A Clock or a Planted Operation?

Posted on by

So, has the ‘BLM’ Black Lives Matter operation been cast aside for yet another scheme? Or, is this kind of odd event going to be on top of the BLM and there are more to come?

If this is a clock, where is the time and how come the teacher did not recognize it as a clock?

The Real Story of #IStandWithAhmed

Screenshot

by Ben Shapiro18 Sep 20151,408

The hubbub surrounding Irving, Texas 14-year-old MacArthur High School student Ahmed Mohammed – the kid who brought a homemade clock-in-a-case that looked like a fake bomb to school – continues apace, with the President of the United States inviting him to the White House, and 2016 Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg tweeting out encouragement.

There’s only one problem: the whole story smells. It stinks of leftist exploitation.

Here’s what we know. On Monday, Mohammed brought a homemade clock to school. For those who don’t know the ins-and-outs of electronics, the device looked like a possible incendiary device. Ahmed told the media that he made the clock last weekend and brought it to school to show his engineering teacher. He explained to local news, “It was the first time I brought an invention to school to show a teacher.”

He didn’t explain that to police, however, according to the authorities. And he didn’t just show the device to his engineering teacher. In fact, the engineering teacher told him not to carry the device around after Mohammed showed him, according to The New York Times:

He said he took it to school on Monday to show an engineering teacher, who said it was nice but then told him he should not show the invention to other teachers. Later, Ahmed’s clock beeped during an English class, and after he revealed the device to the teacher, school officials notified the police, and Ahmed was interrogated by officers. “She thought it was a threat to her,” Ahmed told reporters Wednesday. “So it was really sad that she took a wrong impression of it.”

Why was the device in English class in the first place, especially after the engineering teacher told him not to show it around? When confronted by police and his English teacher, why didn’t Mohammed just tell them to talk to the engineering teacher? When police asked Ahmed what the device was and why he brought it to school, according to WFAA:

Officers said Ahmed was being “passive aggressive” in his answers to their questions, and didn’t have a “reasonable answer” as to what he was doing with the case. Investigators said the student told them that it was just a clock that he was messing around with. “We attempted to question the juvenile about what it was and he would simply only say it was a clock. He didn’t offer any explanation as to what it was for, why he created this device, why he brought it to school,” said James McLellan, Irving Police.

Here’s the statute Ahmed Mohammed authorities originally suspected Mohammed of violating (Texas Penal Code Section 46.08):

(a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly manufactures, sells, purchases, transports, or possesses a hoax bomb with intent to use the hoax bomb to:

(1) make another believe that the hoax bomb is an explosive or incendiary device; or

(2) cause alarm or reaction of any type by an official of a public safety agency or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

Nobody said Mohammed built an actual bomb. They suspected that he had wanted to frighten or alarm officials with a hoax-bomb. When they found out he didn’t intend to do that, they released him.

Given the limited evidence available, this is not far-fetched. Again, where was the engineering teacher to vouch for Mohammed’s story? Why didn’t Mohammed simply explain himself? The police said that initially, it was “not immediately evident” that the clock-in-a-case was a class experiment – perfectly plausible, given that Mohammed built the clock-in-a-case voluntarily, without assignment, and in conjunction with no science fair.

Chief Larry Boyd said simply and correctly, “You can’t take things like that to school” without explanation or assignment in today’s world without it receiving scrutiny.

And according to the cops, Ahmed was significantly more cooperative with friendly media than with the police who came to ask some simple questions.

That’s probably not a coincidence. Ahmed’s father, as Pamela Geller points out, is an anti-Islamophobia media gadfly. He routinely returns to Sudan to run for president; he has debated anti-Koran Florida pastor Terry Jones, partially in order to bring his children to Disneyworld. In 2011, the Washington Post wrote of him:

Elhassan, a native of the Sudan who is now an American citizen, likes to call himself a sheik. He wears a cleric’s flowing white robes and claims hundreds of followers throughout Egypt, Sudan and in the United States. But he is unknown as a scholar or holy man in the state he has called home for two decades. Religious leaders in Texas say they have never heard of Elhassan, including the imam at the mosque where he worships.

It’s no surprise that Ahmed Mohammed’s dad ran to the cameras at the first opportunity. It’s also no surprise that the terror-connected Council on American-Islamic Relations arrived to push the Islamophobia narrative immediately.

But there’s a long history of detaining science students for experiments administrators don’t understand. Homer Hickam, the subject of the movie October Sky, found himself in handcuffs during the Cold War for starting a forest fire with a rocket he built. And since September 11, such incidents have become more common. As someone who went to a Jewish high school based in Los Angeles and located next to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, police and security regularly evacuated our high school due to bomb threats. If one of the students had brought a device to school in this fashion, the student would have been detained and questioned – again, in an all-Jewish school.

And as Ian Tuttle of National Review has pointed out, America has become extra-paranoid of late: students have been suspended for gun-shaped Pop Tarts, cap guns, finger guns, and saying the word gun, among other grave offenses. And we don’t even need weapons to suspend students anymore: wearing an American flag at the wrong time or donning a Confederate flag t-shirt will do it.

So why, after the detention and release, did this story become a national one? Why did Obama jump on this story? Why did Hillary jump on this story? Where were they for then-16-year-old Kiera Wilmot of Florida to the White House after she was arrested and suspended in 2013 for bringing an experiment with toilet cleaner and aluminum foil to school? She was black but not Muslim, so it didn’t serve the narrative. They were MIA.

For years, the Obama administration has pushed the notion that American Muslims are in danger of Islamophobic backlash. But as of 2012, 62.4 percent of all anti-religious hate crimes targeted Jews; 11.6 percent targeted Muslims; as of 2013, anti-Jewish hate crimes represented 60.3 percent of all hate crimes, as opposed to just 13.7 percent for Muslims. That’s a major decline in anti-Islamic hate crimes since 2001, when 55.7 percent of hate crimes were anti-Jewish, and anti-Muslim hate crimes constituted 27.2 percent of all hate crimes.

So where, exactly, are all the invitations to Jewish students targeted in hate crime incidents?

They don’t exist, because they don’t help President Obama castigate America as xenophobic and backwards – and just as importantly, castigate Texans as particularly likely to don white hoods and go hunt down some Sufis.

The narrative reigns supreme. Ahmed Mohammed brought a clock-in-a-case that looked like a hoax bomb to the uninformed to school; his engineering teacher told him not to show it around; he showed it around; the police showed up, and he was allegedly uncooperative; they decided he was innocent and released him.

That’s not a national scandal. That’s local cops and teachers and administrators doing their jobs, decently but cautiously. Yet that won’t be what you hear. You’ll just hear that America hates Muslims, even as Americans self-righteously tweet out #IStandWithAhmed without hearing the facts.

U.S. Confrontation, Obama Tells Navy Put Tail Between Propellers

Posted on by

U.S. Navy video

Obama Blocks Navy from Sailing Near Disputed Chinese islands

Failure to assert passage rights in South China Sea bolsters Beijing’s illegal maritime claims

FreeBeacon: The Obama administration has restricted the U.S. Pacific Command from sending ships and aircraft within 12 miles of disputed Chinese-built islands in the South China Sea, bolstering Beijing’s illegal claims over the vital seaway, Pentagon leaders revealed to Congress on Thursday.

“The administration has continued to restrict our Navy ships from operating within 12 nautical miles of China’s reclaimed islands,” Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) said in opening remarks criticizing the failure to guarantee safe passage for international commercial ships in Asia.

“This is a dangerous mistake that grants de facto recognition of China’s man-made sovereignty claims,” he said.

The South China Sea is a strategic waterway used to transport $5 trillion annually in goods, including $1.2 trillion in trade to the United States.

David Shear, assistant defense secretary for Asian and Pacific affairs, sought to play down the restrictions on Navy ship transits close to the islands. According to Shear, a regional freedom of navigation exercise took place in April and the tactic is “one tool in a larger tool box … and we’re in the process of putting together that tool box.”

Shear acknowledged that “we have not recently gone within 12 miles of a reclaimed area,” noting the last time a Navy ship sailed that close to a Chinese-built island was 2012.

The disclosure undermines statements made Wednesday by Defense Secretary Ash Carter who said the United States would not be coerced by China into not operating ships or aircraft in Asia. Carter said the United States “will continue to protect freedom of navigation and overflight.”

Shear insisted that in recent years the U.S. military has challenged “every category of Chinese claim in the South China Sea, as recently as this year.”

Blocking China from militarizing the new islands could include a range of options, including freedom of navigation operations, he said.

McCain, however, noted that the U.S. restrictions on close-in island military flights and ship visits were continuing despite the provocative dispatch of five Chinese warships in an unprecedented deployment to waters within 12 miles of Alaska’s Aleutian Islands—at the same time President Obama was concluding a recent visit to the state earlier this month.

A visibly angered McCain told Shear the best way to assert that international waters around the islands do not belong to China would be for American ships to make 12-mile passages by the disputed islands. “And we haven’t done that since 2012. I don’t find that acceptable, Mr. Secretary,” he said.

Adm. Harry Harris, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, was asked if he is authorized to order ships to travel within 12 miles of any of the man-made islands and answered, no. Harris also said no U.S. surveillance aircraft have flown directly over any of the islands.

Asked why not, Harris stated: “I’ll just [say] that Pacom presents options, military options to the secretary. And those options come with a full range of opportunities in the South China Sea, and we’re ready to execute those options when directed.”

The restrictions appear to be an element of the Obama administration’s conciliatory policies toward China that have increased in the months leading up to the planned visit to Washington next week by Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The administration also has not taken steps to penalize China for large-scale hacking of U.S. government and private sector databases, although sanctions are planned.

China has been building islands on several reefs within the South China Sea for the past several years near the Paracels, in the northwestern sea, and near the Spratlys, near the Philippines. Several nations, including Vietnam, Philippines, and Malaysia have challenged Chinese claims to maritime sovereignty.

After ignoring the island building for several years, the Obama administration earlier this year began pressing the Chinese to halt the construction. The U.S. appeals were ignored.

A Chinese admiral recently declared that the entire South China Sea is China’s maritime territory.

“The South China Sea is no more China’s than the Gulf of Mexico is Mexico’s,” said Harris, who described himself as critic of China’s maritime behavior and large-scale military buildup.

Harris made clear implicitly during the hearing he did not agree with the restrictions on transit near the disputed islands but has been overruled by the president and secretary of defense.

“I think that we must exercise our freedom of navigation throughout the region …,” Harris said.

Pressed for his views on whether close passage of U.S. ships in the sea should be permitted, Harris said: “I believe that we should [be] allow[ed] to exercise freedom of navigation and flight—maritime and flight in the South China Sea against those islands that are not islands.”

Asked if he has requested permission for close-in island transits, Harris would not say, stating only that he has provided policy options for doing so to civilian leaders.

Harris said Pacific command surface ship commanders and crews, as well as Air Force pilots and crews, have orders when operating near China to “insist on our right to operate in international airspace and maritime space” and to respond professionally when challenged by Chinese warships or interceptor jets.

The four-star admiral warned that more incidents, such as the dangerous aerial intercept of a P-8 surveillance jet by a Chinese jet in 2014, are possible after China finishes building runways on Fiery Cross Reef and two other reefs.

With missiles, jet fighters, and warships stationed on the islands, “it creates a mechanism by which China would have de facto control over the South China Sea in any scenario short of war,” he said.

In a conflict the sites could be easily targeted, but “short of that, militarization of these features pose a threat, and certainly it poses a threat against all other countries in the region,” he said.

Shear also said the island militarization is a concern.

“The Chinese have not yet placed advanced weaponry on those features and we are going to do everything we can to ensure that they don’t,” Shear said. “This is going to be a long-term effort. There are no silver bullets in this effort. But we’re certainly complicating Chinese calculations already.”

Shear said U.S. forces are continuing to operate freely in the region and have deterred Chinese coercion of regional states.

“That we freely operate in the South China Sea is a success? It’s a pretty low bar, Mr. Secretary,” McCain said.

China’s dispatch of five warships to waters near the Bering Strait followed recent joint exercises with the Russians, after which the Chinese ships sailed near Alaska to demonstrated the ships’ ability to operate in the far north, Harris said, noting that he viewed the timing to the president’s Alaska visit as “coincidental.”

Sen. Dan Sullivan, (R., Alaska) said the Chinese action was a “provocation” and criticized the administration’s weak response. The Pentagon dismissed the Chinese ship transit as legal under international law.

“I thought it was more of a provocation and a demonstration of their interest in the Arctic,” Sullivan said. “I’m not sure that this White House would recognize a provocation if it was slapped in the face, and we need to be aware of that.”

Harris also said he is concerned by China deploying submarines, including nuclear missile submarines, further from its shores.

“We’re seeing Chinese submarine deployments extend further and further, almost with every deployment,” he said. “It has become routine for Chinese submarines to travel to the Horn of Africa region and North Arabian Sea in conjunction with their counter piracy task force operations. We’re seeing their ballistic missiles submarines travel in the Pacific at further ranges and of course all of those are of concern.”

China’s claims to have halted island construction and militarization on some 3,000 acres are false, McCain said.

“Recently released satellite images show clearly this is not true,” the senator said. “What’s more, China is rapidly militarizing this reclaimed land, building garrisons, harbors, intelligence, and surveillance infrastructure, and at least three air strips that could support military aircraft.”

Surface-to-air missiles and radars also could be added enabling China “to declare and enforce an air defense identification zone in the South China Sea, and to hold that vital region at risk,” McCain added.

Shear said the island building is nearly completed.

Meanwhile in the House, Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R., Va.), chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on seapower, led a group of 29 members of Congress in writing to President Obama and Carter, the defense secretary, urging the lifting of the restrictions on naval and air operations near the disputed islands.

“The longer the United States goes without challenging China’s unfounded claims to sovereignty over these artificial formations—and to territorial waters and exclusive economic rights in the surrounding water—the greater the consequences will be for regional security,” the lawmakers stated in the Sept. 17 letter.

“It is our belief that the Defense Department should act immediately to reaffirm the United States’ commitment to freedom of navigation and the rule of law.”

TSA: Air Marshals Texting Scandalous Prostitutes

Posted on by
CHICAGO (WLS) —

The ABC7 I-Team has exclusive details about a scandal in the skies – federal air marshals from Chicago are accused of dialing for prostitutes while on-duty.

This scandal involves three federal air marshals working out of Chicago, suspended after authorities say the men were contacting prostitutes while on the job and using phones provided by taxpayers to film sexual encounters. This is similar to some content on websites such as shemalehdsex if you’re interested it is worth checking out.

Air Marshal chief confirms probe into allegations agents hired prostitute

FNC: The head of the Federal Air Marshal Service acknowledged at a hearing Thursday that several agency officials are under investigation over allegations they hired a prostitute overseas and recorded at least one sexual encounter with a government-issued device.

Two air marshals from the Chicago field office reportedly have been suspended, while another has resigned over the alleged incident.

The allegations, first reported by The Intercept, were addressed at a hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Federal Air Marshal Service Director Roderick Allison told the committee that if any employees engage in misconduct, officials will “act quickly and decisively.”

“I have made it crystal clear to every employee that there is no tolerance for misconduct,” he said, adding that the “vast majority of our employees are dedicated professionals.”

While he would not comment on the allegations, he did confirm an investigation was ongoing.

The marshals allegedly used their government-issued phones to record their sexual encounters with a prostitute that may or may not work at websites such as fullhdxxx.com and then shared video using their personal email accounts, which were connected to their government work phones, The Intercept reported.

A spokeswoman for the panel, M.J. Henshaw, said Allison told the committee about the allegations within the last week.

Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said Thursday he remained concerned about the underlying charges.

“If these allegations are accurate, they are completely inappropriate for anyone, let alone air marshals charged with securing our skies,” Cummings said at the hearing. “These employees must be held accountable and I know they will be.”

A spokesman for the Transportation Security Administration, which oversees the Federal Air Marshal Service at the Homeland Security Department, said TSA will hold its employees accountable if allegations of criminal behavior or misconduct are substantiated.

“Even though constrained from commenting on an active investigation, we can confirm that two of the employees involved have been placed on an indefinite suspension without pay, and the third employee has resigned from the agency,” TSA spokesman Bruce Anderson said.

Lawmakers have focused their attention on questionable behavior by federal law enforcement officials since a 2012 prostitution scandal involving the Secret Service. The former head of the Drug Enforcement Administration also came under fire earlier this year amid allegations that drug agents attended sex parties with prostitutes while stationed overseas.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder advised Justice Department staff in April that it was against department policy to hire prostitutes, regardless of whether the practice was legal in a particular jurisdiction.

Allison was tapped to take over the embattled Federal Air Marshal Service last year, after Robert Bray left the agency amid an investigation into allegations that an Air Marshal supervisor obtained discounted and free guns and provided them to agency officials for personal use.

State Dept Knew Classified Emails in Hillary’s Server, Benghazi

Posted on by

Judicial Watch: State Department Asked Hillary Clinton to Delete Copies of Classified Benghazi Emails Four Months Ago

Click here for the referenced document.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released Obama administration correspondence containing a letter from Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy asking Hillary Clinton’s lawyer to destroy all electronic copies of a classified email found in records Clinton decided to turn over to the State Department six months before.  Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, rejected the request as Congress and other investigators had demanded electronic records be preserved.  The correspondence also shows Hillary Clinton has ignored a demand to turn over all electronic copies of the approximately 55,000 pages of emails she previously returned in paper form.  The correspondence was disclosed by the State and Justice Departments in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in which Judicial Watch is asking a court to issue a preservation order to protect any emails Clinton has yet to turn over, including those emails in which she and her lawyers unilaterally determined to be personal. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (1:12-cv-02034))

The May 22, 2015, letter from Kennedy to Clinton attorney Kendall reads in part:

I am writing in reference to the following e-mail that is among the approximately 55,000 pages that were identified as potential federal records and produced on behalf of former Secretary Clinton to the Depa1tment of State on December 5, 2014: E-mail forwarded by Jacob Sullivan to Secretary Clinton on November 18, 2012 at 8:44 pm (Subject: Fw: FYI- Report of arrests -possible Benghazi connection).

Please be advised that today the above referenced e-mail, which previously was unclassified, has been classified as “Secret” pursuant to Section 1.7(d) of Executive Order 13526 in connection with a review and release under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In order to safeguard and protect the classified information, I ask – consistent with my letter to you dated March 23 2015 – that you, Secretary Clinton and others assisting her in responding to congressional and related inquiries coordinate in taking the steps set forth below. A copy of the document as redacted under the FOIA is attached to assist you in your search.

****

Once you have made the electronic copy of the documents for the Department, please locate any electronic copies of the above-referenced classified document in your possession. If you locate any electronic copies, please delete them. Additionally, once you have done that, please empty your “Deleted Items” folder.

The Kennedy letter shows that the State Department knew that Clinton had classified material on her email system two months before it was disclosed publicly on July 23, when Congress was alerted to the issue by the inspector general of the intelligence community.

Clinton’s attorney responds several weeks later, on June 15 – saying it would not be “prudent” to delete the email.  David Kendall writes:

This will also confirm that, pursuant to your request, we have deleted all electronic copies of this document, with the following exception. I have received document preservation requests pertaining to the 55,000 pages of e-mails from the House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, the Inspector General of the State Department, and the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (DNI). I have responded to each preservation request by confirming to the requestor that I would take reasonable steps to preserve these 55,000 pages of former Secretary Clinton’s e-mails in their present electronic form. I therefore do not believe it would be prudent to delete, as you request, the above-referenced e-mail from the master copies or the PST file that we are preserving.

Clinton’s attorney suggests the information may yet be deleted.  Kendall’s June letter states:

Once the document preservation requests referenced above expire, we will proceed to make the requested deletions. This present arrangement would cover the single document recently classified “Secret”. Should there be further reclassifications during the Department’s FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] review of former Secretary Clinton’s e-mails, it also would cover any such additional documents.

The State Department also disclosed a July 2, 2015, letter from the chief records officer at National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), Paul M. Wester Jr., to Margaret P. Grafeld, deputy assistant secretary for global information services at the State Department, that shows Clinton never turned over the records as requested.  Webster again requests State Department action on the Clinton records:

I would like to reiterate our request that the Department contact the representatives of former Secretary Clinton to secure the native electronic versions with associated metadata of the approximately 55,000 hard copy pages of emails …

Despite this request, the State Department seems never to have followed up with Clinton for the data.  On August 6, the State Department reported to the court in another Judicial Watch lawsuit that it had demanded that Mills and Abedin “return all copies of potential federal records in your possession.”  The State Department did not provide any correspondence demanding Mrs. Clinton return all copies of potential federal records.

A letter by Kennedy on September 14, 2015, to FBI Director James B. Comey, shows that the State Department only recently again tried to obtain electronic copies of the Clinton records:

On May 22, 2015, the Department requested from former Secretary Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, that he provide an electronic copy of the approximately 55.000 pages identified as potential federal records and produced on behalf of former Secretary Clinton to the Department of State on December 5, 2014. … On June 15, 2015, Mr. Kendall replied that, pursuant to my request, he would “copy onto a disc the electronic version of the emails previously produced in hard copy to the Department on December 5, 2014.” … Before Mr. Kendall could provide that disc to the Department, however, we understand that the FBI obtained the relevant electronic media. Accordingly, we request from the FBI an electronic copy of the approximately 55.000 pages identified as potential federal records and produced on behalf of former Secretary Clinton to the Department of State on December 5, 2014. This request is in accordance with counsel we have received from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

Additionally, to the extent the FBI recovers any potential federal records that may have existed on the server at various points in time in the past, we request that you apprise the Depa11ment insofar as such records correspond with Secretary Clinton’s tenure at the Department of State. Because of the Department’s commitment to preserving its federal records, we also ask that any recoverable media and content be preserved by the FBI so that we can determine how best to proceed.

As with the email gaps uncovered by Judicial Watch this week, this latest find raises questions about whether Clinton told the truth last month when she declared, under penalty of perjury, “I have directed that all of my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State….”  Clinton made this statement in response to a court order Judicial Watch obtained in other FOIA litigation.

“Judicial Watch exposed a cover-up with criminal implications. Why on Earth would John Kerry’s State Department tell Mrs. Clinton to delete classified Benghazi records before finding out where and how this material had been disclosed?” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “That the State Department asked Clinton’s lawyer to destroy federal records shows a level of distain for the rule of law that goes beyond the pale.  These letters should have been disclosed to more than one federal judge.  The evident contempt and obstruction of justice by both Mrs. Clinton and the Obama administration will be brought to the attention the courts.”

The Word Police in Media Deny Judges Op-Eds

Posted on by

Right on the Department of Homeland Security website, it appears that the term ‘illegal alien’ is acceptable. Curiously, the Department of Justice uses ‘unlawful aliens’.

So, rather than solve the bigger issue, the matter gets bogged down in political correctness and terminology objections?

Ex-judges bolt legal journal over ban on term ‘illegal alien’

FNC: A pair of veteran immigration judges have left a widely read legal journal over its ban on the term “illegal alien,” calling the decision a case of the “political correctness word police” taking control of the immigration debate.

Retired U.S. Immigration Court judges Mahlon “Mick” Hanson and Elizabeth Hacker, who wrote opinion articles for Law360’s “expert analysis” section since the beginning of this year, say they used the term “illegal alien” without issue. But when they submitted an article in July on sanctuary cities, the editors of the publication declined to publish it unless certain changes were made, including the removal of the term illegal alien.

“Language must conform to Law360 style, avoiding what is perceived to be derogatory reference to ‘illegal aliens,'” Christian Lewis, assistant managing editor of Law360, wrote in a July 30 email to Dale Wilcox of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, who was submitting the piece on behalf of the judges because they are IRLI board members.

“The only legally correct term is ‘illegal alien.'”

– Retired US Immigration Judge Mahlon Hanson

“I understand based on the authors’ June 10 article that they believe this is a semantic argument, however our publication does follow the rule that ‘illegal’ applies to actions, not individuals,” Lewis wrote.

Law360 — a subscription, legal news source which boasts a readership of 400,000 and is operated by the Portfolio Media company, a subsidiary of LexisNexis — first suggested the judges change the language to “undocumented alien” and then “unauthorized alien.” In addition, Lewis questioned the sources used by the seasoned immigration jurists in writing their piece, which roundly criticized sanctuary cities following the July 1 murder of 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle. Francisco Sanchez, an illegal alien, is accused of killing Steinle, who was shot while walking with her father in San Francisco. Sanctuary cities are communities that have an official policy of not cooperating with federal authorities in the detention of illegal immigrants or handing them over for deportation.

The judges said they were “shocked” by the editorial board’s insistence the term not be used — noting the Immigration & Nationality Act and its various amendments use “illegal alien,” as do judges presiding over immigration law cases nationwide. A LexisNexis search of the term’s use in case law generates thousands of examples.

Hanson and Hacker said they trimmed their article at the editors’ request and clarified their sources, but refused to resubmit the piece with language they deemed legally incorrect.

“I was, quite frankly, very surprised,” Hacker told FoxNews.com. “We had submitted several other articles to them on immigration-related issues and had used that term, which we consider to be the legally correct term.”

“I don’t want to use inappropriate language, which in my opinion is designed to deceive people as to the state of affairs in the immigration area,” Hacker said.

“The only legally correct term is ‘illegal alien,'” added Hanson.

In an email to FoxNews.com, Law360 explained that it is simply complying with The Associated Press guidelines for journalists. In 2013, the AP dropped the use of the word “illegal” to describe a person who enters or resides in a country in violation of civil or criminal law.

“Like many other news organizations, Law360 follows Associated Press style on the use of the term “illegal immigrant,” Cat Fredenburgh, editor-in-chief of Law360, said in the email. “Per AP, Law360 uses the term ‘illegal’ to refer only to actions, not people. Law360 requires all third-party contributors to comply with our style guidelines.

“Hon. Elizabeth Hacker and Hon. Mahlon Hanson submitted an article for publication with Law360 but withdrew the article upon learning of Law360’s policy against the use of the term ‘illegal’ to refer to people,” Fredenburgh said. “We did not ban the judges from writing for Law360. In fact, we suggested ways the article could still be published while complying with our style. The judges’ decision to withdraw the article from consideration with Law360 was theirs alone.”

The editorial board’s style change — and the reason for it — did nothing to persuade the judges to resubmit their piece.

“I think it’s basically a propaganda tool when The Associated Press is starting to tell reporters what term to use,” Hanson said.

“It’s really disappointing because they advertise themselves as a trusted legal resource,” he said of the law publication. “You know how definitions are important in court cases in using the precise legal terminology…I was surprised that they pushed it to that extent.”

In an Op-Ed published Thursday for FoxNews.com, Hacker and Hanson blamed the Obama administration and other factors for changing the terms of the illegal immigration debate to push an agenda.

“This administration, a compliant media and the ‘political correctness’ word police have taken control of the immigration debate with an agenda of deception, doublespeak and censorship.”

Of the term “undocumented immigrant,” Hacker and Hanson said it is “factually incorrect because many of the aliens illegally present in this country have documents.”

“These documents may range from those unlawfully obtained, like Social Security cards or Social Security numbers, fraudulent drivers licenses, or other documents legally obtained such as ‘cedulas’ or driver’s licenses,” they said. “Also, the term ‘immigrant’ only applies to a person who has either legally entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident or has been adjusted to that status while in the United States.”