BP payments.

.

.

The Democrats’ Likely Nominee Appears To Be A Felon – This Is Not Business As Usual (Andrew C. McCarthy)

The Democrats’ Likely Nominee Appears To Be A Felon… This Is Not Business As Usual – Andrew C. McCarthy

.

.
Competing Democrats debate each other one night. Republican rivals take their shots at each other a couple of nights later. An air of frenetic normalcy sets over primary season: The country is $20 trillion in the red and under heightened terrorist threat, yet pols bicker over the legacy of Henry Kissinger and the chameleon nature of Donald Trump – another liability the mogul is marketing as an asset. It is business as usual.

Except nothing about the 2016 campaign is business as usual.

For all the surreal projection of normalcy, the race is enveloped by an extremely serious criminal investigation. If press reporting is to be believed – in particular, the yeoman’s work of Fox News’s Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Browne – Hillary Clinton, the likely nominee of one of the two major parties, appears to have committed serious felony violations of federal law.

That she has the audacity to run despite the circumstances is no surprise – Clinton scandals, the background music of our politics for a quarter-century, are interrupted only by new Clinton scandals. What is shocking is that the Democrats are allowing her to run.

For some Democrats, alas, any criminality by the home team is immaterial. A couple of weeks back, The Donald bragged, as is his wont, that he “could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” Trump was kidding (at least, I think he was). Unfortunately, the statement might have been true had it sprung from Mrs. Clinton’s lips.

In a Democratic party dominated by the hard Left, the power Left, what matters is keeping Republicans out of the White House, period. Democrats whored themselves for Bill through the Nineties, seemingly unembarrassed over the lie it put to their soaring tropes about women’s rights, good government, getting money out of politics, etc. They will close ranks around Hillary, too. After all, if she was abusing power while advancing the cause of amassing power – er, I mean, the cause of social justice – what’s the harm?

More-centrist Democrats realize there could be great harm, but they seem paralyzed. The American people, they know, are not the hard Left: If Mrs. Clinton is permitted to keep plodding on toward the nomination only to be indicted after she has gotten it, the party’s chances of holding on to the White House probably disappear. By then, there may not be time to organize a national campaign with a suitable candidate (as opposed to a goofy 74-year-old avowed socialist).

So these Democrats play Russian roulette: hopefully assuming that the FBI won’t dare recommend criminal charges with the stakes so high; that the Obama Justice Department won’t prosecute if charges are recommended; that Obama will figure out a way to intervene with a pardon that won’t do Clinton too much damage, and that the public can be spun into thinking an investigation led by Obama appointees and career law-enforcement officers is somehow a Vast-Right-Wing-Conspiracy plot dreamt up by Republicans.

Many of these Democrats know that the right thing to do for their party – and country – is to demand that Mrs. Clinton step aside. They also know that if they do the right thing, and Clinton wins anyway, there will be vengeance – Hillary being the vengeful sort. So mum’s the word.

Their silence will not change the facts.

To take the simplest of many apparent national-security violations, it is a felony for a person “being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any… information relating to the national defense” to permit that information “through gross negligence… to be removed from its proper place of custody” or to be “delivered to anyone in violation of his trust” (Section 793(f) of Title 18, U.S. Code).

Mrs. Clinton was entrusted with national-defense information and knew that working with such classified intelligence was a substantial part of her duties as secretary of state. Despite this knowledge, she willfully, and against government rules, set up a private, non-secure e-mail communication system for all of her government-related correspondence – making it inevitable that classified matters would be discussed on the system. This was gross negligence at best. And the easily foreseeable result is that classified intelligence was removed from its secure government repository and transmitted to persons not entitled to have it – very likely including foreign intelligence services that almost certainly penetrated Mrs. Clinton’s non-secure system.

The penalty for violating this penal statute is up to ten years’ imprisonment for each individual violation. Mind you, there are already 1,600 reported instances of classified information being transmitted via the Clinton server system, and the latest indications are that at least twelve, and as many as 30, private e-mail accounts are known to have trafficked in our nation’s defense secrets. Many of these account holders were certainly not cleared for access to the information – and none of them was permitted to access it in a non-secure setting.

Fox has also reported that the FBI has expanded its investigation to possible public-corruption offenses – the cozy connections between the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, and Clinton-connected businesses; the question whether Clinton Foundation donors received favorable treatment in government contracts. Such allegations could fill a book. Indeed, investigative journalist Peter Schweizer has written just such a book: Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.

It’s a hair-raising story, but corruption cases are tough to prove. Comparatively, classified-information offenses are straightforward: There is a paper trail and secret intelligence either ended up someplace it was not supposed to be or it didn’t. Corruption cases, by contrast, can involve complex transactions and the gray area between grimy political deals and actionable quid pro quo. They hinge on proving the state of mind of the players, which can be challenging.

So I want to pass over that for now and think about something rarely mentioned in the Clinton caper: the unknown e-mails. What has been revealed about Mrs. Clinton’s disclosed e-mails has been so shocking that we often forget: There are 30,000 other e-mails that she attempted to destroy. We do not know what’s in them, so it is only natural that we have focused instead on what is knowable – the e-mails that have been disclosed. But there have been media reports that the FBI, to which Mrs. Clinton finally surrendered her private servers some months ago, has been able to retrieve many of the “deleted” e-mails, perhaps even all of them.

Mrs. Clinton told us she destroyed these e-mails because they were private and unrelated to government business. Basically we are to believe that one of the busiest, highest-ranking officials in our government had time to send tens of thousands of e-mails that were strictly about yoga routines, her daughter’s bridesmaids’ dresses, and the like. This, from the same Mrs. Clinton who looked us in the eye and insisted that none of her e-mails contained classified information.

Anyone want to join me in indulging the possibility that many of the deleted e-mails involve government business?

I ask because, wholly apart from any classified information crimes, there is another penal law defining an offense that is very easy to prove: the federal embezzlement statute (Section 641 of Title 18, U.S. Code). This provision targets anyone who, among other things,
.

embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use…, or without authority… conveys or disposes of any record… of the United States or of any department or agency thereof…; or …conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use… knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted.

.
As with the afore-described crime of mishandling classified information, the penalty for violating this statute is up to ten years’ imprisonment for each instance of theft.

To the extent Mrs. Clinton’s e-mails involved government business, they were not private – they were government records. When she left the State Department, however, she took these government records with her: She didn’t tell anyone she had them, and she converted them to her own use – preventing the government from complying with lawful Freedom of Information Act disclosure demands, congressional inquiries, and government-disclosure obligations in judicial proceedings, as well as undermining the State Department’s reliance on the completeness of its recordkeeping in performing its crucial functions.

I believe that Clinton has already violated the embezzlement law with respect to the 30,000 e-mails she finally surrendered to the State Department nearly two years after leaving. But for argument’s sake, let’s give her a pass on those. Let’s consider only the 30,000 e-mails that she withheld and attempted to destroy but that the FBI has reportedly recovered. Does anyone really doubt that this mountain of e-mail contains State Department-related communications – i.e., government files?

In a better time, responsible Democrats would already have disqualified Mrs. Clinton on the quaint notion that fitness for the nation’s highest office means something more than the ability to evade indictment for one’s sleazy doings. But now we have a candidate who may not – and should not – be able to meet even that lowly standard. No self-respecting political party would permit her to run. Obviously, a plea to do the right thing is not a winning appeal to today’s Democrats. But what are we left with if appeals to self-interest also fall on deaf ears?

.

.

Mark Levin Receives Unprecedented Nine-Year Radio Contract Extension

Mark Levin Receives Lifetime Contract For Radio Show – Daily Wire

.

.
On Thursday, Westwood One announced that conservative radio giant Mark Levin’s talk show has been renewed through 2025, essentially a lifetime contract. The network stated: Levin, one of the most important, popular, and trusted voices in radio, is always at the top of the political conversation. Indeed, his name has been invoked by candidates throughout the presidential primary process during the debates and at campaign rallies.”

Levin’s fearlessness in standing for conservative principles has been demonstrated consistently over the years. As Sean Hannity said of Levin, “He has not moved. He has not changed. He believes the principles that were applied back when worked then, and if applied now to today’s problems would be just as effective.”

Some of the over 300 stations on which Levin appears include WABC-AM/New York; KRLA-AM/Los Angeles; WLS-AM/Chicago; KSFO-AM/San Francisco; WBAP-AM/Dallas; KTRH-AM/Houston; WMAL-AM/Washington, DC; WJR-AM/Detroit; and WNTP-AM/Philadelphia.

Levin said, “I could not be more pleased to extend my radio partnership with Cumulus/Westwood One. For the next nine years – an unprecedented long-term relationship in the broadcasting industry – I am committed to continuing to bring the best possible program, both substantive and entertaining, to my millions of beloved and loyal listeners each and every day.”

Bart Tessler, Westwood One EVP, News & Talk, enthused, “We couldn’t be more pleased to announce this lifetime agreement with Mark. To know that we’ll be working together for so many years is a Mark Levin Show primary victory and a big win for affiliates, advertisers, and listeners. Mark’s tenure will now exceed that of a two-term president and that means continued excellence on the air on a nightly basis.”

Levin’s glittery resume includes his work as an attorney before he soared to acting as a top adviser and administrator to several members of President Ronald Reagan’s cabinet. He rose to the position of Chief of Staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese. Levin serves as the president of the prestigious Landmark Legal Foundation, a non-profit legal advocacy group based in Leesburg, VA.

Levin’s prolific writing career has seen him writing numerous New York Times best-selling books, including: “Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America”; “Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto”; “Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America”; “The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic”; and “Plunder and Deceit: Big Government’s Exploitation of Young People and the Future.”

Honored by the American Conservative Union, Hillsdale College, The Fund for American Studies, The Media Research Center, and Citizens United/Breitbart. Levin received his B. A. degree, with numerous honors, from Temple University, and his J.D. degree from Temple University School of Law.

.

.

Leftist Congressional Candidate Says It’s Not ‘Sporting’ To Use Semi-Automatic Weapons For Self-Defense

This Democrat Says It Is Not ‘Sporting’ To Use Semi-Automatic Weapons For Self-Defense – Downtrend

.

.
Dan Muroff is an anti-gun liberal nutcase who is running for Congress. He is hoping to unseat fellow anti-gun kook US Rep. Chaka Fattah for Pennsylvania’s 2nd Congressional District by being an even bigger anti-gun kook. In a positively illuminating interview, Muroff explains how he wants to ban semi-automatic firearms because it is not “sporting” for people to use them in self-defense.

While speaking with aldianews.com about his campaign, Muroff laid out his street cred on gun control with liberal gems like these:

“Guns in the street are easier to find than healthy produce. They unravel the fabric of not just an individual’s future, but with it their family’s future,” said Muroff.

Sounds like “the streets” have more of fresh produce problem than a gun problem. Also, there’s that whole thing about how the Constitution doesn’t guarantee our right to keep and bear carrots, which I’m sure Muroff is aware of.

“The number of deaths, the number of families that are devastated. When I say remediable, I don’t been fixable. But you can remedy in part, and mitigate in part, the gun violence in cities and elsewhere by passing reasonable legislation,” he continued.

I don’t been fixable? I’m not sure if that is a typo or if Muroff just has some mild brain damage but either way, this is a great new liberal take on the ineffectiveness of gun control. He’s saying, “Sure, gun control won’t actually fix the problem of crime and violence, but it will make lefties feel better about it.”

And speaking of liberal creativity with words:

“We can’t allow those who see this as a single issue stand in the way of what reasonable people know what needs to be done,” said Muroff.

According to him the people that want to take away a Constitutional right are the reasonable ones and by implication, those who would fight to preserve that right are the unreasonable ones.

After laying out his plan to ban weapons, hold gun owners accountable if their firearms are stolen and used in a crime, and closing non-existent loopholes, Muroff assures us: “I’m not talking about taking away second amendment rights, but responsible ownership and responsible sales.”

I don’t think he meant that the way it came out, but he did just say that he is talking about taking away “reasonable ownership and responsible sales.” Then again, maybe that’s exactly what he meant to say.

Finally, we get to the single dumbest thing he said in an insanely unintelligent interview:

“It’s not sporting to use a semi-automatic weapon to go hunting, or frankly, self-defense,” said Muroff.

WTF!?! It’s not sporting to defend yourself using a semi-automatic weapon against a dangerous criminal? Does he honestly feel like we need to give the scumbags a sporting chance when they are trying to rape and murder? I guess so. Maybe he thinks we should all have muzzle-loading black powder muskets just to give the bad guys a reasonable chance of succeeding in their evil deeds.

In hunting there is a train of thought that says using a semi-automatic rifle makes the sport less challenging. No such thing exists in self-defense. You meet force with equal or greater force. Period. There is no sportsmanship in matters of life and death.

And again, Muroff’s misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment shines through. There is nothing in the Constitution that ties gun ownership to hunting or even self-defense. We simply have the right to own guns and liberal douchebags like him don’t have a right to mess with that.

.

.

Armed Citizen Saves Cop From Vicious Youth Mob In Pennsylvania

Police: Gun Owner Saved Cop From Attack By Kids – Philadelphia Inquirer

.
…………….
Police Superintendent Michael Chitwood praised the efforts of licensed gun owner who came to the aid of a police officer.

.
Police are crediting a vigilant gun owner with saving the life of an Upper Darby cop Friday after he saw the officer being attacked and surrounded by a large group of teens.

“There were 40 kids. If it wasn’t for the good Samaritan stepping forward, he’d have been dead meat,” Upper Darby Police Superintendent Michael Chitwood said. “There’s no doubt they would have attacked him.”

About 3 p.m. every weekday, from six to eight township police officers patrol the area near Upper Darby High School as nearly 4,000 kids pour out of the building on Lansdowne Avenue near School Lane.

Most kids and most days are good, Chitwood said.

Friday was not.

That afternoon alone, police responded to three fights in three locations near the school. When the dust settled, eight teens, ages 13 to 17, were charged with crimes, and two officers were injured so severely that it’s unclear when they’ll be able to return to work, Chitwood said.

The most egregious of the incidents took place on Wayne Avenue near Marshall Road, less than a mile from the high school.

An officer who broke up a fight between two teen boys that had attracted a large crowd at that location was holding one of the combatants at bay when the teen’s opponent attacked the officer, Chitwood said.

“As he breaks up the fight, he takes one kid and then the other jumps [on] him. Now he’s fighting two of them and he’s calling for an assist officer at the same time,” Chitwood said. “There’s a crowd of 40 or 50 kids watching the fight, and they all move in towards the officer.”

That’s when the good Samaritan, who lives on the block, came out of his house with a gun in his hand and told the teens to get away from the cop, Chitwood said.

“He had the gun in his hand, but he didn’t point it at the kids, he just told them to back off,” Chitwood said. “If this guy didn’t come out and come to the aid of the officer, this officer would have had significant problems.”

The 35-year-old gun owner, who has a concealed-carry permit, kept the group of teens at bay until responding officers arrived, Chitwood said.

Not only did the officer who tried to break up the fight suffer significant hand injuries, Chitwood said, but an officer who responded to the request for backup also suffered a major injury to a leg when he was kicked by one of the teens in the fight.

The two juveniles in that fight each were charged with aggravated assault on police, riot, harassment, and related offenses. They were remanded to the Delaware County juvenile detention facility in Lima, Chitwood said.

Six more youths were arrested for fighting around the same time that day at two other locations near the school, Chitwood said; one was sent to the juvenile detention facility and the other five were released to a parent or guardian. Six of the eight arrested students attend Upper Darby High. The seventh attends Beverly Hills Middle School; the eighth goes to a school in Ridley Township.

“There’s thousands of kids that walk to and from that school without a problem, but every once in a while you get these wannabe gangsters, and if they want to be gangsters, we’ll treat them like gangsters,” Chitwood said.

Since Friday, police said, after-school patrols around Upper Darby High have been doubled.

“Our goal is to make sure these kids get home safe,” Chitwood said. “I can’t emphasize it enough, but the majority of these kids are decent kids.”

.

.

Professor Cries Racism After Getting Busted For Traffic Offenses – Video Shows Nicest Cops In The World

Dashcam Shows Princeton Professor Who Cried Racism Experienced Staggeringly Cordial Arrest – Daily Caller

The dashcam arrest video showing police arrest a Princeton University professor this weekend paints a markedly different picture than the racist ordeal described by the professor, Imani Perry, in a 1,201-word Facebook rant.

Perry, a professor in Princeton’s African American studies department, also tweeted angrily about her arrest, but she appears to have since deleted her entire Twitter account.

A pair of Princeton, N.J. police officers busted Perry on Saturday morning for going 67 miles per hour in a zone where the posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour.

The officers then proceeded to arrest Perry because of a warrant for an outstanding parking ticket from three years ago. She still owed $130 for that infraction.

Police did not allow Perry to make any telephone calls before she was officially placed under arrest, she complained. The professor said she was rudely subjected to a brief frisking by a male police officer as well.

“This was my first time in handcuffs,” Perry wrote on Facebook. “They were very cold on my arthritic wrists. I have been thinking about how vulnerable they make you feel.”

Perry also righteously threw down the race card.

“Now, make no mistake, I do not believe I did anything wrong,” she wrote. “But even if I did, my position holds. The police treated me inappropriately and disproportionately. The fact of my blackness is not incidental to this matter.”

However, video of Perry’s arrest shows two of the nicest-appearing police officers you’d ever hope to meet straining to be diplomatic and generally participating in what may be the most cordial police interaction ever.
.

.
“Are you okay?” the male cop asks Perry at one point during the video, when she is in the police car.

“No,” a female voice – apparently Perry’s – responds.

“Are you hyperventilating?” the cop then asks.

The male officer then explains that everything will be easy and expedient “as long as you’ve got the money.”

In addition to the Princeton traffic troubles which led to her brief arrest, Perry also has an active Abington Township, Pa. traffic case in which she drove an unregistered automobile, according to Planet Princeton.

The Princeton professor also has an outstanding summons for failing to pay a parking ticket in Lower Merion, N.J.

In a second clip, which shows an earlier stage of Perry’s traffic stop, she tells a skeptical officer that she never received any sort of notice that she had a parking violation or a suspended license.
.

.
And here is Perry speeding down a narrow, tree-lined road, getting caught on radar and then getting initially busted.
.

.
In her Facebook rant, Perry cites institutionalized racism “from elementary school suspensions, to car purchases, to teachers recommending students for gifted and talented programs, to how often waiters visit your table in restaurants, to mortgages, to police stops and arrests.”

Perry, the parking ticket recipient who says she was ultimately able to pay her fine “without hesitation” to secure her release, also compares her fate to “poor Black, Indigenous, and Latino communities” which “experience disproportionate police surveillance, harassment, violence, and punishment.”

“I can say that what I experienced was far more likely because my skin is a deep brown, my nose is round, and my hair is coily,” Perry also claims.

The trio of YouTube clips were posted Thursday afternoon by Krystal Knapp, a reporter for Planet Princeton.

.

.

Ted Cruz Mocks Hillary Clinton With Brilliantly Funny New ‘Office Space’ Ad (Video)

Hilarious New Ad From Ted Cruz Spoofs Classic ‘Office Space’ Scene To Mock Hillary Clinton – Right Scoop

Wow I love this ad. Morning Joe released part of a video from Ted Cruz showing Hillary Clinton destroy a server in a spoof from a classic scene in the great movie, “Office Space.”

Take a look:
.

.
Just on a personal note, I really love the wit and humor of this ad. The panel on Morning Joe, who all hate Ted Cruz, of course were flabbergasted that he would do such a thing as transgress against Hillary, their Mother Gaia of liberalism. Well screw them, I think it’s hilarious.

BUT – will South Carolinians like it? If Cruz did it specifically to target my age demographic, then it’s brilliant. If it’s meant to be a general ad, then it might miss the mark among older Americans. Now I’m gonna watch it again and laugh, BRB!

We’ll post the whole ad once it’s available, keep checking back.

.

.

Muslim Man On FBI Watch List Attacks People In Ohio Restaurant With Machete – Is Shot And Killed By Police

Man Attacks People In Ohio Restaurant With Machete, Police Take Him Out With Taxpayer Relief Shot… Update: Suspect Was Muslim Man On FBI Watch List – Weasel Zippers

.

.
We need machete control.

Via Columbus Dispatch:
.

Columbus police have shot and killed a man after they say he went into a Mediterranean restaurant on the Northeast Side this evening and attacked several patrons with a machete.

According to a dispatcher, police were called just after 6 p.m. to the Nazareth Restaurant, 5239 N. Hamilton Road. The dispatcher said that six people were transported to area hospitals from the restaurant, though their names and the extent of their injuries aren’t known at this time.

The suspect then reportedly fled and was stopped by police about 5 miles away, off Stelzer Road and just south of Montclair Drive.

He was shot by police, the dispatcher said, and died at OhioHealth Grant Medical Center at 6:24 p.m.

Further information and the name of the suspect aren’t available at this time.

.
HT: Breaking 911

UPDATE: Religion of Peace

Via PJM:
.

CBS News has identified the suspect as Mohamed Barry, however neither 10TV nor Columbus Police have confirmed the suspect’s name. CBS News also reports Barry has a Somali background and may have traveled to Dubai in 2012.

Law enforcement tells them the incident appears to be the type of “lone wolf terrorist attacks they’re trying to stop.”

The FBI is assisting in the investigation.

.

.

*VIDEO* Yes, There Actually Was Another Democrat Debate Last Night… Really!

.

.

Feel The Bern… Sanders Experiences The Wonders Of Socialism After New Hampshire Vote

Sanders Gets Berned By His Own Type Of “Justice” – Moonbattery

Anyone capable of feeling sorry for socialists might start with Bernie Sanders. After a de facto tie in Iowa was counted as a loss, his overwhelming victory in New Hampshire went down as a tie:
.

Hillary Clinton is expected to leave New Hampshire with just as many delegates as Bernie Sanders, even after he crushed her in Tuesday’s presidential primary.

Sanders won 15 delegates with his 20-point victory Tuesday while Clinton won nine.

But Clinton came into the contest with the support of six superdelegates, who are state party insiders given the freedom to support any candidate they choose…

[A]s it stands, the superdelegate support gives Clinton a total of 15 New Hampshire delegates.

.
Maybe the Democrats are undemocratic, but you can’t say they aren’t fair – in the Democrat sense of the word:
.

During his victory speech Tuesday night, Bernie Sanders said that America is “based on a simple principle, and that principle is fairness.” Ignore for a moment the sound of Thomas Jefferson rolling over in his grave and instead be happy for Sanders that his dream was put into practice after the New Hampshire votes were counted.

.
Sanders might have won his blowout victory because he campaigned harder, and was more effective in crafting a message the voters wanted to hear. He might just be a better politician than Shrillary. But thanks to this political application of his own notion of economic justice, they get the same benefit anyway. It’s called “equality.”

.
………………….

.

.

Chris Christie And Carly Fiorina Are Folding Up Their Tents

Chris Christie To End Presidential Campaign – CBS News

.

.
After a sixth place finish in New Hampshire’s Republican primary on Tuesday, Chris Christie is calling it quits.

The New Jersey governor made the decision after conferring with major donors. He concluded that he did not have the financial support to continue his campaign, reports CBS Chief White House Correspondent Major Garrett, citing a senior campaign source.

Christie spent significant campaign resources on the New Hampshire primary, wooing voters and banking on the state’s famous friendliness to governors running for the GOP nomination. Last week, Christie received plaudits for his debate takedown of rival Marco Rubio in Manchester, New Hampshire, where he slammed the Florida senator for his automaton-like answers to moderators’ questions.

But on Tuesday night, Christie finished with just single-digit support, behind Donald Trump, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, and Rubio. After a poor showing in Iowa, Christie is the only candidate left running who has so far accumulated zero delegates.

Christie addressed his backers at a primary night event in Nashua, New Hampshire.

Thanking volunteers and supporters, Christie said he did “not regret one minute” of the time spent in the early-voting state.

“I have both won elections that I was supposed to lose and I’ve lost elections I was supposed to win. And what that means is you never know and it’s both the magic and the mystery of politics – that you never quite know when which is going to happen, even when you think you do,” he said. “We leave New Hampshire tonight without an ounce of regret, not for the time we’ve spent, and for the thousands of people tonight in New Hampshire who will have voted for us. We thank each and every one of them.”

Of Republican front-runner Donald Trump, Christie said he “deserves congratulations” for winning the support of Granite State voters.

Trump, for his part, told “CBS This Morning” that Christie had called to congratulate him, and said in an interview on Fox News, “Frankly, Chris is somebody that maybe wouldn’t have to get out. I think somebody like Jeb Bush has far less talent than Chris, and he’s still in so you know, it’s one of those things.”

The New Jersey Republican announced Tuesday that he would be heading back to his home state, instead of continuing on to campaign in South Carolina, the last primary state before March’s Super Tuesday contests.

.
————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Carly Fiorina Is Dropping Out Of The Race – Mediaite

.

.
Carly Fiorina is dropping out of the presidential race.

After a weak showing in New Hampshire last night, Fiorina becomes the second candidate, after Chris Christie, to bow out today.

Here’s the full statement she posted to Facebook:
.

This campaign was always about citizenship – taking back our country from a political class that only serves the big, the powerful, the wealthy, and the well connected. Election after election, the same empty promises are made and the same poll-tested stump speeches are given, but nothing changes. I’ve said throughout this campaign that I will not sit down and be quiet. I’m not going to start now. While I suspend my candidacy today, I will continue to travel this country and fight for those Americans who refuse to settle for the way things are and a status quo that no longer works for them.

Our Republican Party must fight alongside these Americans as well. We must end crony capitalism by fighting the policies that allow it to flourish. We must fix our festering problems by holding our bloated, inept government bureaucracy accountable. Republicans must stand for conservative principles that lift people up and recognize all Americans have the right to fulfill their God-given potential.

To young girls and women across the country, I say: do not let others define you. Do not listen to anyone who says you have to vote a certain way or for a certain candidate because you’re a woman. That is not feminism. Feminism doesn’t shut down conversations or threaten women. It is not about ideology. It is not a weapon to wield against your political opponent. A feminist is a woman who lives the life she chooses and uses all her God-given gifts. And always remember that a leader is not born, but made. Choose leadership.

As I have said to the many wonderful Americans I have met throughout this campaign, a leader is a servant whose highest calling is to unlock potential in others. I will continue to serve in order to restore citizen government to this great nation so that together we may fulfill our potential.

.

.

How Are The Early Democrat Primaries/Caucuses Shaking Out?


.

IOWA

POLL PROJECTIONS (Average As Of January 31, 2016)
Hillary Clinton: 47.9%
Bernie Sanders: : 43.9%

RESULTS (February 1, 2016)
Hillary Clinton: Votes – 70,047 (49.84%) —— Delegates Won: 23
Bernie Sanders: : Votes – 69,692 (49.59%) —— Delegates Won: 21

.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

POLL PROJECTIONS (Average As Of February 8, 2016)
Bernie Sanders: : 54.5%
Hillary Clinton: 41.2%

RESULTS (February 9, 2016)
Bernie Sanders: Votes – 142,042 (60.01%) —— Delegates Won: 15
Hillary Clinton: Votes – 90,679 (38.31%) —— Delegates Won: 9

.

NEVADA

POLL PROJECTIONS (Average As Of December 27, 2015)
Hillary Clinton: 50.0%
Bernie Sanders: 30.5%

RESULTS (February 20, 2016)
Hillary Clinton:
Bernie Sanders:

.

SOUTH CAROLINA

POLL PROJECTIONS (Average As Of January 23, 2016)
Hillary Clinton: 62.0%
Bernie Sanders: 32.5%

RESULTS (February 27, 2016)
Hillary Clinton:
Bernie Sanders:

.
.
NOTE – When superdelegates are included, the total distribution of delegates thus far is as follows:

Hillary Clinton: 394
Bernie Sanders: 44

.

How Are The Early GOP Primaries/Caucuses Shaking Out?


.

IOWA

POLL PROJECTIONS (Average As Of January 31, 2016)
Donald Trump: 28.6%
Ted Cruz: 23.9%
Marco Rubio: 16.9%
Ben Carson: 7.7%
Jeb Bush: 4.1%
John Kasich: 2.9%
Carly Fiorina: 2.6%
Chris Christie: 2.4%

RESULTS (February 1, 2016)
Ted Cruz: Votes – 51,666 (27.64%) —— Delegates Won: 8
Donald Trump: Votes – 45,429 (24.30%) —— Delegates Won: 7
Marco Rubio: Votes – 43,228 (23.12%) —— Delegates Won: 7
Ben Carson: Votes – 17,394 (9.30%) —— Delegates Won: 3
Jeb Bush: Votes – 5,238 (2.80%) —— Delegates Won: 1
Carly Fiorina: Votes – 3,485 (1.86%) —— Delegates Won: 1
John Kasich: Votes – 3,474 (1.86%) —— Delegates Won: 1
Chris Christie: Votes – 3,284 (1.76%) —— Delegates Won: 0

.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

POLL PROJECTIONS (Average As Of February 4, 2016)
Donald Trump: 31.2%
Marco Rubio: 14.0%
John Kasich: 13.5%
Ted Cruz: 11.8%
Jeb Bush: 11.5%
Chris Christie: 5.8%
Carly Fiorina: 4.8%
Ben Carson: 2.8%

RESULTS (February 9, 2016)
Donald Trump: Votes – 92,417 (35.13%) —— Delegates Won: 10
John Kasich: Votes – 41,814 (15.90%) —— Delegates Won: 3
Ted Cruz: Votes – 30,417 (11.56%) —— Delegates Won: 2
Jeb Bush: Votes – 29,188 (11.10%) —— Delegates Won: 2
Marco Rubio: Votes – 27,776 (10.56%) —— Delegates Won: 0
Chris Christie: Votes – 19,812 (7.53%) —— Delegates Won: 0
Carly Fiorina: Votes – 10,967 (4.17%) —— Delegates Won: 0
Ben Carson: Votes – 5,969 (2.27%) —— Delegates Won: 0

.

SOUTH CAROLINA

POLL PROJECTIONS (Average As Of February 11, 2016)
Donald Trump: 37.3%
Ted Cruz: 20.3%
Marco Rubio: 14.0%
Jeb Bush: 9.3%
Ben Carson: 7.3%
John Kasich: 4.0%

RESULTS (February 20, 2016)
Donald Trump:
Ted Cruz:
Marco Rubio:
Jeb Bush:
Ben Carson:
John Kasich:

.

NEVADA

POLL PROJECTIONS (Average As Of December 27, 2015)
Donald Trump: 33.0%
Ted Cruz: 20.0%
Marco Rubio: 11.0%
Ben Carson: 6.0%
Jeb Bush: 5.0%
John Kasich: 0.0%

RESULTS (February 23, 2016)
Donald Trump:
Ted Cruz:
Marco Rubio:
Ben Carson:
Jeb Bush:
John Kasich:

.

*VIDEO* Vermin Supreme Makes Last-Minute Pitch To Democrat Voters In New Hampshire

.

.

ISIS Commander Found Living As Refugee In Rural Germany

‘Islamic State Commander’ Found Living As Refugee In Rural German Village – Breitbart

.

.
In the latest of a series of raids, German police have searched two homes in a rural village after a television channel interviewed a suspected Islamic State commander living there as a refugee.

Sankt Johann is a small village in the south west German state, Rhineland-Palatinate. Something of a rural idyll, its 800 residents live between vineyards in the shadow of a 14th century Gothic church. And yet, as SPIEGEL TV reports, this weekend it was the scene of police raids on two Islamic State-linked suspects living in refugee housing.

Prosecutors’ office spokesman Michael Neuhaus said the two men targeted by the operation are “suspected of taking part in the Syrian civil war as members of a foreign terrorist organisation”. He said there were “no immediate indications that a concrete attack was planned” but declined to give any further details.

Two houses in the village are used to house Syrian refugees, but among the opponents of the Assad regime living there SPIEGEL TV tracked down a suspected commander of the Islamic State terror group after tip offs from other Syrian activists. They had identified him as a man called Bassam, a notorious commander said to be responsible for the deaths of dozens of people.

A 32-year-old man, he allegedly fought in the ranks of Islamic State fighters in the eastern Syrian city of Deir ez-Zor before leaving via Turkey to seek asylum in Germany. Starting his fighting career with rebel jihadists in Al Kasra, the man in question is understood to have joined Sunni Islamist militias fighting the Syrian Government as part of the al-Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra Front, before graduating to the even more extreme Salafi jihadists of Islamic State.

His original ambition had been to be a suicide bomber, but his brother had used his position as a Sharia judge to secure him his officer’s role. In late summer last year Bassam was captured at a checkpoint north of Aleppo by Free Syrian Army soldiers following intelligence that he was fleeing to Turkey with tens of thousands of dollars in cash. For reasons unknown he was released after 20 days, with a memory card for a telephone holding masses of Islamic State propaganda but without his money.

Incredibly, German security services were said to have been oblivious to his presence in Germany since last autumn until SPIEGEL TV’s research alerted them to it.

For his part Bassam denies ever being an Islamic State fighter, and says he has nothing more to do with his brother. He also claims to have no idea why he was captured by soldiers from the Free Syrian Army.

For now he wants to concentrate on his professional future, telling SPIEGEL TV: “I want to learn German and work as a cook.”

As Breitbart London recently reported, German security forces have received more than 100 tip-offs that Islamic State fighters may be hiding among migrants currently staying in the country.

.

.

Austrian Woman Regrets Teaching Kids To Welcome Refugees After Her 10-Year-Old Son Is Raped By One In Public

Mom Regrets Teaching Kids To Welcome Refugees After Young Son Raped At Public Pool – BizPac Review

An Austrian woman, who’d always instructed her children to have compassion for refugees, did an abrupt about-face after an Iraqi immigrant raped her son whom he’d met at the local public swimming pool.

Dunja, who immigrated to Austria from Serbia during the 1990s, was appalled by the man’s defense to the attack, calling it “just monstrous,” according to the Daily Mail.

Rather than denying the act, the rapist claimed he had “too much sexual energy.”

The 10-year-old victim, named Goran, sustained serious injuries as a result of the attack and was hospitalized. His mother said her son cries himself to sleep every night.

.

.
Although the attack took place in December, Dunja only opened up to local media recently. She said she’d arrived in Austria as a refugee from the Serbian civil war and struggled to make ends meet while instructing her five children not to prejudge other people.

But when she’d learned that the Iraqi claimed that he’d had a “sexual emergency,” she regretted her previous advice.

“I couldn’t believe it when I heard that. I come from Serbia, and I spent five years living in a Caritas home together with people from many different nations,” Dunja said.

“You certainly can’t call me a racist, but to try and defend himself in that way is just monstrous. It’s like me saying I’m going to go to a bank tomorrow and rob it because I don’t have enough money for my five children.”

Her thoughts then turned to her son.

“I know that the physical wounds will heal, but the wounds to his soul may never heal,” she told the local media.

Although the attack happened in December, it wasn’t immediately reported to protect the victim.

Dunja explained that her son loved swimming, and on the day of the attack, she gave him three euros so that he could go to the local public swimming pool in Vienna after school.

“He was so happy at having the money, and after school went there straight away so I wasn’t expecting him back home immediately,” Dunja said.

“Three hours after school finished, I got a phone call from him and he was crying into the phone. I couldn’t understand a word he said, but then somebody came on the phone and told me: ‘Please come straight away, your child has been sexually assaulted.’”

The last thing any parent wants to hear.

The Mail reported:
.

She said that she had rushed there straight away and was devastated when she looked through a glass window and saw her crying child sitting in a room with a man in swimming trunks who had handcuffs on.

She said her sister was with her, and the police had to stop her from attacking the man straight away.

.
“I don’t want the man to be deported, I want him to be jailed because I have heard what they do to child sex attackers in jail,” Dunja said.

“I want him to experience everything in jail that child sex attackers can experience from the other convicts. And then I want him deported.”

.

.

President Asshat Bullied Bank To Pay Racial Settlement Without Evidence

Obama Bullied Bank To Pay Racial Settlement Without Proof: Report – New York Post

.

.
Newly uncovered internal memos reveal the Obama administration knowingly exaggerated charges of racial discrimination in probes of Ally Bank and other defendants in the $900 billion car-lending business as part of a “racial justice” campaign that’s looking more like a massive government extortion and shakedown operation.

So far, Obama’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has reached more than $220 million in settlements with several auto lenders since the agency launched its anti-discrimination crusade against the industry in 2013. Several other banks are under active investigation.

That’s despite the fact that the CFPB had no actual complaints of racial discrimination – it was all just based on half-baked statistics.

A confidential 23-page internal report detailing CFPB’s strategy for going after lenders shows why these companies are forking over millions of dollars in restitution and fines to the government despite denying any wrongdoing.

The high-level memo, sent by top CFPB civil-rights prosecutors to the bureau’s director and revealed by a House committee, admits their methods for proving discrimination were seriously flawed from the start and had little chance of holding up in court. Yet they figured they could muscle Ally, as well as future defendants, with threats and intimidation.

“Some of the claims being made in this case present issues, such as use of [race] proxying and reliance on the disparate-impact doctrine, that would pose litigation risks meriting serious consideration prior to taking administrative action or filing suit in district court,” the Oct. 7, 2013, memo addressed to CFPB chief Richard Cordray acknowledges.

“Nevertheless,” it added, “Ally may have a powerful incentive to settle the entire matter quickly without engaging in protracted litigation.”

At the time, the Detroit-based bank was seeking permission from the Federal Reserve to remain a financial holding company. Without regulatory approval, Ally risked losing key business lines, primarily its insurance subsidiaries.

“Protracted litigation” would present “a high hurdle” to Ally retaining such status, the CFPB lawyers conspired.

Prosecutors also sought to use the Community Reinvestment Act as leverage against Ally. At the time, the FDIC was reviewing the bank’s compliance with the anti-redlining law.

They huddled with FDIC and Federal Reserve officials to get them on board with their scheme; and the Fed assured them it would look favorably upon “a prompt and robust” settlement by Ally, while the FDIC confirmed that a quick resolution would help Ally pass its CRA exam.

So CFPB applied the screws to Ally, saying it had “statistical evidence” showing its participating dealers were “marking up” loan prices for blacks and Hispanics vs. whites (by an average of $3 a month). Ally fought back, insisting non-discriminatory factors, such as credit history, down payments, trade-ins, promotions and rate-shopping, explained differences in loan pricing. After conducting a preliminary regression analysis, the bank found these factors alone accounted for at least 70 percent of the “racial disparities” the government was claiming.

CFPB admits in the memo that it never considered these or other legitimate business aspects of the car deals it investigated: “Such factors were excluded as controls from the markup analysis.”

Also in its initial rebuttal, Ally complained CFPB’s entire case was based on “disparate impact” statistics, not actual complaints by consumers, and that those estimates relied on guesswork about the race of the borrowers. (The auto industry does not report borrower race, so CFPB tried to ID race by last name and ZIP code, a so-called “proxy” method that is wildly inaccurate.)

“The evidence of discrimination on the basis of race and national origin is strictly statistical,” the agency confessed in a report footnote.

With all these machinations hidden from public view, Cordray held a press conference to announce “the federal government’s largest auto-loan discrimination settlement in history.” He claimed that 235,000 minorities had been harmed by Ally, even though he didn’t know the race of a single borrower or whether they had actually been harmed.

“He had no idea how many actual victims there were because their whole case rested entirely on statistical estimations they admitted internally were inaccurate,” said a senior staffer for the House Financial Services Committee, which recently obtained the internal documents from CFPB.

In fact, CFPB still has not been able to definitively ID the race of any borrower it claims Ally victimized – which is why it has taken more than two years to send remuneration checks to alleged victims. Desperate to find them, the bureau recently had to mail 420,000 letters to Ally borrowers to coax at least 235,000 into taking the money, and to allow Cordray to save face.

Checks started going out this month to the fictitious victims – just in time for the election. So what if some recipients are white? They will all no doubt thank Democrats for the sudden, unexpected windfall of up to $520 in the mail.

.

.