Categories
2020 selection CRIMINALITY Defamation dominion voting systems elections are selections Facade false election claims Headline News illegal Intelwars lack of evidence liars in suits machines oppressive system rudy giuliani silenced dissent the illusion voter fraud William Barr

Rudy Giuliani Sued by Dominion Voting Systems For Defamation

Lawyer Rudy Giuliani is being sued by Dominion Voting Systems for allegedly stating false voter fraud claims. Dominion is asking for $1.3 billion dollars for defamation.

The 107-page lawsuit alleges that Giuliani made more than 50 statements disparaging the company’s equipment in speeches, on Twitter, and on podcasts. “Although he was unwilling to make false election fraud claims about Dominion and its voting machines in a court of law because he knew those allegations are false, he and his allies manufactured and disseminated the ‘Big Lie,’ which foreseeably went viral and deceived millions of people into believing that Dominion had stolen their votes and fixed the election,” the lawsuit said, according to a report by USA Today.

“Giuliani’s statements are defamatory,” the lawsuit added. “They have exposed Dominion to the most extreme hatred and contempt.”

Courts rejected scores of complaints about the election for lack of evidence. Then-Attorney General William Barr dismissed an assertion on December 1 that “machines were programmed essentially to skew the election results” by saying the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security “haven’t found anything to substantiate that.” –USA Today

The lawsuit alleged that Giuliani sought $20,000 per day for his efforts. Earlier this month the company also sued another Trump lawyer, Sidney Powell, for $1.3 billion alleging defamation.

Giuliani still seems confident that he has found fraud in the voting machines. “Let’s have trial by combat,” Giuliani said. “I’m willing to stake my reputation, the President is willing to stake his reputation, on the fact that we’re going to find criminality there,” he said during a speech at the Trump rally near the White House on January 6 before the Capitol riot.

The New York State Bar Association may boot Giuliani from its membership over his speech on that day. If this is not evidence that you are not allowed to speak against this oppressive system of mob rule and slavery it’s hard to say what is.

The post Rudy Giuliani Sued by Dominion Voting Systems For Defamation first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Durham investigation Intelwars John durham special counsel William Barr

Report: Durham investigation heating up with additional prosecutors: ‘Excellent progress’

U.S. Attorney John Durham, who is investigating the origins of the Russia investigation, is “adding additional prosecutors” to his investigative team, a signal that his probe is expanding even as the Trump administration comes to a close.

Fox News anchor Brett Baier reported Monday that, in addition to adding more prosecutors, Durham is making “excellent progress” in the investigation, according to officials.

“US Attorney John Durham, who AG Bill Barr tapped to investigate the origins of the Trump Russia probe, is expanding his team by adding additional prosecutors, and is making, ‘excellent progress,’ according to a federal law enforcement official familiar w/ the situation,” Baier reported.

The development comes as Durham’s investigation was recently afforded significant protections to continue operating in president-elect Joe Biden’s administration.

In late October, outgoing Attorney General William Barr secretly appointed Durham special counsel, essentially blocking Biden’s administration from obstructing or interfering with the investigation, which is criminal in nature.

“I decided the best thing to do would be to appoint them under the same regulation that covered Bob Mueller, to provide Durham and his team some assurance that they’d be able to complete their work regardless of the outcome of the election,” Barr told the Associated Press.

Legal expert Benjamin Wittes described Barr’s move as “devilishly clever.”

“The move has the effect of saddling Biden with a special counsel investigation. Because while as a U.S. attorney, Durham can—and likely will—be dismissed in the normal course of the change of administration, as a special counsel he is protected from removal by regulations that require he can be fired only for ‘good cause’ or for some gross impropriety. He is also guaranteed a certain amount of day-to-day independence,” Wittes wrote in an essay at Lawfare.

Anything else?

Politico reported over the weekend that Durham has recently turned his focus to former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, who was responsible for authoring the anti-Trump dossier, under the suspicion that FBI agents mishandled classified information in their relationship with Steele.

Politico reported:

In a previously unreported move, Durham enlisted a British law firm over the summer to take Steele to court in London, aiming to compel him to turn over notes he had taken of his meetings with the FBI in 2016, according to people with direct knowledge of the episode.

The underlying context for the request, the people said, is that Durham believes Steele’s notes could contain evidence that FBI agents improperly disclosed classified information about Crossfire Hurricane, as the bureau dubbed its Russia probe, in the course of questioning Steele about his own findings regarding a potential conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, the people said.

So far, Durham’s investigation has resulted in only one criminal case, ending with former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith pleading guilty to falsifying records used to obtain a surveillance warrant against Carter Page.

Share
Categories
Biden family Burisma China Federal investigation Hunter biden Intelwars Joe Biden Scott brady William Barr

Report reveals ‘yet another federal criminal investigation’ into Hunter Biden after Joe Biden is confronted

As the mainstream media are being denounced for squashing the Hunter Biden story before the election, Fox News reported Friday on the existence of “yet another federal criminal investigation” into Hunter Biden.

“We have just received word tonight of yet another federal criminal investigation into the Biden family that appears to be focused specifically on Hunter Biden’s business dealings with China and his relationship with Burisma Holdings in Ukraine,” Fox News host Martha MacCallum explained.

She added, “This is now the fourth federal investigation that has been reported in recent days.”

“It raises a lot of questions about what was going on with Hunter Biden, with his uncle Jim [Biden], and potentially their U.S. and foreign business deals. Who was involved in them? What exactly were they selling? And why, in one instance, was a diamond given to Hunter Biden in return? Where did all the money go? And did they ever compromise themselves? Does China have anything they could hold over the Biden family?” MacCallum went on to say.


Fourth federal investigation into Hunter Biden revealed

www.youtube.com

What are the details?

The New York Times reported late Friday that Pittsburgh-based U.S. Attorney Scott Brady began investigating Hunter Biden earlier this year upon the direction of Attorney General William Barr.

Details were few, aside from the Times reporting that the investigation was spurred by material uncovered by Rudy Giuliani and that the investigation was similar to a criminal probe into Hunter Biden that was concurrently taking place in Delaware.

From the Times:

As federal investigators in Delaware were examining the finances of Hunter Biden during his father’s campaign for president, a similar inquiry ramped up this year in Pittsburgh, fueled by materials delivered by President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. Attorney General William P. Barr had asked the top federal prosecutor in Pittsburgh, Scott W. Brady, to accept and vet any information that Mr. Giuliani had on the Biden family, including Hunter Biden. Mr. Brady hosted Mr. Giuliani for a nearly four-hour meeting in late January to discuss his materials.

The development comes just two days after Hunter Biden publicly revealed that he is under federal investigation by authorities in Delaware.

“I learned yesterday for the first time that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware advised my legal counsel, also yesterday, that they are investigating my tax affairs. I take this matter very seriously but I am confident that a professional and objective review of these matters will demonstrate that I handled my affairs legally and appropriately, including with the benefit of professional tax advisors,” Hunter Biden said in a statement, which was released by the Biden-Harris transition team.

What has Joe Biden said?

The former vice president was confronted on Friday about his son for the first time since news broke about the Delaware federal investigation.

“Did Hunter Biden commit a crime? Have you spoken to your son, Mr. President-elect?” a reporter asked Biden following a press conference.

Biden did not address the question directly, only responding, “I’m proud of my son.”

Share
Categories
Biden laptop DOJ Hunter biden Intelwars Joe Biden Ken buck special counsel William Barr

Lawmaker requests special counsel investigation into Hunter Biden, ‘potentially incriminating contents’ of laptop

Could Hunter Biden be the subject of the next special counsel investigation? That’s what Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) wants.

Buck sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr on Monday requesting that the Department of Justice initiate a special counsel investigation into the son of the media-declared president-elect, centering on Hunter Biden’s “conduct” and the “potentially incriminating contents” on the laptop in the FBI’s possession that purportedly belongs to Biden.

Hunter Biden. (Handout/DNCC via Getty Images)

A special counsel investigation is critical for maintaining confidence in national security, Buck said.

“This investigation is critical to defending the integrity of our republic and ensuring a potential Biden Administration will not be the subject of undue foreign interference,” Buck wrote. “Americans have the right to know whether Mr. Biden’s reported ties to foreign governments will make him the subject of blackmail attempts or other nefarious efforts to undermine U.S. national security or otherwise improperly influence American foreign policy.”

Buck went on to compare the necessity of a special counsel investigation now to when Robert Mueller was tasked with leading a special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

“As you know, the Attorney General is granted the statutory authority to appoint a Special Counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 515 and 28 CFR § 600 to investigate and prosecute any matter that would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances,” Buck wrote.

“Similar to when the DOJ appointed Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III, it is critical that this investigation continue free from political interference, no matter who is in the White House. We must guarantee the integrity of our government and the security of our republic,” the Colorado Republican added.

Barr has already appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham, who is investigating the origins of the Russia investigation, as a special counsel, essentially preventing the incoming Biden administration from interfering in Durham’s work.

What’s the background?

The New York Post published a bombshell story in mid-October reporting that the paper had obtained the hard drive to a laptop that allegedly had belonged to Hunter Biden. The laptop, which had been dropped off at a Delaware computer repair shop in 2019 and never picked up, turned out to be in the possession of the FBI for unknown reasons.

The story was significant for many reasons. Most importantly, emails on the hard drive, purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden, showed that Joe Biden had been more involved in Hunter Biden’s overseas work than the former vice president previously admitted.

Biden, however, has denied any wrongdoing.

Still, Democrats claimed the laptop story was “Russian disinformation” meant to sway the election in President Donald Trump’s favor just weeks before the election. Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe later refuted such allegations.

“Let me be clear, the intelligence community doesn’t believe that, because there’s no intelligence that supports that, and we have shared no intelligence with Chairman [Adam] Schiff or any other member of Congress that Hunter Biden’s laptop is part of some Russian disinformation campaign — it’s simply not true,” Ratcliffe said in October.

Details about the laptop and why the FBI seized it remain murky. Fox News reported that investigators took the laptop in connection to a money-laundering investigation. Details about that investigation were not made public, nor has the FBI confirmed that such an investigation took place.

The most recent development in the story happened last month, when the computer repair shop owner closed his business and allegedly disappeared after receiving death threats.

Share
Categories
Benjamin Wittes Durham investigation Intelwars John durham special counsel William Barr

Legal expert explains the ‘devilishly clever’ move by AG Barr to appoint John Durham as ‘special counsel’

Benjamin Wittes, an anti-Trump attorney and personal friend to former FBI Director James Comey, explained Friday that Attorney General William Barr’s decision to elevate U.S. Attorney John Durham to “special counsel” was “devilishly clever.”

Barr originally tasked Durham last year with investigating the origins of the Russia investigation.

The Associated Press reported on Tuesday:

Barr told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he had appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham as a special counsel in October under the same federal regulations that governed special counsel Robert Mueller in the original Russia probe. He said Durham’s investigation has been narrowing to focus more on the conduct of FBI agents who worked on the Russia investigation, known by the code name of Crossfire Hurricane.

What did Wittes say?

According to Wittes, the move to make Durham a “special counsel” will make it virtually impossible for Barr’s successor and the Biden administration to stop Durham’s investigation.

“The move has the effect of saddling Biden with a special counsel investigation. Because while as a U.S. attorney, Durham can—and likely will—be dismissed in the normal course of the change of administration, as a special counsel he is protected from removal by regulations that require he can be fired only for ‘good cause’ or for some gross impropriety. He is also guaranteed a certain amount of day-to-day independence,” Wittes wrote in an essay at Lawfare.

There are, in fact, three genius reasons behind Barr’s move.

According to Wittes, Durham has a “sweeping mandate” and broad investigative authority to uncover crimes. Second, Barr’s move “creates a mandate for a public report from Durham.” And third, Barr’s appointment order of Durham as special counsel “closely resembles the appointment order for Mueller himself.”

Wittes wrote:

This careful tracking of the Mueller appointment seems designed to make it awkward for a Democratic attorney general to come in and remove Durham or curtail his investigation. After all, Democrats, and many Republicans too, drew a firm line in insisting that Mueller not be fired and be allowed to complete his work. They also took a hard line in insisting that the special counsel regulations on the independence of the special counsel be respected. By setting this up as a direct legal parallel to the Mueller investigation, Barr puts those suspicious of the Durham investigation and wanting to curtail it in the position of having to argue, all of a sudden, that it’s actually okay to fire a special prosecutor or to figure out ways around the special counsel rules.

“Barr has played a dirty trick on his successor—one that will put the next attorney general in a genuine bind. There likely won’t be a good way to handle that bind,” Wittes concluded.

Anything else?

Andrew McCarthy, a conservative and former assistant U.S. attorney, agreed that, at the very least, Barr’s move “shored up” Durham’s investigation.

So far, Durham’s investigation has resulted in only one criminal case, prompting former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith to plead guilty to falsifying documents used to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant against Carter Page.

Share
Categories
capital punishment Censorship despotism executed Federal executions firing squads gas chambers Government Headline News home of the slave Intelwars Justice Department land of the not free Lethal Injection mainstream media blackout Police State Protocols put to death state sponsored murder statism statist system tyranny United States William Barr

DOJ Quietly Amends Execution Protocols, Clearing the Way for Gas Chambers, Firing Squads

This article was originally published by Matt Agorist at The Free Thought Project. 

As the massive human experiment in tyranny, censorship, and fear — otherwise known as 2020 — comes to a close, it just wouldn’t be complete without some government agency exhuming the ghost of despotism’s past. In the cherry on top of the dumpster fire that is 2020, the Justice Department has quietly amended its execution protocols, no longer requiring federal death sentences to be carried out by lethal injection and clearing the way to use other methods like firing squads and poisonous gas.

This news comes on the heels of the fact that Attorney General William Barr restarted federal executions this year after a 17-year hiatus. Despite bipartisan resistance to this measure, the DOJ has executed more Americans in 2020 than they have in the previous five decades. 

Apparently, the feds have put so many people to death this year that they are seemingly bored with their methodology and have moved to bring back gas chambers and death by firing squads.

Last month, with very little coverage in the media, the DOJ’s amended rule was published in the Federal Register that allows the U.S. government to conduct executions by lethal injection or use “any other manner prescribed by the law of the state in which the sentence was imposed.”

But fret not, Land of the Free, the changes were done in an ostensible effort to support state’s rights — or something like that.

According to the Associated Press, a Justice Department official — who asked to remain anonymous — said the change was made to account for the fact the Federal Death Penalty Act requires sentences to be carried out in the “in the manner prescribed by the law of the state in which the sentence is imposed,” and some of those states use methods other than lethal injection.

The feds promise not to send convicts to gas chambers or firing squads unless the states allow it.

The official told the AP the federal government “will never execute an inmate by firing squad or electrocution unless the relevant state has itself authorized that method of execution.”

One of those states is Utah, whose Republican-controlled House voted 39-34 in 2015 to resurrect the use of Utah’s firing squads. Proponents of this method of state-sponsored murder claim that being shot to death by a group of marksmen is more humane than lethal injection.

To the contrary, the Washington, D.C.-based Death Penalty Information Center says that a firing squad is not a foolproof method because the inmate could move or shooters could miss the heart, causing a slower, more painful death.

One such case happened in Utah’s territorial days back in 1879 when a firing squad missed Wallace Wilkerson’s heart and it took him 27 minutes to die, according to newspaper accounts.

The real issue at hand, however, capital punishment, seems to be taking a back seat to all of this. For the state to claim the responsibility of justly ending life, it means that the state must never be wrong. Even the most ardent of statists will have to concede that an infallible state is but a terribly written fiction.

John Adams once wrote:

It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished…. 

When the state is more concerned about how to go about punishing the guilty, than protecting innocence, we have achieved peak oligarchy.

The National Registry of Exonerations at the University of Michigan Law School reported that 2,696 falsely accused prisoners were exonerated since 1989. Some of these people were set to die at the hand of the state for their convictions.

It is no secret that prosecutors will seek the maximum punishment for the maximum charge, and their conviction percentages are in the upper 90’s.

Does that mean that these prosecutors are flawless machines hell-bent on distributing some mythical immaculate justice? Or, does it actually mean that the entire system wishes more to hand out punishments, instead of seeking truth?

It is important to note that this is not a call for crimes to go unpunished, that would be irresponsible. However, the slaughter of innocence is a far more grave thought.

In criminal law, Blackstone’s formulation (also known as Blackstone’s ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle that:

“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”

In a perfect system, irrefutable evidence would exist in every conviction. But as the constant flow of articles on this site about cops framing innocent people illustrates, this system is far from perfect.

Until we strive for a more perfect system, the manner in which death is dolled out by the hand of incompetence, is of no significance, other than tyrants pumping their chests about new ways to kill.

The post DOJ Quietly Amends Execution Protocols, Clearing the Way for Gas Chambers, Firing Squads first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
chaos Conspiracy Fact and Theory CORRUPTION Donald Trump election chaos election crimes chief elitists Emergency Preparedness Headline News Intelwars investigate voter fraud Joe Biden left vs right paradigm LIES modeling new policy Pennsylvania Prepare Probe resigns Richard Pilger ruling class substantial allegations William Barr

AG Barr Approves Probe Into Election Fraud & Almost Immediately DOJ Election Crimes Chief RESIGNES

Almost immediately upon the announcement that attorney general William Barr approves an investigative probe into election and voter fraud, the acting Department of Justice Election Crimes Chief resigns.  It shouldn’t matter what side you are on, that’s telling.

Most readers understand I no longer participate or believe in the left vs. right paradigm, and therefore, have no dog in this fight, so to speak.  However, this election isn’t over just yet, and we should have known that this one would be contested. After all, the elitists modeled this exact scenario:

Another Secret Model: A Contested 2020 Election

As we’ve mentioned before, do not be surprised if this thing goes one way (which it appears to have gone to Joe Biden) only to turn around and go back the other way (Donald Trump.) This would cause huge societal upheaval. But is looking more likely by the day.

Barr authorized federal prosecutors to pursue “substantial allegations” of irregularities in the 2020 presidential election, the head of the DOJ’s Election Crimes Branch has decided to resign. “Having familiarized myself with the new policy and its ramifications, Richard Pilger wrote in an email to his colleagues, obtained on Monday by the New York Times, “I must regretfully resign from my role as director of the Election Crimes Branch.” 

Pilger reportedly said he would move to a different role at the DOJ, working on corruption prosecutions.

The policy change mentioned by Pilger was outlined by Barr in a memo on Monday, in which the AG argues that it is imperative that the American people can trust that our elections were conducted in such a way that the outcomes accurately reflect the will of the voters.” Previously, the Electoral Crimes Branch would not take overt investigative steps until the election was over, its results certified and all recounts and other contests concluded, Barr wrote, but such a passive and delayed enforcement approach can result in situations in which election misconduct cannot realistically be rectified.”

Barr’s new policy authorizes inquiries and reviews if there are “clear and apparently credible allegations” of irregularities that, “if true, could potentially impact the outcome of a federal election in an individual state.” The mainstream media is continuing to cast doubt on the possibility of election fraud saying these claims are “unfounded.”

While Democrat Joe Biden declared victory on Saturday after mainstream media reported that he has more than the 270 electoral votes needed, President Donald Trump has challenged that in court. None of the states have yet certified their election results, and Trump’s lawsuits seek an audit of the vote in multiple states where his early lead was wiped out by mail-in votes counted long after Election Day. RT

Stay alert to what’s happening. If this election swings back to Donald Trump, the left is going to lose their minds and we could see chaos like never before on the streets. Perhaps that was the plan all along…

Secret Models of “The Darkest Winter”

More Preplanned Election Chaos: Trump Says The Supreme Court Will “Sort Out” The Election

 

The post AG Barr Approves Probe Into Election Fraud & Almost Immediately DOJ Election Crimes Chief RESIGNES first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
Durham probe Intelwars President Donald Trump Radio rally Rush Limbaugh Russia probe William Barr

President Trump found out the Durham probe won’t end before the election live on Rush Limbaugh’s radio program: ‘It’s a disgrace’

President Donald Trump on Friday called news that U.S. Attorney John Durham’s report on the investigation into the FBI’s Russia probe won’t be released before the election a “disgrace” and an “embarrassment.”

Trump, who had apparently not been told about the news, reacted in real time as radio host Rush Limbaugh informed him of the Axios report.

“It was announced by the attorney general that his investigator, the attorney looking into the coup run against you will not have any announcements, any results before the election. This is disappointing, I can not tell you,” Limbaugh said.

“When was this announced Rush?” Trump asked. “I think it’s terrible.”

“It is because this is the biggest political scandal in the history of this country, certainly our lifetimes,” Limbaugh said.

“Yeah, if that’s the case I’m very disappointed. I think it’s a terrible thing, and I’ll say it to his face,” Trump said, referring to the attorney general.

“I think it’s a disgrace, it’s an embarrassment.” Trump added.

The president criticized Republicans for not fighting as “tough” as Democrats.

“See, this is what I mean with the Republicans, they don’t play the tough game. If this were the other side, you would’ve had 25 people in jail for the rest of their lives with what we found,” he said.

Trump expressed frustration that his administration had been repeatedly targeted by investigations from special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, congressional inquiries, impeachment, and a New York investigation into his personal finances, while Durham’s probe will reportedly not wrap up before the election.

“So, it’s OK for me to have to go through investigations during the election, but for them we don’t want to upset the apple cart. The Republicans don’t play the same game,” Trump fumed.

“We caught them cold and we have people that don’t know how to do anything about it, it’s horrible,” he continued. “If that’s the case, I have to check that. I find it hard to believe because you know what? I went through two elections, you don’t think that affected [the 2018 midterm elections]? Now I wasn’t running in ’18 but the whole Russia witch hunt affected the ’18 outcome of the election.

“Nobody said let’s hold it back until after the election. But the Republicans don’t play the same game.”

Trump told Limbaugh the DOJ should have made indictments a year ago.

“Look, if they hold it because of the election … I’ve gone through two elections now. They started investigating me before I even won the election. They started investigating me when I was coming down the escalator,” he joked, laughing.

“I was under investigation illegally by these thieves and [former FBI Director James] Comey and crooks — we caught them in the act!” the president continued. “They were spying on my campaign and then they went for a coup. Nobody said, ‘Well gee, you know, let’s hold off the investigation.’ But with them they do, the Republicans don’t play it the same way. It’s very disappointing.”

Earlier Friday, Axios reported that Attorney General Bill Barr has begun informing top Republicans in Congress that the Department of Justice’s review of the origins of the Russia investigation would not be released before the election on Nov. 3.

According to Axios, Barr told Republicans that Durham is focused on winning prosecutions, taking his investigation seriously and waiting until he has all the evidence he needs to convict those he indicts. A source reportedly told Axios that Durham is “not preoccupied with completing his probe by a certain deadline for political purposes.”

Trump interrupted Limbaugh as he read from Axios’ story.

“Oh yeah, great, let’s let everybody get elected to office and then let’s worry about it,” Trump said. “First of all, if we don’t win this election that whole thing is going to end, OK?”

“That’s another thing I’m fighting for because these people have to be brought to justice, but they should’ve been brought to justice before the election,” he added. “But if we don’t win this election, if we don’t win that whole thing is going to be dismissed.”

Share
Categories
DOJ hearing Intelwars jerry nadler judiciary committee Treatment William Barr

DOJ denies House Dems’ request for officials to testify citing  treatment of AG Barr in prior hearing

Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd on Monday refused the Democrat-led House Judiciary Committee’s request that Department of Justice officials testify in two upcoming hearings, saying he fears the question-and-answer sessions would deteriorate into “public spectacles” considering how Attorney General William Barr was treated by Democrats during a hearing in July.

What are the details?

In a letter to Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) obtained by BuzzFeed, Boyd responded to the committee’s request that his fellow Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband appear before a Judiciary subcommittee later this week, and that Bureau of Prison Director Michael Carvajal and U.S. Marshals Service Director Donald Washington testify before another Judiciary subcommittee hearing on Oct. 1.

Boyd told Nadler that while the DOJ “recognizes that the Committee has a legitimate interest in oversight of the Department,” the agency would not send the officials to testify because of the way Democrats treated Barr when he appeared before the full committee on July 28.

The assistant attorney general cited a New York Times story that reported, “Democrat after Democrat posed questions to Mr. Barr only to cut him off when he tried to reply, substituting their own replies for his.”

“All told, when the Attorney General tried to address the Committee’s questions, he was interrupted and silenced in excess of 70 times,” Boyd wrote, explaining:

“We very much regret that the Committee did not elect to engage in a meaningful, good-faith effort to obtain information and views from the Attorney General while he was present and prepared to testify. Having squandered its opportunity to conduct a meaningful oversight hearing with the Attorney General, it remains unclear how further public spectacles with other Department officials would now—a mere 14 legislative days since the Attorney General’s hearing—advance the Committee’s legitimate oversight efforts.”

Boyd also pointed out that Barr was made available to address the topics the committee wants to inquire about from other DOJ officials in the coming weeks, but that the Department “would be happy to work with [the committee] regarding the scheduling of additional oversight hearings in the future.”

During Barr’s July 28 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, there were a number of tense exchanges that commonly occur during hearings that are televised for the public.

In one particular moment that was blasted by some for its perceived pettiness, Chairman Nadler denied the attorney general’s request for a five-minute break to have lunch.

Nadler eventually gave in and allowed the recess following protest from other members and Barr himself who shook his head and laughed when he told Nadler, “You’re a real class act, Mr. Chairman. A real class act.”

Share
Categories
Anarchist jurisdictions Antifa Intelwars Justice Department New York City portland Seattle William Barr

Justice Dept. labels NYC, Portland, and Seattle as ‘anarchist jurisdictions,’ will seek to withdraw federal funds

The Department of Justice has labeled New York City, Seattle, and Portland, Oregon, as “anarchist jurisdictions,” a designation that could lead to a withdrawal of federal funding from those cities, according to the New York Post.

The three cities earned the designation for efforts to reduce police funding, or for their response to the race riots that started in late May after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. White House budget director Russ Vought will reportedly issue guidance about cutting funding to the cities in the coming weeks.

“When state and local leaders impede their own law enforcement officers and agencies from doing their jobs, it endangers innocent citizens who deserve to be protected, including those who are trying to peacefully assemble and protest,” Attorney General William Barr said in a statement. “We cannot allow federal tax dollars to be wasted when the safety of the citizenry hangs in the balance.

“It is my hope that the cities identified by the Department of Justice today will reverse course and become serious about performing the basic function of government and start protecting their own citizens,” the statement continued.

Earlier this month, President Donald Trump issued a memo expressing a desire for Seattle, Portland, New York City, and Washington, D.C., to have federal funding reviewed in light of their response to unrest.

“My Administration will not allow Federal tax dollars to fund cities that allow themselves to deteriorate into lawless zones,” Trump’s memo read. “To ensure that Federal funds are neither unduly wasted nor spent in a manner that directly violates our Government’s promise to protect life, liberty, and property, it is imperative that the Federal Government review the use of Federal funds by jurisdictions that permit anarchy, violence, and destruction in America’s cities.”

New York City has seen a spike in crime as Mayor Bill de Blasio sought to cut funding to the NYPD and disbanded a significant plainclothes crime unit.

Seattle surrendered a police precinct and nine blocks of the city to protesters who established a continuous protest area first referred to as the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, later renamed the Capitol Hill Organized Protest. That area of Seattle was occupied for roughly a month, and for much of that time the protesters had the support of Mayor Jenny Durkan.

Portland has had more than 100 straight days of protests, some of which have devolved into riots, including vandalism and deadly violence. President Trump sent federal law enforcement to the city to help protect property and quell the violence, but that effort was met with resistance from Mayor Ted Wheeler, who is also Portland’s police commissioner.

Additionally, Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt announced a policy in August that said many riot-related crimes would not be prosecuted.

Share
Categories
Alexandria ocasio-cortez Chuck Schumer Donald Trump IMPEACHMENT Intelwars Supreme Court William Barr

Democrats threaten possible second Trump impeachment over GOP filling SCOTUS vacancy as Constitution allows

Powerful Democrats are floating impeachment — both of President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr — as one possible option to stop Trump from fulling his constitutional duty to nominate a judge to fill the Supreme Court vacancy or as a measure of retaliation if he proceeds with the nomination process.

What are Democrats saying?

Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), one of the most influential progressive lawmakers, confirmed Sunday that Democrats may consider impeachment against Trump and Barr.

During a press conference in New York Sunday evening, a reporter asked Ocasio-Cortez, “Congresswoman, you mentioned being open to all ideas to buy time. Would you be in support of potentially renewing talks of impeachment hearings either against the attorney general or the president?”

Ocasio-Cortez responded:

Well, you know, I believe that certainly there has been an enormous amount of law-breaking in the Trump administration. I believe that Attorney General Barr is unfit for office and that he has pursued potentially law-breaking behavior.

That being said, these are procedures and decisions that are largely up to House Democratic leadership. But I believe that also we must consider, again, all of the tools available to our disposal, and that all of these options should be entertained and on the table.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who was standing next to Ocasio-Cortez, nodded in agreement when she said impeachment should be on the table.

Anything else?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also admitted Sunday that retaliatory impeachment is on the table if Trump fills the Supreme Court vacancy prior to the election.

“Well, we have our options. We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi’s comments, as well as those made by Ocasio-Cortez, only came after media members asked them whether Democrats would consider impeachment as a response to Trump.

Not only are Democrats considering impeachment, but many are advocating that, once Democrats regain control of the White House and Senate, they expand the number of Supreme Court justices and pack the court with ideological liberals.

How did Ginsburg feel?

As TheBlaze reported, Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not support court-packing or expanding the court.

“I have heard that there are some people on the Democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges. I think that was a bad idea when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the court,” Ginsburg said in an interview with NPR last July.

“You mention before the quote of appearing partisan. Well, if anything would make the court appear partisan then it would be that, one side saying, ‘When we’re in power we’re going to enlarge the number of judges so we’ll have more people who will vote the way we want them to,'” she added.

Share
Categories
Attorney General Civil Liberties Coronavirus lockdown Intelwars William Barr

COVID-19 lockdowns are the ‘greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history’ besides slavery, AG Barr says

Attorney General William Barr was heavily critical of the COVID-19 lockdown measures that have been implemented across the world this year, saying they represent an almost unprecedented “intrusion on civil liberties,” CNN reported.

Barr was speaking at a Constitution Day celebration put on by Hillsdale College in Michigan, when he was asked about the legal ramifications of orders that restrict people from going to church.

“You know, putting a national lockdown, stay at home orders, is like house arrest,” Barr said. “Other than slavery, which was a different kind of restraint, this is the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history.”

State and local government leaders in March implemented various levels of stay-at-home orders to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus that originated in Wuhan, China. Many of those orders were put in place after March 13, when President Donald Trump called for them for 15, and later 30 days.

The president has since claimed that the lockdown measures saved “millions of lives,” although the COVID-19 death toll in the U.S. is now heading toward the 240,000 death projection from the White House that seemed extreme to many at the time. Also, there is evidence of a significant death toll directly resulting from the lockdowns themselves in the form of suicides and overdoses.

What else did Barr say?

Barr spoke on a wide variety of topics at the event, including Black Lives Matter, which he accused of not having real interest in black lives at all. From The Federalist:

“They’re interested in props, a small number of blacks who are killed by police during conflicts with police—usually less than a dozen a year—who they can use as props to achieve a much broader political agenda,” he said. Barr instead views the priorities for black American lives as “not only keeping people alive, but also having prosperity and flourishing their communities.”

“Most deaths in the inner city of young black males below the age of 44…is being shot by another black person,” he noted. The left likes to talk about “root causes,” Barr said, hinting at claims of systemic racism. But all the political changes the BLM movement demands “depend on peaceful streets at the end of the day.”

Barr also addressed criticism from Justice Department employees who feel he has been overly partisan in the way he does his job.

“Name one successful organization or institution where the lowest level employees’ decisions are deemed sacrosanct, there aren’t. There aren’t any letting the most junior members set the agenda,” Barr said. “It might be a good philosophy for a Montessori preschool, but it is no way to run a federal agency.”

Share
Categories
Anger anti government extremists Antifa better off without politicians Boogaloo Dissenters Domestic terrorist duty excessive taxation Government Headline News human rights Intelwars MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX mobs oppression rebellion rights rights aren't gifts from government speak up stand up suppression Theft Truth tyranny Violence War William Barr

America’s Revolutionary Founders Would Be Anti-Government Extremists Today

This article was originally published by John W. Whitehead at The Rutherford Institute. 

“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.”—Thomas Paine

“When the government violates the people’s rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties.”—Marquis De Lafayette

Had the Declaration of Independence been written today, it would have rendered its signers extremists or terrorists, resulting in them being placed on a government watch list, targeted for surveillance of their activities and correspondence, and potentially arrested, held indefinitely, stripped of their rights and labeled enemy combatants.

This is no longer the stuff of speculation and warning.

In fact, Attorney General William Barr recently announced plans to target, track and surveil “anti-government extremists” and preemptively nip in the bud any “threats” to public safety and the rule of law.

It doesn’t matter that the stated purpose of Barr’s anti-government extremist task force is to investigate dissidents on the far right (the “boogaloo” movement) and far left (Antifa, a loosely organized anti-fascist group) who have been accused of instigating violence and disrupting peaceful protests.

Boogaloo and Antifa have given the government the perfect excuse for declaring war (with all that entails: surveillance, threat assessments, pre-crime, etc.) against so-called anti-government extremists.

Without a doubt, America’s revolutionary founders would have been at the top of Barr’s list.

After all, the people who fomented the American Revolution spoke out at rallies, distributed critical pamphlets, wrote scathing editorials, and took to the streets in protest. They were rebelling against a government they saw as being excessive in its taxation and spending. For their efforts, they were demonized and painted as an angry mob, extremists akin to terrorists, by the ruler of the day, King George III.

Of course, it doesn’t take much to be considered an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) today.

If you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched by the police, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you’re at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.

Indeed, under Barr’s new task force, I and every other individual today who dares to speak truth to power could also be targeted for surveillance, because what we’re really dealing with is a government that wants to suppress dangerous words—words about its warring empire, words about its land grabs, words about its militarized police, words about its killing, its poisoning, and its corruption—in order to keep its lies going.

This is how the government plans to snuff out any attempts by “we the people” to stand up to its tyranny: under the pretext of rooting out violent extremists, the government’s anti-extremism program will, in many cases, be utilized to render otherwise lawful, nonviolent activities as potentially extremist.

The danger is real.

Keep in mind that the government agencies involved in ferreting out American “extremists” will carry out their objectives—to identify and deter potential extremists—in concert with fusion centers, data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).

This is pre-crime on an ideological scale and it’s been a long time coming.

For example, in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released two reports, one on “Rightwing Extremism,” which broadly defines rightwing extremists as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” and one on “Leftwing Extremism,” which labeled environmental and animal rights activist groups as extremists

Incredibly, both reports use the words terrorist and extremist interchangeably

That same year, the DHS launched Operation Vigilant Eagle, which calls for surveillance of military veterans returning from Iraq, Afghanistan and other far-flung places, characterizing them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.”

These reports indicate that for the government, anyone seen as opposing the government—whether they’re Left, Right, or somewhere in between—can be labeled an extremist.

Fast forward a few years, and you have the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which Congress has continually re-upped, that allows the military to take you out of your home, lock you up with no access to friends, family or the courts if you’re seen as an extremist.

Now connect the dots, from the 2009 Extremism reports to the NDAA, the National Security Agency’s far-reaching surveillance networks, and fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies

Add in tens of thousands of armed, surveillance drones that are beginning to blanket American skies, facial recognition technology that will identify and track you wherever you go and whatever you do. And then to complete the circle, toss in the real-time crime centers being deployed in cities across the country, which will be attempting to “predict” crimes and identify criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical algorithms, and prognostication programs.

Hopefully, you’re getting the picture, which is how easy it is for the government to identify, label, and target individuals as “extremists.”

And just like that, we’ve come full circle.

Imagine living in a country where armed soldiers crash through doors to arrest and imprison citizens merely for criticizing government officials. Imagine that in this very same country, you’re watched all the time and if you look even a little bit suspicious, the police stop and frisk you or pull you over to search you on the off chance you’re doing something illegal.

Keep in mind that if you have a firearm of any kind (or anything that resembled a firearm) while in this country, it may get you arrested and, in some circumstances, shot by police.

If you’re thinking this sounds like America today, you wouldn’t be far wrong.

However, the scenario described above took place more than 200 years ago, when American colonists suffered under Great Britain’s version of an early police state. It was only when the colonists finally got fed up with being silenced, censored, searched, frisked, threatened, and arrested that they finally revolted against the tyrant’s fetters

No document better states their grievances than the Declaration of Independence, drafted by Thomas Jefferson.

A document seething with outrage over a government which had betrayed its citizens, the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, by 56 men who laid everything on the line, pledged it all—“our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor”—because they believed in a radical idea: that all people are created to be free.

Labeled traitors, these men were charged with treason, a crime punishable by death. For some, their acts of rebellion would cost them their homes and their fortunes. For others, it would be the ultimate price—their lives.

Yet even knowing the heavy price they might have to pay, these men dared to speak up when silence could not be tolerated.

Read the Declaration of Independence again, and ask yourself if the list of complaints tallied by Jefferson don’t bear a startling resemblance to the abuses “we the people” are suffering at the hands of the American police state.

If you find the purple prose used by the Founders hard to decipher, here’s my translation of what the Declaration of Independence would look and sound like if it were written in the modern vernacular:

There comes a time when a populace must stand united and say “enough is enough” to the government’s abuses, even if it means getting rid of the political parties in power. Believing that “we the people” have a natural and divine right to direct our own lives, here are truths about the power of the people and how we arrived at the decision to sever our ties to the government:

All people are created equal. All people possess certain innate rights that no government or agency or individual can take away from them. Among these are the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The government’s job is to protect the people’s innate rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The government’s power comes from the will of the people.

Whenever any government abuses its power, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish that government and replace it with a new government that will respect and protect the rights of the people. It is not wise to get rid of a government for minor transgressions. In fact, as history has shown, people resist change and are inclined to suffer all manner of abuses to which they have become accustomed. However, when the people have been subjected to repeated abuses and power grabs, carried out with the purpose of establishing a tyrannical government, people have a right and duty to do away with that tyrannical Government and to replace it with a new government that will protect and preserve their innate rights for their future wellbeing.

This is exactly the state of affairs we are suffering under right now, which is why it is necessary that we change this imperial system of government. The history of the present Imperial Government is a history of repeated abuses and power grabs, carried out with the intention of establishing absolute Tyranny over the country.

To prove this, consider the following:

The government has, through its own negligence and arrogance, refused to adopt urgent and necessary laws for the good of the people. The government has threatened to hold up critical laws unless the people agree to relinquish their right to be fully represented in the Legislature.

In order to expand its power and bring about compliance with its dictates, the government has made it nearly impossible for the people to make their views and needs heard by their representatives. The government has repeatedly suppressed protests arising in response to its actions.

The government has obstructed justice by refusing to appoint judges who respect the Constitution and has instead made the Courts march in lockstep with the government’s dictates.

The government has allowed its agents to harass the people, steal from them, jail them and even execute them. The government has directed militarized government agents—a.k.a., a standing army—to police domestic affairs in peacetime. The government has turned the country into a militarized police state.

The government has conspired to undermine the rule of law and the Constitution in order to expand its own powers.

The government has allowed its militarized police to invade our homes and inflict violence on homeowners. The government has failed to hold its agents accountable for wrongdoing and murder under the guise of “qualified immunity.”

The government has jeopardized our international trade agreements. The government has overtaxed us without our permission.

The government has denied us due process and the right to a fair trial. The government has engaged in extraordinary rendition. The government has continued to expand its military empire in collusion with its corporate partners-in-crime and occupy foreign nations.

The government has eroded fundamental legal protections and destabilized the structure of government. The government has not only declared its federal powers superior to those of the states but has also asserted its sovereign power over the rights of “we the people.”

The government has ceased to protect the people and instead waged domestic war against the people. The government has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, and destroyed the lives of the people.

The government has employed private contractors and mercenaries to carry out acts of death, desolation and tyranny against other nations, totally unworthy of a civilized nation. The government through its political propaganda has pitted its citizens against each other. The government has stirred up civil unrest and laid the groundwork for martial law.

Repeatedly, we have asked the government to cease its abuses. Each time, the government has responded with more abuse.

An Imperial Ruler who acts like a tyrant is not fit to govern a free people.

We have repeatedly sounded the alarm to our fellow citizens about the government’s abuses. We have warned them about the government’s power grabs. We have appealed to their sense of justice. We have reminded them of our common bonds. They have rejected our plea for justice and brotherhood. Thus, our fellow citizens are equally at fault for the injustices being carried out by the government.

Thus, for the reasons mentioned above, we the people of the united States of America declare ourselves free from the chains of an abusive government. Relying on the Creator’s protection, we pledge to stand by this Declaration of Independence with our lives, our fortunes and our honor.

See what I mean? The abuses meted out by an imperial government and endured by the American people have not ended. They have merely evolved.

Two hundred and forty-four years after a group of anti-government extremists declared their independence from tyranny, the American people have once again managed to work their way back under the tyrant’s thumb.

“We the people” are still being robbed blind by a government of thieves. We are still being taken advantage of by a government of scoundrels, idiots, and monsters. We are still being locked up by a government of greedy jailers. We are still being spied on by a government of Peeping Toms. We are still being ravaged by a government of ruffians, rapists, and killers.

We are still being forced to surrender our freedoms—and those of our children—to a government of extortionists, money launderers, and corporate pirates. And we are still being held at gunpoint by a government of soldiers: a standing army in the form of a militarized police.

The bipartisan coup that laid siege to our nation did not happen overnight. It snuck in under our radar, hiding behind the guise of national security, the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on immigration, political correctness, hate crimes and a host of other official-sounding programs aimed at expanding the government’s power at the expense of individual freedoms.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the building blocks for the bleak future we’re just now getting a foretaste of—police shootings of unarmed citizens, profit-driven prisons, weapons of compliance, a wall-to-wall surveillance state, pre-crime programs, a suspect society, school-to-prison pipelines, militarized police, overcriminalization, SWAT team raids, endless wars, etc.—were put in place by government officials we trusted to look out for our best interests and by American citizens who failed to heed James Madison’s warning to “take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.”

For too long now, we have suffered the injustices of a government that has no regard for our rights or our humanity.

We’ve suffered in silence for too long.

Frankly, what this country desperately needs is more anti-government extremists willing to take the government to task for its excesses, abuses and power grabs that fly in the face of every principle for which America’s founders risked their lives.

Share
Categories
American Revolution declaration of independence indefinite detention Intelwars NDAA Operation Vigilant Eagle William Barr

America’s Revolutionary Founders Would Be Anti-Government Extremists Today

Had the Declaration of Independence been written today, it would have rendered its signers extremists or terrorists, resulting in them being placed on a government watch list, targeted for surveillance of their activities and correspondence, and potentially arrested, held indefinitely, stripped of their rights and labeled enemy combatants.

This is no longer the stuff of speculation and warning.

In fact, Attorney General William Barr recently announced plans to target, track and surveil “anti-government extremists” and preemptively nip in the bud any “threats” to  public safety and the rule of law.

It doesn’t matter that the stated purpose of Barr’s anti-government extremist task force is to investigate dissidents on the far right (the “boogaloo” movement) and far left (antifa, a loosely organized anti-fascist group) who have been accused of instigating violence and disrupting peaceful protests.

Boogaloo and Antifa have given the government the perfect excuse for declaring war (with all that entails: surveillance, threat assessments, pre-crime, etc.) against so-called anti-government extremists.

Without a doubt, America’s revolutionary founders would have been at the top of Barr’s list.

After all, the people who fomented the American Revolution spoke out at rallies, distributed critical pamphlets, wrote scathing editorials and took to the streets in protest. They were rebelling against a government they saw as being excessive in its taxation and spending. For their efforts, they were demonized and painted as an angry mob, extremists akin to terrorists, by the ruler of the day, King George III.

Of course, it doesn’t take much to be considered an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) today.

If you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched by the police, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you’re at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.

Indeed, under Barr’s new task force, I and every other individual today who dares to speak truth to power could also be targeted for surveillance, because what we’re really dealing with is a government that wants to suppress dangerous words—words about its warring empire, words about its land grabs, words about its militarized police, words about its killing, its poisoning and its corruption—in order to keep its lies going.

This is how the government plans to snuff out any attempts by “we the people” to stand up to its tyranny: under the pretext of rooting out violent extremists, the government’s anti-extremism program will, in many cases, be utilized to render otherwise lawful, nonviolent activities as potentially extremist.

The danger is real.

Keep in mind that the government agencies involved in ferreting out American “extremists” will carry out their objectives—to identify and deter potential extremists—in concert with fusion centers, data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics (in which life experiences alter one’s genetic makeup).

This is pre-crime on an ideological scale and it’s been a long time coming.

For example, in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released two reports, one on “Rightwing Extremism,” which broadly defines rightwing extremists as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” and one on “Leftwing Extremism,” which labeled environmental and animal rights activist groups as extremists

Incredibly, both reports use the words terrorist and extremist interchangeably

That same year, the DHS launched Operation Vigilant Eagle, which calls for surveillance of military veterans returning from Iraq, Afghanistan and other far-flung places, characterizing them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.

These reports indicate that for the government, anyone seen as opposing the government—whether they’re Left, Right or somewhere in between—can be labeled an extremist.

Fast forward a few years, and you have the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which Congress has continually re-upped, that allows the military to take you out of your home, lock you up with no access to friends, family or the courts if you’re seen as an extremist.

Now connect the dots, from the 2009 Extremism reports to the NDAA, the National Security Agency’s far-reaching surveillance networks, and fusion centers that collect and share surveillance data between local, state and federal police agencies

Add in tens of thousands of armed, surveillance drones that are beginning to blanket American skies, facial recognition technology that will identify and track you wherever you go and whatever you do. And then to complete the circle, toss in the real-time crime centers being deployed in cities across the country, which will be attempting to “predict” crimes and identify criminals before they happen based on widespread surveillance, complex mathematical algorithms and prognostication programs.

Hopefully you’re getting the picture, which is how easy it is for the government to identify, label and target individuals as “extremist.”

And just like that, we’ve come full circle.

Imagine living in a country where armed soldiers crash through doors to arrest and imprison citizens merely for criticizing government officials. Imagine that in this very same country, you’re watched all the time, and if you look even a little bit suspicious, the police stop and frisk you or pull you over to search you on the off chance you’re doing something illegal.

Keep in mind that if you have a firearm of any kind (or anything that resembled a firearm) while in this country, it may get you arrested and, in some circumstances, shot by police.

If you’re thinking this sounds like America today, you wouldn’t be far wrong.

However, the scenario described above took place more than 200 years ago, when American colonists suffered under Great Britain’s version of an early police state. It was only when the colonists finally got fed up with being silenced, censored, searched, frisked, threatened, and arrested that they finally revolted against the tyrant’s fetters

No document better states their grievances than the Declaration of Independence, drafted by Thomas Jefferson.

A document seething with outrage over a government which had betrayed its citizens, the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, by 56 men who laid everything on the line, pledged it all—“our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor”—because they believed in a radical idea: that all people are created to be free.

Labeled traitors, these men were charged with treason, a crime punishable by death. For some, their acts of rebellion would cost them their homes and their fortunes. For others, it would be the ultimate price—their lives.

Yet even knowing the heavy price they might have to pay, these men dared to speak up when silence could not be tolerated.

Read the Declaration of Independence again, and ask yourself if the list of complaints tallied by Jefferson don’t bear a startling resemblance to the abuses “we the people” are suffering at the hands of the American police state.

If you find the purple prose used by the Founders hard to decipher, here’s my translation of what the Declaration of Independence would look and sound like if it were written in the modern vernacular:

There comes a time when a populace must stand united and say “enough is enough” to the government’s abuses, even if it means getting rid of the political parties in power. Believing that “we the people” have a natural and divine right to direct our own lives, here are truths about the power of the people and how we arrived at the decision to sever our ties to the government:

All people are created equal. All people possess certain innate rights that no government or agency or individual can take away from them. Among these are the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The government’s job is to protect the people’s innate rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The government’s power comes from the will of the people.

Whenever any government abuses its power, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish that government and replace it with a new government that will respect and protect the rights of the people. It is not wise to get rid of a government for minor transgressions. In fact, as history has shown, people resist change and are inclined to suffer all manner of abuses to which they have become accustomed. However, when the people have been subjected to repeated abuses and power grabs, carried out with the purpose of establishing a tyrannical government, people have a right and duty to do away with that tyrannical Government and to replace it with a new government that will protect and preserve their innate rights for their future wellbeing.

This is exactly the state of affairs we are suffering under right now, which is why it is necessary that we change this imperial system of government. The history of the present Imperial Government is a history of repeated abuses and power grabs, carried out with the intention of establishing absolute Tyranny over the country.

To prove this, consider the following:

The government has, through its own negligence and arrogance, refused to adopt urgent and necessary laws for the good of the people. The government has threatened to hold up critical laws unless the people agree to relinquish their right to be fully represented in the Legislature.

In order to expand its power and bring about compliance with its dictates, the government has made it nearly impossible for the people to make their views and needs heard by their representatives. The government has repeatedly suppressed protests arising in response to its actions.

The government has obstructed justice by refusing to appoint judges who respect the Constitution and has instead made the Courts march in lockstep with the government’s dictates.

The government has allowed its agents to harass the people, steal from them, jail them and even execute them. The government has directed militarized government agents—a.k.a., a standing army—to police domestic affairs in peacetime. The government has turned the country into a militarized police state.

The government has conspired to undermine the rule of law and the Constitution in order to expand its own powers.

The government has allowed its militarized police to invade our homes and inflict violence on homeowners. The government has failed to hold its agents accountable for wrongdoing and murder under the guise of “qualified immunity.”

The government has jeopardized our international trade agreements. The government has overtaxed us without our permission.

The government has denied us due process and the right to a fair trial. The government has engaged in extraordinary rendition. The government has continued to expand its military empire in collusion with its corporate partners-in-crime and occupy foreign nations.

The government has eroded fundamental legal protections and destabilized the structure of government. The government has not only declared its federal powers superior to those of the states but has also asserted its sovereign power over the rights of “we the people.”

The government has ceased to protect the people and instead waged domestic war against the people. The government has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, and destroyed the lives of the people.

The government has employed private contractors and mercenaries to carry out acts of death, desolation and tyranny against other nations, totally unworthy of a civilized nation. The government through its political propaganda has pitted its citizens against each other. The government has stirred up civil unrest and laid the groundwork for martial law.

Repeatedly, we have asked the government to cease its abuses. Each time, the government has responded with more abuse.

An Imperial Ruler who acts like a tyrant is not fit to govern a free people.

We have repeatedly sounded the alarm to our fellow citizens about the government’s abuses. We have warned them about the government’s power grabs. We have appealed to their sense of justice. We have reminded them of our common bonds. They have rejected our plea for justice and brotherhood. Thus, our fellow citizens are equally at fault for the injustices being carried out by the government.

Thus, for the reasons mentioned above, we the people of the united States of America declare ourselves free from the chains of an abusive government. Relying on the Creator’s protection, we pledge to stand by this Declaration of Independence with our lives, our fortunes and our honor.

See what I mean? The abuses meted out by an imperial government and endured by the American people have not ended. They have merely evolved.

Two hundred and forty-four years after a group of anti-government extremists declared their independence from tyranny, the American people have once again managed to work their way back under the tyrant’s thumb.

“We the people” are still being robbed blind by a government of thieves. We are still being taken advantage of by a government of scoundrels, idiots and monsters. We are still being locked up by a government of greedy jailers. We are still being spied on by a government of Peeping Toms. We are still being ravaged by a government of ruffians, rapists and killers.

We are still being forced to surrender our freedoms—and those of our children—to a government of extortionists, money launderers and corporate pirates. And we are still being held at gunpoint by a government of soldiers: a standing army in the form of a militarized police.

The bipartisan coup that laid siege to our nation did not happen overnight. It snuck in under our radar, hiding behind the guise of national security, the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on immigration, political correctness, hate crimes and a host of other official-sounding programs aimed at expanding the government’s power at the expense of individual freedoms.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the building blocks for the bleak future we’re just now getting a foretaste of—police shootings of unarmed citizens, profit-driven prisons, weapons of compliance, a wall-to-wall surveillance state, pre-crime programs, a suspect society, school-to-prison pipelines, militarized police, overcriminalization, SWAT team raids, endless wars, etc.—were put in place by government officials we trusted to look out for our best interests and by American citizens who failed to heed James Madison’s warning to “take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.”

For too long now, we have suffered the injustices of a government that has no regard for our rights or our humanity.

We’ve suffered in silence for too long.

Frankly, what this country desperately needs is more anti-government extremists willing to take the government to task for its excesses, abuses and power grabs that fly in the face of every principle for which America’s founders risked their lives.

Share
Categories
Geoffrey berman Intelwars Southern district of new york Us attorney William Barr

Top US Attorney refuses to step down — but AG Barr has already announced his replacement

Controversy erupted late Friday when Geoffrey Berman, the powerful U.S. Attorney for the southern district of New York, refused to step down despite Attorney General William Barr announcing his replacement.

Barr abruptly announced Friday that President Donald Trump would replace Berman with Jay Clayton, current chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Berman has served in his capacity since April 2018, and his office has conducted investigations into top Trump allies, including Michael Cohen and Rudy Giuliani.

Barr stated in a press release:

I thank Geoffrey Berman, who is stepping down after two-and-a-half years of service as United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. With tenacity and savvy, Geoff has done an excellent job leading one of our nation’s most significant U.S. Attorney’s Offices, achieving many successes on consequential civil and criminal matters. I appreciate his service to the Department of Justice and our nation, and I wish him well in the future.

Berman responded by saying that he would not step down.

“I learned in a press release from the Attorney General tonight that I was ‘stepping down’ as United States Attorney,” Berman said.

“I have not resigned, and have no intention of resigning, my position,” he announced, “to which I was appointed by the Judges of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.”

Berman explained that he will only step down once “a presidentially appointed nominee is confirmed by the Senate.”

“Until then, our investigations will move forward without delay or interruption,” he said

At issue is whether Trump can summarily dismiss Berman when Berman was appointed to the position by federal judges in the southern district of New York. The judges were legally obligated to fill the position because Trump left it vacant without a Senate-confirmed attorney for more than one year.

Trump is allowed to replace Berman — but only after the Senate confirms a replacement. Until then, Berman, as he indicated in his statement, is allowed to remain in his role.

Share
Categories
1st Amendment Coronavirus COVID-19 Intelwars Josh hawley Protests Religious gatherings William Barr

GOP senator calls for AG Barr to investigate bans on religious gatherings while mass protests are allowed

Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri called on Attorney General William Barr to investigate states that are allowing mass gatherings for social justice protests while still restricting the ability of religious institutions to gather for services.

Since George Floyd was killed by a Minneapolis police officer on May 25, protests including thousands of people have taken place nightly in some major American cities — many of the same places that won’t allow fans to gather for sporting events or worshipers to gather for church in numbers greater than 50 or, in some cases, 10 people.

“In the past few weeks, state officials across the country have blatantly violated the free exercise and free speech rights of religious Americans,” Hawley wrote in his letter to Barr. “Under the First Amendment, state officials must not treat religious persons and groups worse than others, and they must not favor one kind of speech over another. State officials have violated the free speech and free exercise rights of religious Americans by treating religious gatherings and speech differently than the speech and mass gatherings of protests. I urge you to launch a full civil rights investigation.”

Hawley is not arguing against the right of people to protest Floyd’s death; in fact, he says people are “rightly angry” about the death and should be allowed to gather peacefully in protest.

Hawley referred to a recent Supreme Court decision in which the court sided with the state in a case where a California church was seeking relief from the ban on large gatherings.

“The decision tilted in favor of the state, the Chief Justice wrote, because of uncertainty about whether the church was being treated worse than comparable secular organizations,” Hawley wrote. “Now, after two weeks of nationwide protests, no uncertainty remains.”

Government officials, including New Jersey Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio have made comments asserting that the Floyd protests are more justified than previous protests calling for businesses or churches to reopen.

Share
Categories
Intelwars Judge emmet sullivan Michael Flynn William Barr

Judge considering holding Flynn in contempt, taps retired judge to argue against dismissal

The federal judge presiding over the case against Michael Flynn is now considering holding the former national security adviser to President Donald Trump in criminal contempt, and has appointed a retired judge to argue against the Department of Justice’s move to drop the case.

What are the details?

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order Wednesday naming retired judge John Gleeson to “present arguments in opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss,” and to “address whether the Court should issue an Order to Show Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury.”

Politico reported that the second order was “apparently for [Flynn] declaring under oath at two different court proceedings that he was guilty of lying to the FBI, before he reversed course in January and claimed he had never lied.”

But recently-released documents from the investigation into Flynn show the retired lieutenant general was targeted by the FBI and agents who spoke out against the election of President Trump. Flynn maintains that he only pleaded guilty because the FBI threatened to prosecute his son.

Sullivan’s latest move further intensifies the politics surrounding the case.

Flynn was prosecuted as a result of the Mueller investigation that failed to find any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and several Democrats cried foul and accused Attorney General William Barr of bending to pressure after the Department of Justice moved last week to have the case dismissed.

Meanwhile, Sullivan, a Clinton appointee, named Gleeson, another Clinton appointee, to step in and argue against the government’s position under a Republican administration. Earlier this week, Gleeson co-wrote an opinion for The Washington Post arguing that “the Flynn case isn’t over until the judge says it’s over.”


Judge Jeanine Pirro DESTROYS Corrupt Flynn Judge Emmet Sullivan for Politicizing Case

www.youtube.com

Share
Categories
DOJ Intelwars John durham Russia investigation William Barr

Report: John Durham’s investigation now going ‘full-throttle,’ rapidly expanding

United States Attorney John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation is reportedly expanding and now going “full-throttle.”

Last May, Attorney General William Barr appointed Durham, the U.S. attorney for Connecticut, to oversee a probe into the Russia investigation and whether the Justice Department and FBI lawfully conducted its investigation, which included an extensive inquiry into the Trump campaign and its associates.

Now, less than one week after the Justice Department dropped its charges against Michael Flynn, Fox News reported that Durham’s investigation is expanding.

According to the report, two additional U.S. attorneys are assisting Durham. Jeff Jensen, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, was originally tasked with overseeing a review of the Flynn case; he has reportedly stayed on to help Durham. Sources told Fox News that interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Timothy Shea is also assisting Durham’s investigation.

“They farmed the investigation out because it is too much for Durham and he didn’t want to be distracted,” one source said. “He’s going full throttle, and they’re looking at everything.”

Additionally, sources told Fox News that Durham is examining a “pattern of conduct,” which includes the FBI’s erroneous FISA applications to obtain surveillance warrants against Carter Page.

Durham reportedly talks to Barr about the investigation “every day,” another source told Fox News. The investigation should conclude by late summer, CNN reported.

It is not yet clear what conclusions will arise from Durham’s review. However, Barr suggested last month that a day of reckoning may be on the horizon.

“My own view is that the evidence shows that we’re not dealing with just mistakes or sloppiness, there was something far more troubling here; and we’re going to get to the bottom of it,” Barr said last month when asked about the investigation.

“And if people broke the law, and we can establish that with the evidence, they will be prosecuted,” he declared.

Share
Categories
Intelwars Mainstream media Media Bias Meet the Press nbc news William Barr

NBC News admits it ‘inaccurately cut’ AG Barr interview, which presented false depiction of what Barr actually said

NBC News admitted wrongdoing on Sunday after the network’s Sunday show, “Meet the Press,” was caught presenting a deceptively edited clip of Attorney General William Barr.

“Earlier today, we inadvertently and inaccurately cut short a video clip of an interview with AG Barr before offering commentary and analysis. The remaining clip included important remarks from the attorney general that we missed, and we regret the error,” the official “Meet the Press” Twitter account said.

In a recent interview with CBS News’ Catherine Herridge, Barr was asked how he thought history would look back on the Justice Department’s decision to drop its Michael Flynn case.

“Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who’s writing the history,” Barr responded. “But I think a fair history would say it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law, it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice.”

However, on “Meet the Press” Sunday, host Chuck Todd only played the first part of Barr’s response, slamming him for “cynicism,” not mentioning “the rule of law,” and “almost admitting that, yeah, this is a political job.”

But as Barr’s full quote shows, Todd was not being honest.

The dishonest reporting elicited a stern rebuke from the Justice Department.

“Very disappointed by the deceptive editing/commentary by @ChuckTodd on @MeetThePress on AG Barr’s CBS interview. Compare the two transcripts below. Not only did the AG make the case in the VERY answer Chuck says he didn’t, he also did so multiple times throughout the interview,” DOJ spokewoman Kerri Kupec wrote on Twitter.

NBC, however, did not give an on-air apology to Barr or the Justice Department.

Share
Categories
Chuck Todd Deceptively edited video Intelwars Meet the Press Michael Flynn William Barr

DOJ spokesperson ‘very disappointed’ in Chuck Todd for ‘deceptive editing’ of Barr’s comments on Flynn case

A spokesperson for the Department of Justice accused Chuck Todd of deceptively editing a video clip of William Barr. Todd played a clip on “Meet the Press” that appeared to be purposely cut short to misinterpret Barr’s comments about the charges being dropped against former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

On Sunday morning, Todd played a clip from Barr’s recent interview with Catherine Herridge on CBS News. However, the clip played did not provide Barr’s full answer, which told a completely different story than the snippet given.

Herridge asked Barr, “When history looks back on this decision, how do you think it will be written?”

“Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who’s writing the history,” Barr replied.

After playing the short clip, Todd said, “I was struck, Peggy, by the cynicism of the answer. It’s a correct answer, but he’s the attorney general. He didn’t make the case that he was upholding the rule of law. He was almost admitting that, yeah, this is a political job.”

However, Barr’s full response to Herridge puts his answer in a completely different context.

“Well, history is written by the winner. So it largely depends on who’s writing the history,” Barr told Herridge. “But I think a fair history would say it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law, it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice.”

DOJ spokesperson Kerri Kupec wrote on Twitter:

Very disappointed by the deceptive editing/commentary by @ChuckTodd on @MeetThePress on AG Barr’s CBS interview. Compare the two transcripts below. Not only did the AG make the case in the VERY answer Chuck says he didn’t, he also did so multiple times throughout the interview.

Todd accused Barr of not mentioning anything about “the rule of law” when in reality, the attorney general literally said the ruling “upheld the rule of law.”


Attorney General Barr defends Justice Dept. decision to drop criminal case against Michael Flynn

www.youtube.com

Share
Categories
Asset forfeiture CURRENT EVENTS Intelwars liberty ruby ridge Surveillance William Barr

You’re Trusting This Guy to Protect Your Liberty?

I’m seeing a lot of cheerleading for U.S. Attorney William Barr because he’s putting the screws on state governors and pressuring them to open up their states. Barr has even threatened to sue states that he determines are infringing on their residents’ rights.

“I am directing each of our United States Attorneys to also be on the lookout for state and local directives that could be violating the constitutional rights and civil liberties of individual citizens,” Barr wrote in a memo.

Never-mind the fact that the federal government was never intended to serve as a liberty enforcement squad and police state governments. Barr’s proposed actions would obliterate the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution and break the Tenth Amendment.

But, “That’s OK!” according to a lot of conservatives and libertarians. “Barr is doing what’s best for liberty! We’ can’t let archaic constitutional scruples get in the way of freedom!”

In other words, we trust William Barr to protect our liberty better than the limits on federal power inherent in the constitutional system.

You might want to pause for a moment and consider just who you’re trusting with all of this power to protect you from petty tyrants in a few state capitols.

A lot of people may not remember that this is Barr’s second go-round as AG. He also served under George H.W. Bush from November 1991 through January 1993.

WARRANTLESS SURVEILLANCE

During his tenure, Barr set the foundation for the modern federal surveillance state. A dedicated drug warrior, Barr directed the Drug Enforcement Administration to collect bulk phone data on millions of people. The DoJ ordered telephone companies to secretly hand over the records of all phone calls from the U.S. to countries the feds suspected drug traffickers were operating. The program eventually included over 100 countries. USA Today reported that the program “was the government’s first known effort to gather data on Americans in bulk, sweeping up records of telephone calls made by millions of U.S. citizens regardless of whether they were suspected of a crime.”

This NSA ultimately used this blueprint to develop its mass, warrantless bulk phone surveillance program.

PATRIOT ACT

Unsurprisingly, Barr was a vocal supporter of the Patriot Act and argued that it didn’t go far enough. During congressional testimony in 2003, he called the bill a “major step forward.” and argued that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act “remains too restrictive” because it “still requires that the government establish probable cause that an individual is either a ‘foreign power’ or an ‘agent of a foreign power.’” In other words, Barr argued that the government should be able to ignore the pesky warrant requirement in the Fourth Amendment.

ATTACKING ENCRYPTION

Barr’s disdain for the limits imposed by the Fourth Amendment doesn’t stop there. He favors weakening encryption for electronic devices so cops can easily access them. He once sent an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg urging him not to include end-to-end encryption on Facebook messaging platforms.

“Companies should not deliberately design their systems to preclude any form of access to content, even for preventing or investigating the most serious crimes,” Barr wrote, adding that this kind of privacy protection “puts our citizens and societies at risk.”

ASSET FORFEITURE

Barr is also a big fan of civil asset forfeiture. During Barr’s most recent confirmation hearing, he told Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) that civil forfeiture is “a valuable tool” for state and local law enforcement. In reality, it’s legalized theft that allows police to take people’s property even when they haven’t been charged for a crime.

During his confirmation hearings in 1991, Barr described civil forfeiture as “such an important program,” while allowing that it might be appropriate to keep an eye on how law enforcement agencies spend the loot “to maintain the integrity of the program.”

The following year, Barr wrote “The Asset Forfeiture Program is a top priority of the Department of Justice and has my strong personal support.”

RUBY RIDGE

And while we’re on the subject of the police state, Barr was a devout defender of an FBI agent who gunned down an unarmed woman holding her baby in 1992. Barr spent several weeks organizing former attorneys general and others to support the federal agent’s defense against criminal charges related to the Ruby Ridge incident. Jim Bovard called it “one of the worst scandals during Barr’s time as attorney general.”

In the early 1990s, federal agencies targeted Randy Weaver, an outspoken white separatist living on a mountaintop in northern Idaho.  After Weaver was entrapped by an undercover Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agent, U.S. marshals trespassed on Weaver’s land and killed his 14-year-old son, Sammy. The following day, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi killed his wife as she was standing in the cabin doorway holding her 10-month-old baby. Horiuchi had previously shot Randy Weaver in the back after he stepped out of the cabin.  The suspects were never given a warning or a chance to surrender and had taken no action against FBI agents.

FBI officials recognized that Mrs. Weaver had been killed but, during the subsequent siege, assured the media that they were “proceeding with extreme care, mindful that Weaver’s wife, Vicki, and three remaining children were also in the cabin,” Reuters reported. An internal FBI report completed shortly after the confrontation justified the killing of Mrs. Weaver by asserting that she had put herself in harm’s way, the New York Times reported in 1993. Yet Bo Gritz, the former Vietnam War hero who helped the feds negotiate Randy Weaver’s surrender after the death of his wife, declared that the government’s profile of the Weaver family recommended killing Weaver’s wife: “I believe Vicki was shot purposely by the sniper as a priority target…. The profile said, if you get a chance, take Vicki Weaver out.” As Mrs. Weaver’s corpse remained in the besieged cabin, “The FBI used microphones to taunt the family. ‘Good morning, Mrs. Weaver. We had pancakes for breakfast. What did you have?’ asked the agents in at least one exchange,” the Washington Times reported.

Barr defended this – not just in word, but int deed. He told a panel during his confirmation hearing that he “assisted in framing legal arguments advanced … in the district court and the subsequent appeal to the Ninth Circuit,”

This is the dude conservatives and libertarians want to entrust more power to in order to protect their liberty?

No, thanks. I’m going to take a hard pass. Barr has already proved he can’t be trusted with power. Giving him more is a fool’s errand.

Share
Categories
Constitution Coronavirus executive order Intelwars unconstitutional William Barr

AG Barr to prosecutors: ‘Be on the lookout’ for state and local orders that violate the Constitution

In a memorandum issued Monday, Attorney General William Barr instructed federal prosecutors to “be on the lookout” for state and local ordinances that violate Americans’ constitutional rights and civil liberties.

“The Constitution is not suspended in times of crisis,” he added.

The new instructions come as Americans across the country continue to live under burdensome social distancing guidelines as part of a nationwide effort to combat the coronavirus. In several states, Americans have taken to the streets to protest guidelines that they view as unduly restrictive.

Now it appears that the Department of Justice will also be monitoring potential state and local abuses of power.

“I am directing each of our United States Attorneys to also be on the lookout for state and local directives that could be violating the constitutional rights and civil liberties of individual citizens,” Barr wrote in the memorandum.

Barr noted that in a prior memoranda, he directed U.S. attorneys to “prioritize cases against those seeking to illicitly profit from the pandemic” by hoarding vital medical supplies in order to sell them at exorbitant prices. But now, prosecutors are also to prioritize potentially unconstitutional state and local orders.

“The legal restrictions on state and local authority are not limited to discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers,” Barr wrote. “For example, the Constitution also forbids, in certain circumstances, discrimination against disfavored speech and undue interference with the national economy. If a state or local ordinance crosses the line from an appropriate exercise of authority to stop the spread of COVID-19 into an overbearing infringement of constitutional and statutory protections, the Department of Justice may have an obligation to address that overreach in federal court.”

“Many policies that would be unthinkable in regular times have become commonplace in recent weeks, and we do not want to unduly interfere with the important efforts of state and local officials to protect the public,” he continued. “But the Constitution is not suspended in times of crisis.”

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Eric Dreiband, and the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, Matthew Schneider, have been tasked with coordinating the new effort. They will work in cooperation with state and local officials as well as with DOJ offices and other federal agencies.

Share
Categories
Church Coronavirus COVID-19 Greenville mississippi Intelwars religious freedom Shelter in place social distancing Stay at home William Barr

AG William Barr warns states against singling out religious gatherings when enforcing social distancing

Attorney General William Barr warned state authorities that social distancing mandates do not give the right to restrict religious organizations more than nonreligious ones Tuesday, after multiple incidents of churchgoers being cited by police made national headlines.

Barr specifically referred to an incident in Mississippi during which police fined church attendees $500, even though they were only listening to the service on the radio in their cars in the church parking lot.

The attorney general acknowledged the value of social distancing and the need to take precautions to slow and prevent the spread of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus from Wuhan, China, but said authorities must be careful not to violate constitutional rights, even during an emergency. Barr said, via statement:

In exigent circumstances, when the community as a whole faces an impending harm of this magnitude, and where the measures are tailored to meeting the imminent danger, the constitution does allow some temporary restriction on our liberties that would not be tolerated in normal circumstances.

But even in times of emergency, when reasonable and temporary restrictions are placed on rights, the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers. Thus, government may not impose special restrictions on religious activity that do not also apply to similar nonreligious activity.

The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in support of Temple Baptist Church in Greenville, Mississippi, where police fined attendees who were at church, but not violating social distancing guidelines since they remained in their cars. The church, with the help of Alliance Defending Freedom, has sued the city’s mayor.

“The City of Greenville fined congregants $500 per person for attending these parking lot services — while permitting citizens to attend nearby drive-in restaurants, even with their windows open,” Barr’s statement read. “The City appears to have thereby singled churches out as the only essential service (as designated by the state of Mississippi) that may not operate despite following all CDC and state recommendations regarding social distancing.”

(H/T: IJR)

Share
Categories
Christianity Christians Church DOJ First Amendment Intelwars Justice Department Religion William Barr

AG Barr taking ‘action’ against gov’t officials who are regulating religious gatherings

Attorney General William Barr will take action against local government officials who are regulating relgiious activities, even those that follow social distancing guidelines, during the coronavirus outbreak.

Barr’s spokeswoman, Kerri Kupec, announced late Saturday that Barr will take action this week.

“During this sacred week for many Americans, AG Barr is monitoring govt regulation of religious services. While social distancing policies are appropriate during this emergency, they must be applied evenhandedly & not single out religious orgs,” Kupec announced. “Expect action from DOJ next week!”

The COVID-19 crisis has presented a unique challenge for Christians and other religious groups who regularly meet together in communal gatherings for corporate worship.

Many churches across the country have been holding “drive-in” services, where congregants meet together in a parking lot and remain in their cars, thereby following social distancing guidelines.

However, many Democratic officials have even cracked down on such affairs.

Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer, for example, issued a decree last week banning drive-in services for Easter, the holiest holiday on the Christian calendar.

But on Saturday, U.S. District Judge Justin Walker granted a local Louisville church, On Fire Christian Center, a temporary restraining order against Fischer’s mandate, thoroughly rebuking the mayor over the order.

“The Mayor’s decision is stunning. And it is, ‘beyond all reason,’ unconstitutional,” Walker said.

Meanwhile, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio threatened last month to permanently shut down churches and synagogues that did not comply with his order to not gather.

Share