The Justice Department is resisting a judge’s order to provide ethics training for its lawyers and is objecting to turning over to the court the names of illegal aliens who were granted what amounts to administrative amnesty (“deferrals”) in stark violation of an injunction issued by the court.

On May 19, Judge Andrew Hanen of the of the Southern District of Texas issued an order imposing sanctions on the Justice Department and its lawyers for unethical conduct, which included repeatedly lying to him in court.

U.S. v. Texas is the immigration lawsuit filed by 26 states against the Obama administration over its plan to provide deferrals, work permits, and other government benefits to almost 5 million illegal aliens. Hanen issued a preliminary injunction in February 2015 preventing implementation of the plan.

His decision was upheld by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and the case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

But Hanen issued his sanction order because of the misbehavior of Justice Department lawyers when the case was before him. He severely rebuked the DOJ for claiming that the president’s plan was not being implemented prior to his issuing his injunction order when the government knew that it was being implemented—to the tune of over 100,000 aliens. When he found out, he ordered the government to reverse its behavior and void these deferrals.

Amongst the sanctions Hanen ordered on May 19 was yearly ethics training for five years for every DOJ lawyer stationed in Washington who appear in any of the courts of the states who filed the lawsuit. He also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to provide him (under seal) with a list of all of the aliens who had been given benefits under the amnesty plan in violation of his injunction.
However, on May 31, the Justice Department filed a motion with Hanen asking him to stay (or suspend) his sanctions order while DOJ appeals his decision to the 5th Circuit. The Justice Department claims in its brief that with regards to the required ethics training, Hanen’s determination that the DOJ’s lawyers engaged in “intentional misrepresentation” was reached “without proper procedural protections” and that there was not “sufficient” evidence of the misrepresentations.

Given the extensive evidence that Hanen cited in his order of the misrepresentations made by the government lawyers, as well as the extensive opportunity he gave the DOJ to present its side in the briefs it filed with the court, the claim that the DOJ was somehow unfairly judged or unable to present its defense is extremely dubious.

The DOJ also claims that the “sanctions imposed exceed the court’s authority.” Given the severity of the violations of the code of professional conduct that govern lawyers, including government lawyers, this is another problematic claim by the department.

Given that the judge could have imposed even more severe sanctions, such as dismissing the defensive pleadings filed by the government (which would have caused them to lose the case) or making the government pay the attorneys’ fees of the states, the sanctions imposed seem almost mild.
Of course, they are highly embarrassing given what they reflect about the behavior of DOJ lawyers. But according to the Justice Department, Hanen is interfering “with the attorney general’s executive authority” in imposing ethics training and the other requirements that Hanen laid out, such as filing a comprehensive plan within 60 days “to prevent this unethical conduct from ever occurring again.”
Apparently, that is too much to ask of the attorney general.

The strangest claim made by the Justice Department is that Hanen’s order to produce a state-by-state list of all of the illegal aliens unlawfully granted deferrals would “breach the confidence of these individuals (and of others who submit information to USCIS) in the privacy of such records.”
An affidavit filed by León Rodriguez, the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services at the Department of Homeland Security, claims this would violate the internal privacy policy of DHS even though he admits the federal Privacy Act “does not apply to non-U.S. persons.”

Not only does the Privacy Act not apply to “non-U.S. persons” (Illegal aliens), but federal law (8 U.S.C. §1373) specifically requires the federal government to provide “citizenship or immigration status” information on any individual in response “to an inquiry by a federal, state, or local government agency.” And this requirement applies “notwithstanding any other provision of federal, state, or local law.”

Thus, states are statutorily entitled to this information and the DOJ’s claim that it is confidential has no basis in the law whatsoever. Of course, this very inconvenient federal provision is not mentioned in the Justice Department’s brief.

This action by the Justice Department makes it clear it intends to appeal Hanen’s sanctions order. Whether he will grant the requested stay is unknown, but he had ordered a hearing on the DOJ’s request for June 7.

So far in this litigation, the Justice Department and the Obama administration have had a steadily losing hand. We will have to see.



Islamism is the great evil of our age….

Instead, with the aid of our media and Internet, we greet each new act of
Islamic murder with a show of lies and anger. The Left is in charge of the lies. They tell us, in Hillary Clinton’s absurd words, that “Muslims . . . have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

The second comes from “Shep” on a Disqus comment at Scott Adams’s blog.  It is particularly poignant today, in the wake of Hillary calling out the Saudis for funding radical Islam, and posing as a friend of gays:

I encourage readers to add their own examples of Hillary Hilarity in the comments.




Stop calling us ‘Islamophobes’!

Foreign Policy magazine has unloaded both barrels at those of us who ask questions and raise concerns about Islam.
First, Lawrence Pintak in his article "The Muslims Are Coming! The Muslims are coming!" runs down a list of various Americans, from Cotton Mather to Donald Trump, who have used harsh language against Muslims. While I can't vouch for every word Americans have spoken for four hundred years, the gist of his piece is, America the Intolerant or "America the Suckiful," a standard theme of the left.
However, Andrew G. Bostom, all the way in 2006 (we were on the same path in our articles back then), wrote a piece titled "America's First War on Terror," about Adams and Jefferson and their view on Islam. They were not very "tolerant" because the Barbary States in North Africa were attacking American merchant ships and enslaving the crews. 
After a meeting between Jefferson, Adams and Tripoli's ambassador to London, the two Americans reported to the Continental Congress about Muhammad and Islam, as follows:
… that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.
Adams wrote of Muhammad and Islam:
…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God…the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective.  The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.
Those assessments come in a context: unprovoked jihad. After 9/11, the modern comments from Christian leaders and Trump come in the context of a modern jihad.
As far as early American or modern Christians seeing Muhammad or this or that Muslim as the Anti-Christ, Islam has a more authoritative, troubling view of Christianity. With the backing of the Quranic verse 4:159 (see it in four orthodox Sunni translations), the Traditions say that Anti-Christ is Jewish who will return to break the Cross, kill pigs, banish the jizyah tax and call all people to Islam. Then a bush or rock will cry out to the jihadist to come over there because there's Jew hiding behind it. Kill him!

It would be helpful if Mr. Pintak would research Islam and find out the context of why Americans throughout our history had doubts about it.
But Foreign Policy magazine doesn't stop there. In a piece titled, "If Islam Is a Religion of Violence, So Is Christianity," by Julia Ioffe, she brings up the Crusades. They were equally violent as Jihad. 
She writes:
If that was a perversion of Christianity, as many argue, or a fluke, then why can we not extend the same thinking toward, say, the Muslim conquests of the Middle East, or, dare I say it, the Islamic State? You cannot argue that one religion is inherently violent because of the following historical examples, and then wave away the violent history of Christianity and say the exception proves the rule.
Before I get to the main point, it should be pointed out that the Church responded to four hundred years of Islamic aggression, as Muslim armies waged jihad throughout the Mediterranean world, even all the way to Iran and India (see the Truth about Islamic Jihad and Imperialism: A Timeline). So it was a defensive war -- certainly not initiated by the Church in a vacuum -- to allow Christians free trade and access to pilgrimage spots. Also, the Church and State in the Medieval Age were fused together (though some forward-thinking believers tried to keep them separate). The Kings and Emperors saw themselves much as Old Testament Kings did -- God's anointed. Ideally, however, the Church and State should gave been kept separate, when the Pope asked for help from the Kings. 
The main point is that while Christian warfare in the name of Christ indeed deviates from the New Testament, Islamic violence in the name of Allah does not deviate from the Quran. Nowhere in the New Testament does it say the Church as the Church should raise an army and attack people who refuse to convert. But surely Ms. Joffe knows that the Quran everywhere affirms jihad or qital (warfare only) against the infidel. 
Thus Muslims obey their sacred text when they commit acts of 
violence in warfare, while Christians disobey theirs, if they form a
church militia or army and declare war. Islam fuses together 
mosque and state, even today. In America today, we don't allow any
ecclesiastical control over the military. Our soldiers do their duty 
for their country and the Constitution.
Then can Christians join the military and police force? Short answer: yes, but when they have to discharge their weapons, they shouldn't yell "Christ akbar!" or other such things. However, following the example of Muhammad who shouted "Allahu Akbar!" when he attacked a city, Muslims do the same.
A complete picture of the historical facts goes a long way in dispelling the myths that circulate around the web. It is misguided to equate Christianity and Islam and their conformity to their sacred texts in acts of violence.
As for the nonsense terms "Islamophobia" or "Islamophobe," we either laugh at it or reply to it, as done here. Setting aside shrill rhetoric from bloggers and one or two politicians, all we're doing is asking questions and raising concerns about Islam. Please stop calling us silly names for doing so.

"The Clintons used this as a way to launder foreign donations (which would be illegal if they were campaign donations) to finance her campaign in absentia."


"The facts known about Secretary Hillary Clinton’s actions surrounding the use of an unsecure private email server for conducting State Department business, show that she acted with reckless disregard of the security interests of the United States and violated some ten federal statutes."

“AMNESTY…. IT’S JUST THE BEGINNING!” Hillaria Clinton – La Raza Supremacist Democrat
Now we have Candidate Clinton promising even more aggressive executive immigration amnesty than Obama. Not only has Hillary vowed to defend Obama's executive immigration actions, she said "if Congress continues to refuse to act, as president I would do everything possible under the law to go even further." She added, "That is just the beginning!" 

Wikileaks: Hillary Clinton Accused Saudi Arabia of ‘Financial and Logistical Support’ to Islamic State

Description: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton smiles during a joint press conference with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal following a US-Gulf Cooperation Council forum at the GCC secretariat in Riyadh on March 31, 2012. Clinton geared up for talks in Saudi Arabia about plans for a Gulf missile shield against Iran and ways to press Tehran's ally Syria to stop killing Syrians. AFP PHOTO/POOL/BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI (Photo credit should read BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)
by JOHN HAYWARD11 Oct 2016

Top of Form

Bottom of Form
The latest WikiLeaks document dump on Hillary Clinton includes an August 18, 2014 email she sent to John Podesta, who is currently her campaign chairman, but was a counselor to the Obama White House at the time.
The email provided Podesta with a very detailed strategy for dealing with the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, based on “Western intelligence, U.S. intelligence, and sources in the region.”
This is not the sort of document one wants to see passing through an unsecure homebrew email server, although it is not as sensitive as some of the other documents we now know Clinton kept on her system.
Perhaps most remarkably, Clinton flatly stated in this email that the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia were funding the Islamic State.
Clinton pushed the Obama Administration’s favorite solution to all foreign crises, arming local forces and hoping they could defeat the bad guys without a major American military presence.
In this case, she recommended arming the Kurdish peshmerga and Free Syrian Army (FSA) – i.e. the “moderate Syrian rebels” of political legend – to “surprise” the Islamic State with a “coordinated assault supported from the air.” As with Obama, she also had a daydream about the white-hat Syrian rebels simultaneously overthrowing the regime of Bashar Assad in Damascus.
Part of this plan involved leaning on Qatar and Saudi Arabia to stop providing “clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region”:
This entire effort should be done with a low profile, avoiding the massive traditional military operations that are at best temporary solutions. While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.
This effort will be enhanced by the stepped up commitment in the KRG. The Qataris and Saudis will be put in a position of balancing policy between their ongoing competition to  dominate the Sunni world and the consequences of serious U.S. pressure. By the same token, the threat of similar, realistic U.S. operations will serve to assist moderate forces in Libya, Lebanon, and even Jordan, where insurgents are increasingly fascinated by the ISIL success in Iraq.
Turkey is mentioned prominently in Clinton’s email. She explained that the Turkish government was nervous about shipping heavy weapons to the Kurdish peshmerga, “out of a concern that the would end up in the hands of Kurdish rebels inside of Turkey,” but she thought “the current situation in Iraq, not to mention the political environment in Turkey,” rendered such concerns “obsolete.”
Clinton was dead wrong about that. The Turks are still extremely nervous about Western arms provided to Kurdish forces in Iraq or Syria ending up in the hands of Kurdish separatists inside Turkey. Ankara is more prone to denounce the Syrian Kurdish YPG than the Iraqi peshmerga, but their general attitude is that all Kurdish groups are linked.

In fact, just today, Turkey’s Prime Minister Binali Yildrim railed at Clinton for talking about arming Kurdish fighters during the second presidential debate, saying she would “support Kurds in the region, terrorist organizations, with arms if she is elected.”
Later in her memo to Podesta, Clinton said the Iraqi ISIS situation is “merely the latest and most dangerous example of the regional restructuring that is taking place across North Africa, all the way to the Turkish border”:
These developments are important to the U.S. for reasons that often differ from country to  country: energy and moral commitment to Iraq, energy issues in Libya, and strategic commitments in Jordan. At the same time, as Turkey moves toward a new, more serious Islamic reality, it will be important for them to realize that we are willing to take serious actions, which can be sustained  to protect our national interests. This course of action offers the potential for success, as opposed to large scale, traditional military campaigns, that are too expensive and awkward to maintain over time.

Clinton’s view of the global ISIS threat, circa 2014, was considerably different from what the Obama Administration was telling the general public, and very different from Barack Obama’s infamous January 2014 dismissal of the Islamic State as the “jayvee team” of terrorism. Clinton has defended Obama’s foolish comment in public, but half a year later, she didn’t seem to see them as a junior-varsity squad at all:

If we do not take the changes needed to make our security policy in the region more realistic, there is a real danger of ISIL veterans moving on to other countries to facilitate operations by Islamist forces. This is already happening in Libya and Egypt, where fighters are returning from Syria to work with local forces.
ISIL is only the latest and most violent example of this process. If we don’t act to defeat them in Iraq something even more violent and dangerous will develop. Successful military operations against these very irregular but determined forces can only be accomplished by making proper use of clandestine/special operations resources, in coordination with airpower, and established local allies.
There is, unfortunately, a narrow window of opportunity on this issue, as we need to act before an ISIL state becomes better organized and reaches into Lebanon and Jordan.
Clinton’s memo to Podesta closed out with assurances that Iraq’s government could be made comfortable with increased autonomy for the Kurds, if the Kurdistan Regional Government did not “exclude the Iraqi government from participation in the management of the oil fields around Kirkuk, and the Mosel Dam hydroelectric facility.”
This was sensible advice, if rather discordant with years of liberals screaming that oil is the planet-destroying root of all evil, and American foreign policy should never be tainted with sinister oil concerns.
But then she voiced the same faith in moderate rebel forces that has come to so much grief in Syria:
At the same time we will be able to work with the Peshmerga as they pursue ISIL into disputed areas of Eastern Syria, coordinating with FSA troops who can move against ISIL from the North. This will make certain Basher al Assad does not gain an advantage from these operations.
Bashar Assad has gained all the advantages he needed since 2014, with the help of Russia and Iran. The Obama Administration has been standing on the sidelines and fuming while its erstwhile Syrian allies are ground into mincemeat. This would seem to present a long-term problem for the Obama/Clinton doctrine of recruiting local forces to handle all military interventions: how eager will such forces be to ally with the United States, after what happened to the Syrian opposition?