Lawsuit Exposes State in Taking Kids From Parents and Heavily Drugging Them With Psychotropics

Foster children in Missouri have been dangerously over-medicated with antipsychotic drugs — intended to treat conditions like bipolar disorder and schizophrenia — to manage behavioral disorders like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, according to a new civil rights lawsuit, which instead effectively puts them in “a chemical straightjacket.”

“The sedative properties of the drugs are employed to sedate and control the difficult behaviors of children,” says attorney Bill Grimm of the National Center for Youth Law, which — together with the Saint Louis University School of Law Legal Clinic and the legal advocacy group Children’s Rights — brought the lawsuit June 12.

“Whenever a state takes a child into custody, there are certain obligation that arise to that child from the state,” such as the government’s duty to protect children’s health and safety, the attorney asserts.

Missouri’s Children’s Division, “has failed to meet its critical obligations and presently subjects [foster children represented] to physical and psychological harm and the unreasonable risk of such harm in violation of their federal constitutional and statutory rights,” the class-action suit contends.

Grimm laments the issue compounding due to flimsy recordkeeping, adding, according to Reason, “The caregivers don’t know in some instances what the medications are, what conditions they’re supposed to address for the child, what benefits they are supposed to provide to the child … They are operating in the dark.”

Over-medicating could induce children into being pliable and compliant, but the effects of providing youth with medicine intended to treat serious conditions — for behaviors not deemed as grave — can have deleterious effects on their health.

Foster children arriving in custodial care for the first time have been documented bringing prescriptions in paper bags or wrapped in tissue paper, according to the suit, minus crucial information on dosages and side effects — leaving foster parents in the dark about how to properly medicate children.

Reason elaborates, “One child was hospitalized for six days after she received the wrong dose of several psychotropic medications. Another was prescribed seven different psychotropic drugs at once, including three antipsychotics; as a result, the suit says, he developed tremors and required institutionalization.”

Missouri at least theoretically attempted to bring the problem of mis- and over-prescribing psychotropic medications to foster kids under control. Beginning in 2013, a “second opinion” program — in which a board-certified child psychologist commenced review of ten different children’s prescriptions to determine popular use — effectively ceased three years in, when “obtaining complete records from prescribers and health care providers was a difficult task and the review did not render sufficient or meaningful data.”

A study by the Government Accountability Office in 2012 found nearly one-fifth of foster children, 18 percent, were prescribed psychotropic medications — with those in group homes or residential treatment receiving those drugs at higher rates than their counterparts in individual homes or formal kin care situations — a figure which elucidated the urgency to determine efficacy.

Multiple states then enacted controls to stem the free flow of potentially dangerous medications to foster youth, Reason continues, “Washington established a requirement that any prescription of psychotropic drugs should receive a second opinion from a child psychiatrist. Florida requires informed consent from the kids’ legal guardians before the drugs can be administered. Texas has implemented a training program for child welfare workers and foster parents on alternatives to medication.”

Last year, according to the court filing, Missouri’s Department of Social Services acknowledged “many foster care children are prescribed multiple psychotropic medications without clear evidence of benefit and with inadequate safety data. The use of multiple medications (psychotropic or otherwise) creates the potential for serious drug interactions.”

Parties to the lawsuit allege foster children have been deprived of civil rights through the prescription of psychotropic drugs as a method of behavioral control — rather than for psychiatric and psychological needs.

Due to lack of oversight and mismanagement, foster children continue to face unnecessary and harmful effects of powerful medications — often meant for treating conditions for which many foster children have not been properly diagnosed.

Plaintiffs seek an overhaul of the current poorly-managed system, including improvements to oversight, sufficient maintenance and tracking of children’s medical records, revamped second opinion procedures, and — most imperatively for health and safety — a halt in prescriptions of heavy psychotropics for behavior control.

Medicating children into oblivion because Missouri or any other state finds a program unmanageable eviscerates their human rights and — considering protection of children comprises the fundamental purpose — makes a mockery of the foster program.

If the State remains unprepared to care for children taken from birth parents and placed in foster care, the premise of removal for safety is farcical at best.

However, prescribing weighty and unnecessary medications to foster kids for off-label use certainly accomplishes one goal — indefensibly astronomical profits flow unabated into the pharmaceutical industry’s apparently bottomless pockets.

(For more from the author of “Lawsuit Exposes State in Taking Kids From Parents and Heavily Drugging Them With Psychotropics” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Horrifying Moment a 14-Year-Old Girl DANGLES and PLUNGES From a Six Flags Ride

A 14-year-old girl dangled and then fell from about 25 feet from a gondola ride at Six Flags Great Escape Amusement Park in Upstate New York on Saturday evening.

A crowd of people gathered beneath the girl as she was dangling on the stopped ride. Onlookers persuaded her to let to go of a bar she was holding and to fall into the arms of the awaiting crowd.

The girl did let go and fall, hitting a thicket of tree branches on the way down.

The Six Flags ride from which the girl fell is called the “Sky Ride.” It’s designed to be a gentle family ride which carries passengers through the park on a cable. It has no minimum height requirement.

The girl was treated on the spot and then rushed to a nearby hospital in a helicopter after the incident. (Read more from “The Horrifying Moment a 14-Year-Old Girl DANGLES and PLUNGES From a Six Flags Ride” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Despicable Nebraska Democrat Says He’s ‘F**King Glad’ Scalise Got Shot

A Nebraska Democratic Party (NDP) operative has been fired from his position on the Technology Committee of the of the NDP after recorded audio appeared in which he says he was “f***ing glad” that Congressman Steve Scalise, R-La., was shot and that he wishes Scalise “was f***ing dead.”

Phil Montag, the state party’s technology committee co-chairman, was recorded saying “I’m glad he got shot” and “I wish he was f***ing dead” during a private meeting with NDP Black Caucus Chair Chelsey Gentry-Tipton that was recorded.

Rep. Scalise was shot during a targeted attack on GOP members of Congress in Alexandria, Va., in mid-June by radical leftist James T. Hodgkinson, who wanted to kill Republicans. Gentry-Tipton has come under fire herself after she made comments on Facebook that she thought it was “funny” that Republicans were “crying” after Scalise and four others were injured.

Listen:

Here is a transcript of the discussion, provided by Leavenworth St., a conservative blog in Nebraska:

Male: “Right now, so what is it that you want to do?”
Phil Montag: “Let me tell you, that motherf***er, the one that was shot, the scafie guy…I mean that guy, what’s was his name scafie?”
Female: “Scalise”
Male: “I really don’t want you to deflect right now.”
Montag: “No, this motherf***er, like his whole job is to like get people , convince Republicans to f***in’ kick people off f***in’ healthcare”
Female: “We know all of this.”
Montag: “I hate this motherf***er”
Female: “We know this”
Montage: “I’m f***in’ glad he got shot!”
Male: “Phil! Phil!”
Montag: “I’m glad he got shot!”
Male: “Dude!”
Montage: “I’m not going to f***in’ say that in public.”
Female: “You don’t have to say that in public.”
Male: “Then what are you saying it to us for?”
Female: “Say something, say something.”
Male: “What are you telling us for?”
Montag: “I wish he was ***in’ dead!”
Male: “Why are you telling us but not telling anyone else?”
Montag: “Cause I’m trying to f***in’ figure all this s*** out.”
Male: “It’s OK, because I’ve been recoding this conversation since you’ve come in, so I will publicly release it myself.”

In the wake of the released audio, NDP Chairwoman Jane Kleeb removed Montag from his position with the state party.

“I apologize to all the Democrats who now have to answer at the sale barn or hair salon what is wrong with the direction of politics,” Kleeb told the Lincoln Journal Star.

“The hateful rhetoric has no place in the Democratic Party and does not represent the values of Democrats across our state and country who lift up working-class families every day.”

Reached for comment by Conservative Review, Kleeb said “The amount of heated political rhetoric is dangerous and reckless.”

Montag denied wishing that Scalise was dead, arguing to the Omaha World-Herald Thursday that his words had been taken out of context.

“Like every decent American I am saddened and horrified by the shooting of Congressman Scalise,” Montag told the paper by email. “I do not and did not wish for his death. I am hopeful that the entirety of the original, unedited recording will emerge so we can get to the truth of the matter.”

Mr. Montag did not respond to a request for comment from Conservative Review. (For more from the author of “Despicable Nebraska Democrat Says He’s ‘F**King Glad’ Scalise Got Shot” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Did Obama Do Enough to Save Otto Warmbier in North Korea?

Did President Obama do enough to save Otto Warmbier?

Otto’s father, Fred, clearly doesn’t appear to think so. During a press conference following the return of his then-comatose son, Warmbier said that the Obama administration told him and the family to “take a low profile” — meaning, avoid speaking to the media or making public statements about his son’s plight.

“We did so without resolve,” Mr. Warmbier said of his family’s compliance, after receiving assurances that the Obama White House was working hard to secure his son’s release.

So, what exactly did Obama and his Cabinet do to ensure Otto Warmbier was brought home?

It all started in late February, when under notably visible, extreme duress, Warmbier “confessed” to an act he allegedly committed.

One month later, the regime in Pyongyang convicted Warmbier of “hostile acts” against the nation after he was charged with trying to steal a political banner in a hotel. The then-21-year-old Warmbier was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor for his actions.

On March 16, 2016, in response to a question about Warmbier, Obama White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters that “there is no greater priority for this administration than the welfare and safety of U.S. citizens abroad.”

“The allegations for which this individual was arrested and imprisoned would not give rise to arrest or imprisonment in the United States, or in just about any other country in the world,” Earnest said.

“We strongly urge the North Korean government to pardon him and grant him special amnesty and immediate release.”

That same day, President Obama signed an executive order sanctioning companies and individuals attached to the government of North Korea. However, Earnest said the sanctions were a response to North Korean ballistic missile tests the previous months, and seemingly not its imprisonment of an American citizen.

A search of public statements made by the Obama White House on Warmbier’s case, since Earnest’s call for his release, comes up almost entirely empty.

Months went by, and Otto Warmbier’s imprisonment seemed to be a forgotten cause. At this time, Fred Warmbier decided “the time for strategic patience was over.”

So, what did the Obama administration do behind the scenes while the young college student was suffering at the hands of the North Koreans?

Conservative Review reached out to the State Department to fill in the gaps.

“Together with Sweden, the protecting power for the United States in North Korea, we consistently raised concerns about Mr. Warmbier, the lack of consular access, and his harsh 15-year sentence to hard labor,” a State Department official told Conservative Review.

“We hold North Korea accountable for Otto Warmbier’s unjust imprisonment, and we want to see the three other Americans who are unjustly detained in North Korea come home as soon as possible.”

Nonetheless, until President Trump came into office, the diplomatic effort did not yield any noteworthy results.

“The question was, do I think the past administration could have done more? The results speak for themselves,” Warmbier told reporters, in a clear slight of the Obama White House.

Fred Warmbier credited the new administration with helping to bring his son home from captivity.

But four days after his release, Otto Warmbier died from complications stemming from a severe brain injury suffered in the custody of the tyrannical regime in North Korea. Otto was 22 years old. (For more from the author of “Did Obama Do Enough to Save Otto Warmbier in North Korea?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watch: Christian Aid Worker Braves ISIS Gunfire to Rescue Little Girl in Mosul

A former special forces operative who now works as an aid worker was recently caught on camera braving the Islamic State gunfire in the open in order to save a little girl in Mosul, Iraq.

David Eubank, 56, is founder of the Free Burma Rangers, an organization dedicated to assisting pro-Democracy groups in conflict zones such as Burma or Iraq with highly trained, highly mobile, multipurpose relief teams. These teams deliver food, clothing, water, and medical care where they are dispatched and where other organizations don’t have the skill to go.

Eubank, who is also a husband and father of three, was a member of the First Special Forces Group. According to the Los Angeles Times, Eubank joined the special forces team when he was 18, but after 10 years decided that he needed “the freedom to go where God was leading.”

The Times reported that when a Burmese Bible group asked Eubank’s Christian missionary parents for help, they turned to their son.

“The Burmese said they were a warrior people, and they needed someone like that. My parents called me up and asked what I thought,” Eubank said. “I figured I could go and even if I helped only one person, at least they would be happy and I would be happy.” (Read more from “Watch: Christian Aid Worker Braves ISIS Gunfire to Rescue Little Girl in Mosul” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Nonprofit Tracker Smears Dozens of Conservative Organizations as ‘Hate Groups’

The nation’s leading source of information on U.S. charities faces mounting criticism for using a controversial “hate group” designation in listings for some well-known and broadly supported conservative nonprofits.

GuideStar, which calls itself a “neutral” aggregator of tax data on charities, recently incorporated “hate group” labels produced by the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center.

The decision by the tracker of nonprofits prompted 41 conservative leaders to protest the move in a letter provided exclusively to The Daily Signal. The letter, dated June 21, asks the website to drop the “hate group” labels put on 46 organizations. (Read the full letter below.)

GuideStar’s use of the “hate group” designation for certain organizations, many of them Christian, unfairly and inaccurately adopts the “aggressive political agenda” of Southern Poverty Law Center, the leaders write.

Among the organizations represented are the Family Research Council, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, the Immigration Reform Law Institute, the American College of Pediatricians, the National Task Force for Therapy Equality, the American Family Association, the London Center for Policy Research, and the Jewish Institute for Global Awareness.

In the letter to GuideStar President and CEO Jacob Harold, the conservative leaders write:

We, the undersigned organizations and individuals, write to express our strong disagreement with GuideStar’s newly implemented policy that labels 46 American organizations as ‘hate groups.’ Your designations are based on determinations made by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a hard-left activist organization. As such, SPLC’s aggressive political agenda pervades the construction of its ‘hate group’ listings.

A biography of Harold on GuideStar’s website describes him as a “social change strategist.” He is seen in this tweet participating in the Jan. 21 Women’s March in Washington, D.C., which opposed new President Donald Trump:

Prior to joining GuideStar, Harold worked for the Hewlett Foundation’s philanthropy program, as a “climate change campaigner” for Rainforest Action Network and Greenpeace USA, and as an organizing director at Citizen Works.

Signers of the letter sound their concern that GuideStar, which calls itself a neutral public charity, is using the Southern Poverty Law Center’s much-contested language to flag “hate groups,” organizations that SPLC disagrees with.

“I think that what GuideStar is doing is another attack on conservative Christian organizations and individuals,” William G. “Jerry” Boykin, a retired Army general who is executive vice president of the Family Research Council, told The Daily Signal in an interview, adding:

We have seen the same thing from other places to include certain media outlets. GuideStar says that they are neutral, but they are anything but neutral. In fact, they are, I would say at this point, they are becoming an arm of the ultra-left.

Mat Staver, who also signed the letter and is the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a legal group focused on religious liberty, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview he detects purposeful motivation behind GuideStar’s flagging.

“The intent there obviously is to harm, I think, these organizations,” Staver said.

Foundations, corporations, and other institutions look at listings by such organizations as GuideStar when they determine where to make tax-exempt contributions. They are unlikely to donate money to any organization labeled as a hate group, the conservative leaders argue.

A GuideStar spokesperson told The Daily Signal in an email Wednesday that the website will change some of the language:

GuideStar draws information from thousands of distinct sources, each of them imperfect. In aggregate, those sources help us offer a multidimensional view of nonprofits. However, we recognize that the SPLC data is especially controversial. We are changing the text description of this data and reconsidering where and how we present it on our website.

The changes will appear within a few days, the spokesperson said.

Family Research Council’s Boykin said GuideStar has two options.

“I think their choices are either take this label [down] that you have put on these different organizations, all of which are conservative Christian organizations, or acknowledge that you are a politically active arm of the liberal progressive movement in America,” he said.

Staver said his organization, one of those flagged by GuideStar as a hate group, asked Harold to promptly remove that label.

“So, 41 organizations are joining together, we are asking GuideStar’s CEO to respond to me within a very quick turnaround time to reverse its course and cease this false and defamatory labeling that it is using on its website,” Staver told The Daily Signal, referring to the letter.

Among the signers is Edwin J. Feulner, founder and president of The Heritage Foundation, the parent organization of The Daily Signal. Two other fixtures of the conservative think tank, Heritage board member Edwin Meese III and Heritage Action CEO Michael Needham, also signed the letter. Heritage is not labeled a hate group by either SPLC or GuideStar.

Organizations such as the Family Research Council are well aware of the implications of the messaging that GuideStar is perpetrating, Staver said.

Floyd Corkins, the man convicted of a 2012 attempt to massacre employees at the Family Research Council, was inspired by SPLC’s description of the Christian pro-family research organization as a hate group, he noted.

In an interview with the FBI, Corkins said a list on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website motivated his attack. SPLC has acknowledged the connection.

The letter notes that James T. Hodgkinson, the man who police say tried to gun down Republican lawmakers last week, liked the Southern Poverty Law Center on Facebook.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., was gravely wounded in the gunman’s attack June 14 during practice for a congressional baseball game just outside Washington in Alexandria, Virginia.

“Does it not concern you that within the past five years, the SPLC has been linked to gunmen who carried out two terrorist shootings in the D.C. area?” the letter to Harold says, adding:

With these points in mind, we respectfully request that GuideStar return to its prior, nonpolitical approach to evaluating nonprofit organizations. Please send your reply within one week of receipt of this letter.

(For more from the author of “Nonprofit Tracker Smears Dozens of Conservative Organizations as ‘Hate Groups'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Was It Wrong to Disrupt the Trump Murder Fantasy Play?

The Stream’s Al Perrotta wrote cogently about it last week: The repulsive production that New York City’s Shakespeare in the Park had mounted. It was Julius Caesar, with the burgeoning tyrant played by a Donald Trump impersonator. Crowds of frustrated liberals savored it. They turned out for the thrill of watching the president get stabbed to death on stage. This in the context of 15 different instances of celebrities inciting violence against the president or his administration. Kathy Griffin’s ISIS photo shoot was only the worst.

All this incitement finally had the predictable effect: An enraged liberal Democrat attempted to wipe out the House GOP leadership. Rep. Steve Scalise still fights for his life. So a few lonely Trump supporters in New York City decided they’d had enough. They got tickets to the Shakespeare play, and one of them leaped up during it to register their protest. As Daniel Greenfield recounts it:

A New York production of Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” with a Trump-like character who is assassinated had a boisterous new scene this weekend: an activist who stormed the stage, yelling, “Do you want Trump to be assassinated?”

Police said Laura Loomer was arrested Friday evening during the play presented in Central Park by the city’s Public Theater. She was arrested, charged with criminal trespass and disorderly conduct and released. She must appear in court at a later date to respond to the charges.

“I’m out of jail, but I’m not apologetic,” the 24-year-old conservative activist wrote on Twitter. “Thanks to everyone who is supporting me & condemning political violence.”

As she rushed to the stage, Loomer reportedly shouted, “Stop leftist violence!”

Here’s a longish video that includes footage of her protest:

Some conservatives, such as Ben Shapiro and David French, treated this protest as the same sort of poison served up almost daily on the left. They used words like “tribalism” and “hooliganism.” I had a different reaction: I thought it was great. I wished I had been in NYC to join it.

Not Poison But Pepper

Tribalism isn’t poison. It’s more like pepper. Too much of it, and a dish is inedible, even dangerous. Too little and it’s insipid, as bland and unattractive as … well, a long list of GOP 2016 presidential hopefuls.

Ben Shapiro suggested that a lone protestor briefly taking the stage was “no different” than massed crowds of hooded, threatening Antifa rioters. You know, the folks who assaulted a faculty member at Middlebury. Who intimidated police with fires and cudgels at Berkeley. Does he really believe that? I hate to be pedantic. But here are a few key differences I could spot:

Laura Loomer had no weapons. Antifa protestors used metal rods and other weapons to menace their opponents.

Loomer peacefully left the stage when security guards escorted her off, and the performance continued. Campus leftists come in vast numbers, and typically administrators refuse to have them removed — so conservative speeches end, abruptly.

Loomer will face charges, just as civil rights demonstrators faced charges for desegregating “Whites-Only” lunch counters. Almost no leftist campus protestors have faced legal or even school punishment, anywhere.

But the two types of protest are for Shapiro “no different.” In fact, it’s hard to see what they have in common. They share exactly one element: In each case, hecklers violate the social contract that says that public events should be allowed to proceed without interruption.

Where Politeness Becomes Pusillanimous

Is that social contract absolute? Is it part of the natural law, so that if we violate it we are lowering ourselves to the same level as the worst, most intolerant leftists in America? Let’s pose a few hypotheticals and see how that thesis fares. Imagine each of the following public performances:

A live-action performance in spring 2008 of The Birth of a Nation, the infamous pro-Klan epic. In that production, a look-alike of newly elected President Barack Obama is killed by “heroic” Klansmen.

A version of Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, with a ringer for Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) playing the venal usurer Shylock — who at the play’s end is utterly humiliated and forced to convert to Christianity, at the point of a sword.

A theatrical adaptation of A Clockwork Orange, in which characters played by actresses who look like Cecile Richards, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Michelle Obama are beaten and raped.

Would we expect liberal intellectuals to savagely condemn as “tribalists” or “juvenile hooligans” black, Jewish, or female audience members who heckled such productions? Especially if their communities had recently been victims of real-world violence comparable to the attempt to murder the GOP House leadership?

Would we even condemn such hecklers ourselves?

Them’s Fighting Words

Of course not. We would realize that such productions were the equivalent of “fighting words.” That they were blatant provocations, which deserved some vocal, non-violent pushback. The protest against the Trump murder fantasy play made that clear. It’s a point we should be ready to make again and again.

Again, we must do it while eschewing violence, obeying police, and paying the relevant fines. Because, unlike the radical left, we aren’t barbarians. But neither are we passive, hapless piñatas. Spirited conservatives should be able to tell the difference. Or, as I wrote on Twitter in response to French and Shapiro: “This is how you get Jeb!” (For more from the author of “Was It Wrong to Disrupt the Trump Murder Fantasy Play?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Google and Jigsaw Get Serious About “Extremist” Content

Faced with fines in Europe, Google will enforce four new steps to identify “terrorist-related content” on its YouTube subsidiary.

“We are working with government, law enforcement and civil society groups to tackle the problem of violent extremism online. There should be no place for terrorist content on our services,” writes Kent Walker, general counsel for Google.

Terrorism is an attack on open societies, and addressing the threat posed by violence and hate is a critical challenge for us all. Google and YouTube are committed to being part of the solution. We are working with government, law enforcement and civil society groups to tackle the problem of violent extremism online. There should be no place for terrorist content on our services.

Walker says Google has “developed partnerships with expert groups, counter-extremism agencies, and the other technology companies to help inform and strengthen our efforts.”

Who are these expert groups and counter-extremism agencies? The Pew Research Center, the Anti Defamation League, and the Southern Poverty Law Center. In March, Google said they are “reputable sources that can be used for reputation research.”

The SPLC considers the “radical right” extremist. It also considers Donald Trump a lightning rod for xenophobia and racism. “Trump’s run for office electrified the radical right, which saw in him a champion of the idea that America is fundamentally a white man’s country,” Mark Potok wrote in February.

Potok believes the alt-right is a racist movement. It is a “rebranding of white supremacy for public relations purposes, albeit one that de-emphasizes Klan robes and Nazi symbols in favor of a more ‘intellectual’ approach.”

Potok and the SPLC are a reputable source?

While the focus now appears to be on Islamic extremism, it may soon include groups and individuals deemed extremist by the SPLC. It considers “antigovernment groups” extremist. These include the Oath Keepers, Lew Rockwell, the John Birch Society, the Eagle Forum, the Constitution Party, We Are Change, WorldNetDaily, Genesis Communication Network, What Really Happened, Infowars, Natural News, and hundreds of others.

Jigsaw is Google’s technology incubator. According to Google boss Eric Schmidt, the the team’s mission “is to use technology to tackle the toughest geopolitical challenges, from countering violent extremism to thwarting online censorship to mitigating the threats associated with digital attacks.”

For more on this, see the Newsbud video I produced last year:

(For more from the author of “Google and Jigsaw Get Serious About “Extremist” Content” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘The Oversight Man’ Explains Why Washington Doesn’t Change

Just a couple of months ago, investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson profiled Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the Republican chairman of the powerful House Oversight Committee which was poised to dig deep on wide-ranging investigations into government mischief, waste, fraud, and abuse.

A few weeks later, Chaffetz abruptly announced he would resign from Congress. We asked the Oversight Man what changed his mind about being a lead watchdog with not only a GOP majority in Congress, but also a Republican in the White House. He told me it’s more a matter of what hasn’t changed. We started the interview with me asking how he told party leaders he was quitting.

The following is Attkisson’s Full Measure interview with Chaffetz.

Sharyl Attkisson: Some people might think this is a great time to be a Republican Chairman of an important committee because Republicans control the House, they’re the majority in the Senate, and they hold the president’s office. That means, you would think, that federal agencies can’t stonewall investigations of spending, waste, fraud, and abuse.

Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah: The reality is, sadly, I don’t see much difference between the Trump administration and the Obama administration. I thought there would be this, these floodgates would open up with all the documents we wanted from the Department of State, the Department of Justice, the Pentagon.

In many ways, it’s almost worse because we’re getting nothing, and that’s terribly frustrating. And with all due respect, the Attorney General has not changed at all. I find him to be worse than what I saw with Loretta Lynch in terms of releasing documents and making things available. I just, that’s my experience, and that’s not what I expected.

Attkisson: What were some of the investigations that this committee was stalled on that you hoped could be picked up now, that’s not been able to happen in terms of documents not provided by federal agencies?

Chaffetz: We have everything from the Hillary Clinton email investigation, which is really one of the critical things. There was the investigation into the IRS. And one that was more than seven years old is “Fast and Furious.” I mean, we have been in court trying to pry those documents out of the Department of Justice and still to this day, they will not give us those documents. And at the State Department, nothing. Stone cold silence.

Attkisson: To what do you attribute that?

Chaffetz: I think if we went to the senior most people, even the president himself, they would be pulling their hair out and they would hate to hear that but within the bowels of the organization, they just seem to circle the wagons and think, oh we just, we can just wait you out. We can just wait you out.

Attkisson: Republicans were very upset in the last few years over the IRS Commissioner, John Koskinen, who they said allowed destruction of documents and investigations and other things. This committee, I believe, even called for him to be impeached. He’s still IRS Commissioner even though Republicans are now in charge of pretty much everything. Why is that?

Chaffetz: Now look, you have more than 50 Republicans pleading with President Trump to release him, to let him go, fire him. Or at least encourage him to retire. No, he’s still there. No changes. Nobody was fired. Nobody was prosecuted. Nobody was held accountable. We tried to issue subpoenas, we tried to hold people in contempt and the Obama administration said, no, and the Trump administration came in and did zero. Nothing. Nothing changed.

Attkisson: Do Republican leaders have an appetite to do the kind of oversight that needs to be done?

Chaffetz: No, no. No, I mean the reality is, there aren’t very many people that want to play offense. There aren’t many people who say, look, we have a duty and an obligation to fulfill the oversight responsibility that was put in place at the very founding of our country. (For more from the author of “‘The Oversight Man’ Explains Why Washington Doesn’t Change” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Who Is the Cop-Killer Trump Said He Wants Extradited From Cuba?

During his speech in Miami on Friday, President Trump called on the regime in Cuba to extradite wanted terrorist Joanne Chesimard (who goes by the name Assata Shakur) to the United States.

“Return the fugitives from American justice. Including the return of the cop-killer, Joanne Chesimard,” Trump demanded of the regime in Cuba.

Chesimard is a well-known, infamous figure in the law enforcement community. But many outside of that community, especially millennials, may not be so familiar with her case.

A convicted murderer, Chesimard was a prominent member of the ruthless Black Liberation Army (BLA), a splinter group comprised of the most radical members of the Black Panthers. Shakur was the leader of a notorious New York City BLA cell that hunted down police officers for brutal assassinations.

Chesimard has become a folk hero among the fringe Left. Because of her background in far-left activism, some in movements like Black Lives Matter see her as a hero, and not the terrorist cop-killer that she really is.

The Black Liberation Army, which rose to prominence in the 1970s, was known for its ruthless methods. In one incident showcasing their carnage, three BLA militants killed two NYPD officers in the East Village. But that wasn’t the worst part. The assailants stood over the officers and continued to shoot into their bodies repeatedly.

By 1973, Shakur was the subject of a multi-state manhunt. The FBI labeled her the “revolutionary mother hen” of the cell that had carried out the murders of NYPD officers. Later that year, Shakur bolted New York City with fellow BLA members.

On her escape down the New Jersey turnpike, she was pulled over by state troopers. At that time, her accomplice, Zayd Shakur, was killed in a gunfire battle. A police officer was also killed in the incident, with help from Chesimard, who again sped away in her vehicle

But ultimately, she was captured sitting on the side of the highway after being wounded in the gun battle.

In 1977, Chesimard was charged with murder and convicted of firing the shots that killed New Jersey state trooper Werner Foerster. She was also convicted of seven other felonies. She was sentenced to life in prison plus thirty years for her crimes.

She was later transferred to a lax security prison facility. The facility did not screen guests, so anyone was able to visit her. This allowed Chesimard to plot with members of the BLA to break her out. And on Nov. 2, 1979, three militants held a correctional officer hostage and proceeded to break Chesimard out of prison, with getaway cars waiting outside.

Two years later, she surfaced in Cuba. A wanted fugitive, Fidel Castro’s dictatorial regime provided Chesimard with asylum. Her path from prison to Cuba is largely unknown, and has baffled even the experts who traced every step of her case. Some speculate that she made her way to the Bahamas and was later picked up by a Cuban patrol boat. There are as many as 70 American fugitives living in Cuba under protection of the tyrannical Castro regime.

In 2013, the FBI placed Chesimard on its most wanted terrorists list, giving her the distinct honor of becoming the first woman to ever be placed on the FBI fugitive roster.

As former President Obama opened up diplomatic relations with Cuba, many had hoped that Chesimard would be on his list of priorities for extradition. This turned out not to be the case. Obama ignored the pleas of the law enforcement community and her victims families’ who sought to bring Chesimard to justice.

Many in the law enforcement community hoped that President Trump would act on behalf of their slain colleagues, and get to the bottom of Chesimard’s case. Today, they are surely thankful that the president demanded the Cuban regime extradite her back to America to face justice. (For more from the author of “Who Is the Cop-Killer Trump Said He Wants Extradited From Cuba?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.