Category Archives: U.S. Constitution

Ben Carson has yet Another Bizarre Problematic Solution

Posted on by

While Dr. Ben Carson appears to take the lead in the polls in Iowa over Donald Trump, it remains important to listen carefully to words spoken by Carson when it comes to solutions to issues. This one is quite problematic.

Rather than Lois Lerner, previously at the IRS who was operating as a punishment wing for free speech at the IRS, seems Ben Carson thinks the Department of Education does it, regardless of how radical that speech may be. Things are getting very twisted.

Ben Carson: let’s have the Department of Education go after “extreme political bias”

by Taylor Millard at HotAir

Dr. Ben Carson has a rather awful (and I mean awful) idea for the Department of Education: have it become the thought police for colleges and universities! Carson made the suggestion during an interview yesterday on Glenn Beck’s show. Here’s the interview right before Beck answers the question, plus I’ve transcribed Carson’s answer below.

“It would be to monitor our institutions of higher education for extreme political bias and deny federal funding if it exists.”

Carson’s a smart guy, he’s a retired neurosurgeon and has had a movie made about him starring Cuba Gooding Jr.(which is pretty cool). But this idea is just repugnant. If a Democrat proposed it, the Right would be up in arms over this. It’s not the federal government’s job to monitor political speech! This might as well be Section Two of the Sedition Act all over again, which is posted below.

SEC. 2. And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

Yes, there are leftists in education who do their best to indoctrinate students into thinking the government should be involved in everyone’s business, whether it be how much people get paid or redistribution of wealth. Yes, free speech is being silenced on campus by “trigger warnings” and “free speech zones” and a litany of other ridiculous ideas. But wanting to have the Department of Education become speech monitors to make sure it’s not “extreme political bias” is not the way to fight back. The way to fight back is to slowly get conservative and libertarian teachers into teaching positions (whether it’s history, philosophy, government, law, what have you), have them challenge students, and make them think. The Right needs to slowly take over (or at least balance out) the Left in education. This means thinking long-term, not looking towards the government to do a quick fix.

But here’s the bizarre thing; just seconds before Carson’s Department of Education answer he discusses how he doesn’t want national standards for education because, “the closer education is to home, the better the education is.” This completely flies in the face of what he wants the Education Department to do when it comes to colleges and universities. It’s like he’s saying he’s perfectly fine with local education, as long as it’s not run by people who have “extreme political bias” and he doesn’t even define what that means. This goes against the “secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves” written in the Constitution and it’s completely unenforceable unless Carson wants to put microphones or cameras in every classroom to monitor what’s being said. That’s the only way the Department of Education (or universities) would be able to monitor what’s going on. There’s no guarantee that would work either, because universities could consider bribing the “extreme political bias” police to make sure no professor gets kicked out. If it’s left up to the university administration itself, then all they have to do is say, “No extremists here,” unless there’s going to be an extreme political bias hotline to investigate anonymous complaints of that sort of thing. That would cause even more of a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Probably the biggest problem with Carson’s idea, outside of the entire unconstitutional part, is it’s the type of directive which can come back to hurt conservatives and libertarians. Carson is promising under his administration the Department of Education would probably only go after leftists, who have “extreme political bias.” But what happens if a Democrat comes into power after Carson? Would that Democrat use the “extreme political bias” directive to force out people who might be conservative or libertarian? If someone says they think “trigger warnings” are a bad idea, would the university they work for be forced to fire them or turn them over to the thought police for “reeducation”? Carson’s idea is just completely short-sighted, and it’s unfortunate because the guy isn’t an idiot. He’s a very smart man and a good guy who’s got a great story. But this is one of those ideas he should toss in the incinerator and hope no one else steals it. The Left operates the war on free speech. There’s no reason for the Right to get involved in it unless it’s to defend those who are speaking.

 

Lois Lerner Goes Free ~ Impeach Loretta Lynch

Posted on by

Per the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Press Release:

Chairman Chaffetz Responds to DOJ’s Investigation of the IRS

Published: Oct 23, 2015
  

WASHINGTON—Today, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) issued the following statement after the Department of Justice announced there will be no charges against former Internal Revenue Service (IRS) official Lois Lerner, and the investigation will be closing:

“This announcement is a reminder that the Obama administration continues to refuse to hold anyone accountable at the IRS. Over two years ago, TIGTA conducted an audit confirming the IRS was targeting conservative organizations because of their political beliefs. While DOJ may have closed its investigation, as a coequal branch of government, Congress will continue to seek accountability for the American people. A clear message must be sent that using government agencies to stifle citizens’ freedom of speech will not be tolerated. If the administration won’t send that message, Congress will.”

Background:

Earlier this year, Chairman Chaffetz, along with 51 members of Congress sent a letter to President Obama calling for the removal of IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. Additionally, the Oversight Committee released a video outlining a timeline of key events in the targeting scandal.

*** in 2014 from Judicial Watch, in part:

IRS Had “Secret Research Project” For Conservative Donor Lists

Judicial Watch continues to blow the lid off of the Obama administration’s increasingly feeble attempts to cover up its deliberate targeting of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the months leading up to the 2012 presidential election. And the latest batch of emails JW has obtained in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit portrays an agency potentially willing to go to any lengths to bring down the president’s political opponents – including misusing the private, confidential information of those who dared contribute to the groups the IRS had targeted.

But, we really shouldn’t be surprised, should we? This is an administration whose chief executive has repeatedly acted as if he is above the law. All he needs to govern, he claims, is “a pen and a phone.” His IRS agency, it turns out, has put both to extensive use in harassing and hamstringing conservative organizations – and, perhaps, even individuals it thought might have had a negative impact the president’s efforts to retain office in 2012.

On September 4, we released a new batch of IRS email documents revealing that under former IRS official Lois Lerner, the agency seems to acknowledge having needlessly solicited donor lists from non-profit political groups. According to a May 21, 2012, memo from the IRS Deputy Associate Chief Counsel: “such information was not needed across-the-board and not used in making the agency’s determination on exempt status.” Outrageously, it wasn’t until one year later, on May 10, 2013, that Lerner finally conceded that the requests for donor names were “not appropriate, not usual.” (These remarks by Lerner were staged and were the first IRS admission of its improper targeting of Obama’s perceived enemies.)

Not surprisingly, the new documents JW obtained also reveal that 75% of the groups from which the lists were solicited were apparently conservative, with only 5% being liberal. So, Lerner and her IRS collaborators knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the donor lists they had wrongly solicited would be filled with the names of those who had opposed the Obama policies.

These new smoking gun documents came in response to a court order from our October 2013 FOIA lawsuit (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:13-cv-01559)) filed against the IRS after the agency unlawfully refused to respond to four FOIA requests dating back to May 2013. The emails are contained in the sixth batch of documents the IRS has been forced to produce in response to the Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit. Much more here.

Stingray and Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking Policy

Posted on by

DHS issues stingray policy and answers to Oversight Committee

SCMagazine: The Department of Homeland (DHS) followed the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) lead on Wednesday with the release of its cell-site simulator, or “stingray,” policy.

The policy, as the agency wrote, “provides guidance and establishes common principles for the use of cell-site simulators across DHS.” The policy applies to the “use of cell-site simulator technology inside the United States in furtherance of criminal investigations,” the memorandum states.

Primarily, the policy hits on a required search warrant before operating a stingray device. In the past, the government has been derided for picking up innocent citizens’ data while they’re sharing public spaces with criminal investigation targets.

The majority of cases will require prosecutors to obtain a search warrant supported by probable cause; however, in exigent circumstances under the Fourth Amendment, such as situations where law enforcement’s needs are “so compelling that they render a warrantless search objectively reasonable” the warrant requirement can be waved. Exceptional circumstances are also exempt from a mandatory warrant. These instances often occur when obtaining a search warrant is “impracticable,” such as when Secret Service agents are protecting the president.

As far as data collection, data must be deleted as soon as the target is identified and no less than once every 30 days.

The policy release was accompanied by a hearing at the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The representatives asked for clarification from both DHS and the DOJ on their stingray use and rules.

When Rod Blum (R-Iowa) probed about how agents would be reprimanded if they didn’t follow these policies, both the DOJ and DHS said individuals would be left to the agencies’ idea of appropriate punishment, but employees would definitely be held accountable.

“As with any technology procedure within an agency if individuals violate their agency’s orders they’re accountable to their agencies and subject to discipline,” said Elana Tyrangiel, principal deputy assistant attorney general, Office of Legal Policy at DOJ.

To ensure their policies are followed, both agencies instated an auditing procedure with designated executive-level contacts serving as direct lines of contact.

Secret Service allowed to use warrantless cellphone tracking

WASHINGTON (AP) – A new policy allows the Secret Service to use intrusive cellphone-tracking technology without a warrant if there’s believed to be a nonspecific threat to the president or another protected person.

Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Seth M. Stodder described to a House subcommittee Wednesday the department’s policy on the use of cell-site simulators.

Civil libertarians and privacy advocates have long expressed concern about the suitcase-size devices, known as Stingrays, which mimic cell-towers to scoop up electronic data that can be used to locate nearby phones and identify their owners. The devices don’t listen in to phone calls or capture text messages, Stodder said.

The policy the department unveiled this week is similar to the one announced in September by the Justice Department, which includes the FBI.

Federal law enforcement officers are required to get a warrant signed by a judge before using Stingrays, except under emergency “exigent circumstances” meeting the constitutional standard for probable cause under the Fourth Amendment, but when there is no time to get a warrant.

Stodder cited the example of kidnappings, such as a recent case where Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers used a Stingray to help locate and rescue a 6-year-old girl being held hostage by human smugglers in Arizona.

But Stodder said another allowed exception under the policy would let the Secret Service use Stingrays in “exceptional circumstances” without meeting the legal threshold for probable cause. In such cases, using the devices would require direct approval from “executive-level personnel” at Secret Service headquarters and the U.S. attorney for the relevant jurisdiction.

Asked whether that essentially granted a blanket exception for the Secret Service, Stodder said that the exemption would not be used in routine criminal probes, such as a counterfeiting investigation.

“The key exception that we envision is the Secret Service’s protective mission,” Stodder said. “In certain circumstances where you could have an immediate threat to the president and you have cryptic information, our conclusion in drawing the line between security and privacy here is to err on the side of protection.”

Stodder added that such information could be “a cryptic email or something like that” indicating a security threat to the president where agents would lack the time or the information to determine probable cause, “but you need to locate that person.”

Cell-site stimulators have been used for years by both state and federal law enforcement agencies, who tout them as a vital tool to catch fugitives and locate suspects. But privacy groups and some lawmakers have raised alarms about the secrecy surrounding its use and the collection of cellphone information of innocent bystanders who happen to be in a particular neighborhood or location.

Stodder could not immediately say how many times department law-enforcement officers had used Stingrays without warrants in recent years.

Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., said Wednesday the newly announced guidelines are a good first step, but added that the policy still lacks transparency and provides overly broad permission for Stingrays to be used without warrants. The new federal policies also don’t apply to state and local law enforcement agencies that have purchased Stingrays, sometimes through the use of federal grants. More here.

ICE, WH, Sanctuary Cities and Sex Parties

Posted on by

America is losing her identity and in less than 10 years, it is all but gone. There are many reasons as noted below. Fasten your seat belt, this is chilling. Sadly, there is no topic or agency where corruption and scandal is exempt.

Sessions-Brat: 14 million MORE immigrants in 10 years, 5-times all U.S. high school seniors

WashingtonExaminer: If nothing is done to address legal and illegal immigration, some 14 million more immigrants will come to the United States over the next 10 years, according to a warning call from two congressional immigration critics.

In a full-page ad to run in Roll Call Tuesday, and previewed in the paper today, Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions and Virginia Rep. Dave Brat provided the raw data on the nation’s building immigration problem and blew the whistle on the so-called “Gang of Eight” proposal to ease immigration rules.

“Including all forms of immigration, the Census Bureau estimates another 14 million immigrants will enter the U.S. on net between now and 2025 — that’s almost five times the number of students who will graduate from public high school in America this year,” the two wrote.

And much of it is legal, and threatens U.S. workers, they added.

White House threatens to veto anti-sanctuary city bill, ahead of Senate test vote

FNC: The White House on Tuesday threatened to veto a Republican-backed bill that would crack down on so-called sanctuary cities by withholding funding to local governments that don’t cooperate with federal immigration officials.

The veto threat comes ahead of a critical Senate test vote Tuesday afternoon.

GOP sponsors furiously are trying to peel off a few Democrats to advance the Stop Sanctuary Cities Act, whose consideration comes months after a young woman’s murder in San Francisco allegedly at the hands of an illegal immigrant touched off a national debate over immigration law.

“Sanctuary cities and the associated violent crimes by illegal immigrants are reaching a critical point, and we cannot wait any longer to take action to protect Americans here at home,” sponsor Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said in a statement.

The White House, though, claimed in a written statement that the bill “fails to offer comprehensive reforms needed to fix the Nation’s broken immigration laws and undermines current Administration efforts to remove the most dangerous convicted criminals and to work collaboratively with State and local law enforcement agencies.”

According to the White House, it would “essentially turn State and local law enforcement into Federal immigration law enforcement officials, in certain circumstances.” The chamber’s top Democrat also has tried to discredit the measure by calling it “The Donald Trump Act,” linking its provisions to controversial statements made by the Republican presidential front-runner about illegal immigrants.

Government Worker Accused of Recruiting Co-Workers for Sex Parties

FreeBeacon: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is probing allegations that a supervisor during work time tried to recruit fellow employees to attend private sex parties at his home.

According to NBC News, ICE spokeswoman Lauren Mack confirmed that the federal agency has launched an internal misconduct investigation after a report in the San Diego Union-Tribune publicized the accusation about a supervisor in San Diego recruiting employees for “private sexual ‘swinger’ parties.”

The Tribune reported:

The accusation of “gross sexual misconduct” was made in a complaint submitted to the Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security earlier this year. … It says that employees at the ICE Enforcement Removal Operations office in downtown San Diego have been approached during work hours to participate in the parties held at the home of a supervisor in the office along with his wife, who is also an agent.The complaint says the recruitment has been going on for more than a year, and alleges the practice is coercive of subordinate employees and an abuse of authority.

In a statement, Mack emphasized that the government agency takes the accusation “seriously.”

“The agency takes all allegations of misconduct seriously,” she stated. “The matter you reference has been referred to ICE Homeland Security Investigations Office of Professional Responsibility for further investigation. That inquiry is ongoing and, as such, we are unable to offer further comment at this time.”

 

Server-Gate or Deep Throat Part 2?

Posted on by

Hillary says often that the State Department gave her permission to use a private server and email. Think about that, who at State did that? She was HEAD of the State Dept, so did she give herself permission? C’mon….

Then there is the excuse that everyone does it so it must be okay right?

State Department’s Cybersecurity Weakened Under Hillary Clinton

From 2011 to 2014, the State Department’s poor cybersecurity was identified by the inspector general as a “significant deficiency.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department was among the worst agencies in the federal government at protecting its computer networks while Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary from 2009 to 2013, a situation that continued to deteriorate as John Kerry took office and Russian hackers breached the department’s email system, according to independent audits and interviews.

The State Department’s compliance with federal cybersecurity standards was below average when Clinton took over but grew worse in each year of her tenure, according to an annual report card compiled by the White House based on audits by agency watchdogs. Network security continued to slip after Kerry replaced Clinton in February 2013, and remains substandard, according to the State Department inspector general.

In each year from 2011 to 2014, the State Department’s poor cybersecurity was identified by the inspector general as a “significant deficiency” that put the department’s information at risk. The latest assessment is due to be published in a few weeks.

Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has been criticized for her use of a private email server for official business while she was secretary of state. Her private email address also was the recipient of malware linked to Russia, and her server was hit with malware from China, South Korea and Germany. The FBI is investigating whether her home server was breached.

State Department officials don’t dispute the compliance shortcomings identified in years of internal audits, but argue that the audits paint a distorted picture of their cybersecurity, which they depict as solid and improving. They strongly disagree with the White House ranking that puts them behind most other government agencies. Senior department officials in charge of cybersecurity would speak only on condition of anonymity. More here.

With Jake Tapper, Hillary laughed at this scandal…a weird moment in that interview.

Observer: Hillary Clinton emerged from Tuesday night’s inaugural Democratic debate in Las Vegas the clear leader in her party’s field. As Democrats attempt to hold onto the White House in 2016, polling demonstrated a revitalized Hillary campaign, which had been in the doldrums for months due to the ongoing scandal about her misuse of email as Secretary of State.

Mounting talk of Vice President Joe Biden entering the race–to take the place of an ailing Hillary–has dissipated in the wake of the debate, where Ms. Clinton dismissed the email issues as Republican-driven political theater. That Senator Bernie Sanders vigorously backed Ms. Clinton on the point helped her cause, as did her brusque dismissal of Lincoln Chafee’s efforts to raise the issue again, which got raucous applause from the crowd.

It’s evident the Democratic base agrees with Ms. Clinton that her emails are just GOP theatrics. President Obama reflected the sentiment in an interview with 60 Minutes airing two days before the debate, during which he allowed that Secretary Clinton had “made a mistake” with her email but it “is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”

Though the White House soon walked back on some of the president’s statements, which seemed to many to be inappropriate West Wing commentary regarding an ongoing FBI investigation, it’s apparent that the Clinton campaign and the Obama team have united around a message: this issue is fundamentally contrived by Republicans, and is certainly not a threat of any kind to national security.

Democrats unsurprisingly find this take congenial, but it’s less clear if other Americans consider it persuasive. Naturally, Republicans view Ms. Clinton’s email activities with a great deal of suspicion, but recent polls show even independents have concerns regarding EmailGate and Ms. Clinton’s honesty. While the Clinton camp is now confident the email problems will likely not bar her party’s nomination next summer, the issue may loom larger in the race for the White House next fall.

There’s also the matter of exactly what the FBI is investigating. Recent revelations hint that the compromising of classified information on Ms. Clinton’s “private” email and server was more serious than originally believed. While earlier reports indicated only a small percentage of the sensitive information that “spilled over” onto Ms. Clinton’s personal email was highly classified at the Top Secret level, that may be only a small portion of what was potentially compromised.

Particularly disturbing is the report that one of the “personal” emails Ms. Clinton forwarded included the name of a top CIA asset in Libya, who was identified as such. The source of this information was Tyler Drumheller, a retired senior CIA operations officer, who served as a sort of one-man private spy agency for Sid Blumenthal, the Clintons’ close family friend and factotum whose sometimes long-winded emails, particularly regarding Libya, have generated much of the controversy behind EmailGate.

Mr. Drumheller became a fleeting hero to liberals with his resistance to George W. Bush’s White House over skewed intelligence behind the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but he was never particularly popular at CIA and he left Langley under something of a cloud. His emails to Mr. Blumenthal, which were forwarded to Ms. Clinton, were filled with espionage-flavored information about events in Libya. In many cases, Mr. Drumheller’s reports were formatted to look exactly like actual CIA reports, including attribution to named foreign intelligence agencies. How much of this was factual versus Mr. Drumheller embellishing his connections is unclear.

What is abundantly clear is that the true name of an identified CIA asset is a highly classified fact and intentionally revealing it is a Federal crime, which Mr. Drumheller, a career spy, had to know. Why he compromised this person who was secretly helping the United States – possibly endangering his life in the process — may never be known because Mr. Drumheller conveniently died of cancer in early August.

Libya may have a great deal to worry about since new information continues to show just how slipshod Ms. Clinton’s security measures were for her “private” server. That Ms. Clinton’s server experienced multiple cyber-attacks from abroad, including by Russians, does not inspire confidence that any classified information stored in her emails remained in American hands.

To make matters worse, a recent investigation by the Associated Press demonstrates that even relatively low-skill hackers could have hacked Hillary’s unencrypted server, which was left vulnerable to exposure on the open Internet to a degree that cyber-warriors find difficult to believe. “Were they drunk?” a senior NSA official asked me after reading the AP report. “Anybody could have been inside that server – anybody,” he added.

Since the communications of any Secretary of State are highly sought after by dozens of intelligence agencies worldwide – a reality expressed by Secretary John Kerry recently when he said it’s “very likely” the Russians and Chinese are reading his email, a view that any veteran spy would endorse – Ms. Clinton putting her emails at such risk means they have to be assumed to be compromised. If the more skilled state-connected hackers in Russia can fool even NSA these days, they could have gotten into Hillary’s unprotected server without breaking a sweat.

This makes Mr. Obama’s quip that EmailGate represents no threat to American national security all the more puzzling in its dishonesty. Unsurprisingly, some at the FBI are not pleased the president made this pronouncement before the Bureau completed its investigation. “We got the message,” an FBI agent at the Washington Field Office, which is spearheading the EmailGate case, explained: “Obama’s not subtle sometimes.”

In 2012, while the FBI was investigating CIA director David Petraeus for mishandling classified information, Mr. Obama similarly dismissed the national security implications of the case at a press conference. Although FBI director James Comey pressed for serious charges against Mr. Petraeus, the White House demurred and the Department of Justice allowed him to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, sentenced to probation with no jail time.

Some at the FBI were displeased by this leniency and felt Mr. Obama showed his hand to the public early, compromising the Bureau’s investigation. Is the same happening with Ms. Clinton? It’s too soon to say, though the anger of some at the FBI has seeped into the media already. Comments to tabloids reflect the widespread frustration and fear among federal law enforcement and intelligence circles that Mr. Obama will let Ms. Clinton skate free from EmailGate.

For now, the FBI is pursuing its investigation with diligence, bringing other intelligence agencies into the case, and recent reports indicate that specific provisions of the Espionage Act are being re-read carefully, particularly regarding “gross negligence” – which may be the most appropriate charge that Ms. Clinton or members of her inner circle could face.

It will be weeks, even months, before the FBI’s investigation concludes and the Department of Justice has to decide whether any of the events surrounding EmailGate reach the threshold of prosecution. Many in the FBI and the Intelligence Community suspect the fix is already inside the West Wing to prevent that from happening, but it’s still early in this investigation.

It can be expected that if the White House blocks Hillary’s prosecution during the election campaign, leaks will commence with a vengeance. “Is there another Mark Felt out there, waiting?” asked a retired senior FBI official. “There usually is,” he added with a wry smile, citing the top Bureau official who, frustrated by the antics of the Nixon White House, became the notorious “Deep Throat”who leaked the dirty backstory to Watergate to the Washington, DC, media.

Mr. Obama and the Clinton camp should be advised to be careful about who they throw under the bus in this town.