Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has sensationally claimed that one of the Brussels bombers was arrested for terror offences and deported back to Belgium last June.
Erdogan claimed that Turkish authorities informed Belgium that the arrested man – believed to Ibrahim El-Bakraoui – was “a foreign fighter” but investigators allowed him to walk free because they couldn’t establish terror links.
The news raises yet more questions about the embattled Belgian security forces’ ability to prevent acts of terror being plotted and carried out in jihadi hotbeds in the country.
Speaking this afternoon, Erdogan said that Belgian authorities released the suspect despite Turkish warnings that he was “a foreign fighter” who had been captured on the border with Syria.
Erdogan did not identify the individual but NTV television named him as Ibrahim El Bakraoui, one of the two men who blew themselves up at Brussels airport.
He added that Belgian authorities had failed to confirm the suspect’s links to terrorism “despite our warnings” following his deportation.
Erdogan went on to say Belgian consular authorities were formally notified of his deportation on July 14, 2015. He added that he was then released by the Belgian authorities.
“Despite our warnings that this person was a foreign terrorist fighter, the Belgian authorities could not identify a link to terrorism,” he said at a news conference alongside visiting Romanian President Klaus Iohannis.
Erdogan said that the Netherlands were also implicated in the issue as the man had initially been deported to the Netherlands at his own request and the Dutch authorities informed.
He did not specify how he had been transferred from the Netherlands to Belgium where 31 people died in bomb attacks on Tuesday.
“I believe that we can work this out (the fight against terror) if world leaders form an alliance against terror. For that, we need to redefine global terror and terrorists,” Erdogan added.
Turkey has previously complained that Western countries did not heed warnings of the dangers posed by jihadists it had expelled back to Europe after arresting them on the Syrian border.
European officials have also urged Turkey to improve intelligence sharing and praised an increase in cooperation in recent months.
31 people were killed and 270 injured after a series of blasts in Zaventem airport, and an hour later a Metro station in Maalbeek.
One of the airport suicide bombers was named as Ibrahim El-Bakraoui, while his brother Khalid El-Brakraoui has been confirmed as the Metro attacker.
Both brothers were well known to police before the attacks, with Khalid even being hunted by Interpol.
But despite the international manhunt for the pair due to their links with last November’s Paris attacks, the pair appear to have been freely moving around Brussels.
There are also serious concerns over the ease with which Belgium-based jihadis have been able to escape despite huge manhunts.
Paris attacker Salah Abdesalem vanished during one police raid last before being captured.
And there appears to have been no trace of Najim Laachraoui since his suitcase nail failed to explode at Brussels airport yesterday morning.
The Islamic State group has trained at least 400 fighters to target Europe in deadly waves of attacks, deploying interlocking terror cells like the ones that struck Brussels and Paris with orders to choose the time, place and method for maximum chaos, officials have told The Associated Press.
The network of agile and semiautonomous cells shows the reach of the extremist group in Europe even as it loses ground in Syria and Iraq.
The officials, including European and Iraqi intelligence officials and a French lawmaker who follows the jihadi networks, described camps in Syria, Iraq and possibly the former Soviet bloc where attackers are trained to target the West. Before being killed in a police raid, the ringleader of the Nov. 13 Paris attacks claimed he had entered Europe in a multinational group of 90 fighters, who scattered “more or less everywhere.”
But the biggest break yet in the Paris attacks investigation – the arrest on Friday of fugitive Salah Abdeslam – did not thwart the multipronged attack just four days later on the Belgian capital’s airport and subway system that left 31 people dead and an estimated 270 wounded. Three suicide bombers also died.
Just as in Paris, Belgian authorities were searching for at least one fugitive in Tuesday’s attacks – this time for a man wearing a white jacket who was seen on airport security footage with the two suicide attackers. The fear is that the man, whose identity Belgian officials say is not known, will follow Abdeslam’s path.
After fleeing Paris immediately after the November attacks, Abdeslam forged a new network back in his childhood neighborhood of Molenbeek, long known as a haven for jihadis, and renewed plotting, according to Belgian officials.
“Not only did he drop out of sight, but he did so to organize another attack, with accomplices everywhere. With suicide belts. Two attacks organized just like in Paris. And his arrest, since they knew he was going to talk, it was a response: ‘So what if he was arrested? We’ll show you that it doesn’t change a thing,'” said French Senator Nathalie Goulet, co-head of a commission tracking jihadi networks.
Estimates range from 400 to 600 Islamic State fighters trained specifically for external attacks, according to the officials, including Goulet. Some 5,000 Europeans have gone to Syria.
“The reality is that if we knew exactly how many there were, it wouldn’t be happening,” she said.
More than four sources with access to tallies of fighters tasked with Europe attacks independently corroborated the numbers of fighters who trained for specific attacks in Europe, including some who have spoken to fighters directly. Others have cross checked information regarding fighters leaving or returning.
Two of the suicide bombers in Tuesday’s attacks, Belgian-born brothers Ibrahim and Khalid El Bakraoui, were known to authorities as common criminals, not anti-Western radicals until an apartment one of them rented was traced to Abdeslam last week, according to Belgian state broadcaster RTBF. Similarly, an Algerian killed inside that apartment on March 15 had nothing but a petty theft record in Sweden – but he’d signed up as an Islamic State suicide bomber for the group in 2014 and returned to Europe as part of the Nov. 13 plot.
In claiming responsibility for Tuesday’s attack, the Islamic State group described a “secret cell of soldiers” dispatched to Brussels for the purpose. The shadowy cells were confirmed by the EU police agency, Europol, which said in a late January report that intelligence officials believed the group had “developed an external action command trained for special forces-style attacks.”
French speakers with links to North Africa, France and Belgium appear to be leading the units and are responsible for developing attack strategies in Europe, said a European security official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss briefing material. He is also familiar with interrogations of former fighters who have returned to Europe. Some were jailed after leaving IS while others were kicked out of the terror group, and they include Muslims and Muslim converts from all across Europe.
Fighters in the units are trained in battleground strategies, explosives, surveillance techniques and counter surveillance, the security official said.
“The difference is that in 2014, some of these IS fighters were only being given a couple weeks of training,” he said. “Now the strategy has changed. Special units have been set up. The training is longer. And the objective appears to no longer be killing as many people as possible but rather to have as many terror operations as possible, so the enemy is forced to spend more money or more in manpower.”
Similar methods had been developed by al-Qaida but IS has taken it to a new level, he said. Another difference is that fighters are being trained to be their own operators – not necessarily to be beholden to orders from the IS stronghold in Raqqa, Syria, or elsewhere.
Several security officials have said there is growing evidence to suggest the bulk of the training is taking place in Syria, Libya and elsewhere in North Africa.
In the case of Tuesday’s attacks, Abdeslam’s arrest may have been a trigger for a plot that was already far along.
“To pull off an attack of this sophistication, you need training, planning, materials and a landscape,” said Shiraz Maher, a senior research fellow at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at Kings College in London, which has one of the largest databases of fighters and their networks.
“Even if they worked flat out, the attackers in Brussels would have needed at least four days,” said Maher, who has conducted extensive interviews with foreign fighters.
The question for many intelligence and security officials is now turning to just how many more fighters have been trained and are ready for more attacks.
A senior Iraqi intelligence official who was not authorized to speak publicly said people from the cell that carried out the Paris attacks are scattered across Germany, Britain, Italy, Denmark and Sweden. Recently, a new group crossed in from Turkey, the official said.
On Wednesday, Turkish authorities said one of the Brussels suicide attackers, Ibrahim El Bakraoui, was caught last June near the Syrian border and deported to the Netherlands, with Ankara warning Dutch and Belgian officials that he was a “foreign terrorist fighter.” But he was released from Dutch custody due to lack of evidence of involvement in extremism.
Belgian Justice Minister Koen Geens said Wednesday that authorities had no reason to detain El Bakraoui because he was “not known for terrorist acts but as a common law criminal who was on conditional release.”
The latest new name to surface this week, Najim Laachraoui, turned out to be the bombmaker who made the suicide vests used in the Paris attacks, according to French and Belgian officials. Attackers used an explosive known as Triacetone Triperoxide, or TATP, made from common household chemicals. DNA evidence indicates he died on Tuesday in the suicide attack on the airport, two officials briefed on the investigation told AP.
Fifteen kilos of TATP were found in an apartment linked to the Brussels attackers, along with other explosive material.
The unidentified man seen on security footage wearing a white jacket and black hat at the Brussels airport on Tuesday remains at large, a fugitive link in a chain still being forged.
The Brussels terrorists were preparing an attack on a nuclear power plant and had recorded 12 hours of reconnaissance footage, it has been reported.
The ISIS cell were spying on the Belgian’s nuclear power chief, possibly as part of a kidnap plan to force him to let them into an atomic facility, according to newspaper Derniere Heure.
Hours of film of the home of the Research and Development Director of the Belgian Nuclear Programme were discovered in an apartment in Brussels raided by anti-terrorist police following the attack in Paris.
The footage confounded investigators at first – as it showed the entrance to the director’s home in Flanders, an area outside the capital.
But detectives made the chilling deduction that the group was attempting to gain entry to an atomic facility after watching all 12 hours of footage, which included images of a local bus.
Armed troops were sent to defend French and Belgian nuclear facilities following the discovery and both countries nuclear programmes were put on the highest state of alert.
Reports of the plan first emerged as early as February and was at that time linked back to the cell responsible for the Paris attacks.
The footage was discovered ‘as part of seizures made following the Paris attacks,’ a Belgian prosecutor said, refusing to divulge the individual’s identity ‘for obvious security reasons’.
At the time, Belgium’s federal agency for nuclear control stressed the importance of not revealing the name of the person involved so as ‘not to endanger the enquiry or nuclear security’ or indeed the person involved and their family.
The images were captured by a camera hidden in nearby bushes and recovered by two suspects who left the area in a vehicle with the lights off, Derniere Heure reported.
However, reports in February did not publicly name Ibrahim and Khalid El Bakraoui – the brothers we now know are responsible for the Brussels bombings – as the creators of the footage.
The claims give further credence to the links now established, at least publicly, between the Paris and Brussels bombings.
The bombings in the Belgian capital on Tuesday which killed 31 people are now believed to have been carried out because the authorities were closing in on the fugitive members of the terror cell.
Leading lawmakers identified Belgium as a hotspot for terrorism months ago and are warning that many of the radicalized individuals living there are still able to travel to the United States without first obtaining a visa and undergoing thorough security checks.
Rep. Ron DeSantis (R., Fla.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told the Washington Free Beacon Tuesday afternoon that current flaws in the U.S. visa waiver program – which facilities travel to the United States from partner nations including Belgium – have created a loophole that could permit radicalized individuals to legally enter the United States with minimal background checks.
DeSantis is warning of these flaws on the heels of deadly mass terrorist attack in Brussels on Tuesday that has killed at least 30 and wounded hundreds more.
“The visa waiver reform, this is something we have been perusing and the [Obama] administration has brushed us off at every turn,” DeSantis said, explaining that current policy does not mandate more strenuous checks on individuals identified as coming from terrorist hotspots, such as the small Belgian town of Molenbeek, which has emerged as a principal training site for jihadists.
“It’s the case that if those folks are citizens of Belgium they qualify for the visa waiver program and can hop on a plane and get here,” he added. “Clearly, that is not adequate given what happened.”
The Obama administration “even takes the position it’s safer to allow someone to come in on a visa waiver than make them get one, it’s kind of crazy,” DeSantis said. You’re not going to be able to have intelligence on everyone there because there are so many potential recruits. It’s a clear vulnerability.”
What is worse, DeSantis said, is that the Obama administration has been lax about deporting individuals who overstay their visas, meaning that a radicalized person could disappear in America as they plan a potential attack.
“There’s no enforcement once they get here,” DeSantis said. “Hundreds of thousands of people come over and then overstay” their visas. “You are not going to be removed under current policy under this administration.”
DeSantis and other lawmakers first labeled Belgium as a hotspot for ISIS terrorists in the aftermath of the 2015 attacks in Paris. At least five of the Paris attackers were French nationals, two of whom had been living in Belgium. Another one of the terrorists was a Belgian national.
Citizens from both countries are still able to freely travel to the United States under the visa waiver program, which facilitates travel between the American and a host of foreign countries.
“At least six of the Paris attackers could have attempted to enter the country under this program,” DeSantis said in December, during a congressional hearing on the visa waiver program’s flaws.
Molenbeek in particular “is a hellhole that is filled with Belgian national Islamic radicals who qualify to travel to the U.S. without a visa under the visa waiver program,” DeSantis warned during the hearing.
DeSantis said on Tuesday that following the attack in Paris, he realized that the United States is vulnerable from threats in Europe, in addition to those from Syria and other terror strongholds.
“The problem was not just people coming from Syria,” he explained. “There was a major vulnerability from places in Europe and this Molenbeeck neighborhood was one of the most egregious that I had seen.”
The Department of Homeland Security acknowledged on Tuesday that Belgium is still a part of the visa waiver program, and that policy has not shifted in the wake of the attack.
“Though we do not require Belgian citizens to have a visa to travel here for business or tourism purposes, both the Transportation Security Administration and U.S. Customs and Border Protection have procedures in place to identify and prevent travel here from Belgium by individuals of suspicion,” Jeh Johnson, DHS secretary, said in in a statement on Tuesday.
“All travelers arriving in the United States are vetted against the U.S. Terrorist Screening Database, regardless of whether they arrive with a visa or an Electronic System for Travel Authorization,” Johnson said. “We continually evaluate whether more screening is necessary, particularly in light of today’s attacks.”
Asked about these screening methods, DeSantis cast doubt on the United States’ ability to thoroughly vet these individuals, explaining that gaps in U.S. intelligence cannot account for the large number of radicalized Europeans.
A student at Columbia University has authored an editorial saying Belgians deserve to be blamed for Tuesday’s Islamic terrorist attack in Brussels because their society is a front of “Islamophobia.”
“Columbia’s vigils and memorial services allow us to mourn victims and condemn terrorism,” writes student Brian Min in the Columbia Daily Spectator. “Moving forward, however, they should condemn not only terrorism, but also the specific Islamophobic attitudes and policies that facilitated the recent attacks.”
Min, a freshman planning to study French as well as women, gender, and sexuality studies, argues that the Brussels attack and other terrorist attacks, are “usually not arbitrary events without any justification – they often are responses to institutionalized hate and oppression.”
“Belgium remains the only other country in the world besides France to have a national ban of full-face veils,” Min says. “Employers too often get away with discriminating against Muslim employees. It comes as no surprise that the municipality Molenbeek – the site of one of the explosions – has an unemployment rate of more than 25 percent where the majority of Muslim youths are denied equal access to the labor and housing market.”
Despite his remarks, Min claims he is not condoning terrorism, because “hate should never be used to fight against hate.”
Min then argues in favor of repurposing vigils and other mourning events for political purposes, saying they should be used to denounce specific policies he disagrees with.
“[I]t is not enough for vigils and memorial services to broadly condemn Islamophobia and other forms of hatred that helped breed terrorist attacks,” he says. “They should also verbally denounce the specific forms of Islamophobia and hatred in relation to targeted nations and their policies of institutionalized discrimination, such as Belgium’s ban on full-face veils. In order to fight against Islamophobia and hate crimes that dramatically increase after major tragedies like the Brussels attacks, we must localize the specific Islamophobic policies and attitudes that helped to facilitate such attacks.”
Despite Min’s argument, there’s ample reason to believe Belgium is not a strong center of Islamophobia. For instance, in 2013 a Belgian man was sent to jail for hate speech for tearing up a Quran near some Muslims, and the country’s hate speech legislation has been interpreted as generally restricting any rhetoric that is overly hurtful towards Muslims.
Teddy bears, tears, candles, cartoons, murals, mosaics, flowers, flags, projections, hashtags, balloons, wreaths, lights, vigils, scarves, and more. These are the best solutions the Western world seems to come up with every few months when we are slammed by another Islamist terrorist attack. We are our own sickness.
Since the world learned of the dozens dead, hundreds injured, and hundreds of thousands affected by Monday’s attack on the NATO and European Union capital, we have seen an outpouring of what is commonly known as “solidarity”.
This word – most commonly associated with hard-left politics, trades union activism, socialism, and poseur indie rock bands – has come to mean very little in reality. In effect, “standing in solidarity” with someone now means that you have observed the situation, changed your Facebook profile picture accordingly, and patted yourself on the back.
And if like dead bodies Facebook profile pictures lost heat, it would be accurate to say that the Tricolores that adorned the social media profiles of many had hardly become cold before we were all changing the colours of the bands on the flags. From blue to black. From white to yellow. The blood red remains.
Because nowadays, teddy bears are the new resolve. They symbolise everything we have become in response to our way of life being threatened, and our people being slaughtered on our streets: inanimate, squishy, and full of crap.
Our security services and our police, hamstrung by political correctness, are just as interested (or more?) in rounding up Twitter “hate speech” offenders than criminal, rapist, or terrorist migrants. Our borders are as porous as our brains. We refuse to realise that there are now literally millions of people amongst us who hate us. Who hate our way of life, and who will, one day, dominate our public life.
But of course, such statements are dismissed as fear-mongering, alarmist, or “out of touch with reality”. As if the data doesn’t exist, or the demographics aren’t shifting quickly enough to notice.
As if vast parts of our towns and cities haven’t become ghettos, or no-go zones, or hubs of child grooming activity, or terrorism.
As if mosques, schools, prisons, and universities aren’t used as recruiting grounds for radicals.
As if the blood of our countrymen hasn’t even been spilled at all.
Instead, we will now think deeply about how we can “reach out” to these populations. How we can “co-exist” and “be tolerant” of one another. As if toleration – which is actually the permittance of what is not actually approved or desired – is a healthy aspiration for a society.
It is as if we model our countries on the practice of bending over and “taking one for the team”, chastising those who fail to “tolerate” the most barbaric traditions of alien cultures. It is everything this cartoon – obviously branded “racist” – suggests.
“But come on, Raheem, not all immigrants, or Muslims, are criminals, or rapists… you’re not!”
Yeah – and look at me. Excoriated daily by Islamists on Twitter. Why? Because I’ve integrated and I love my country. Because I refuse to believe that an Islamic caliphate is the best thing for Britain, or anywhere, quite frankly. Where is my white (or brown) knight? Where are the voices of the moderate Muslim world defending me?
Not that I need protection, or defence, but some people aren’t as hard headed or resolved as I am.
Thusly, the albeit minority evil amongst British Muslims is thriving because good Muslims are doing nothing. At some point, we have to question why. I’m not sure most people are ready for the answers to that one.
So continue to sit there with your head in your hands. Mourning only to make yourself feel better. Missing people you never knew. Exclaiming, as the most immature of minds does: “Why can’t we all just get along?”
Expressing sympathy is no bad thing. But to be truly sympathetic towards someone under attack, one must be chivalrous, gallant, and unafraid.
Watching someone getting raped, and tweeting your solidarity with them is not enough. Human nature and goodness calls upon us to intervene. To assist. To free someone from their torture, and to save them from their demise.
It is not enough to scrawl “no fear” on a post it note, and stick it onto some £3 flowers.
We must be fearless in electing leaders who we feel will best keep us safe. It is one of the few areas of our lives in which we should be able to feel comfortable. We pay our taxes, you keep us safe.
If not, then we must arm ourselves. If our governments refuse to protect us, or even begin to use the tools with which we empower them against us: surveillance, counter-terror laws, detention, then we will need to take the law back into our own hands. We cannot be afraid of doing so. It is where our societies all sprung from.
The defence of ourselves as individuals. The defence of our families, our properties, our means of production, our communities, and our neighbours.
It is why arms sales to individuals has shot up since the migrant crisis in Europe. Many Germans are losing their faith in their elected leaders to protect them. The same applies in Sweden, and in Austria. Some people refuse to take being wiped out laying down. How quaint.
It is also time to start to make serious, wide-reaching demands of our politicians on the subject of immigration and Islamism.
When U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump said what he said about a temporary ban on Muslim immigration, the tolerance lobby went into overdrive: full condemnations across the board from politicians – including presidents and prime ministers, across the media sphere, and you will recall the House of Commons debating a petition to ban the man from the country.
Now even the most politically correct of Hollywood luvvies is asking: is he really that wrong on this?
Because Mr. Trump has thought in a cycle longer than his potential presidency: what does the Western world look like in 20, 30, 50 years? What kind of societies do we leave to our children?
Do we leave cities with soldiers on patrol. With “peace” signs scrawled onto bomb-struck buildings? Or do we leave them safe places, with real promise for the future. Like our parents, or at least our parents’ parents, left us.
In order to confront this question, we have to get to the root cause of the problem. There is too much immigration, or at least, not enough hand-picked immigration, into the Western world today.
People of my age had no choice that our post-war leaders felt the heavy hand of post-colonial guilt on their shoulders, and decided to open up our countries, and flood us with “diversity”.
But we do have a choice to not make the same mistakes again. And we have a duty to correct the ones that were made.
And yes, that does mean exactly what you think it means. It means ending mass migration. It means smashing apart ghettos and no go zones. It means repealing laws that allow for Sharia councils. It means asserting what it means to be British, or European, or American, without fearing a backlash from the political left, or the media classes who scarcely see a face my colour let alone darker.
Let them riot. Let them cry.
I would far rather be subjected to ceaseless “direct action” by the scourges of my own society than import others.
At least if my fellow countrymen are deplorable, I won’t get called a racist for pointing it out.
So put down the teddy bears, burst the balloons, and let’s start demanding again that our countries are safe and civilised. And if we can’t find people who’ll make that happen for us… let’s do it ourselves.
A federal appeals court spanked the IRS Tuesday, saying it has taken laws designed to protect taxpayers from the government and turned them on their head, using them to try to protect the tax agency from the very tea party groups it targeted.
The judges ordered the IRS to quickly turn over the full list of groups it targeted so that a class-action lawsuit, filed by the NorCal Tea Party Patriots, can proceed. The judges also accused the Justice Department lawyers, who are representing the IRS in the case, of acting in bad faith – compounding the initial targeting – by fighting the disclosure.
“The lawyers in the Department of Justice have a long and storied tradition of defending the nation’s interests and enforcing its laws – all of them, not just selective ones – in a manner worthy of the Department’s name. The conduct of the IRS’s attorneys in the district court falls outside that tradition,” Judge Raymond Kethledge wrote in a unanimous opinion for a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. “We expect that the IRS will do better going forward.”
Justice Department officials declined to comment on the judicial drubbing, and the IRS didn’t respond to a request for comment on the unusually strong language Judge Kethledge used.
The case stems from the IRS‘ decision in 2010 to begin subjecting tea party and conservative groups to intrusive scrutiny when they applied for nonprofit status.
An inspector general found several hundred groups were asked inappropriate questions about their members’ activities, their fundraising and their political leanings.
The IRS has since apologized for its behavior, but insisted the targeting was a mistake born of overzealous employees confused by the law rather than a politically motivated attempt to stifle conservatives.
Tea party groups have been trying for years to get a full list of nonprofit groups that were targeted by the IRS, but the IRS had refused, saying that even the names of those who applied or were approved are considered secret taxpayer information. The IRS said section 6103 of the tax code prevented it from releasing that information.
Judge Kethledge, however, said that turned the law on its head.
“Section 6103 was enacted to protect taxpayers from the IRS, not the IRS from taxpayers,” he wrote.
Edward Greim, a lawyer at Graves Garrett who is representing NorCal Patriots, said they should be able to get a better idea of the IRS‘ decision-making once they see the list of groups that was targeted.
“What we’ll be able to see is how, starting in the spring of 2010, with the first one or two groups the IRS targeted, we’ll be able to see that number grow, and we’ll even be able to see at the tail end their possible covering up that conduct,” he said.
He said they suspect the IRS, aware that the inspector general was looking into the tax agency’s behavior, began adding in other groups to try to muddle the perception that only conservatives were being targeted.
Tuesday’s ruling is the second victory this year for NorCal Patriots.
In January U.S. District Judge Susan J. Dlott certified their case as a class-action lawsuit, signaling that she agreed with NorCal Patriots that the IRS did systematically target hundreds of groups for special scrutiny.
Certifying the class allows any of the more than 200 groups that were subjected to the criteria to join the lawsuit. But until the IRS complies with the appeals court’s ruling this week, the list of those groups is secret.
Now that the class has been certified, the case moves to the discovery stage, where the tea party groups’ lawyers will ask for all of the agency’s documents related to the targeting and will depose IRS employees about their actions.
The lawyers hope they’ll be able to learn details Congress was unable to shake free in its own investigations.
The Justice Department has concluded its own criminal investigation into the IRS and said the targeting was the result of bad management. But investigators said they found no criminal behavior, and specifically cleared former IRS head Lois G. Lerner, saying her fellow employees said she tried to correct the problems when she learned of them.
Republicans dismissed that investigation as a whitewash by the Obama administration.
Unfortunately for the establishment, the ongoing acts of sponsoreds civil disobedience are not creating the groundswell of anti-Trump terror they had hoped would bring down the anti-establishmentarian. In fact things have gone so far that even Arizona cops questioned their safety among Soros’ puppet-protesters. As African-American police officer Brandon Tatum exclaims, the profane-language-using demonstrators “were the most hateful, evil people he has ever seen.”
As EndingTheFed.com reports, Brandon Tatum, an officer in the Tucson Police Department, shared a video Saturday night giving his perspective on Donald Trump’s campaign rally in Tucson, Arizona – and the disruptive protesters who hurled obscenities at the Republican candidate.
As he explains, Tatum says that as a black man, he did not feel unsafe around Trump’s supporters but was ready to fight protesters in self-defense. He calls them the most hateful, evil people he has ever seen. The demonstrators, who he recalls chanting the phrase “Black lives matter,” used profane language and gestures, leading a mother to cover her child’s ears.
One protester, he recounts, got beat up, but Tatum says that the man instigated a fight either by spitting on or assaulting a rally attendee. He hopes that his message makes it into the news so that typical CNN coverage of just the retaliation against the agitator doesn’t become the prevailing narrative about the rally.
As for Trump himself, Tatum says he went to the rally to decide for himself what he thought of the candidate rather than trusting someone else’s word. He states that he gained respect for the businessman and didn’t hear anything bigoted from his stump speech. “His character’s a lot different than what you would perceive it to be in the media,” he says.
* * *
Once more the tried and tested efforts of the ‘management’ to disrupt the democratic process in favor of their wealth-maintaining status quo is suffering unintended consequences are everywhere amid the blowback from these organized protests.
CABINET/OTHER KEY OFFICES
Chief Of Staff: Jeffrey Lord – Former Associate Political Director For The Reagan Administration
Secretary Of State: John Bolton – Former U.S. Ambassador To The United Nations
Attorney General: Trey Gowdy – U.S. Congressman
Secretary Of Defense: James Mattis – Retired 4-Star Marine Corps General
Secretary Of Homeland Security: Frank Gaffney – Founder And President Of The Center For Security Policy
Secretary Of Treasury: Thomas Sowell – Senior Fellow At The Hoover Institution
Secretary Of Education: Newt Gingrich – Former Speaker Of The U.S. House Of Representatives
Secretary Of Health And Human Services: Ben Carson – Former Director Of Pediatric Neurosurgery At Johns Hopkins Medical Center
Director Of National Intelligence: Keith Alexander – Retired 4-Star Army General
Secretary Of Veterans Affairs: Allen West – Former U.S. Congressman
Secretary Of Transportation: Ted Houghton – Former Chairman Of The Texas Transportation Commission
Secretary Of Energy: Tom Tanton – Executive Director Of The American Tradition Institute
Secretary Of The Interior: Sarah Palin – Former Governor Of Alaska
Director Of Immigration And Customs Enforcement: Joe Arpaio – Sheriff Of Maricopa County, Arizona
Chairman Of The Federal Reserve: Mark Thornton – Senior Fellow At The Ludwig Von Mises Institute
Director Of The Office Of Management And Budget: Romina Boccia – Grover M. Hermann Fellow In Federal Budgetary Affairs For The Heritage Foundation
U.S. Trade Representative: Carl Icahn – Business Magnate
Press Secretary: Lou Dobbs – Television News Commentator
OFFICES THAT SHOULD BE ABOLISHED
Department Of Agriculture
Department Of Commerce
Department Of Labor
Department Of Housing And Urban Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NEW OFFICES THAT SHOULD BE CREATED
Secretary Of Free Market Capitalism: Arthur Brooks – President Of The American Enterprise Institute
Director Of Government Downsizing: Thomas Schatz – President Of Citizens Against Government Waste
POTENTIAL SUPREME COURT JUSTICE NOMINEES
William Pryor – Judge On The U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Eleventh Circuit
Diane Sykes – Judge On The U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit
Roy Moore – Chief Justice Of The Alabama Supreme Court
A. Raymond Randolph – Judge On The U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Washington, DC Circuit
Ben Carson, the retired neurosurgeon who briefly led the Republican presidential race before his campaign began an extended public implosion, told his supporters in a statement Wednesday afternoon that he does not see a “path forward” and will not attend Thursday’s debate in Detroit.
Carson, however, did not formally suspend his campaign. Instead, he said in the statement that he has decided to make a speech about his political future on Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland, just outside Washington.
“I do not see a political path forward in light of last evening’s Super Tuesday primary results,” the statement said. “However, this grassroots movement on behalf of ‘We the People’ will continue. Along with millions of patriots who have supported my campaign for President, I remain committed to Saving America for Future Generations.”
The announcement will serve as an acknowledgment that Carson’s candidacy is all but over following a disappointing showing in the 11 states that held contests on Tuesday.
The decision follows months of candidate stumbles, staff infighting and strategy shifts derailing what had once appeared to be an unstoppable journey to conservative superstardom. It also marks the coming departure of the only high profile African American candidate in the 2016 presidential race.
Carson, 64, burst onto the political scene in early 2013 when, addressing the typically nonpartisan National Prayer Breakfast, he spoke about the dangers of political correctness, put forward the idea of a flat tax and criticized President Obama’s health-care law. What stood out was that he did so right beside a steely-faced Obama.
That week, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial titled “Ben Carson for President.” By August of that year, there was a “National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee.” Before he launched his presidential bid last May, the group had raised close to $16 million, gotten a half-million signatures encouraging Carson to run and had 30,000 active volunteers across the country, according to organizers.
The media whirlwind was hardly his first brush with fame. Before he took the conservative world by storm, Carson was famous for an up-from-his-bootstraps life story, from impoverished childhood to a high-profile neurosurgery career. He was, at 33, the youngest major division director in Johns Hopkins Hospital history, and he was the first pediatric neurosurgeon to successfully separate twins conjoined at the head. He wrote a best-selling book, “Gifted Hands,” about his life, which later became a television movie.
The same bluntness that catapulted him into contention in a year that favored plain-spoken insurgents and outsider candidates earned him criticism as well. He found himself in political hot water for calling the Affordable Care Act the “worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery,” saying that the United States now is “very much like Nazi Germany” and predicting that allowing same-sex marriage could lead to legalized bestiality.
Even his political team admitted from the start that perhaps he needed to work on his messaging. “If I could create the Webster’s dictionary of words Dr. Carson could use in the campaign, there would be some words I’d leave out,” his former campaign chairman, Terry Giles, told The Washington Post before Carson officially jumped into the race in May. Later, when Donald Trump grabbed headlines, the usually mild-mannered Carson was urged to dial it up and take the mogul on more aggressively.
Carson resisted that advice as well. Until the end, he sought to offer himself to Republicans as a calm and steady hand, untouched by Washington.
“Many people told me that this business is corrupt, that it’s evil, that it’s how it’ll always be,” Carson said in a phone interview Monday. “But I don’t believe that we have to accept that. We should rail against that, fight against it, and get something that’s decent and inspirational.”
His performance may have played a role in his political undoing. Even as his “politically incorrect” style played well in places with staunchly conservative bases, his apparent unfamiliarity with many policy fundamentals, particularly on national security issues, made some voters wary.
His support dropped precipitously in the weeks after two high-profile terrorist attacks, bringing him from second place just behind Trump to fourth or fifth place in most national polls.
“Unfortunately, Paris happened. San Bernardino happened,” he told The Post earlier this year. “Somehow the narrative has been projected that if you’re soft-spoken and mild-mannered, there is no way you can deal with terrorism, with national security, that you’re not a strong person.”
It wasn’t just Carson’s often unfiltered and unseasoned approach that cost him; his advisers’ did as well, as internal feuds played out publicly, and candidate and campaign deficits were spotlighted in unusually detailed media admissions by some staffers and advisers.
Disagreements within the campaign’s highest ranks broke out into the open on numerous occasions, highlighting a persistent and sharp division between Armstrong Williams – Carson’s longtime business manager, who was not formally part of the campaign – and Barry Bennett, the Republican operative who led it.
As Carson fell from top-tier status, he publicly blamed campaign aides for his drop in the polls – calling some of them overpaid and ineffective – and vowed a staff shake-up in an interview arranged by Williams without Bennett’s knowledge. Carson backtracked hours later, but within days, several of his most experienced campaign hands, including Bennett, had resigned.
A new campaign chairman was named: retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert F. Dees – previously a Carson policy adviser who, like the candidate himself, had never before been involved in a political campaign.
The departure of a string of senior aides didn’t end the behind-the-scenes drama. Within weeks, reporters were sent a list of the only staffers they were to contact for campaign comment and for candidate interview requests – a list that pointedly did not include Williams.
The Carson campaign war chest, which had been flush with cash after solid fundraising quarters earlier in the race, began shrinking dramatically amid questions about how the money was being spent. Carson made further sweeping changes last month, cutting staff salaries and shrinking his traveling entourage.
“We had to get a much better check on the finances. I was appalled when I did a deep dive and saw what was going on. We saw that and stopped it,” Carson said in the Monday interview.
The mild-mannered candidate soon lashed out at individuals he accused of sabotaging his presidential bid, including rival Ted Cruz of Texas, whose campaign falsely circulated the idea that Carson was going to quit the race on the night of the Iowa caucuses.
He followed up a distant fourth-place showing in Iowa with last-place showings in New Hampshire and in South Carolina, a state he had once said would be a special focus. He polled poorly again in the 11 GOP primaries and caucuses Tuesday night.
When asked Monday whether he would ever reenter politics if he left the race, Carson chuckled at the prospect.
“I’m certainly not looking for something to do,” he said, adding that his plan after leaving medicine in 2013 was to retire to Palm Beach, Fla., with his wife.
“I’m not going to disappear,” he said. “But yes, if I didn’t think the country needed what we’re doing, I’d be there.”
TO DEFEAT TRUMP, CRUZ MUST KICK HIM IN THE BALLS
1.) The Bible – Both Old And New Testaments
2.) The Unanimous Declaration Of The Thirteen United States Of America – aka The Declaration Of Independence
3.) The Constitution Of The United States Of America
— The Following 17 Are Submitted In No Particular Order Of Importance —
Magna Carta Libertatum
The Principia: Mathematical Principles Of Natural Philosophy (Isaac Newton)
The Wealth Of Nations (Adam Smith)
The Republic (Plato)
Relativity: The Special And The General Theory (Albert Einstein)
The Road To Serfdom (Friedrich Hayek)
Common Sense, The Rights Of Man And Other Essential Writings (Thomas Paine)
The Complete Works Of William Shakespeare
The Histories (Herodotus)
The Art Of War (Sun Tzu)
The Iliad/The Odyssey (Homer)
The Divine Comedy (Dante Alighieri)
Thus Spake Zarathustra (Friedrich Nietzsche)
The History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire (Edward Gibbon)
Leviathan (Thomas Hobbes)
The Prince (Niccolò Machiavelli)
A Treatise Of Human Nature (David Hume)
Washington, DC (February 18, 2016) – CRTV is announcing the launch of LevinTV, hosted by one of the nation’s most compelling, passionate and thoughtful Conservative voices, Mark Levin. Having just signed a contract extension to continue his nation wide radio broadcast to millions of listeners for another nine years, the six-time New York Times best-selling author is further expanding his media network, to reach an even larger audience through a dynamic, cutting edge, digital based television platform. LevinTV will be America’s new televised Town Hall meeting and is the next step in the evolution of digital conservative media.
LevinTV will be produced five days a week in a state-of-the-art studio built exclusively for the Show. It will be broadcast in HD, featuring one of the most technologically advanced television sets ever created. Mark Levin will bring his unique perspective of pro-American and patriotic values to his new TV show that champions liberty and true conservatism.
LevinTV is a commercial-free explosion of Mark Levin’s engaging personality, unique intellect and passionate commentary about history, economics, philosophy and the latest political and current events. The show will also feature exclusive, long-form interviews with compelling guests from all walks of life.
“I have the greatest audience in the world and I give them my best every night,” said Mark Levin. “I am thrilled we are expanding our Town Hall meeting place for patriots, by taking TV broadcasting to a new level on multiple platforms where I will speak directly to my audience – uncensored, without middlemen, and commercial free.” Levin added, “I make no excuses for my patriotism, I am proud of it, and LevinTV will reflect it. It’s about time there is a place on television where people can go and have their principles, beliefs, and values reinforced rather than attacked.”
How to Watch
LevinTV launches on March 7, 2016. His inaugural episode, along with hours of preview material, can be accessed on any digital or mobile device. Levin’s loyal audience and new fans alike can subscribe for an entire year for $59 (just $4.92 a month) saving $10 off the regular price of $69 a year by subscribing on or before March 7. Monthly subscription fees are $7.99. By keeping subscription prices low, LevinTV will be accessible to a large and growing audience.
For more information, visit www.LevinTV.com.
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.
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.
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?
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.”
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.
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.