Newsweek Editor Admits He Faked News on Fox

Newsweek reporter Kurt Eichenwald said Tuesday that his baseless claim that President-elect Donald Trump was once institutionalized in a mental hospital was actually part of a series of jokes and intended to be a “signal to a source” to talk to him.

Eichenwald’s explanation came Tuesday on “Good Morning America,” as host George Stephanopoulos asked him about the September tweet in which he said, without evidence, he believed “Trump was institutionalized in a mental hospital for a nervous breakdown in 1990.”

“Any regrets about that?” Stephanopoulos asked.

“There’s a long story behind it,” Eichenwald said after some brief laughter. “When you go through the full lead-up to that tweet — there was a reporting purpose for that tweet going out, which is more than you are going to want to hear about.

“I was making fun of Fox News and the rest, who were doing ‘Hillary has seizures,’ ‘Hillary has multiple sclerosis,’ ‘Hillary has Parkinson’s,’ you know, let’s go to Dr. Oz,” he continued, referring to a point in the election during which the two major-party presidential nominees’ health was under the microscope. (Read more from “Newsweek Editor Admits He Faked News on Fox” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Left’s Plans to Disrupt the Presidential Inauguration

Although the paid violent protests have subsided since the presidential election, hard left wing groups are rallying to disrupt Donald Trump’s inauguration on January 20. Some websites are actively recruiting demonstrators.

One, ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism), claims on its Facebook page that over 20,000 people are committed to a demonstration on Pennsylvania Avenue the day of the inauguration. Apparently composed of former Bernie Sanders supporters, the group calls for “a real political revolution.” They want to build a “grassroots movement against war, militarism, racism, anti-immigrant scapegoating and neoliberal capitalism’s assault against workers’ living standards and the environment.”

The group might rally hundreds of thousands of protesters, Fox News reported. A spokesman for Washington, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department said they were preparing for at least 30,000.

Shut Down the Inauguration

DisruptJ20 takes a harder position. Like all hard left activities now, while any group can put together a professional-looking website and rally hundreds or thousands of people on Facebook and Twitter, the group DISRUPTJ20 has an impressive web presence. Who’s really behind it and how much practical support they have can’t be known. The group calls for a general strike on inauguration day.

The homepage of their website declares, “We’re bringing widespread civil resistance to the streets of Washington, DC through protests, direct actions, and even parties and we want you there with us.” On the group’s Contact Us page, they explain that they’re “planning a series of massive direct actions that will shut down the Inauguration ceremonies and any related celebrations — the inauguration parade, the Inaugural balls, you name it. We also planning to paralyze the city itself.”

Answering a question about their public planning, the site stresses “the difference between public events and ones where you do not want the cops to be warned about you coming.” They urge people to join and add, “We have always been public about our intent to shut down this inauguration.” They claim they’ve already been approached by the Secret Service, MPD (Metropolitan Police Department), Park Service, and Park Police.

The group does not like Donald Trump. “Trump stands for tyranny, greed, and misogyny,” they say. “He is the champion of neo-nazis and white Nationalists, of the police who kill the Black, Brown and poor on a daily basis, of racist border agents and sadistic prison guards, of the FBI and NSA who tap your phone and read your email. He is the harbinger of even more climate catastrophe, deportation, discrimination, and endless war.”

(For more from the author of “The Left’s Plans to Disrupt the Presidential Inauguration” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Islamist Terrorists Continually Slaughter Christians’: Trump Says What Obama Refused to Say

For eight years, we have watched Islamic terrorist attacks take place around the world and on our own shores, with the bloody, gory death toll rising by the day (roughly 30,000 attacks since 9/11). And for eight years, we have listened carefully as our president addressed these horrific acts, studiously avoiding the words that so needed to be spoken: “Islamic terror” or “radical Islam.”

Instead, President Obama and his surrogates spoke of “extremism” or “terrorism” — without any reference to Islam — or, worse still, of “workplace violence.”

Mr. Obama and his team would not even identify Nidal Malik Hasan, the 2009 Fort Hood mass murderer, as an Islamic terrorist, despite the fact that he identifies as a Soldier of Allah, was mentored by a Muslim terrorist (Anwar Al-Alaki, whom we killed in a drone strike in Yemen), and slaughtered our soldiers in cold blood while shouting out Allah’s name. No, this was an instance of workplace violence. (It was not until 2015 that Obama referenced the attack as “terrorist,” but still refused to mention the word “Islamic.”)

This is not just perverse, it is utterly irresponsible, since it fails to acknowledge that we are not just combatting people, we are combatting an ideology, and if we cannot even name that ideology, let alone describe it, we certainly cannot fight it.

And so yesterday, in the aftermath of the horrific truck attack at the Christmas market in Germany, the Obama administration (not the president himself, who is apparently on his final Christmas break) issued a statement, saying, “The United States condemns in the strongest terms what appears to have been a terrorist attack on a Christmas Market in Berlin, Germany, which has killed and wounded dozens.”

In stark contrast, President-elect Trump stated:

Our hearts and prayers are with the loved ones of the victims of today’s horrifying terror attack in Berlin. Innocent civilians were murdered in the streets as they prepared to celebrate the Christmas holiday. ISIS and other Islamist terrorists continually slaughter Christians in their communities and places of worship as part of their global jihad. These terrorists and their regional and worldwide networks must be eradicated from the face of the earth, a mission we will carry out with all freedom-loving partners.

In one short statement, Trump has done what Obama failed to do in eight years.

1) He identified “Islamist terrorists” by name, directly associating them with ISIS.

2) He specified that their victims have often been Christians, here during the Christmas season, and at other times, in their places of worship.

3) He declared war on these terrorists, asking “all freedom-loving partners” to join him in the battle, thereby opening the door to so-called moderate Islamic nations to join us in the battle. (Would Saudi Arabia fit in this category? How about Pakistan? Yemen? Syria? Libya?)

4) He used the term “global jihad,” again with specific reference to Islamic terror.

The significance of this can hardly be exaggerated.

The UK Mirror reminds us that “Europe was warned that ISIS planned terror attacks at Christmas markets 25 days before the Berlin atrocity.”

Yes, “The attack came after intelligence agencies warned in November that terrorists are planning a wave of Christmas attacks throughout Europe, targeting shopping areas and crowded market-places to maximise casualties. The main groups plotting Yuletide blood-letting are Islamic State and al-Qaeda and UK intelligence agencies and counter-terror police are on high-alert.”

ISIS has now claimed responsibility for the Berlin massacre, which means that we have: 1) Islamic terrorists stating that they will launch Christmas attacks against Christians in Europe; 2) a terror attack taking place against Christians at a Christmas market in Germany; and 3) ISIS taking responsibility for that attack.

Yet it is Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, who has connected the dots (really, these dots are all but connected for anyone with eyes to see), which is one reason that many Americans said No to four (or eight) more years of Obama policies (in the person of Hillary Clinton) and Yes to dramatic change in the person of Donald Trump.

It is true that his tweets can be reckless and unpresidential and that not all his saber-rattling is helpful. But it is also true that the world needs leaders like Trump who will call out Islamic terror by name, which is why right-leaning, populist movements are growing around the world — and it is not because Americans and Europeans and others are suddenly becoming “Islamophobic.”

No, the problem lies with radical, murderous, terroristic Islam and the failure of these governments to address it head on, as the leaders appear to be more concerned with offending “moderate Muslims” than with protecting their own citizens — including unarmed children, women, and men.

The time for that is over. (For more from the author of “‘Islamist Terrorists Continually Slaughter Christians’: Trump Says What Obama Refused to Say” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Breaks Single-Day Record with 78 Pardons

President Barack Obama granted 153 commutations and 78 pardons Monday, the most individual acts of clemency granted in one day by any president in American history.

The president has now commuted the sentences of 1,176 individuals, including 395 life sentences, and he has pardoned 148 individuals.

“Today’s acts of clemency, and the mercy the president has shown his 1,324 clemency recipients, exemplify his belief that America is a nation of second chances,” Neil Eggleston, Obama’s White House counsel, said in a statement Monday afternoon.

Obama visited the El Reno Federal Correctional Institution in Oklahoma in summer 2015, becoming the first sitting president to visit a federal correctional facility.

The president commuted 46 prisoners that week, and fought for sentencing reform when it came to low-level drug offenders and nonviolent criminals.

The president has the power to commute a sentence or pardon the crime that a citizen is convicted of. A president’s decision to grant clemency is not reviewable and he (she) does not have to give a reason.

Clemency is the overall term for official forgiveness of a violation. A “pardon” wipes out the conviction while a “commutation” leaves the conviction on record, but wipes out the punishment.

“Today’s grants signify the president’s continued commitment to exercising his clemency authority through the remainder of his time in office,” Eggleston said. “I expect that the president will issue more grants of both commutations and pardons before he leaves office,” the president’s top lawyer predicted in the statement. (For more from the author of “Obama Breaks Single-Day Record with 78 Pardons” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Despite Conservative Victories in 2016, Assisted Suicide Has Gained Ground

While the nation’s attention has been squarely on President-elect Donald Trump’s win in recent weeks, election night also saw several significant losses for conservatives.

Among these is Colorado’s Proposition 106, known as the End of Life Options Act, which passed by an astounding two-thirds percentage and effectively legalized suicide in that state.

Proposition 106 signals a stark shift in the cultural and legal landscape in one of the nation’s most purple states. Colorado became one of the first two states to legalize marijuana in 2012, and over the past four years, it has been one of the top two states in receiving an influx of young professionals under 40.

Even though local mainstream media and editorial opinions that are not typically conservative came out strongly against the measure, it still passed at the ballot box.

Proposition 106 was carried forward on a palpable cultural perception of “freedom” that is now markedly different from traditional conservative definitions of liberty, which had shaped red states in elections past.

Conservatives and certainly our Founders recognized that liberty is the self-governing right to live and therefore act freely within certain universal moral parameters. But that orthodoxy is now shifting.

Our culture now largely perceives the liberal contention that freedom is the universal ability to live and therefore act outside of any presupposed moral construct.

Freedom, the 2016 progressive agenda says, is not just my right to believe anything, but also my “right” to do literally anything I please, so long as I personally believe my actions are valid.

The year 2016 saw this leap from belief to action (the natural consequence of beliefs) on a bigger scale than arguably any prior year in American history.

From the Obama transgender mandate that told educational institutions they had to allow the supposed “freedom” to act incongruently with one’s actual gender to the rising acceptance of legalized marijuana, the cultural mandate is asserting that freedom means action without moral restraint.

The right to believe whatever one chooses, particularly in a religious context, is a hallmark of American jurisprudence. But even the Supreme Court has never stated that a person has the liberty to act however he or she chooses. Actions are always governed by the rule of law, and this orthodoxy is consistent with American principles of liberty and freedom.

But assisted suicide—the action of deliberately ending one’s own life—quietly became law amid this wave of redefined freedom. The culture is now asserting unrestrained self-identity and unrestricted freedom nonsense, as well as the liberal notion that every person should be “free” to subjectively self-identify his or her own quality of life, even to his or her own objective detriment.

This is not legitimate freedom or liberty. This is redefining the value Americans have always placed on genuine freedom and liberty. Once we frame liberty with a broad brush that any action—even self-selected suicide—is permissible, we lose the true moral definition of freedom, and perhaps we lose freedom altogether.

While Colorado is not the first state to pass assisted suicide (as of 2016, five states have legalized assisted death), Proposition 106 does not place any restrictions or safeguards against “doctor shopping” or encouraging insurance companies (who could providing kickback incentives to doctors) to push cost-effective provisions in aiding dying rather than costly lifelong medical care.

Once the law grants this “freedom” to subjectively choose the value of one’s life and when it should end, the law becomes meaningless to restrain certain harmful acts and to protect people from those acts.

The rule of law has always been used to impose morality upon society and the individual, under the basic premise that certain actions are universally wrong and harmful to society. This is why we have a criminal code that prohibits certain behaviors, which is society’s expression of objective values and morality.

When the law fails to serve as the civil mechanism for preserving and protecting true liberty through moral restraint, the law then loses this inherent legitimacy and important governmental function.

The Founders recognized in the Declaration of Independence that objective truth exists, and that fundamental human rights (including life and liberty) come from an objective source—our creator. Assisted death expressly contradicts this truth by giving people the ability to subjectively determine—and fully deny—the value of their own lives.

It is often said that politics is downstream from culture, and our culture is redefining the moral virtues of freedom and liberty. Conservatives must not ignore the significant losses in 2016 (though thankfully few), but rather engage at the cultural level, while also keeping active in politics and law. (For more from the author of “Despite Conservative Victories in 2016, Assisted Suicide Has Gained Ground” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Navy Begins Transgender Indoctrination

With only a few weeks left of Barack Obama’s presidency, his administration is doing all it can to solidify the radical changes it has introduced — especially in the armed forces. After winning repeal in 2010 (from a lame duck Congress) of the law against homosexuality in the armed forces, the administration set out in 2016 to complete its extreme LGBT makeover of the military by opening the doors to transgender service members as well. Defense Secretary Ash Carter revoked longstanding policies against transgender military service on July 1, 2016, and a year later, on July 1, 2017, the armed forces are currently scheduled to begin actively recruiting persons who identify as transgender.

A series of regulations have since been handed down explaining how “gender transition” will be handled in the military, as well as what medical treatments will be made available to the spouses and children of service members. Now, however, the direct indoctrination of the force into accepting this radical agenda has begun.

First, the Washington Free Beacon reported that the U.S. Naval Academy would be offering 90-minute “Transgender 101” classes to both staff and midshipmen. The training was to be conducted by two Google employees, Kevin Perry and Marnie Florin. Florin is reportedly a “diversity consultant” who “identifies as gender neutral and goes by the pronouns ‘ze’ or ‘they.’”

While the training at the Academy was described as optional, it may only be a test run. The Free Beacon reports, “All active duty sailors must complete transgender training by January 31.”

The report also noted, “Midshipmen and staff who take the training course will get the opportunity to display cards outside their door that show they are allies of the LGBT community.” (Yet only four months ago, a military court upheld the court-martial of a Marine who dared to post a single Bible verse by her work station.)

Family Research Council has been contacted by service members expressing concern about “transgender training” in the military. One enlisted naval reservist spoke to me on December 14 about the transgender training he recently experienced during a drill weekend at a Naval Reserve Center on the west coast. This session did not feature any transgender “diversity consultants” — rather, it was the Commanding Officer of the Center who presented a 45-minute PowerPoint.

Attendees were informed that the issue is “not up for negotiation or debate.” To service members who may have religious objections to the new policy, the CO said, “Talk to me and I’ll help you.” Help you find an accommodation that will allow you to act upon your deeply-held religious beliefs? Oh, no — “help you get out of the Navy.”

The reservists were told that not only will they be required to serve with colleagues who identify as transgender, but they will also be expected to use the pronouns of the person’s choice. In other words, those who believe (correctly) that one’s male-ness or female-ness is a God-given biological characteristic that is identified at birth (and fixed even earlier) will be required to speak lies in order to avoid showing “disrespect.” This is ironic at best (and tragic at worst), given the emphasis that the military usually places on integrity, honesty, and truth.

I mentioned to the reservist that the military’s hostility to religious viewpoints would likely damage recruiting in the very parts of the country where people are most likely to consider a military career, such as the Bible Belt. He agreed, noting that “west coast liberals aren’t pounding the doors to join the military.”

Although transgender activists vehemently deny that any privacy problems arise from allowing those with gender dysphoria to use bathrooms, sleeping and bathing facilities designated for the opposite biological sex, the Navy is implicitly making concessions to such problems. In new policy guidance announced November 7, the Navy stated, “There will be new modesty policies to allow for increased privacy in berthing, shower and head facilities.”

I recently wrote an op-ed explaining the medical reasons why allowing people who have had, or are having, hormone therapy and or gender reassignment surgery to serve in the military is a threat to readiness and the ability to deploy anywhere in the world. It is becoming increasingly clear that it is a threat to freedom of thought, speech, and religion as well. (For more from the author of “Navy Begins Transgender Indoctrination” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Most of the ‘Faithless Electors’ Were Democrats Who Didn’t Vote for Clinton

The “faithless elector” story took a surprising turn Monday when at least five Democratic members of the Electoral College did not vote for their party’s nominee, Hillary Clinton, surpassing the number of Republicans who did not back Donald Trump.

Clinton supporters had been hoping to get at least 37 Republican electors to defect and vote for the former secretary of state or at least someone other than Trump.

Trump surpassed the threshold of 270 Electoral College votes needed to secure the presidency Monday afternoon.

Four Democratic electors from Washington state and one from Maine broke ranks and did not vote for Clinton.

Reuters reported, “It appeared to be the largest number of electors not supporting their party’s nominee since 1872, when 63 Democratic electors did not vote for party nominee Horace Greeley, who had died after the election but before the Electoral College convened, according to Fairvote.org. Republican Ulysses S. Grant had won re-election in a landslide.”

Maine elector David Bright justified his vote for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders by saying he was not a Clinton elector but a Democratic one.

“I cast my vote for Bernie Sanders not out of spite, or malice, or anger, or as an act of civil disobedience. I mean no disrespect to our nominee. I cast my vote to represent thousands of Democratic Maine voters — many less than a third my age — who came into Maine politics for the first time this year because of Bernie Sanders,” he wrote in a statement.

The Seattle Times reported that only eight of the state’s 12 Democrat electors voted for Clinton. “In an act of symbolic protest, three electors voted for former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and one cast a vote for Faith Spotted Eagle, a Native American elder from South Dakota” involved in the Dakota Access pipeline protest, according to the news outlet.

According to TheBlaze, there were two other instances of faithless electors, in Minnesota and in Colorado, who refused to vote for Clinton, but due to state law they were replaced by alternates who did.

In Texas, two Republican electors broke ranks and did not vote for Trump. One chose Ohio Gov. John Kasich while another chose former Texas congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul.

None the less, Texas was the state where Trump went over the 270 mark, with 36 casting their ballots for the GOP nominee.

The official Electoral College tally of all the states’ certified results will be completed by Congress in January when the body reconvenes. (For more from the author of “Most of the ‘Faithless Electors’ Were Democrats Who Didn’t Vote for Clinton” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The ‘Staggering’ Campaign of Liberal Billionaire George Soros to Swing Local Prosecutor Elections

As part of his quest to overhaul the American justice system, liberal billionaire George Soros is targeting local prosecutor races like the one in Harris County, a large jurisdiction that includes the city of Houston.

Morris Overstreet, a former judge who was the first African-American elected to statewide office in Texas since Reconstruction, was one of the beneficiaries. Overstreet received $100,000 from Soros in the race for Harris County district attorney.

But in a rare lost bet for Soros, Overstreet was defeated easily in the Democratic primary in March by Kim Ogg, a white woman from a prominent political family who has practiced law in Harris County, where she was born, for nearly 30 years.

Ogg had condemned the Soros donation to Overstreet intended to defeat her, calling it “a last-minute money dump to try to buy the nomination.”

Today, Ogg is the Harris County district attorney-elect after going on to beat the Republican incumbent, Devon Anderson. She won the general election with the aid of about $878,000 from the Soros-funded Texas Safety and Justice PAC.

Soros pledged allegiance to Ogg after his preferred candidate lost.

The money helped buy television ads accusing Anderson of botching a case in which the district attorney’s office ordered a rape victim jailed to guarantee she would show up in court to testify against her attacker.

Associates of Soros helped craft the message of the ads, Ogg’s campaign confirmed to The Daily Signal. The campaign said Soros’ contributions to Ogg equaled more than half of the $1.5 million she raised in total.

This past week, less than a month before she takes office, Ogg expressed a different view of Soros’ campaign contributions.

“Before, I was dismayed he was buying the election,” Ogg said in an interview with The Daily Signal, adding:

It was a last-minute dump [of funds supporting Overstreet]. In my instance, his people came to talk to me after I won the primary, so it was not a last-minute dump. Soros is only half of the story here. My agenda and platform was really set before he spent money in my race, but I am appreciative of the money, as I was with every other dollar.

On Jan. 1, Ogg will begin to try fulfilling the vision she ran on, promising a “significant culture change” defined by taking a more lenient approach to marijuana possession cases, focusing tax dollars on punishing violent criminals, and making it easier for defendants to get out of jail on bond in a county where 70 percent of inmates cannot afford to free themselves before trial.

It’s a set of goals that would seem to match Soros’ preference for how prosecutors do their jobs, using their powerful roles and vast discretion not only to protect public safety but also reduce prison populations and repeat offenses.

Despite these overlapping interests, Ogg insists she doesn’t have a mandate from Soros. In fact, she says she’s never spoken to or met with him.

“I don’t know George Soros,” Ogg said, then repeated: “I don’t know George Soros.”

“I made no promises to Soros or his supporters. The money that helped expose issues here is always a benefit, but I believe voters made their decision not based on the name or identity of a contributor, but on the poor policies and public safety record of my opponent. Plus, I have my own reputation here. In cases of David vs. Goliath, I often represent David. I believe my reputation is intact.”

‘Staggering Amount of Money’

Soros, 86, an American hedge fund manager and philanthropist, is No. 22 on the Forbes list of the world’s billionaires, with a net worth estimated at $20 billion. He finances a variety of liberal political causes, including ones related to education, immigration, climate change, and the environment.

Soros’ philanthropic network, the Open Society Foundations, has spent more than $13 billion over the past three decades on initiatives to defend human rights abroad and shape the democratic process in Eastern Europe.

Soros gave an unprecedented $27 million to various 527 groups trying to defeat President George W. Bush in his 2004 re-election campaign, describing the effort as a “matter of life and death.”

Soros also helped launch the Democracy Alliance, a group of major liberal donors seeking to advance progressive policymaking by investing in organizations such as Center for American Progress, Media Matters for America, and Organizing for Action, which was set up to advance the agenda of President Barack Obama.

Soros has not personally spoken with or met any of the candidates he supported in district attorney races this year and last, his advisers say.

In most of the dozen prosecutor races he helped finance, Soros did not coordinate at all with the candidate he supported, they said. Instead, he operated independently by giving money to various state-level political action committees (PACs) and a national “527” unlimited-money group, each identified by a variation on “Safety and Justice.”

The form of his contributions depended on local and state campaign finance laws, Soros’ advisers say, and in some cases, as in Harris County, the collaboration was more direct.

Soros’ efforts are part of a new, broader push by progressives to locate, prepare, and fund challengers to unseat incumbent prosecutors. Such upsets are notoriously difficult to achieve in local district attorney races, where name recognition and outside interest are usually low and voters give deference to the candidate with a record.

“Criminal justice reform efforts must take many forms,” Whitney Tymas, an adviser on Soros’ project challenging sitting prosecutors, said in a statement to The Daily Signal. Tymas added:

Changing laws and redirecting funding streams is critical. Because of the enormous discretion vested in those who enforce the laws, including prosecutors, it is also important to elect officials who are committed to public safety and equal justice. These officials are a key leverage point in a complicated system.

David Alan Sklansky, a Stanford University professor and former federal prosecutor, told The Daily Signal that only a “handful” of races for the 2,500 district attorneys’ offices nationwide included candidates with “reform-oriented” agendas, and of those that did, most did not involve contributions from Soros.

“In a number of high-visibility district attorney races around the country, incumbents this year were unseated by challengers who promised a more moderate approach to criminal justice, backing away from a simple ‘tough on crime’ agenda and paying more attention to fairness, proportionality, and equity,” Sklansky said. “Many of these successful candidates also pledged to improve the investigation of police shootings, to rein in prosecutorial misconduct, and to be more vigilant in avoiding and correcting wrongful convictions.”

Still, Soros’ role in local prosecutor races is significant. It touches counties big and small, urban and rural; northern, southern, western, eastern, and midwestern. In total, Soros spent nearly $11 million on 12 district attorney races this election cycle, campaign filings show.

A Democrat candidate supported by Soros ultimately won in 10 of the 12 races.

The trend of outside funding worries opponents of Soros’ tactics, including veteran district attorneys who say the outsize contributions threaten prosecutorial independence, which is especially important in a role as powerful and all-encompassing as theirs.

“The amount of money we are talking about is staggering,” said Joshua Marquis, the district attorney of Clatsop County, Oregon, since 1994 and a board member of the National District Attorneys Association.

“And it’s amplified because it’s extremely difficult to raise money as a prosecutor,” Marquis told The Daily Signal, adding:

To ask for money when you are a prosecutor, there is something inherently icky about all of it. The argument on one side is this is good, and it’s just turning on a searchlight and looking at these issues. But that’s naive in the extreme because it’s the money that is funding debates and actual discussions. If you are able to pay for and tell your side of the story over and over again on television ads, you are going to win.

‘Couldn’t Compete’

Matthew McCord faced an uphill challenge to counter his Soros-backed opponent.

McCord, a Republican who ran for district attorney in Henry County, Georgia, was not an incumbent and did not have a prosecutor’s record to run on.

He had $60,000 in his campaign fund and a supportive family, but in September he decided that wasn’t enough. McCord dropped out of the race after learning Soros had contributed $100,000 to a political action committee supporting his opponent, Democrat Darius Pattillo.

“The joke was people were saying to me, ‘You need to fight to the death,’ and I said, ‘To whose death, mine?’” McCord told The Daily Signal in an interview. “Soros apparently had a single-minded mission to make sure I was not successful. I couldn’t compete.”

McCord, a municipal judge and local lawyer, said he ran on a platform similar to Pattillo, a deputy chief assistant district attorney in nearby DeKalb County. McCord said both candidates called for relieving overburdened courts and crowded jails by providing more alternatives to prosecution for low-risk offenders as well as better community outreach.

Pattillo did not respond to a request for an interview from The Daily Signal.

“I am viewed as a fairly centrist conservative,” McCord said. “I don’t know there was much difference between my approach to justice and his [Pattillo]. When did progressives and liberals get a monopoly on the idea of criminal justice reform? Soros doesn’t even know me. He didn’t ask me what my views were or what I would do.”

Soros so far has backed only Democrats in district attorney races, but his advisers insist his support for candidates isn’t based on political party and say Soros would consider making a large contribution to a “reform-minded” Republican prosecutor.

McCord said he doesn’t know if he will run again for district attorney—his dream job. But he said he knows what would stop him from trying.

“I’d rather be a private citizen doing the right thing than be a bought man,” McCord said.

‘A Little Bit of Love’

Prosecutors drive critical decisions in the criminal justice system, choosing when, whether, and against whom to bring criminal charges, as well as making recommendations for sentencing and setting the terms of plea negotiations.

These decisions are receiving more scrutiny at a time where there is a growing bipartisan consensus around the need to reduce incarceration, provide more alternative punishments, and expand rehabilitation opportunities for low-level drug offenders.

As part of this effort, Soros, along with progressive groups advocating racial justice and gender equality, is trying to elect more minority prosecutors in response to what he sees as an insufficient response by incumbent district attorneys to the fatal shootings of black men by police officers.

Several candidates who Soros backed are members of minority groups.

The Reflective Democracy Campaign, an arm of the progressive Women Donors Network, found in a 2015 study that 95 percent of elected local prosecutors were white.

“Of course, what was happening with Black Lives Matter and police shootings was a huge wake-up call [for progressives, who began] realizing how much power these offices have and the need for us to be focused on getting great people elected,” Andrea Dew Steele, president of Emerge America, a candidate-training organization for Democratic women, said in an interview with The Daily Signal.

“District attorney races have historically just been completely ignored, like most down-ballot races, in the progressive and Democratic community,” Steele said. “I am just thrilled to see that if you give a little bit of love to these races, a small investment yields a huge outcome.”

In Chicago’s Cook County, Soros funded one of several groups that helped Kim Foxx, who is black, defeat the incumbent state’s attorney, Anita Alvarez, in the Democratic primary. Foxx then easily beat her Republican general election opponent.

Alvarez drew widespread criticism for her handling of the 2014 fatal police shooting of Laquan McDonald, a black 17-year-old. She took 13 months before charging the Chicago police officer who shot and killed McDonald, a delay that sparked protests.

“Soros’ funding was a big factor in my loss, obviously,” Alvarez, the first female and first Hispanic candidate to be elected as Cook County’s top prosecutor, said in an interview with The Daily Signal. “Some people want to say I lost my election simply because of the McDonald video, but I felt this movement prior to my charging that officer. When you have these outside influences, it’s scary because they don’t know the climate—that Chicago has a serious violent crime problem, a serious gun problem.”

Under Alvarez’s leadership, Cook County created a nationally recognized pretrial diversion program. Diversion is intended to promise low-risk defendants a second chance. Eligible individuals are not prosecuted, but instead receive supervision services such as counseling and job training, and can have their criminal record expunged.

Such diversion programs exist in almost every state, but Cook County’s is considered especially innovative because defendants pay no fee to participate, meaning poorer individuals can benefit from the services.

“It would have been a wonderful thing if George Soros actually would have looked at my record,” Alvarez said. “He probably would have liked what he saw.”

Soros’ money also helped Aramis Ayala upset incumbent Jeff Ashton in the Democratic primary for Florida state attorney for Orange and Osceola counties.

The Soros funding paid for TV ads and mailers accusing Ashton of carrying out racially disparate policies—a claim he denied.

Ayala, a black woman, became the first African-American elected as a state attorney in Florida.

“Race does not explicitly play a role, but in seeking candidates who understand the injustices of the current system, many of them turn out to be African-American or Latino, because it is people of color who have been disproportionately affected by those injustices,” Tymas, the Soros adviser, told The Daily SIgnal.

‘Couldn’t Stop Them’

Last year, Scott Colom took a risky approach to his run for district attorney in a four-county stretch in Mississippi.

Colom, who is black and a Democrat, promised voters he would promote more rehabilitation and less incarceration for drug offenders, especially young people—although he also said he’d be tough on violent criminals.

Voters validated Colom’s agenda. It also was backed by Soros, who gave almost $400,000 to a Mississippi PAC supporting Colom’s campaign to defeat a long-entrenched incumbent, Forrest Allgood, an aggressive prosecutor whose record had been heavily criticized.

That PAC also backed the re-election campaign of another local prosecutor, Hinds County District Attorney Robert Shuler Smith.

Colom now has served a year as district attorney of Mississippi’s 16th District. He has implemented some of his proposed policies, including expanding eligibility for pretrial diversion to defendants arrested for offenses such as selling marijuana.

In an interview with The Daily Signal, Colom said personal experience shapes his worldview. He grew up in Columbus, Mississippi, and watched high school classmates go to prison.

While in law school, Colom interned with the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania, witnessing poverty and gaining an understanding of how government policy can hold people back.

“I had the courage to run on this criminal justice reform message based on my own personal convictions, before I had any idea there would be any national money, or a George Soros, supporting me,” Colom said. “I decided to run this way having no idea on how it polled. This is how I believed I should be elected.”

Colom, like Ogg in Harris County, said he didn’t know how Soros learned about who he is and what his positions are.

Colom said he never has been in contact with Soros, or anyone associated with him—and does not plan to connect with him now. He said he learned about Soros’ contribution only after seeing and hearing television and radio ads supporting his election.

Colom said the nearly $400,000 in outside money likely helped him, but that he also raised $150,000 on his own and knocked on doors every day from 3 to 7 p.m. during campaign season.

“This was a trying experience,” Colom said. “The most difficult thing I have done was to run for this office. It is important people get the whole picture of how I ran, not just one aspect of it.”

Colom added:

I don’t know George Soros. Do I think his spending money to spread my message helped me? I think any time your message spreads to more people, that helps that candidate get their message out. But what I emphasize is, the message has to be something someone agrees with. The people agree with my message. The people understand if you can avoid sending someone to prison and avoid the scar of a felony record, you should do that.

Colom’s candidacy for attorney general in Mississippi’s 16th District was one of the first such races that Soros has supported. As the Soros effort spreads, Colom says, it’s a difficult thing for candidates to counter.

“His support is not even something I can accept or decline,” Colom said. “They spend money independent of me. I couldn’t stop them. Honestly, I wouldn’t know who to ask if I wanted them to stop.”

Overcoming ‘Radical Agenda’

Pete Weir was able to halt Soros’ momentum by winning.

Soros dedicated $1.2 million to defeat Weir, the incumbent Republican district attorney of Gilpin and Jefferson counties in suburban Colorado.

Soros contributed to a PAC running negative ads against Weir in support of Democrat challenger Jake Lilly, a former prosecutor and Iraq War veteran. One mailer said the incumbent “can’t be trusted to keep us safe from sex offenders.”

In an interview with The Daily Signal, Weir said he overcame Soros’ influence by emphasizing his 37 years of criminal justice experience. The record, he said, includes a longtime dedication to reform—the cause that Soros says he is promoting.

“There was a backlash and outrage over the negative ads directed to me and an outrage over the prospect of an East Coast billionaire trying to buy our justice system,” Weir said, adding of Soros:

He knows nothing about our community, and what the criminal justice issues are in our counties. But it didn’t change my tactics or the way we campaigned on a positive message, on my experience. What he could not overcome were the relationships we had built in the community.

Weir said he spent about $80,000 on his re-election campaign, using that money to spread the message that his office is “progressive,” combining “aggressive prosecution when it’s called for with innovative, problem-solving courts.”

Weir is a member of the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, which has helped pass state legislation reducing prison sentences for drug crimes.

He says he will continue to support reforms as prosecutor, because it’s what residents of Gilpin and Jefferson counties want. Even if he shares some of Soros’ goals, he said, those efforts should be dictated by local officials.

“It sounds immodest to say, but you would be hard-pressed to find another prosecutor in Colorado who has led reform efforts realizing we can do a better job in more areas,” Weir told The Daily Signal. “As a prosecutor community, we realize the system is imperfect and changes can and should be made. But to see some East Coast billionaire who has no idea of local interests acceding to a radical reform agenda at the expense of our democratic process is incredibly dangerous.”

‘Be More Political’

Soros and allied progressive groups say they will continue grooming and supporting prosecutor candidates who share their goals.

Steele, of Emerge America, says she already is looking ahead to the 2018 elections, with plans to recruit and train at least 25 Democratic women to run in district attorney races.

Women, she says, are uniquely sensitive to the consequences of incarceration and, as prosecutors, are likely to use their powers more carefully.

“I am hopeful that Emerge will have women running for district attorney in 2018 and make it onto Soros’ radar screen,” Steele said. “The George Soroses of the world can’t get the outcomes they desire unless you have great candidates. So what we are doing is a critical piece.”

She does not apologize for the aggressive outreach, arguing that because a state’s top prosecutors are elected, the process to become one is inherently political.

“All of these races are political,” Steele said, adding:

You have to run a race in order to win. I would say these races need to be even more political. Because the progressive community wants to see certain outcomes, less mass incarceration, that’s the outcome. In order to see that, we need to win races, and get qualified, good people running for these offices that had previously been uncontested.

Marquis, of the National District Attorneys Association, says he doesn’t doubt the sincerity of Soros and of progressive groups. He emphasizes that many members of the association, which represents state-level district attorneys across the U.S., support reform.

Indeed, the National District Attorneys Association made headlines earlier this year when it endorsed compromise legislation in Congress meant to reduce mandatory minimum sentences for low-level drug offenders in the federal prison system.

Yet Marquis said he worries that despite these efforts, some incumbent members of the association could lose their jobs to better-funded challengers.

“This is the source of great conversation among district attorneys,” Marquis said. “A lot of us are sitting around saying, ‘What if it’s me next? What if I am targeted?’” (For more from the author of “The ‘Staggering’ Campaign of Liberal Billionaire George Soros to Swing Local Prosecutor Elections” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Leading Critic of Trump’s Attorney General Pick Withdrew Accusation in 1986

A vocal opponent of confirming Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., as U.S. attorney general recanted part of his critical testimony 30 years ago against Sessions being confirmed as a federal judge.

J. Gerald Hebert, a former Justice Department lawyer, made racially charged allegations against Sessions before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was considering his nomination as a district judge in Alabama.

More recently, Hebert said Sessions would be “frightening” as attorney general.

Immediately after President-elect Donald Trump announced he would nominate Sessions to be attorney general, Hebert—despite having corrected part of his testimony in 1986—issued a public statement opposing Sessions.

A few days later, The Washington Post published an op-ed by Hebert explaining why Sessions shouldn’t be attorney general.

Hebert testified March 13, 1986, in opposition to President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Sessions to be a U.S. District Court judge for the Southern District of Alabama.

Part of Hebert’s testimony to the Judiciary Committee included allegations that Sessions, while serving as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, attempted to block an FBI investigation into a voting rights case in an Alabama county.

Hebert said Sessions bypassed proper procedure by not first informing the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

Three days later, however, on March 16, Hebert and another lawyer in the Civil Rights Division, Paul A. Hancock, filed affidavits asserting it was a different U.S. attorney, Sessions’ predecessor, who tried to stop the FBI probe.

The matter is significant in exposing unfair attacks on Sessions when Reagan nominated him for a judgeship, now that Trump plans to nominate Sessions for attorney general, said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow for The Heritage Foundation.

Von Spakovsky said the affidavits “destroy Hebert’s credibility on anything connected with Sessions.”

“These affidavits correcting the record, which got almost no media attention, are another sign that the claims made against Jeff Sessions 30 years ago were baseless and entirely manufactured,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal.

Hancock had made his assertion against Sessions before the Judiciary Committee on March 12, one day before Hebert did.

“I answered that my own recollection of that matter was consistent with Mr. Hancock’s,” Hebert said in his affidavit, referring to his testimony three days earlier. “When I rendered that testimony, it was true to the best of my knowledge, recollection, and belief.”

The one-page affidavit continued:

My recollection on this matter has now been refreshed. I have no knowledge that Mr. Sessions ever interfered with any voting investigation in the Southern District of Alabama. … I apologize for any inconvenience caused Mr. Sessions or this committee by my prior testimony.

Because of the allegations, Reagan’s nomination of Sessions for the judgeship failed to clear a Republican-controlled Senate; Sessions eventually withdrew and continued serving as a U.S. attorney, a role he held from 1981 to 1993. He was elected to the Senate in 1994.

Hebert did not correct other parts of his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In that testimony, he recalled telling Sessions about a rumor that a federal judge referred to one lawyer as a “traitor to his race.” To this rumored comment, Hebert claimed Sessions responded: “Well, maybe he [the lawyer] is.”

Hebert also told the committee that Sessions referred to the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union as “un-American” and “communist-inspired.”

Sessions denied some of the charges made against him in the 1986 confirmation hearing, but regarding Hebert’s other allegations, he reportedly testified: “I’m often loose with my tongue. I may have said something about the NAACP being un-American or communist, but I meant no harm by it.”

Sessions denied accusations by Thomas Figures, a former assistant U.S. attorney who is black, who said Sessions called him “boy” and told him to watch himself around “white folks.”

Today, Hebert is the director of a voting rights and redistricting program for the Campaign Legal Center, which advocates campaign finance reform and restrictions on money in politics.

Hebert did not respond specifically to The Daily Signal. A spokesman for the Campaign Legal Center referred to a November statement in which Hebert said:

Jeff Sessions has not demonstrated a commitment to fairness and equality under the law, a commitment that should be a minimum qualification for the position of attorney general. To the contrary, he has repeatedly demonstrated racial insensitivity to black citizens of Alabama and this country through both his words and actions. He has never apologized for his racially charged comments during his last tenure at the Department of Justice. I believe that Sessions represents a threat to voting rights for all minorities. It is frightening to think that Sessions will run the U.S. Department of Justice and have the opportunity to roll back voting rights through voter suppression in communities that have long struggled for equality.

Hancock, the other civil rights lawyer at the Justice Department who filed a corrective affidavit after testifying to the Judiciary Committee, said the mistake was corrected almost immediately and likely didn’t affect the judicial confirmation process in 1986.

He added that the matter should not affect Trump’s intended nomination of Sessions for attorney general.

“I regret that it happened with me,” Hancock told The Daily Signal, referring to the inaccurate testimony that Sessions sought to block an FBI investigation. “Nobody asked me to correct it. Nobody pressured me to correct it.”

While a lawyer in Justice’s Civil Rights Division, Hancock said, he worked with Sessions because there were many civil rights cases in Alabama and he “never had any difficulty.”

That was not the case with Sessions’ predecessor as U.S. attorney, William Kimbrough Jr., who was in the position from 1977 through 1981.

It was Kimbrough, not Sessions, who tried to stop the FBI investigation of the voting rights case, Hancock explained in his affidavit.

Further, the locale in question was Clarke County, Alabama, not Conecuh County, Alabama, as both Hancock and Hebert originally told the Judiciary Committee.

Hancock’s affidavit corrected his testimony on March 12, 1986, a day before Hebert testified. The affidavit was three pages long, with three supporting attachments regarding the Clarke County case from May 1980.

Kimbrough gave his approval for the investigation to resume and apologized for not notifying Justice’s Civil Rights Division before asking the FBI to discontinue it, according to an attached memo.

Heritage’s von Spakovsky compared the incident to the Democrats going after and denying confirmation to Robert Bork, Reagan’s nominee for the Supreme Court in 1987.

“The Borking of Sessions then was shameful and dishonest, and the same misbehavior should not be allowed to occur now,” he said. (For more from the author of “Leading Critic of Trump’s Attorney General Pick Withdrew Accusation in 1986” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

An Inconvenient Right: Ninth Circuit Fails to Protect 2nd Amendment

There are all sorts of rights the federal courts have invented. There is a right to an abortion with no restrictions on the clinics; there is a right to force states to recognize any relationship as a marriage; there is a right for Planned Parenthood to get state funding; there is a right to 20 days of early voting and ballot harvesting.

Yet, when it comes to the unambiguous, natural right of self-defense, enshrined into the Second Amendment, the courts tell the states that they are free to regulate the unalienable right all they want.

The latest example is the notorious Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding California’s law requiring a 10-day waiting period to take possession of a gun after a purchase. Writing for a three judge panel, which overturned a district judge’s opinion in favor of the Second Amendment, Judge Mary Schroeder wrote that “[A] 10-day cooling-off period would serve to discourage such conduct and would impose no serious burden on the core Second Amendment right of defense of the home.”
Let’s be clear here: There is only one enumerated right in the Bill of Rights for which the unequivocal language of “shall not be infringed” is used. That language is not used for abortion or forced recognition of alternative lifestyles as marriage against the will of the states. (In fact, it doesn’t talk about those things at all in the Constitution. Yet, the courts are saying states can’t even implement common sense health regulations on abortion clinics.) The one right that is mentioned explicitly in unmistakable language, on the other hand, seems to be open to all sorts of political arguments by the courts.

Putting aside the fact that criminals don’t submit themselves to background checks and have plenty of avenues to purchase a gun immediately, these are not constitutional arguments. Placing a 10-day waiting period is a substantial burden, especially for first-time purchasers who often make the decision out of an imminent sense of fear or need for self-defense.

Such a restriction is manifestly unconstitutional for those who are approved quickly by the federal background check system, especially in the eyes of judges who think everything not in adherence to the DNC platform is unconstitutional.

The same courts that nullify every legitimate state power — from marriage and abortion regulation to election maps and even adhering to natural law — are suddenly deferential to state laws that are incontrovertibly against the plain language of the Constitution.

Whereas they apply strict scrutiny to any regulation of a clear state power against the ACLU’s assertion of a fundamental right, they only applied intermediate scrutiny to this gun regulation against a natural right that pre-dated our Constitution.

There are a couple of other observations in order here:

1. The lower courts are killing the Second Amendment. SCOTUS remains silent.

This gun ruling is part of a growing trend where lower courts are severely limiting the scope of the Heller ruling (not that we need the court to affirm a natural right). In Heller, the Supreme Court made it clear that governmental interest cannot be factored in to mitigate an individual right to own or bear firearms because the Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people,” and “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government … the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.”

Yet every single circuit that has heard cases on gun restrictions — the Second, Third, Fourth, Ninth, and 10th Circuit Courts — has ruled there is no right to self-defense outside the home in contravention of the plain language of the Heller decision and the undeniable text of the Second Amendment. They have also upheld state “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazine bans in the Second, Fourth, and Seventh, and Ninth Circuits.

Thus far, we can’t even affirm a foundational right to self-defense with a single circuit, and the Supreme Court has therefore declined to grant cert (accept an appeal from the lower courts) to gun rights activists in an effort to overturn these lower court decisions on appeal.

Even when SCOTUS has broached the topic of guns since the Heller ruling, all but the few conservatives have clearly gone along with limiting Heller. The conservatives on the court have called them out for surreptitiously allowing the Second Amendment to be killed in the lower courts.

2. The courts are a one-way dead-end for conservatives

Ever since the federal judiciary has erroneously been given the distinction of the sole and final arbiter of constitutional interpretation, conservatives have been on the losing side of judicial supremacy well over 90 percent of the time. Heller was one of the few cases where we benefited from judicial supremacis

But notice the difference between liberal victories in the courts (even when built upon unconstitutional jurisprudence) and the few conservative victories (even when the jurisprudence is rooted in the plain text of the Constitution).

Immediately after Obergefell where the courts redefined the building block of all civilization, every red state pretty much immediately threw in the towel. Conversely, when conservatives won in Heller, the blue states immediately got to work to chip away at the scope of the victory by continuing to enforce anti-carry laws, assault weapons bans, and sundry restrictions. The dividends of liberals’ “Never surrender” mentality have paid off as the lower courts are upholding their shenanigans.

Thus once again, I must say, the federal judiciary is a dead-end for us to enforce true constitutionalism in blue states and will only serve as an anti-constitutional juggernaut for our policies in red states. Which is why we need judicial reform — badly.

Yesterday was the 225th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Years after the courts have been crowned king over our Constitution, everything under the sun has been retroactively enshrined into those critical amendments, except for the principles that were actually adopted in plain English. (For more from the author of “An Inconvenient Right: Ninth Circuit Fails to Protect 2nd Amendment” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.