Posts

1.4 Million Obama Amnesty Applicants on Deportation Hit List

/0 Comments/in , /by

Some 1.4 million illegals who followed President Obama’s request to sign up for two controversial amnesty programs could be among the first to face deportation under the new administration.

The reason: In exchange for getting into the two programs, they handed over their identities, home addresses, and admitted to being in the United States illegally, making them the easiest to find and legally deport.

“I was surprised anyone would be stupid enough to sign up for DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans). Yet apparently hundreds of thousands of people did so anyway,” said John Miano of the Center for Immigration Studies.

He said in a blog post that the programs are dead under a Trump administration and those who signed up “created a list of prime candidates for deportation with names, addresses, and an admission of illegal alien status.”

Secrets has already received reports that illegals are already starting to leave the country. One source said that some in Virginia left for the border on Wednesday, the day Donald Trump was declared the winner. (Read more from “1.4 Million Obama Amnesty Applicants on Deportation Hit List” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

After Leaving Obama’s Navy, This Former Chaplain Finally Feels ‘Free’ to Live His Faith

/0 Comments/in , /by

For the first time in a long time, recently-retired Wes Modder – a former enlisted Marine turned Navy Chaplain – feels like he finally has his religious liberty back from what has become Obama’s military.

Modder, now a pastor in the Chicago area, has been going hunting in rural Minnesota every year for the past quarter century with a group of Christian men. Two years ago he started taking his now-15-year-old son with him on the trip, which he described as a rite of passage.

In a phone interview with Conservative Review as he drove into the woods for this year’s annual retreat, Modder talked about his last years in the Navy, what has happened to the military during the Obama administration, and the need for a moral revival in America’s fighting force in the future.

Modder was nearly dismissed from the United States Navy in 2014 after sailors complained that his religious views were “intolerant,” because he counseled a lesbian sailor against having premarital sex and engaging in a same-sex relationship.

The former Marine of 16 years and father of four felt betrayed. “After so many years serving honorably and then to be dishonored and disrespected,” Modder told Conservative Review in a phone interview. “Betrayal was the first thing I felt.”

What really stung, however, was being abandoned by his fellow chaplains and officers.

“I really was surprised at all the people that ran away,” Modder, a veteran of Desert Storm and Desert Shield during his 16 years of service, said. “They treated me like a criminal or like I had leprosy or something, because the topic was so hot.”

Following the months-long legal battle, aided by Texas-based First Liberty Institute, Modder was eventually exonerated and returned to full duty in September 2015.

But while his name was cleared and his pension and benefits were no longer in danger from the P.C. police, Modder’s test of faith was far from over. His experience returning to the fleet was far from what he expected, quickly realizing he’d been placed in dead-end career purgatory.

“After that, I was given a really unproductive assignment in San Diego,” he said. “I eventually realized that there was nothing for me to do there, and no chance of any further promotion. There was no more future for me in the Navy after all that.”

Being put through the administrative ringer and stuck with no hope for advancement left him “feeling ashamed for the first time to wear the uniform.”

So he decided to get out earlier this year. “It took me about a year to see the writing on the wall,” he chuckled. “I’m a bit slow.” Signing DD Form 214 for retirement “felt like I was divorcing a whore,” he joked.

“I really had no idea where I was going to go. It was really a step of faith and it was kind of unnerving,” Modder recalled. “I was applying all over the country; I was in the final stages of applying to work at a local ministry in San Diego. I just decided in my heart that God was going to write the next chapter of my life.”

“That was a big step, not having the answers.”

Modder eventually landed at Stone Church, an evangelical congregation in Orland Park, Ill. After just a month of pursuing his calling in ministry, his outlook on life turned a big corner from his last embattled years in the military.

“I may not have gotten promoted to commander, but I got promoted right to the pulpit,” he told CR.

He never pictured that he would ever be in his current position as a senior pastor in a Chicago suburb. But Modder said that he now feels “free” for the first time in years.

“The freedom to worship God and to not have to worry about someone telling me how I have to do things, whether it’s about a bulletin insert or if I end a prayer in Jesus’ name, or if I tell someone that something is a sin,” said Modder. “Now I can preach the way I want to. Now I have the freedom to be a minister.”

That freedom, however, is fleeting and fading for those who still wear the uniform. “Whether it’s about what you have posted on your computer or how you pray as a chaplain, or what you say, everyone’s walking around on eggshells,” Modder lamented on the state of religious liberty in the military today.

This creates a bleak future for other pastors in the service, said the pastor, stating chaplains these days shouldn’t expect to get promoted or be able to fully retire, “unless you’re a liberal or a coward.”

Pastor Modder said the only thing that can save the military from the sin, moral decay, and political correctness that have plagued the Obama-era Pentagon — a trajectory he fears will make the military “unrecognizable in 20 years” — is courageous, moral leadership.

“The military now leads the way in a lot of immoral behavior, where five years ago it led the way in honor, courage, and commitment,” he said. “We need a moral fighting force.”

“I was asked during the investigation what I would do when Navy policy is contrary to scripture,” he said. “Well, for me there is no choice; I have to err on the side of scripture.”

But Modder is shocked by how quickly Naval chaplains have fallen in line with the Obama-era culture and policies: “I have never seen an organization able to ruin clergy faster than the military with its current climate. You give an insecure minister a uniform, a rank, and some ribbons and they start acting it out.”

“I want to be proud of America. I want to be proud of the Navy and Marine Corps, but I cannot be proud of a moral decay in them that has to be eradicated,” Wes Modder stated. “I miss the moral fiber that the military once had. We need that back, and we needed it yesterday.” (For more from the author of “After Leaving Obama’s Navy, This Former Chaplain Finally Feels ‘Free’ to Live His Faith” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Didn’t Endorse Illegal Voting, but There’s Plenty Wrong With What He Did Say

/0 Comments/in , , /by

At least two FOX Business News hosts have claimed that President Barack Obama told illegal immigrants to vote in an interview with actress Gina Rodriguez late last week. The first was Neil Cavuto; the second was Stuart Varney.

Snopes was quick to pronounce it “False,” but their pronouncement seemed overly hasty. So what’s the truth?

It’s complicated. What seems to have happened is that Rodriguez asked a question, in which she claimed that illegal immigrants are citizens, and Obama answered a slightly different question. That only becomes clear later in the interview, however. Initially, it sounds like he is agreeing with her false premise, and encouraging illegals to vote.

Unfortunately, FOX Business ran a clip of the interview that did not include all of Obama’s comments (which, frankly, were garbled). When one listens to the entire interview two or three times, however, the more natural interpretation is that Obama is encouraging Latino citizens to vote, even if they have family members who are illegal immigrants. But the exchange is confusing. (See the full interview below.)

Here’s the relevant interchange (which starts at 3:23 in the interview):

RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens — and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country — are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?

OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.

RODRIGUEZ: This has been a huge fear presented especially during this election.

OBAMA: And the reason that fear is promoted is because they don’t want people voting. People are discouraged from voting and part of what is important for Latino citizens is to make your voice heard, because you’re not just speaking for yourself. You’re speaking for family members, friends, classmates of yours in school …

RODRIGUEZ: Your entire community.

OBAMA: … who may not have a voice. Who can’t legally vote. But they’re counting on you to make sure that you have the courage to make your voice heard.

What Else Obama (and Rodriguez) Said

There’s still plenty to object to in the interview. While Obama didn’t encourage illegal immigrants to vote, Rodriguez did. She also made the emotionally charged, but false, statement that citizenship is determined by those who “contribute to this country.”

Rodriguez and Obama also seemed to agree, in another part of the interview, that there is no fraud at the election booth, with the president emphatically saying “No” when asked about it.

Moreover, Obama said that “people are discouraged from voting” and that “fear is promoted … because they don’t want people voting.” While voter ID laws and other measures are locked in court battles across the country, many of the laws challenged by liberals (and the Obama administration) merely require voters to show proof of citizenship via a photo identification.

This is hardly a rerun of the Jim Crow era, especially with the growing circumstantial evidence of widespread voter fraud. And even Obama said just moments later that not everyone can vote, and moments earlier had said “when you vote, you are a citizen yourself.”

Fair Elections?

Obama’s comments came just a few days before the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it will send 500 people to 67 locations in 28 states to oversee voting. The announcement made passing references to stopping illegal voting, but spent far more time outlining how the DOJ plans to make sure people going to the polls aren’t blocked.

While all legally registered voters should be able to participate in the election process, it is concerning that the DOJ seemed to pass over the threat of illegal voting.

Then again, given the Tea Party targeting scandal of 2012 and the DOJ’s cover-ups for Hillary Clinton this year, why would we expect Obama to uphold fair elections?

Here’s the full interview:

(For more from the author of “Obama Didn’t Endorse Illegal Voting, but There’s Plenty Wrong With What He Did Say” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

2 GOP Senators Advocate Post-Election Vote on Supreme Court Nominee

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Two Republican senators are breaking ranks with GOP leadership over the confirmation of President Barack Obama’s stalled Supreme Court nominee.

Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., predicted that Merrick Garland would be confirmed by the Senate during the lame-duck session of Congress. Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., has also advocated for action on Garland’s nomination in the post-election session.

“My prediction is this: If Hillary Clinton wins next Tuesday, Garland will be confirmed before January,” Isakson said Friday, according to The Huffington Post.

Isakson said he believes Garland would be a better alternative than potential Clinton nominees.

“He’s probably a lot more conservative than anybody she would appoint. If Donald Trump wins, there probably won’t be a confirmation of Merrick Garland,” Isakson said.

Garland, who currently is the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, was appointed by Obama in March to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February.

Isakson’s comments clash with statements made by fellow Republican senators, including GOP leaders who have ruled out confirmation during the lame-duck session.

“We’ve already made it very clear that a nomination for the Supreme Court by this president will not be filled this year,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in September.

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn was even more blunt when asked by CNN about possibility: “No.”

In recent weeks, several Republican senators have suggested blocking Clinton’s nominees if she is elected president.

“I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court,” said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., according to a recording obtained by CNN.

At a Colorado rally in October, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told reporters that there is a historical precedent for the court operating with fewer than nine members.

“I think there will be plenty of time for debate on that issue,” Cruz said. “ … I would note, just recently, that Justice [Stephen] Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That’s a debate that we are going to have.”

Breyer, a Supreme Court justice appointed by President Bill Clinton, told MSNBC in October, “The court, when it began at the time of the Constitution’s writing, had six members. They had six members for several years. They had 10 members for several years after the Civil War. They functioned with an even number of members.”

Meanwhile, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Mike Lee, R-Utah, have been upfront about their intention to block potential Clinton court nominees.

During a radio interview in October, McCain said that Senate Republican leadership would “be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up.”

Similarly, Lee has said he believes there would be little difference between Garland and a potential Clinton nominee.

“As a former law clerk … I don’t believe there would be a real substantive distinction, a real noticeable difference between the voting pattern of a justice who would be appointed by a President Hillary Clinton … and Merrick Garland,” Lee told reporters in October.

Until Friday’s statement from Isakson, Flake was a lone voice advocating for lame-duck confirmation of Garland.

“I think the principle ought to be for Republicans to confirm the most conservative jurist that we’re able to confirm,” Flake told CNN’s Jake Tapper in September. “And if we do lose the election, then we ought to move swiftly, I think, to confirm Merrick Garland.”

Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network, said that supporting Garland would be detrimental to conservative values.

“Garland would provide the fifth vote to undermine First Amendment free speech and freedom of religion, to gut the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and to invite unelected agency bureaucrats, like those at the EPA, to micromanage every aspect of American life,” Severino told The Daily Signal in an email.

Ilya Shapiro, a fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, told The Daily Signal via email that it the distinction between a “moderate” and a “radical’ Supreme Court justice nominated by a Democrat president is not great.

“Justices appointed by Democratic presidents vote together north of 95 percent [of the time] on they key controversies that split the Court,” Shapiro said. “In that sense, it doesn’t matter whether the next nominee is a ‘moderate’ or ‘radical’ progressive. Moreover, on the issues that produce a heterodox split — typically the left/right ‘principled’ against the centrist ‘pragmatic’–a more [left-wing] nominee might be better. For example, Judge Garland inevitably defers to government interests in law enforcement cases, which Justice Scalia assuredly did not.”

Writing for National Review last week, Heritage Foundation experts James Wallner and John Malcolm argued that senators shouldn’t rubber-stamp a president’s judicial nominees.

“To preserve our cherished liberties and our constitutional system of government, both the executive and the legislative branches must engage in robust give and take about the kinds of men and women who ought to be confirmed to life-tenured positions in the judicial branch,” they wrote. “And senators have a sworn obligation to reject nominees who, they believe, would fail to uphold the Constitution.” (For more from the author of “2 GOP Senators Advocate Post-Election Vote on Supreme Court Nominee” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s 7 Biggest Foreign Policy Mistakes

/0 Comments/in , /by

How will history judge the national security and foreign policy of President Barack Obama? From the Iran deal to the Russian reset, the world is not a better or safer place after Obama’s eight-year tenure.

(For more from the author of “Obama’s 7 Biggest Foreign Policy Mistakes” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Ultimate Lame-Duck Move? How President Obama Could Actually Pardon Hillary Clinton

/0 Comments/in , /by

The American people have a right to know if President Barack Obama will pardon Hillary Clinton after Election Day, and before the next president is inaugurated.

On Friday, the Clinton campaign melted down when Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James B. Comey sent a very short letter to the chairmen of the relevant committees in Congress explaining a supplement to his testimony in which he’d said that the FBI had completed an investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s personal email server. Comey wrote: “In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.” This letter has caused advocates of Hillary Clinton to attack the character of Comey.

News broke over the weekend that the Justice Department has obtained a warrant to review Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s newly discovered emails. Team Clinton has pulled out all the stops and is saturating the news with disparaging statements and implications about James Comey’s competence and motives. Former Attorney General Eric Holder even penned a piece this week in the Washington Post arguing that Comey has made a “serious mistake.”

The most fascinating debate, however, is whether President Barack Obama can wipe the slate clean by pardoning Hillary Clinton.

Law Newz published a piece on October 28, 2016, titled, “If Hillary Is Indicted, President Clinton Could Pardon Herself and Congress Might be Helpless.”

While Comey didn’t indicate how long the investigation could take, it’s pretty safe to bet investigators won’t come to any kind of decision before November 8th. It may even take months for the FBI to wrap up round two of this. So what happens if Clinton is elected, takes office, and then finds her self under indictment? It might not be likely, but it is worth exploring the legal possibilities.

It is Friday, January 20, 2017 and Hillary Clinton has just been sworn in as the 45th President of the United States after narrowly defeating Donald Trump in November. Republicans managed to hold both the House of Representatives and the Senate. A few weeks after winning the election, however, the Department of Justice handed down a multi-count indictment against Clinton over her handling of classified information and her involvement in an alleged pay for play scandal with the Clinton Foundation during her time as Secretary of State. It is a scenario that several of our commentators, and twitter followers have asked us to analyze.

Under Article II, Section Two, the president’s power to issue a pardon for a federal offense is nearly limitless. The Law NewZ site analyzed whether President Hillary Clinton has the power to pardon herself, but a more likely hypothetical is whether President Obama will pardon Clinton regardless of the result of the election.

The power of the president to pardon before a person has not even been charged with a crime has been established by the Supreme Court. This issue came up at the end of the presidency of George W. Bush when the question was raised as to whether Bush could pre-emptively pardon government employees involved in counter-terrorism programs who had not been charged.

As reported by Slate on July 21, 2008:

In 1866, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Garland that the pardon power “extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.” (In that case, a former Confederate senator successfully petitioned the court to uphold a pardon that prevented him from being disbarred.) Generally speaking, once an act has been committed, the president can issue a pardon at any time — regardless of whether charges have even been filed.

The power of President Obama to pre-emptively pardon Hillary Clinton has been established, and under the two likely election scenarios presented below there are reasons to believe that he will.

If Hillary wins the election, it would seem like something Obama might do because he has publicly stated that he didn’t think Hillary’s mishandling of classified information “posed a national security problem.” Remember that Obama reportedly used a pseudonym in emails with Clinton, too. For those two reasons, it seems reasonable to believe that President Obama would issue a pardon to clean the slate and let Hillary take office without the possibility of this legal question clouding her tenure as president of the United States. It would be ethically wrong, but perfectly within the power of a president under the Constitution.

If Trump wins the election, it would also seem like something President Obama might do to protect an elongated prosecution of a former presidential candidate. Again, President Obama would not want this litigated under a Republican administration, therefore it seems like he has a strong motive to pardon under either circumstance.

A reporter needs to ask President Obama right now if he will take a pardon off the table. (For more from the author of “The Ultimate Lame-Duck Move? How President Obama Could Actually Pardon Hillary Clinton” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama, Clinton, DOJ and the IRS: Are We More Corrupt Than Russia?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Imagine this scenario if you will. The government decides to crack down on a shady internet company, subpoenaing all their computer data. Within minutes, at the direction of the CEO, one employee begins deleting thousands of documents while other employees begin to destroy their computers, cell phones, and tablets, using hammers and fists and feet. Then, when called on to testify for their actions, the CEO responds dozens of times with, “I don’t remember,” while the employees who deleted data and destroyed their hardware are granted immunity and/or plead the fifth. Then, when a government official is suspected of being in collusion with this shady company, that official also pleads the fifth.

“What corruption!” you say, and rightly so. “What an outrageous cover-up! Obviously, this company is going to get nailed to the wall by the law. Their actions and words testify loudly to their guilt.”

Of course, I fully agree, but what makes this scenario even more outrageous is that the players involved are a presidential candidate (and former Secretary of State), Hillary Clinton, a number of her key employees, the current Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, and possibly even the President of the United States, Barack Obama.

And let’s not forget the corrupt activities of the IRS, also in apparent collusion with the Obama administration. (Remember that this deleted email syndrome, along with the custom of pleading the fifth, goes back to Lois Lerner of IRS infamy, she who stonewalled conservative organizations seeking IRS approval.)

Here’s a brief summary of the most glaring examples of corruption and cover-up in the Obama-Hillary era (and I won’t even get into Benghazi here, since that would take us too far afield):

When Lois Lerner was ordered to produce her emails, somehow, they had gone missing — mysteriously scrubbed — and when called on to answer direct questions by Congress, she refused, pleading the fifth Amendment. She was even held in contempt of Congress.

Not to be outdone, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen (and Lois Lerner’s boss) was almost impeached by Congress for his misdeeds and non-cooperation (can one be impeached for arrogance?), and the evidence against the IRS continues to mount, all in apparent collusion with the Obama administration.

Moving on to Hillary Clinton, her “extremely careless” actions (to quote FBI Director James Comey) occurred while she was Secretary of State, and it was only after her emails were subpoenaed by the FBI that she deleted 33,000 of them. (She claims they were deleted previously, but the evidence contradicts that.) This alone is unimaginable.

When interviewed by the FBI about using a private server for government emails, she repeatedly stated that she didn’t remember certain critical details, pointing to a head injury as the cause. (Why plead the fifth when your memory fails you, perhaps legitimately?)

In June, when Bryan Pagliano, a former Hillary staffer involved with her emails, was deposed to testify by a conservative advocacy group, he pleaded the fifth no less than 125 times. (And this was after he had been granted immunity!)

In September, when Hillary staffers Paul Combetta and Bill Thornton appeared before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to testify about their involvement in the email scandal, they too pleaded the fifth. (Why not? It seems to be the thing to do.)

As to the physical destruction of some of Hillary’s cell phones by her staff, “CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin was so surprised to learn that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s aides destroyed her phones with a hammer, she literally couldn’t believe it.” This is saying a lot when a CNN correspondent is shocked by the actions of the Clintons.

When Congressman Trey Gowdy questioned James Comey over his failure to indict Hillary over the email scandal, Comey’s answers only exposed the absurdity of his failure to indict. Is it any surprise that agents within the FBI were allegedly “disgusted” over Comey’s decision not to indict? (Could it be that Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch were not just talking about grandchildren when they held their famous, clandestine meeting on the plane?)

And speaking of Loretta Lynch, when called on this past week to testify about America’s secret (ransom?) payments to Iran, she refused to comply, also pleading the fifth. In response, senators Marco Rubio and Mike Pompeo stated, “As the United States’ chief law enforcement officer, it is outrageous that you would essentially plead the fifth and refuse to respond to inquiries.”

Finally, returning to our president, there is growing evidence that he was aware that Hillary was using a private email server for government correspondence and that he himself wrote to her using her private e-address.

It is, then, little wonder that only 26 percent of my Twitter followers who responded to a poll felt that we were “way better” than Russia when it came to “government corruption and media collusion,” while a whopping 74 percent of those responding felt that America was “about the same” as or “even worse” than Russia in these ways (respectively, 51 percent and 23 percent).

Of course, the vast majority of those responding to my poll have, presumably, never lived in Russia, so we really don’t know how valid their viewpoints are. But in light of the most recent, shocking email developments, virtually forcing James Comey to re-open his Hillary investigation just days before the election, one senses that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg — and what a filthy iceberg it is.

May God bring everything to light, and may He grant us mercy and repentance. The mess seems ready to hit the fan. (For more from the author of “Obama, Clinton, DOJ and the IRS: Are We More Corrupt Than Russia?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Levin Smokes Lying Obama and His Highway Robbery Health Care Sham

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Obama and his Obamacare “experts” have been lying to the American people all along about the destructive nature of their signature health care plan. Now, it is all unraveling right before our eyes.

“You like your Obamacare? Well, guess what, you’re stuck with it,” Levin quipped Wednesday night on his radio show before absolutely tearing into the sham health care plan. “This is highway robbery … the ONLY thing getting more powerful and richer is the federal government.”

You won’t want to miss this EPIC monologue:

“Ladies and gentlemen, for God’s sake, do you want more of this?!” (For more from the author of “Levin Smokes Lying Obama and His Highway Robbery Health Care Sham” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Former DOJ Official: Allies of Obama ‘Don’t Face Justice’

/0 Comments/in , /by

A former Department of Justice (DOJ) official says that “you don’t face justice” if you’re an ally of President Barack Obama’s.

“Look, if this was a tea party group coordinating with the Trump campaign to incite violence at Clinton real or NAACP events or whatever, we know exactly what would be happening,” J. Christian Adams told Fox News after the release of a Project Veritas video showing former Democratic operative Bob Creamer allegedly talking about inciting violence at GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s rallies. “This would be Justice Department fully investigating this for civil rights violations and all sorts of things.”

Adams, who is one of two DOJ officials to resign in protect after the Obama Administration did not press charges against the New Black Panthers over allegations of armed voter intimidation in 2008, continued:

This is a Justice Department and an FBI that is dolling out justice based on your politics. If you support Clinton, if you are Clinton, you can engage in all sorts of misbehavior without consequence. If you are the IRS commissioner or an attorney general who is held in criminal contempt, he would give you a pass. You don’t face justice under this administration.

Conservatives and the Trump campaign have touted two recent Project Veritas videos as evidence of both voter fraud and operative-incited violence at Trump rallies, and point to the resignation of Creamer and the firing of field operative Scott Foval from their respective Democratic-aligned groups. One target of the Veritas videos, however, is refusing to back down on what he says was a dishonest representation of his tactics to help minorities vote.

“In real life, I was explaining what the outcome of the presidential election will mean for the future of voter-ID laws, which have prevented thousands of Americans from voting; the role of civil disobedience in politics; and the role of activists in planning those protests,” wrote Dream Action Coalition co-director Cesar Vargas at the far-left publication The Nation. Creamer and Foval have also claimed innocence, as have the groups with which they were formerly affiliated.

Like Vargas, Think Progress and some other liberal publications noted a $10,000 donation to Project Veritas reported in disclosure forms provided to The Washington Post by Trump earlier this year. The donation took place in early 2015.

Adams’ reference to various past controversies involving includes the current U.S. Attorney General meeting with Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, a week before the FBI declined to charge Hillary for breaking federal law. FBI Director James Comey said when announcing the decision that Hillary did break the law when using e-mails as U.S. Secretary of State, but as it wasn’t done on purpose, he wouldn’t charge her.

Likewise, Republicans in the House have accused IRS Commissioner John Koskinen of misleading Congress related to the IRS’ targeting of Tea Party groups leading up to the 2012 elections. Some Republicans are pushing for Koskinen to be impeached. And House Republicans held former Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt over his refusal to cooperate regarding the Obama administration’s gun operation Fast & Furious operation that ended in the loss of thousands of firearms to Mexican drug dealers, and the death of a U.S. border agent in addition to hundreds of Mexicans.

The Stream and other outlets have also contrasted the mild treatment of federal officials to pipeline protesters in North Dakota with the aggressive treatment given to ranchers in Oregon last year.

Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe has long been controversial in political circles. Credited for shutting down the activist group ACORN in 2008 after releasing videos allegedly showing members engaging in voter fraud, he was arrested in 2010 after impersonating a telephone repairman in an office of then-Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA). O’Keefe pled guilty to misdemeanor charges. Additionally, while some of his past videos have drawn resignations and been praised for drawing attention to underreported issues, TheBlaze’s Glenn Beck criticized an O’Keefe video going after NPR in 2011. Earlier this year, a sting attempt by O’Keefe fell flat when he forgot to hang up his phone after making a call to a targeted group. (For more from the author of “Former DOJ Official: Allies of Obama ‘Don’t Face Justice'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How Obama’s Post-Presidency Could Affect Your State Legislature

/0 Comments/in , /by

During his final State of the Union address, President Barack Obama insisted that one means of ending the nation’s polarized political environment is changing how the states draw congressional and state legislative districts.

“If we want a better politics, it’s not enough just to change a congressman or change a senator or even change a president. We have to change the system to reflect our better selves,” Obama said. “I think we’ve got to end the practice of drawing our congressional districts so that politicians can pick their voters, and not the other way around. Let a bipartisan group do it.”

Obama apparently plans to devote much of his post-presidency to the cause of moving congressional and state legislative districts in Democrats’ favor.

Politico first reported that former Attorney General Eric Holder, an Obama appointee and friend, will be chairman of a new group called the National Democratic Redistricting Committee that was established in “close consultation” with the White House.

Elisabeth Pearson, executive director of the Democratic Governors Association, will be president of the organization.

The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which focuses on raising money and campaigning for Democrats running for state legislatures, expects the new organization will align with its efforts to win back statehouses before the 2020 Census and subsequent redistricting, spokeswoman Carolyn Fiddler said.

“DLCC is thrilled that former Attorney General Holder and President Obama are engaging in this crucial effort,” Fiddler told The Daily Signal. “Redistricting and state legislative elections are vital to the future of the Democratic Party, and the president’s involvement will help drive that fact home to a broad audience.”

The new National Democratic Redistricting Committee is a “527,” a name derived from a section in the federal tax code, which means it is an organization dedicated to influencing policy or elections and may raise unlimited amounts of money from corporations and labor unions.

In a widely published statement last week, Holder seemed less concerned about better politics and more about partisanship when he said:

American voters deserve fair maps [of election districts] that represent our diverse communities—and we need a coordinated strategy to make that happen. This unprecedented new effort will ensure Democrats have a seat at the table to create fairer maps after 2020.

The White House didn’t respond to inquiries from The Daily Signal on the effort, nor did the Democratic Governors Association. Holder also did not respond to an inquiry left on his voicemail at Covington & Burling law firm, where he is a partner.

While the president seemed to rail against the practice of gerrymandering by calling for a bipartisan commission to redraw legislative districts, the National Democratic Redistricting Committee reportedly is focusing on state legislative and gubernatorial races, election-related litigation, and voter initiatives at the state level. The goal: Rebuild a bench of future Democratic candidates for state and national offices.

White House officials informally approved naming Holder, a close friend of Obama’s, to run the new organization, The Washington Post reported.

“Over the past eight years the president has seen firsthand Republicans pulled to the far right for fear of a primary challenge instead of trying to govern from the center,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz told the newspaper.

During Obama’s two terms as president, Democrats lost 69 seats in the House of Representatives. The president’s party also lost 913 state legislative seats. A total of 32 state legislative chambers flipped to Republicans during Obama’s two terms, according to the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.

While some of these losses could be blamed on the way Republican-controlled state legislatures drew up maps for legislative districts, it can’t explain why Democrats lost 13 U.S. Senate seats and 11 governorships during statewide elections over Obama’s nearly eight years in office.

Obama’s backing of the organization after his presidency is drawing attention because, as The Washington Post reported, it “marks a rare, if not unprecedented, step in the modern era.”

Obama’s affiliation with the group is likely a means to rake in large donations, said J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department lawyer and an expert on elections who was a critic of Holder’s actions as attorney general.

“This is about raising the dollars to swamp Republican efforts,” Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “An ex-president will have access to almost limitless amounts of money to fuel efforts to manipulate the political system to advantage the left.”

Every 10 years after the Census, states complete redistricting for congressional and state legislative districts. States generally are free to conduct redistricting how they choose as long as it adheres to the “one man, one vote” principle laid out by the Supreme Court in 1962.

Democrats and Republicans have complained for years about state legislatures seeking to draw the lines of district maps so that the results are favorable to the dominant party’s interest.

The complaining party typically depends on who has the advantage in a particular state. The practice of drawing up such districts commonly is known as gerrymandering.

In response to complaints, 13 states established special commissions to draw state legislative boundaries, taking redistricting out of the hands of the legislature—similar to what Obama, in his State of the Union address, said a bipartisan group should do.

The 13 states are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

Seven of them—Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Jersey, and Washington—have special commissions to determine congressional districts as well as state legislative districts.

However, such commissions haven’t always made the process less political, said Wendy Underhill, program director for the National Conference of State Legislatures. That’s because even nominally bipartisan commissions frequently have a party advantage.

“It’s not necessarily a given it will have a less political outcome just because you have a commission,” Underhill told The Daily Signal. “It depends on the rules and the makeup of the commission.”

In some of the 13 states, Arizona and California among them, the commissions are made up of nongovernment members and include an equal number of Republicans, Democrats, and independents.

In Ohio, where a commission will go into effect after 2020, the body will be made up of the governor, auditor, secretary of state, and four others appointed by majority and minority members of the general assembly.

In Arkansas, a board is made up of the state’s governor, attorney general, and secretary of state. Currently, all these officials are Republicans, so redistricting decisions likely would have a partisan tilt.

Even if each of the three elected Arkansas officials were not of the same party, a majority party likely would have a 2-1 advantage in determining the makeup of legislative districts. So, redistricting in Arkansas would not be void of politics. (For more from the author of “How Obama’s Post-Presidency Could Affect Your State Legislature” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.