Comrade Mamdani: New York's Mayor-Elect, Ready to "Protect" the City from Those Pesky Babies

Oh, joy. Comrade Zohran Mamdani, the freshly minted Mayor-elect of New York City, has decided that his first order of business, after the confetti settles and the socialist chants fade, is to play exterminator with pro-life pregnancy centers. 

During the campaign, he "vowed to 'protect' New Yorkers from pro-life pregnancy centers which he accused of spreading 'false or deceptive information.'" 

This isn't some vague threat; it's aimed straight at CompassCare, the plucky outfit running the city's only three pro-life medical pregnancy centers. Mamdani's tough-guy routine is basically a remix of the lawsuit filed by New York's Attorney General, pro-abortion firebrand Letitia James, who, surprise, endorsed the democratic socialist's bid for the big chair. It's like watching a bad buddy-cop movie where the villains high-five over their shared love of red ink and ruined lives.

Folks are understandably twitchy: How is this self-proclaimed Islamic communist going to treat the already shell-shocked Christian pro-life clinics like CompassCare? These places are dodging lawsuits from New York State busybodies, city ordinances that read like Satan's to-do list, James' endless legal jihad, Big Tech's digital Iron Curtain, and the ever-present whiff of pro-abortion rage-fests egged on by Democrats in Che Guevara drag. It's a miracle they haven't started selling "I Survived Albany" T-shirts yet.

But let's cut the drama: What can these centers actually brace for under Mayor Mamdani? 

It boils down to which of his pet fundamentalisms clocks in on day one. The religious zealot version, or the commie-utopian fever dream? Spoiler: Either way, it's a body blow to America's Constitutional setup, that dusty old Judeo-Christian foundation where "don't murder the vulnerable inconvenient" was kind of a big deal.

Remember the Declaration of Independence? You know, the one where our founders, those dead white guys the left loves to cancel, said we're all endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights, starting with the right to, oh, not get vacuumed out of existence. Handing governments the keys to decide who's "human enough" for protection is how you end up with guillotines for the disabled, the sick, the old, the sad sacks, or anyone who forgot to like the right tweet. 

History's littered with dictators who started with "exceptions" and ended with mass graves. Pro tip: Don't be that society.

And don't forget the Bill of Rights, guys. 

First Amendment: Free speech and religion, so pro-lifers can holler about the unborn without Big Brother slapping a gag order. Fifth: No stripping life, liberty, or property without due process, sorry, Planned Parenthood, that "clump of cells" schtick doesn't fly in court. Fourteenth: Equal protection for all persons, not just the ones who've aced their first ultrasound.

Here's the dirty little secret that'd make Mamdani and his pro-abortion Dem pals choke on their fair-trade lattes: They couldn't care less about "women's rights" or "choice." If they did, they'd admit abortion is the ultimate cover for NYC's sex-trafficking slimeballs, glove over the bloody fingerprints, and that it jacks up breast cancer risk by 44%, preterm births by 52%, and suicide odds by a factor of five. No, they love abortion for the power trip: Whip up the sisterhood with feel-good slogans, harvest the votes, then torch the rule of law while everyone's too busy fist-pumping to notice.

In the end, propping up this Frankenstein "right" to abort clashes head-on with the real deal—life for the kid, freedoms in the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth. It's a slick legal shell game, funneling control to the elite puppeteers who get off on herding the masses into appetite-driven servitude.

It's about as American as a gulag.

If you like Brain Flushings and want to Buy Me a Coffee, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work. Obviously, there is no pressure but I certainly wouldn't stop you. 

Tweet

98-year-old Kansas woman stands up to deputies raiding her home "Get out of my house!" Dies the next day

Joan Meyer, a 98-year-old co-owner of a Kansas newspaper stood up against deputies who raided her home and office after served with search warrants. She died the next day and I don't believe in coincidences.

You can see her on her home surveillance video shouting at officers to get out the hell out of her living room.

"Don't you touch any of that stuff," she says at the start of the minute-long clip, wearing a robe and slippers and standing behind a walker to prevent her from having a "Joe Biden" event.

"Ma'am," one cop begins, before she cuts him off snapping at him, "This is my house!"

Meyer's son, Marion County Record Publisher Eric Meyer, made the clip public Tuesday after a state official said an online search cited as a reason for the raid was not a crime.

"How many computers do you have in the house, ma'am?" an officer asks at another point in the video.

"I'm not gonna tell you," Joan Meyer replies, pushing past him with her walker. "Get out of my way."

Meyer's son blames his mother's death on the stress she suffered at the hands of the deputies, and he describes the event as "illegal" likening it to "Gestapo tactics," which kind of dilutes what the Nazi bastards did to their foes in the "war to end all wars." 

The raid drew national First Amendment concerns. Marion County Attorney Joel Ensey withdrew the search warrants last Wednesday and ordered the Marion Police to return all seized items. They found zero legal basis for the case against the paper or its staff and the nation has taken a giant step backwards in the area of free speech under the U.S. Constitution. 

It isn't bad enough that the left controls most of the media, with powderpuff reporting on the current administration, that when reporters do not act like puppets, they are investigated.

"It is not a crime in America to be a reporter," Bernie Rhodes, an attorney for the Meyers and their newspaper, told Fox News Digital.

The police raids on Meyer's home and the Record's newsroom came after reporters looked into allegations a local sweets shop owner named Kari Newell allegedly drove a car while her license was suspended due to a prior DUI. The paper had also been investigating allegations about the city's new police chief, Gideon Cody, and a claim that the department turned a blind eye to Newell driving without a license, perhaps due to myriad sweet teeth in the department. 

It's unclear as to whether Newell also sold doughnuts and coffee to police.

The Record, however, hadn't run a story about Newell's DUI case prior to the raid, and reporters were still researching the case and hesitant to trust the initial source due to a potential conflict of interest, according to an editorial published after Ms. Meyer's death.

Cody earlier this month accused the Record and one of its reporters of identity theft and unlawfully accessing a computer, leading to the raids and seizures.

Before she died, Joan Meyer described the police department's behavior as "Hitler tactics," Rhodes said.

Chief Cody has not responded to requests for comment from both Fox News Digital or Brain Flushings.

In a number of court filings used to justify the otherwise bogus warrants, he claimed there was probable cause to believe the paper had stolen Newell's identity and hacked her personal information.

Those affidavits, however, were actually filed three days after the searches they were supposed to justify, according to Rhodes and this is a violation of the First Amendment.

According to Fox News Digital: "[T]he affidavits establish that Marion Police Chief Gideon Cody knew that Phyllis Zorn, a reporter for the Record, had been given a copy of Kari Newell’s driver’s record and that the only thing Zorn did was verify the authenticity of that record by going to the public website of the Kansas Department of Revenue. She did not access the Kansas Criminal Justice Information System. What Zorn did is perfectly legal under both Kansas and U.S. law."

The Marion County Record was founded in 1874 by E.W. Hoch, whose family owned the newspaper for more than a century before Meyer and her husband bought it in 1998.

Our Constitutional rights are slowly being eroded by those on the Left who seek power over the nation. They want to take away our means of self-defense, compel our speech with their ridiculous preferred pronouns, allow teachers to have plenary power and influence over our children, provide taxpayer money to illegal aliens who come here for the free money, and foster an environment where crime run rampant.

Tweet

House rejects censuring Schiff including 20 GOPers who voted with them

The Republican-led House of Self-Interested Representatives on Wednesday voted against a formal censure of Rep. Adam "Shiftless" Schiff (D-CA) for lying about collusion between Russia and former President Trump (R-USA) and claiming to have inside information from top secret sources.

Twenty GOPers joined the majority of progressive Democrats in voting 225-196 in favor of tabling the resolution to censure and condemn the lying Schiff, while seven cowardly members voted “present” and five did not cast a vote as they were out looking for their spines.

Take note of the following Republicans [in alphabetical order] who voted with the left to table the motion:

Reps. Kelly Armstrong (ND), Lori Chavez-DeRemer (OR), Juan Ciscomani (AZ), Tom Cole (OK), Warren Davidson (OH), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), Kay Granger (TX), Garret Graves (LA), Thomas Kean Jr. (NJ), Kevin Kiley (CA), Young Kim (CA), Mike Lawler (NY), Thomas Massie (KY), Tom McClintock (CA), Mark Molinaro (NY), Jay Obernolte (CA), Mike Simpson (ID), Mike Turner (OH), David Valadao (CA) and little Steve Womack (AR).

The one Republican with the 'biggest set' was Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL). She was the person who brought forward the resolution, meant to be fast-tracked for consideration, and she referred it to the House Ethics Committee, an obvious oxymoron much like jumbo shrimp.

 The four-page resolution primarily accused Schiff of abusing his position and lying about the Russia matter, but also mentioned issues related to the Ukraine-focused impeachment inquiry against Trump. 

Unfortunately, the one issue that gummed up the bill and caused the GOP have the vapors was a clause calling for the pencil-neck geek to be fined millions of dollars if the panel found that he lied and abused sensitive information obtained from his former role in the House Intelligence Committee. He was kicked off the committee by the incoming Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA).

Rep. Luna proposed a $16 million fine as it represents roughly half the cost of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said Schiff acted “unethically,” but the measure was not constitutional because it would violate the 8th and 27th Amendments regarding excessive fines and that it would require an election before a fine could be put into effect.

Rep. Luna tried to clarify that the financial penalty in the motion was a “suggested fine that can be paid with campaign funds, like any other fine levied by Ethics,” but that did not alleviate the concerns nor make it constitutional, unfortunately. 

“Allowing a majority of Congress to take $16 million (92 years of pay) from any member of Congress is shortsighted,” Massie tweeted after the vote. “Can we not imagine a time when this precedent would be used against conservatives? Fortunately it failed.”

Okay, okay, Massie is correct, but wouldn't it have been fun to have the resolution pass? Too bad Luna went overboard as Schiff lives to lie another day . . . at least for now.

So sure, we may want to vote those RINOs out who voted with the Democrats, but what they actually did was to act in a pro-constitutional, aka conservative, fashion.

Tweet

Christians 1, U. of Idaho 0: free speech wins

The University of Idaho [go Potato Heads!] has been ordered to pay $90,000 as part of a settlement the Alliance Defending Freedom brought on behalf of Christian law students and a professor after the university's civil rights investigation office issued "no-contact" orders against them.

According to a report by the Columbian, the settlement ends a case brought to the school by three law students who are members of the Christian Legal Society student group, along with a law professor who is the group's faculty advisor.

Beyond paying the $90,000, the university has also rescinded the “no-contact” orders as part of the settlement.

The group filed its lawsuit in April, maintaining that the university had illegally punished them for expressing their religious beliefs, which included their support for the traditional idea that marriage is between one man and one woman.

The ADF noted that the university issued the no-contact orders after a woke student was offended by the group's requirement that its officers agree with Christian doctrine, in spite of it being a Christian group. In this case, the belief about marriage being between a man and a woman, not two men, two women or any other combination of people or woodland creatures, etc.

Moreover, after disclosing this information, the Christian Legal Society’s beliefs were also publicly denounced by the student and several others at a panel with the American Bar Association.

“Today’s university students will be tomorrow’s leaders, judges, and school administrators, so it’s imperative that university officials model the First Amendment freedoms they are supposed to be teaching their students,” ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer said in a statement.

“We’re pleased to settle this case favorably on behalf of Peter, Mark, Ryan, and Professor Seamon, and we hope that it will encourage all public universities across the country to support the constitutionally protected freedom of students and professors to share their deeply held beliefs on campus,” Langhofer said.

Christian Legal Society attorney Laura Nammo also reacted to the settlement, stating, “If we are to repair the current culture of political polarization, conversations among persons with differing viewpoints are essential.”

But different viewpoints are precisely what freaks out the woke left, as evidenced in what we're now learning about Twitter's pre-Musk past.

“University officials’ censorship of such conversations needlessly exacerbates polarization and harms all students’ ability to learn from one another,” Nammo added.

It's about time the Constitution got some R E S P E C T.

Tweet

SCOTUS rules in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District case re: fired football coach

In a 6-3 decision by the SCOTUS, a major victory for religious liberty was delivered in the Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which involves a high school football coach who was fired for praying on the football field at the 50 yard line after games were completed.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Donald Trump appointee, authored the decision.

The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance from government reprisal; the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression.

Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic. Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a personal religious observance, based on a mistaken view that it has a duty to suppress religious observances even as it allows comparable secular speech. The Constitution neither mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination. Mr. Kennedy is entitled to summary judgment on his religious exercise and free speech claims.

Joe Kennedy worked at Bremerton School District in Washington as a junior varsity head coach and varsity assistant coach between 2008 to 2015.

His post-game praying was initially done alone, but eventually, other students began joining him of their own free will. This soon angered the secular and atheist community because they find it difficult to tolerate people with different beliefs [see also the SCOTUS decision on Roe v. Wade and the concomitant mostly peaceful riots that ensued, including the torching of a police officer with a homemade flame thrower]. School officials soon got involved and Kennedy was fired.

Religious leaders shared thoughts with the media after the high court released its ruling in the case on Monday morning. [H/T Fox News Digital]

In a message on Monday morning, Rebecca Hatfield, president of 2nd Vote, a faith-based nonprofit in Nashville, TN, said, "The Supreme Court ruling in favor of Coach Kennedy's rights to pray and exercise his right to free speech is a huge victory for our country at a time when religious liberties and free speech have been greatly under attack."

She added, "2nd Vote would like to thank the Supreme Court for correctly interpreting the First Amendment and correcting this injustice to Coach Kennedy. We rejoice whenever liberty reigns in our land."

Meanwhile atheist heads exploded and if they don't change their ways, they can go to hell. 

* * *

 Consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and please check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against Communism, ignorance, The New York Times, and the heebie-jeebies.

* * *

Judge Phil Ginn, president of Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES) in Charlotte, NC said, "The Supreme Court ruling in the Coach Joe Kennedy case is a breath of fresh air for both religious freedom and the concept of free speech, both of which are firmly imbedded in our Constitution."

He also said, "It has always been a feckless argument to say that someone might be offended or influenced by religious expression. In the real world, speech is always intended to influence in some manner; therefore, the right to free speech ought to apply to all kinds of speech, not just to that which a majority thinks it should be confined."

Tell that to the Left.

Tweet

Court rules CA governor's 2020 COVID order is unconstitutional

Gavin Newsom claims that science and data guided him in deciding his coronavirus order, like science has guided him into his take on gender in that it's fluid and also how he believes that abortion is acceptable, perhaps thinking the baby isn't a real baby until you see its head. His take on abortion comes in spite of his claim of being a devout Catholic. By the way, Catholics and Christians in general are not the only religions that are pro-life; Judaism, Islam and other religions take the same stance

A federal appeals court ruled the California governor went too far grabbing power when he forced private schools, [as in not under his jurisdiction] to remain closed as part of his a là carte lockdown to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.

“California’s forced closure of their private schools implicates a right that has long been considered fundamental under the applicable caselaw — the right of parents to control their children’s education and to choose their children’s educational forum,” Judge Daniel Collins of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote for the majority in the ruling on Friday.

The left does not want parents to control their kids' education because they might not go along with left wing ideas, such as critical race theory that has deep roots in Marxism. 

“[T]he private-school Plaintiffs have established that the State’s prohibition on in-person instruction deprives them of a core right that is constitutionally protected,” the court said.

The ruling also noted that this is not the first time California has been authoritarian and heavy-handed in its lockdown orders.

“As with its rigidly over-broad approach to religious services, California once again failed to ‘explain why it cannot address its legitimate concerns with rules short of a total ban,'” the court said.

“Because California’s ban on in-person schooling abridges a fundamental liberty of these five Plaintiffs that is protected by the Due Process Clause, that prohibition can be upheld only if it withstands strict scrutiny. Given the State closure order’s lack of narrow tailoring, we cannot say that, as a matter of law, it survives such scrutiny,” it said.

The appeals court, however, admitted that it could not offer the same support [as in educational protection] for parents of public school students who sued over Newsom’s July 2020 order.

Newsom is being challenged in a recall election by Larry Elder, a conservative who is better suited to help parents deal with their problems in educating their children.

Why not consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every ad you click on, you help in the fight against ignorance and evil.

Tweet

Sleepy Joe promotes conspiracy theory claiming Trump can delay presidential election

Joe Biden's gaffes are both funny and sad. He is no longer capable of handling the TV remote, much less the presidency of the United States. If he puts a complete sentence together without stumbling, it's noteworthy, and this is sad. It's time for him to retire and enjoy the rest of his life.

This past weekend, Biden, speaking to a "virtual fundraiser," repeated a conspiracy theory that was once floated by 2016 candidate Hillary Clinton, stating that President Trump can delay the presidential election indefinitely by using the China Coronavirus as an excuse.

In Hillary's case, she knows she was lying but thinks the American people are too stupid to see through it, while in Biden's case, he has ketchup on his shirt.

Biden said he was comfortable with predicting that Trump would cancel the November election, pushing it to a more favorable time for the incumbent president, according to the Compromised News Network.

“Mark my words: I think he is gonna try to kick back the election somehow, come up with some rationale why it can’t be held,” Biden said. “That’s the only way he thinks he can possibly win.”

Someone forgot his U.S. Constitution 101 class in law school. Then again, Biden did come out at the low end of the class and got caught plagiarizing as is his wont.

Biden said that he believes the election should be held in November, regardless of whether the threat of coronavirus has passed. Over the past week, Biden has become a vocal advocate for the Democrats’ universal “vote by mail” program, which would have all Americans casting mail-in, absentee-style ballots rather than stand in line at polling locations, where major fraudulent voting for the Democrat ticket wouldn't be so obvious. He is also a strong advocate for "ballot harvesting."

Republicans have largely derided the idea, citing persistent issues with the current absentee ballot programs, and noting that states are unprepared to handle the millions of ballots that would flood into election offices.

Some Democrats have suggested that Trump may try to delay the election as an alternative to the vote-by-mail option, but it’s not that simple: the president, which even CNN points out, cannot unilaterally move the date of the election, which is set in stone in Federal law as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

“The Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November, in every even numbered year, is established as the day for the election, in each of the States and Territories of the United States, of Representatives and Delegates to the Congress commencing on the 3d day of January next thereafter.”

It would take an act of Congress to change the date, and no president can change that under any circumstance.

Even Biden and his two brain cells recognizes the possibility is slim. He said as much on the "Jimmy Kimmel Show" last month.

Please consider following this blog, and remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings and a dead terrorist gets his virgins.

Tweet

Michigan State U. sued after rejecting speech by Dick Spencer

Richard Spencer
Photo: Reuters

Michigan State University (Go Spartans!) is being sued after it allegedly denied a request to rent space on campus for white nationalist Dick Spencer to speak in late September.

Cameron Padgett, a student at Georgia State University, attempted to rent a conference room at the on-campus Kellogg Hotel & Conference Center, (named in honor of the Rice Krispies trio, Snap, Crackle and Pop, who were found floating, dead, in a bowl of cereal back in 1957). 

Padgett sued Michigan State U. alleging the school is violating Spencer's free, if not disgusting, speech. 

Dick Spencer was scheduled to take place on August 12th.

MSU had announced in August that it would unconstitutionally deny the group space, although MSU apparently couldn't pronounce the word 'unconstitutionally,' or it simply didn't matter to them. 

Michigan officials said in a statement at the time the rental request was made that the decision to deny the rental space was "due to significant concerns about public safety." It mentioned the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia as their excuse. Heather Heyer was killed there by a car driven into the crowd of people counter-protesting the white supremacist rally. 

In other words, Michigan State was using a 'violence veto' of free speech rather than ensuring for it.

Spencer, in a message to the Associated Press on Sunday praised Padgett as a "brave young man who has my full support."

If Padgett was black, brown or a Jew, I suspect he would not have Spencer's "full support." Richard Spencer (not to be confused with the Islamic scholar and anti-Islamization of the West, Robert Spencer) is a scumquat. But even scumquats have the right to free speech by the First Amendment. 

It is the responsibility of law enforcement to, well, enforce the laws. And it is unlawful to deny someone their right of expression, unless that right calls for violence or incites a riot. 

The fact that MSU had the extremely controversial speaker, Milo Yiannopolous speak on campus last December, should attest to their selective fear of violence.

As much as I detest Richard Spencer, I love and respect our Constitution and he absolutely has the right to verbalize his bull crap and hatred, and MSU or Antifa has no right to stop him.

Because if they can stop his free speech, then whose will be next?


Tweet

The Nutty Professor hides from the other nuts

LaLa Land -- The nuts are going after another nut, in this case, the California psychology professor who told her students the Donald Trump's election was an "act of terrorism."

Olga Perez [Un]Stable Cox, at Orange Coast College in Costa Mesa, has fled the state and has gone into hiding after a video of her rant (secretly recorded by one of her students) went viral on Facebook. 

Cox taught human sexuality at the college but after the video came out, she was getting death threats, the Orange County Register reported. The union representing Cox said she and the school received over a thousand emails and Cox also received threatening phone calls.

One crazy email read: "You want communism, go to Cuba . . . try to bring it to America and we'll put a [expletive] bullet in your face."

You want freedom of speech, go to hell. That's basically what it means to threaten someone for saying something stupid. 

Another lunatic, taking a liberal-ish position (like the one used to publicize the home addresses of cops by a Long Island, NY newspaper) emailed her describing her as a "nutcase" and promised to make her home address public.

Yes, Cox is a nutcase, but what kind of person is the emailer?

Unfortunately, the people who attacked Cox are the same people who say they support the Constitution. 

They don't.

"Our nation is divided," Cox said, "We have been assaulted. It is an act of terrorism," she told her students. "One of the most frightening things for me and most people in my life is that the people creating the assault are among us." 

She said that the presidential campaign and its outcome has left the country deeply divided "as clearly as it was in Civil War times."

Many students were offended by her comments and the Young Republicans appropriately filed a formal complaint and circulated a petition to have her fired. (I agree with filing the complaint but firing is extreme and something the left calls for all too often. I would have her warned that politics has no place in human sexuality class.)

On Monday, several hundred students and faculty members gathered on campus to support Cox, carrying signs advocating free speech. 

Of course, this is leftist BS hypocrisy--they hate free speech when it comes from conservatives, but they're correct, it is a free speech issue. However, it is also a school policy issue and a teaching issue. 

Some students said that they weren't upset so much over what Cox said, but in the fact that she was pushing her political views in a classroom setting. "This has nothing to do with free speech. It's a professor overstepping her profession," Vincent Wetzel told the media. 

Cox is expected to return to the classroom after Christmas and New Years holidays.

Nobody has the right to threaten her life just because they disagree with her--that only proves her stupid point of us being divided. And calling any American election a form of terrorism is not only stupid and inaccurate, it dilutes what real terrorism is.



Tweet

Loretta Lynch 'Pleads Fifth' on Cash Payments Made to Iran

A congressional probe into the payments made to Iran is being blocked by the Obama administration.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch is not complying  with an investigation by Congress about the Obama administration's secret efforts to dole out $1.7 billion in cash to Iran earlier in the year. There are now accusations claiming that Lynch has "pleaded the Fifth" Amendment to avoid self-incrimination over the payments, according to lawmakers and exclusive communications obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.  

Lynch was presented with a series of questions by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Mark Pompeo (R-KS) about how the cash payment was approved and delivered. 

But in an October 24th response, Asst. Attorney General Peter Kadzik reponded on Lynch's behalf. He refused to answer the questions and told the lawmakers that they are barred from publicly disclosing any details about the cash payment, which we all know was part of a ransom deal to free several American hostages from Iran.

In effect, the response from the attorney general's office is "unacceptable" and is evidence that Lynch has chosen to "essentially plead the fifth and refuse to respond to inquiries regarding [her] role in providing cash to the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism," Rubio and Pompeo wrote in a follow-up to Lynch.

"It is frankly unacceptable that your department refuses to answer straightforward questions from the people's elected representatives in Congress about an important national security issue," the lawmakers wrote. "Your staff failed to address any of our questions, and instead provided a copy of public testimony and a lecture about the sensitivity of information associated with this issue."

"As the United States' chief law enforcement officer, it is outrageous that you would essentially plead the fifth and refuse to respond to inquiries. The actions of your department come at a time when Iran continues to hold Americans hostage and unjustly sentence them to prison."

Pompeo told the Free Beacon that the Obama administration has blocked Congress at every turn in their investigation of the payments made to Iran.

"Who knew that simple questions regarding Attorney General Lynch's approval of billions of dollars in payments to Iran could be so controversial that she would refuse to answer them?" Pompeo said. "This has become the Obama administration's coping mechanism for anything related to the Islamic Republic of Iran--hide information, obfuscate details, and deny answers to Congress and the American people."

Although details of the deal are not classified, they are kept under lock and key, thus treated as if they are. Staffers who have clearance to see the documents must relinquish their cell phones and are barred from taking notes about what they see.

And all this from "the most transparent president in history." Some might call it treason.

Now imagine how much worse it would be if the former Worst Lady wins the election.



Tweet

Obama to illegally close Gitmo

Well he's gone and did it. The community organizer in dictatorship, aka Barack Hussein Obama, has officially announced that he is closing the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center (Gitmo) whether we like it or not.

The reason he continues to give is that it is a recruitment tool for ISIS.

He is wrong. 

If anything, Barack Obama is a recruitment tool for ISIS and other Islamic terrorist organizations. They do not fear him as commander in chief of the most powerful nation in the world, and, in fact, they laugh at him. So do the Russians and so do the North Koreans.

There may have been a time years ago when Gitmo may have been seen as a recruitment tool for some jihadists, but that's no longer true. 

ISIS could not care less about Gitmo. They are on a mission to change the world as they see fit. They are on a religious quest and Gitmo doesn't matter at all. In fact, closing Gitmo is probably more of a recruitment tool than keeping it open.

Closing Gitmo can be viewed by ISIS, and other terrorists, as our surrender to the inevitability of a world caliphate and the superiority of Islam over the infidel West.

Obama claims that keeping Gitmo open is "contrary to our values."

Obama does not speak for our values, at least not for mine. My values begin with the US Constitution and Obama consistently treats it with disdain. I value the law and he constantly snubs his nose at it.

Closing Gitmo is illegal--Obama does not have the authority to do that. But since when has he ever abided by the law of the land?

There is clear proof that a significant number of Gitmo detainees have gone back to the fight. The fact that Obama released five Islamic jihadist leaders for the traitor Bowe Bergdahl should be all you need to know about Obama's judgment.

Closing Gitmo is a disaster that will never effect Obama personally and he is breaking the law.

What does it take for the American people to stop his recklessness?



Tweet

Hillary camp "blackmails" journalist

I believe the U.S. Constitution has something to say about freedom of the press. Oh yeah, I believe the First Amendment deals with that. That whole freedom of speech thing that includes the press.

Will someone please tell that to Hillary Clinton's campaign staff? Blackmailing reporters by allowing them special "perks" in exchange for flattering coverage of Hillary Clinton goes against the fabric of the nation.

Using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Gawker gained access to an exchange of emails between a Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines and Marc Ambinder, who writes for The Atlantic magazine. 

On July 15, 2009, Ambinder asked Reines for an advanced transcript of a speech Clinton was to give at the Council on Foreign Relations. Reines agreed to supply the speech with three conditions, to which Ambinder agreed.

They were: "1) You in your own voice describe them [Clinton's remarks] as 'muscular' 2) You note that a look at the CFR seating plan shows that all the envoys--from Holbrooke to Mitchell to Rose--will be arrayed in front of her, which in your own clever way you can say [is] certainly not a coincidence and meant to convey something 3) You don't say your were blackmailed."

Ambinder was then able to use the speech and scoop rival media, but admitted to Gawker that he had a problem with the whole thing. Perhaps the problem had something to do with ethics and, um, freedom of the press. 

Sadly, this has become the norm with the press. They, like many politicians and athletes, will do anything to win, even cheating. And they no longer see how such a win isn't really a win at all.


Tweet

Bill de Blasio: fascist, socialist, man about town

You may not like Donald Trump, perhaps you do, but in any case, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is using his power as mayor to go after him by "reviewing" his city contracts in light of what he said about Mexican immigrants. 

This is what fascists do when they don't like what you say.

De Blasio, a socialist and an Al Sharpton fan club president, doesn't care if what he is doing goes against the First Amendment--it's just a piece of paper, as far as he's concerned and in spite of Trump's inarticulate words, he has every right to say what he did, and the mayor has no right to abuse his office by going after his businesses.

Even Alan Dershowitz, a liberal attorney and Harvard's most distinguished civil liberties law professor, is against de Blasio on this and said, "This is not the American Way. De Blasio seems to put himself directly, squarely in conflict with the First Amendment," he told the Daily Caller, in an interview. He called de Blasio's actions "plainly unconstitutional," and said that "He would have a fairly open and shut case if they deprived him of any contract."

Trump said of Mexican immigrants that they are "bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people."

De Blasio fired back: "Donald Trump's remarks were disgusting and offensive, and this hateful language has no place in our city." His press secretary then said that the city was reviewing all of Trump's contracts.

De Blasio's words almost echo Obama's statement that "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."

In a 1996 Supreme Court ruling, they ruled overwhelmingly that it was unconstitutional to tie government contracts to a person's beliefs. This is exactly what de Blasio is doing, and not that different from what the IRS has done with conservatives.

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh also told DCNF that "The statement by the Mayor is a real danger to public debate," saying that it would set dubious precedent for all future city contracts.

I hope Trump sees fit to fight de Blasio and go after him personally. Besides the fact that he is in violation of Trump's civil rights, the Mayor is the embodiment of all that is wrong with the left.

In fact, de Blasio is handling the City of New York in much the same way that Obama is handling ISIS: with great bluster and total impotence.




Tweet

What is Freedom?

There are enough definitions of the term 'freedom' to satisfy everyone, but the definition that seems to make the most sense to me is . . . well . . . my own. After all, I like the idea of having the freedom to define what I believe freedom really means.

Freedom is the right to be left alone by others, particularly the government.  It is the right to do what you want to do with your life, your business, and just about anything you can imagine, as long as it doesn't harm others in any real way. For example, if my religion believes that same-sex marriage is a sin, then I should have the freedom not to be forced in sanctioning the wedding by my actions. Just as same-sex marriage should not be forbidden by law.

And governments should protect us from people and organizations that want to take that freedom of our beliefs from us. That is the one thing I see as government responsibility: protection of its citizens.

Overall, we ought to be able to lead our lives without some schmuck telling us how to go about the task of leading it. Someone telling us we must photograph their wedding, or bake a cake with a Nazi swastika because they happen to be a Nazi, or anything that goes against our personal beliefs is the opposite of freedom and must not be permitted.

Would you force a Halal catering company to cater a Bar Mitzvah or bake a gay wedding cake? Just try it--I can hear the scream of "Allahu Akbar!" now.

Regulations should be seen as policies that protect society, not a list of "musts" created by some low self-esteem dork who creates rules and regulations just to feel powerful and controlling. What regulations mainly do is stifle job growth because nobody wants to open a lemonade stand if they must fill out 23 pages of paperwork in triplicate. 

The same may be said about taxes. The government wants your money so they can squander it on some pork barrel project that ends up wasting millions.

Or politicians want your tax money so they can fly for free on vacation or vote themselves a raise.

Of course, some regulations are needed, but most of them are as useful as a fly-swatter to a frog. We need to be rid of stupid regulations immediately.

So if unions insist that it should be mandatory to join, then that union is trying to take away your freedom not to join. It's no different from Obamacare.

We need less government, and more freedom. 

In this digital age, we could easily get a popular consensus on many issues that affect us on a state level, so the federal government can be made much smaller, used primarily for national security and infrastructure.

Tweet

Allahu Akbergdahl

When asked if the United States now negotiates with terrorists, Jen Psaki, State Department spokesliar said, "We do not negotiate with terrorists, we negotiate with Amish furniture makers." Okay, she didn't really say they were Amish, nor did she say they were furniture makers, but she did say that it's overcast and gray and hopes the rain doesn't hurt the rhubarb. In other words, she didn't answer the question.

First Amendment: What, He Worry?

Should the Federal Communications Commission have the right to monitor American newsrooms? Sure, if you believe they have the right to redefine the US Constitution. Think of the FCC as your Big Brother who knows what's best for you. Not.

Here's the deal. The FCC wants to launch a new study so that they can decide what you news you "need" to hear. Your opinion doesn't matter. These FCC clowns will conduct a "General Population Survey" to "measure what your real needs are versus what you think they are." So, what you perceive you need to know is not the same as what the GOVERNMENT says you need to know.

The IRS is Watching and They're Everywhere

Fifty is the new forty, gay is the new normal, and the IRS is the new Gestapo. Now with the implementation of Obamacare, the IRS has become the enforcement arm of the "law," that has robbed over 6 million people of their original coverage, leaving them at risk of losing everything, should they undergo a medical emergency. The IRS now has incredible political power, and while Obama is busy getting to the bottom of this phony IRS scandal, nothing is actually being done and the IRS has grabbed even more power than it ever had. 

Obamacare's Dirty Secret

When he said, "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," he might have just as honestly added: "And if you have religious or moral objections to abortion, you will never have to finance it." That would have been just as honest, as it turns out, because it seems that Obamacare insurance companies are surreptitiously adding a surcharge to cover the cost of abortions. At least, this is what some congressional leaders are claiming, and it violates a federal law. But since when has the Obama administration worried about the law? After all, laws are generated by that outdated and inconvenient document, the US Constitution.

Most people will not know about the surcharge because it wasn't announced and it's only a buck a month--no big deal, unless you're turned off by killing the unborn.

Obama promised his healthcare bill would not cover abortion, but maybe he's doing to further the liberal agenda; it certainly isn't helping the unborn's future agendas. Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) knew Obama was blowing smoke when he made that claim because the Obamacare bill stipulated the $1 a month surcharge for plans that covered abortions and it was unclear distinguishing which plans included abortion and the cost of the murder.

A bill is being introduced this week that demands full disclosure with an itemized premium, and it will also prohibit federal subsidies for plans that cover abortions. The bill (HR-7) known as the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," will be introduced by Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader.

But Obama has a pen and he has a phone. He also has no respect for the concept of Checks and balances--he is a strong believer in executive authority but only when he's the executive in question.

What the GOP does to keep Obama in line, to keep him from grabbing more and more power and keep the USA from resembling a banana republic, will dictate where they stand. Will they show courage or complacency? Obama needs to have his reins pulled back and if he refuses, we need to start impeachment procedures. Will our party leaders fulfill their obligation? 

My latest novel, Jihad Joe, is about Islamic terrorism and suspense.  In it I challenge the precepts of the religion through my protagonist, Zed Nill, a journalist, captured by terrorists and who is destined to be killed if the American President refuses to release three Gitmo prisoners.  Of course, American policy demands we never give in to terrorists, and for Zed, the clock is ticking.

                                             

Jihad Joe Soft Cover

click here for ebook version  

My other blog New York Canuck

Tweet

Cowardly Cuomo Gets His Lawyer to Walk it Back

New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, told pro-life, anti- gay marriage, and pro-assault weapons advocates they are not welcome in New York, ". . . because that's not who New Yorkers are." Evidently, he hasn't met New Yorkers like me, and I've been a New Yorker before he was born.

Cuomo's assertion angered Fox News' Sean Hannity enough that he threatened to leave New York: "Governor Cuomo, I'm going to leave and I'm taking all my money with me--every single solitary penny." 

Holder at the Bus Stop, Obama Stands Behind Him

Holder may go--but certainly, he should go. It seems pretty clear that he lied to congress. He also may be behind the Gibson Guitar Company heavy-handed, office bust-in (my term). He didn't know about the potential prosecution of James Rosen; he knew nothing about Fast and Furious, and he knows nothing about everything as the head of the Department of Justice. At the very least, he should be fired for his gross incompetence. But more than this, he should be prosecuted, for his low-life evil abuse of the Constitution of the United States of America. It's as simple as that.