Fake News Threatens Our Nation

COMMENTARY BY

Star Parker@UrbanCURE

 

President Donald Trump was right to tweet out: “There is great anger in our Country caused in part by inaccurate, and even fraudulent reporting of the news. The Fake News Media, the true enemy of the people, must stop the open & obvious hostility & report the news honestly and fairly. That will do much to put out the flame…”

He’s right.

I open to the opinion section of The Washington Post and find the following headlines:

“Trump has stoked the fears of the Bowerses (the Pittsburgh synagogue murderer) among us.”

“Fox News and the rest of the right-wing media can’t escape responsibility.”

“Trump’s America is not a safe place for Jews.”

All on one opinion page in one day.

As I wrote recently, we learned in the confirmation hearing of Judge Brett Kavanaugh that Democrats are no longer pretending to care about facts. An outstanding American was almost destroyed by uncorroborated allegations.

I was in Jerusalem earlier this year and participated in ceremonies in which the Embassy of the United States was moved to Israel’s capital, Jerusalem.

A sense of awe, tied to the history of the moment and the bold leadership of Trump, permeated the proceedings. Certainly no one in attendance would question that the Jewish people have no greater friend than this president, who did what no other American president had the courage and conviction to do.

In June 2015, a year and half before the Trump presidency, a young white supremacist entered a black church in Charleston, South Carolina, and murdered nine black Christians.

“It is unfathomable that somebody in today’s society could walk into a church while people are having a prayer meeting and take their lives,” said Charleston’s police chief.

Then-South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley provided extraordinary leadership following the incident, sharing her genuine grief with South Carolinians and all Americans. She took the bold step as a Republican governor to remove the Confederate flag from the grounds of South Carolina’s Capitol.

Haley understood that the best way to fight evil is by identifying evil for what it is and fighting it not with politics but with virtue.

For the last two years, Haley has demonstrated similar leadership by principle as Trump’s United Nations ambassador.

A story on CNN Wire, reported nine days before Election Day, leads with the headline: “‘Voting while black’: How activists are racing to create a midterm ‘black wave.'”

According to the report, “A growing network of African-American political groups are laboring to build a lasting political clout for African-Americans, especially in the South, where more than half of nation’s black residents live.”

The article focuses on three black Democrats running for governorships in Georgia, Florida, and Maryland.

You would think that being black and political meant only electing far-left, progressive Democrats. Totally ignored are exciting and potentially paradigm-changing elections involving black Republicans.

John James, a black Republican running for the Senate in Michigan against three-term liberal Democrat Debbie Stabenow, doesn’t exist for these CNN writers. James is a conservative Christian, a West Point graduate who flew Apache helicopters in Iraq, and he now runs his family business in Detroit.

James is real news and hence a non-item for the “fake news” dealers whose interest is peddling progressivism, not truth.

Differences of opinion are healthy and vital in a free country. National unity and mutual respect are not threatened by differences of opinion but by the destruction of our first principles that guarantee every American equal protection of life, liberty, and property.

Politics of identity, special interests, or moral relativism rely on feeding the vulnerable fake news rather than truth. Our national health and prosperity are endangered when the truth is lost to politics.

This is what voters should be thinking about between now and Nov. 6.

COPYRIGHT 2018 STAR PARKER

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Honey, we broke the Democrats

By Ben Crystal

Honey, we broke the Democrats 

Welp, it looks like we broke the Democrats. I assumed they wouldn't handle the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh well; after all, they haven't handled anything well since Nana Hilldawg's campaign turned in to a Buster Keaton routine. But their spectacular failure to keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court has them a pair of rocket-powered roller skates away from going full Wile E. Coyote. And if their plan for lurching farther left in the future is anything to go by, they're already thumbing through the ACME catalog.

After weeks of accusing Kavanaugh of everything short of the rape of the Sabine women, our liberal friends have resorted to ploys like sending beheading videos to Senator Cory Gardner's (R-CO) wife. And don't think whichever unhinged lefty who sent it along is some kind of outlier. We've already watched as Democrat-incited wingnuts have done everything from doxing conservatives' kids to opening fire at baseball practice. And we've already heard their leaders, from Rep. Maxine Waters to Nana herself, using the most dehumanizing language possible to openly encourage violent reprisals against anyone who strays too far to starboard.

But Kavanaugh booked their tickets to Crazytown. Their theatrics over the past weeks have been cringe worthy. And to be honest, given their close association with Hollywood, there's just no excuse other than a complete and total mental breakdown. For the love of all that is holy, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D- Beijing) planted Alyssa Milano behind Kavanaugh during his second appearance. These people hold fundraising dinners at the Malibu palaces of studio heads with more money than Croesus, and the best the woman — whose own ham-fisted attempt at subterfuge created this debacle in the first place — can come up with is a cameo by Sam from Who's the Boss?

We're a month away from the latest midterm election to be called "the biggest election of our lifetime," and the left has come up with "shriek like banshees while cut-rate comediennes control our messaging." That's terrific, as long as your goal is to dominate the "shrieking banshees who take cut-rate comediennes seriously" voting bloc. But that shrieking is a big part of why Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) told the left to get bent over Kavanaugh. If a milquetoast Republican like Collins was fed up enough with the threats and insults, imagine how the 70 million or so Americans to Collins' right must be enjoying them. And if a milquetoast Republican like Collins standing up to Amy Schumer and a bunch of hate group sheep dressed like extras from a Hulu miniseries can put one guy on the Supreme Court, imagine what those 70 million Americans can — will — do.

Before the summer began, most pundits figured the Left would swing Congress back to port; a combination of the usual midterm blahs that always affect the party in the White House and overconfidence in the effectiveness of the liberals' outraged bleating. Even as the bleating turned to beatings and Democrat control of the Senate began to fade from "daydream" to "fever dream" they actually ramped up the crazy, as evidenced by The New York Times' editorial over the weekend, "White Women, Come Get Your People." The paper of record, likely the most respected of the liberal mouthpieces, called Senator Collins a "gender traitor," and proclaimed white women "...the kind of women who think that being falsely accused of rape is almost as bad as being raped." I don't even know any men who think that.

I was already dubious about their prospects of retaking the House, much less the Senate, especially if they're going to stick with hurling histrionic epithets at everyone who thinks Americans can do better than a hissy-fit of a political party led by the chick from Trainwreck. These people are cracked eggs. Forget the House; they need a hospital.

Texas Democratic Party asked non-citizens to register to vote

The Texas Democratic Party asked non-citizens to register to vote, sending out applications to immigrants with the box citizenship already checked “Yes,” according to new complaints filed Thursday asking prosecutors to see what laws may have been broken.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation alerted district attorneys and the federal Justice Department to the pre-checked applications, and also included a signed affidavit from a man who said some of his relatives, who aren’t citizens, received the mailing.

“This is how the Texas Democratic Party is inviting foreign influence in an election in a federal election cycle,” said Logan Churchwell, spokesman for the PILF, a group that’s made its mark policing states’ voter registration practices.

The Texas secretary of state’s office said it, too, had gotten complaints both from immigrants and from relatives of dead people who said they got mailings asking them to register.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott vowed to investigate.

“If true there will be serious consequences,” he said

The PILF publicly released complaints it sent to Hidalgo and Starr counties asking for an investigation. The organization also provided copies of pre-marked voter applications and the affidavit from the man who said his non-citizen relatives received the mailing.

The applications were pre-addressed to elections officials, which is likely what left many voters to believe they were receiving an official communication from the state.

But the return address was from the State Democratic Executive Committee, and listed an address in Austin that matches the state Democratic Party’s headquarters.

The letter is emblazoned with “Urgent! Your voter registration deadline is October 9.” It continues: “Your voter registration application is inside. Complete, sign and return it today!”

On the application, boxes affirming the applicant is both 18 and a U.S. citizen are already checked with an “X” in the Yes field.

The mailing also urges those who are unsure if they’re registered to “Mail it in.”

A person answering phones at the state party declined to connect The Washington Times with any officials there, insisting that a reporter email questions. That email went unanswered.

Sam Taylor, spokesman for Texas’s secretary of state, said they heard from people whose relatives were receiving mail despite having passed away 10 years ago or longer. One woman said her child, who’d been dead 19 years, got a mailing asking to register.

“It looks like a case of really bad information they are using to send out these mailers,” Mr. Taylor said.

He said some of the non-citizens who called wondered whether there had been some change that made them now legally able to vote despite not being citizens.

Mr. Taylor said there is a state law against encouraging someone to falsify a voter application, but it would be up to investigators to decide if pre-checking a box rose to that level.

PILF has been pushing state election officials in recent years to be wary of non-citizens who manage to register and, in many cases, to actually cast ballots. The organization has found thousands of people who later admitted they weren’t citizens, but who managed to register or vote in New Jersey, Virginia, North Carolina and Pennsylvania

The organization is also embroiled in a legal battle with Harris County, Texas, which has declined to provide PILF with similar voter data.

PILF says usually the origin of non-citizens voting is motor vehicle bureaus, where people are pressed to register — and often ignore or miss the admonition that they must be citizens.

In this case, though, the invitations were sent directly by a political party.

The data from North Carolina suggests that non-citizens who vote skew decidedly Democratic, based on their pattern of voting in Democratic primaries.

The affidavit PILF provided to prosecutors Thursday is from David C. Kifuri Jr.

He said “several relatives” of his who are legal permanent residents but not citizens got the mailing, and were confused. He said in his affidavit he told them to report the mailing to local authorities and not to fill it out any further.

The Hidalgo County election office said it forwards all applications that arrive to the state for processing. Officials can’t tell whether something was pre-checked or not when it got to the applicant.

A county elections spokeswoman couldn’t say whether pre-checking the citizenship box was legal.

Mr. Churchwell, though, said it crosses lines because prosecutors looking into whether someone illegally registered to vote need to be able to see the intent of the applicant, and a pre-checked box defeats that.

Mr. Churchwell said the party was putting immigrants in a tough position, as evidenced by the number of them who were calling state officials wondering if there’s been some change allowing them to vote.

“The victims will actually be the non-citizens,” he said.

I don't believe it

By Ben Crystal

I don't believe it 

I don't believe Christine Blasey Ford was assaulted, sexually or otherwise, by Brett Kavanaugh. I don't believe that he and somewhere between one and three others — she's surprisingly hazy on the details, considering their import — stood by while he locked Ford in a room and slobbered and pawed over her like a Kennedy on mescaline. I don't believe that Kavanaugh, about whom no other allegation of anything more serious than liking basketball has ever surfaced, has ever assaulted anyone. I don't believe that uncorroborated accusations of high school tomfoolery by witnesses who are hazy on the details ought to be enough to stop Kavanaugh from renewing a library card, much less joining the Supreme Court.

I don't believe that Ford withheld such an explosive incident throughout Kavanaugh's rise through the ranks of the federal judiciary. I don't believe that she now remembers telling her husband six years ago that she was worried Kavanaugh might someday serve on the Supreme Court. I don't believe that Senator Dianne Feinstein — who knew about these allegations months ago — held on to them out of respect for Ford's privacy, which I don't believe Ford ever actually wanted.

I don't believe that the Democrats, who are now insisting that Ford be allowed to make these allegations without having to repeat them in front of the Senate panel charged with determining Kavanaugh's fitness, are doing so for any reason other than her story will fall apart under real scrutiny. I don't believe that the party of the Clintons, Al Franken, Keith Ellison, Bob Menendez and Harvey Weinstein gives a damn about Professor Ford. I don't believe that she means more to them than any of the other women whom they've used up and then thrown out like yesterday's tuna casserole. And I don't believe she'll understand that until she's standing next to Cindy Sheehan and Sandra Fluke in the "remember me?" line at the next Democrat hate rally.

I don't believe that the FBI, whose jurisdiction in this matter is pretty much non-existent, should be given an unspecified amount of time to investigate Ford's allegations, especially considering Feinstein sat on them for eight weeks, ample time for the wrong agency to conduct a thorough look at a guy whom they've already thoroughly vetted. And I don't believe that the Democrats don't know that eight weeks would be just enough to put the confirmation vote on the far side of Election Day.

I don't believe that I shouldn't care about Rep. Robert (Beto) O'Rourke (D-New York Fundraisers) and his documented episode of drunk freeway bumper cars, but I should deplore Kavanaugh and a story which is not only undocumented, but it may even be revenge on Kavanaugh's mother for an old foreclosure case. I don't believe the presumption of innocence doesn't extend to a man whose resume includes absolutely no other indications of even mildly disturbing behavior. I don't believe the most convenient accusations of all time, levied by the most convenient accuser of all time, at the most convenient moment of all time, should even slow down Kavanaugh's nomination, much less halt it.

I don't believe that allegations, which the accuser herself admits she can't recall with any degree of specificity, are anything more than a hail Mary, thrown by the people who have turned the rest of Kavanaugh's hearings into a farce. I don't believe they deserve anything more than a curt dismissal.

Why Support Mike Fricilone and Steve Balich Fundraiser September 10th

Some of what Mike Fricilone & Steve Balich have ACCOMPLISHED for you   1. Lowered the tax rate the last 3 years while at the same time building a New Public Safety Building, Court House, Health Department, and starting a program to replace squad cars on a yearly basis. 2. Stopped code violations initiated by aerial Photos. Code violations are now complaint driven. 3. Reduced the tax rate for the last 3 years. 4. Stopped mandatory sprinkler systems from being required in all homes. 5. Passed a Resolution allowing the Court to return your money for towing, storage, and administration if not guilty in court. 6. Stopped the County from putting raised barriers on 143rd St. 7. Continue to vote against raises for County wide and County Board elected officials. 8. Stopped light ordinance that had no measurements relying on the opinion of Code officers as to what is a nuisance. 9. Argue that code inspectors can only inspect what a permit was written for. They don't have the right to write violations for other items out of code. 10. Worked with Lockport to move barricades north of Gougar and 147th, allowing for cars to cut through like the past from 151st over to Lemont Rd/State via 147th. A signal was placed at Gougar and 143rd. 11. Worked with Citizens Utility board to reduce the rate increase from Illinois American Water. The Rate increase was reduced but we still got an increase to an already high cost of water. 12. Voted to not allow County Board Elected Officials to take the IMRF Pension. 13. Worked to get the light at RT. 6 and Parker. 14. Stopped Will county Land Use from initiating a rental inspection program targeting 17,000 plus landlords based on HUD guidelines. Will County never adopted HUD guidelines. 15. Stopped requiring a building permit for some repair and maintenance items on your property. 16. Cut the Tax Rate at the Forest Preserve the last 4 years while expanding recreational opportunities. 17. Since we have be on the Board there have been no pay raises for County Elected officials and County Board member Pensions were eliminated. Fricilone & Balich never took the Pension even though it was a benefit. Mike Fricilone 708-310-9831 mikefricilone@gmail.com    Steve Balich 815-557

Orland Park Mayor Keith Pekau update

We had a fairly short agenda last week, though it was a divisive one for residents, as I am sure that you are all aware. We extended Waste Management’s contract without going out for bid.  There were good reasons for this.  First, we have been happy with their service. Second, since we are no longer vacuuming leaves for 13% of the Village, we were able to negotiate an extended period of time each year for Waste Management to pick up yard waste and provide bins to those residents that will need to adjust to the changes in our leaf vacuuming program.  Additionally, there were changes to the recycling program and additional home pickup of electronics and other large items.  More information will be sent by public works. The big issue for the night was gaming.  The explanation of my position and my vote will follow (although I have written about it several times).  The vote was 4 to 3 to pass gaming (Trustees Fenton, Carroll and Ruzich joined me with Yes votes).  My rationale and an explanation of the ordinance is as follows: The State of Illinois passed the law allowing video gaming in 2009.  I think that was a mistake and wish they never did so.  However, they did and now, 10 years later over 92% of Illinois communities allow video gaming and Orland Park is surrounded by it. My position on this has always been that I am not philosophically opposed to video gaming as long as it is tightly controlled.  It also was not a priority issue for me and as such I did not push this issue forward.  However, I felt that if it was pushed forward, we needed to hold several public meetings and meet with the clergy – and we did with over 5 hours of public testimony.  The ordinance passed to allow video gaming subject to the following restrictions: Only businesses with Class A Liquor licenses (restaurants and bars with full kitchens and over 50% of revenue from food) are eligible Businesses are required to have Class A liquor license for 18 months before being eligible for gaming license (keeps out gaming parlors) A six-month probationary period for a new owner of an established business with a gaming license, subject to approval by the Village Board  Of these, it will be limited to 30% of Class A liquor license holders (works out to 21 establishments) Limited to 5 machines per establishment Bet limit of $2 with a payout limit of $500 Not to be located within 100 feet of a school or place of worship No video gaming before 11:00 AM Video gaming must be monitored by a licensed employee at all times Lights and sounds are not to be visible or audible outside of the gaming area A physical barrier must be in place to separate the gaming area and must be approved by the Village All gaming establishments shall have burglar alarm systems and video camera surveillance of the gaming areas.  Orland Park police shall have access to these systems at any time On premise signs must follow the village signage code Off premise signs are prohibited per the village signage code No advertising on public rights of way or public locations A prominent sticker, provided by the Village, must be displayed indicating that gaming is on premises I heard several issues raised to argue against video gaming.  In the end, none of these arguments were strong enough to change my opinion.  These arguments follow: The character of our community will change:  Nobody gave me a concrete example of a village that has a significant change in their character due to video gaming.  In fact, several people told me they would move to Lemont or Mokena if we put in gaming.  Both of those communities have gaming and I visited several establishments with gaming and barely noticed the gaming machines We will have gaming cafes, gaming in gas stations, and flashing signs everywhere.  This ordinance restricts gaming from these locations and all businesses will need to comply with our signage code that does not allow flashing signs  “I won’t go to a place with a sticker in the window that has gaming”:  This is the point.  If you don’t want to patronize a business that has video gaming, then don’t Moral opposition to gambling:  For some, this is absolutely understandable.  However, others expressing this view also point out that they gamble in Vegas, play the lottery, Superbowl pools, BINGO, etc.  Personally, I am not morally opposed to gambling (fantasy football, March madness pools, etc.), and don’t believe there is a distinction. Gambling addiction that will increase in Orland Park:  Addiction is a problem and a concern. Those addicted in Orland Park already live here, and we are dealing with it -- they can go 50 feet outside of Orland Park and gamble. The most common argument against gaming was the outcome of the referendum. First, this is not a rationale for being against video gaming, it only tells me how many people are against it.  Moreover, here are a few facts on referendums: The election results of the Village’s referendum were 6,014 to allow gaming and 6,264 against (49 to 51%) with a turnout of approximately 25%.  Less than 13% of the voting age population supporting a position is not a mandate, particularly on an advisory referendum. On this ballot another non-binding referendum legalizing cannabis passed 54% to 46% in Orland Park.  I won’t be supporting that either. The Sportsplex was put up for referendum and had 7,864 votes to support it and 9,519 against it (45% to 55%) with a turnout of over 50% and the board voted to put the Sportsplex in anyway. Elected officials sometimes need to make hard votes. My position has remained consistent on this issue since I was first asked during the last campaign in 2016.  It is not a priority issue for me, but if it comes before me it warrants significant public discussion (which we had).  Also, I believe that Illinois did the wrong thing by allowing gaming statewide.  However, I am not philosophically or morally opposed to gaming, but it must be tightly restricted and controlled.  As noted, we voted on the most restrictive gaming ordinance in the State of Illinois. This vote was hard for many of us on the board floor and I am no exception because we see both sides of the issue.  Regardless of how each Trustee voted, I know that it was given a lot of thought and there are valid reasons to vote either way. At the end of the day, I believe this was the right decision for Orland Park.  I am convinced that this ordinance is sufficiently restrictive and the character of Orland Park won’t change because of it. ******************************************************* I also want to let everyone know that this whole issue was raised due to politics.  My position on this has been known since December of 2016 and my future opposition has observed that I stick to my positions and don’t flip-flop without factual rationale. For those of you who are against gaming, this is on the agenda because it was put on the agenda by the Village Clerk to have us vote on an ordinance that was already in place.  What would be the motivation to put an issue on the agenda that was already an ordinance?  There is only one motivation - politics.  It’s the same reason he grandstanded by stepping off of the dais to speak on the issue. Additionally, several pamphlets were put in the Metra stations implying that I was corrupt and bought off.  However, they failed to point out the following: The donations were made before this item was put on the agenda, because these restaurants support my leadership in the Village Every Trustee, either as a candidate, or member of the First Orland Party, have received donations from these restaurants – yet they were not called out as “corrupt”, violating ethics, or asked to recuse themselves.  I have to ask why?  Trustee Fenton did make a point (twice) of saying that she never took money from any restaurants on the list.  Just to be clear, in case it comes up, she in fact did - as a candidate in April of 2013 and as a member of First Orland Party in 2015 Others on the board received more than her, but the bottom line is that campaigning costs money and local businesses and residents support candidates I may disagree with the Trustees from time to time, under no circumstances do I think that any of them have ever been influenced by a donation I also received donations from one of the leaders of the anti-gaming effort, who asked me to recuse myself on the board floor Monday night.  Since we never spoke of any specific issues, I assumed, like the restaurants, he supported my leadership This was Chicago and Illinois Politics at its finest.  Mark my word that this was done to create an issue for the upcoming April election and for my re-election.  Regardless of your position on gaming, these types of political games are not good for Orland Park.

President Trump Keeps His Word on Judges

Originally published at Fox News By Newt Gingrich

Monday night at the White House, President Trump kept his word to the American people. He had campaigned on the need for more federal judges who were dedicated to the Constitution, and in Judge Brett Kavanaugh he nominated precisely such a constitutionalist to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

President Trump’s speech introducing Judge Kavanaugh was a model of patriotic principles, delivered with a bipartisan tone and a seriousness that invited all Americans (including Democratic senators) to look at Judge Kavanaugh with an open mind.

This was a solid presidential speech that reminded the country of the importance of the Constitution, the key role of the Supreme Court, and the profound responsibility the president has in nominating justices (second only to decisions about war and peace, as President Trump acknowledged). When combined with the disciplined bipartisan consultations and careful review process leading up to the nomination, it is one of the best performances of the Trump Administration.

Judge Kavanaugh’s speech was perfect. He was professionally sound and unassumingly personable. His two daughters won the charm award for the evening.

As I listened to Judge Kavanaugh introduce himself to the country — as a father, a husband, the son of a pioneering mother who taught at African American schools and then became a trailblazing woman prosecutor, and as a deeply committed Catholic who coaches girls basketball (both at his church and his local community) and serves food to the poor — I couldn’t help but wonder how the Democrats were going to try to demonize this eminently likable man.

Callista and I were delighted to be at the White House dining with Vice President Pence last night, which allowed us to visit with Judge Kavanaugh and his father (a very unassuming man understandably proud of his son and beaming with pride at the President’s kind words).

The legal profession has responded to the nomination with enormous approval. Judge Kavanaugh is clearly one of the brightest and hardest working members of the federal bench. Even liberal law professors have been praising him.

The Left, however, will likely be vehemently, viciously, and noisily opposed (as they would have been to anyone President Trump could gave picked).

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin communicated the depth of their desperation when he said it would be worth losing several red state senators to block the nomination. This is a self-defeating concept for two reasons. First, if you are an endangered red state senator, you don’t appreciate your party’s whip offering you up as a sacrifice. Second, if they stopped the President this fall at the cost of two or three senators, the President in January 2019 would have an even stronger hand in picking even more explicitly conservative judges with the support of a larger GOP Senate majority. Durbin’s comments were a sign of the radical extremist wing of his party’s growing desperation.

So, once again, President Trump has named an excellent candidate to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. With this nomination, President Trump is continuing to make good on a promise he made early in his presidency – that “a big percentage of the court will be changed by this administration over a very short period of time.”

As of July 9, there were 153 federal judicial vacancies, for which President Trump has made 89 nominations (not including the announcement Monday). Further, there have been 42 Trump-appointed judges already confirmed to lifetime appointments under the current Congress. By comparison, President Obama had only seen 35 judges confirmed by July 2010. This success is in large part due to the leadership of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It also is an example of the way President Trump is brilliantly strategic on the issues that are really important.

As I wrote in my new New York Times best-selling book Trump’s America: The Truth About Our Nation’s Great Comeback, President Trump’s ability to reshape the judiciary could be the most important, longest-lasting aspect of his presidency. Not only is President Trump naming judges at a fast clip, he is tending to nominate judges who are relatively young. Kavanaugh is only 53. If he serves until he is Justice Ginsberg’s age, he will be on the court until 2050. This is the Trump plan to strategically shift the judiciary toward constitutionalism. Since these appointments are for life, President Trump’s influence on the federal court system will last decades beyond his time in office.

This is clearly important for the President’s Supreme Court appointments, but the biggest impact will come from his appointments to the lower courts – the courts which more regularly impact the daily lives of every-day Americans and which create the talent pool for future Supreme Court nominations.

The upcoming fight over this Supreme Court confirmation is an important one, and President Trump is clearly laying the groundwork for success.

The most needed bill that will never pass

By Bob Livingston

Back when he was Alan "Goldspan" — in 1962, long before he got on the government's payroll and became Federal Reserve chairman — Alan Greenspan said this: The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible...to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which — through a complex series of steps — the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if … What was true in 1962 — that "there are now more claims outstanding than real assets" — is true now on order of magnitude billions of times over. Where the dollar was once backed by gold and redeemable by gold, now the world is drowning in fiat (unbacked) "money." The money creators have unleashed the presses and, as a result, in the progression of time the U.S. currency has depreciated toward zero. The public understands this as rising prices, but it is more specifically depreciating paper money. Occasionally a politician comes along who understands this cause and effect. Representative Ron Paul was one. His son, Senator Rand Paul is another, though son is not like father in most respects. Rand is more a politician and less a statesman. Ron Paul regularly championed a gold standard and challenged the banksters about their insidious work to debase the currency and steal the wealth of the American people. Now comes along a new gold standard champion, Republican Representative Alex Moony of West Virginia. In March Mooney introduced H.R. 5404, a bill that would define the dollar as a fixed weight of gold. In the bill's text, Mooney notes the deleterious effects of fiat currency as found in Congressional research: The United States dollar has lost 30 percent of its purchasing power since 2000, and 96 percent of its purchasing power since the end of the gold standard in 1913. Under the Federal Reserve's 2 percent inflation objective, the dollar loses half of its purchasing power every generation, or 35 years. American families need long-term price stability to meet their household spending needs, save money and plan for retirement. The Federal Reserve policy of long-term inflation has made American manufacturing uncompetitive, raising the cost of United States manufactured goods by more than 40 percent since 2000, compared to less than 20 percent in Germany and France. Between 2000 and 2010, United States manufacturing employment shrunk by one-third after holding steady for 30 years at nearly 20,000,000 jobs. The American economy needs a stable dollar, fixed exchange rates, and money supply controlled by the market not the government. The gold standard puts control of the money supply with the market instead of the Federal Reserve. The gold standard means legal tender defined by and convertible into a certain quantity of gold. Under the gold standard through 1913 the United States economy grew at an annual average of 4 percent, one-third larger than the growth rate since then and twice the level since 2000. The international gold exchange standard from 1914 to 1971 did not provide for a United States dollar convertible into gold, and therefore helped cause the Great Depression and stagflation. The Federal Reserve's trickle down policy of expanding the money supply with no demand for it has enriched the owners of financial assets but endangered the jobs, wages, and savings of blue collar workers. Restoring American middle-class prosperity requires change in monetary policy authorized to Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 of the Constitution. During his campaign for president, Donald Trump regularly spoke of the need for the U.S. to return to the gold standard. "We used to have a very, very solid country because it was based on a gold standard," Trump told WMUR television in New Hampshire during a March 2015 interview. But he said it would be tough to bring it back because "we don't have the gold. Other places have the gold." In another interview with GQ, Trump said, "Bringing back the gold standard would be very hard to do, but boy, would it be wonderful. We'd have a standard on which to base our money." Trump may or may not be correct about whether "we don't have the gold." We don't know because the Federal Reserve and bankster-owned politicians have refused to assent to an audit of the Federal Reserve and Fort Knox, the purported location of America's gold. Why should the U.S. be on a gold standard, as the Founding Fathers intended? Gold is essential to personal liberty. On the other hand, paper money, personal freedom and privacy are incompatible. Paper money centralizes power to the state and diminishes the individual. This is the first cause of all you see happening. The only way for true economic growth is by the transfer of services, goods or wealth between people (or businesses) who actually produce something. In other words, if someone provides a service and gets gold or silver (actual wealth) or widgets for compensation, both the service provider and widget maker have benefited and each has something that has bettered his standard of living. If the one who performed the service uses the widgets to acquire trinkets that help him perform his service, then the service performer has benefited. The trinket maker has also benefited, and he can put the widgets to use. This sort of transfer has worked from the beginning of time, when the farmer took his produce to market, where it was sold or bartered in exchange for wealth, tools, supplies and seeds so he could begin producing food for next year. Gold prices have historically indicated the confidence in or the failure of fiat currencies. An ounce of gold can still be exchanged for the same items an ounce of gold could be exchanged for 100 years ago. That's not the case of a dollar, which now is worth only pennies compared to what it was in 1913, or even 1971 when Richard Nixon completely disconnected the U.S. dollar from gold. In 1936, you could buy a very nice suit for $34. At the time, gold was $34 per ounce. Today, you can buy an extremely nice suit for $1,000 to $1,500. An ounce of gold can be had for about $1,250. Suppose someone had put $34 in a shoe box in 1936, set it on the top shelf of the closet and forgotten about it. If you found it today, it would still be $34, albeit $34 that will buy a lot less than $34 did in 1936. But suppose someone had put away for safekeeping an ounce of gold in 1936. If you pulled it out today, it would be worth $1,250 or more. In 1933, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) — the price of a basket of common goods purchased by the average consumer — was 12.8. The current CPI is 251. In other words, that same basket of goods has increased from just less than $13 to $251. The rise in gold's price from $34 to $1,250 does not reflect an increase in the value of an ounce of gold. It reflects an increasing loss of confidence in the U.S. dollar and the devaluation of the dollar through money printing. Every dollar printed dilutes the value of those already in circulation. Unfortunately, Mooney's bill looks like another pie in the sky. Although introduced in March, not one co-sponsor has signed on the bill and it remains in committee. And not a peep about it has been heard from Trump. If he was a true populist and for the people as he says, Trump would address money printing post haste. But I don't expect it to happen. The banksters wouldn't stand for such a thing.

The Immigration Scandal No One Is Talking About

The Immigration Scandal No One Is Talking About

Mark Metcalf / 

For decades, immigration officials misled members of Congress about the extent to which illegal aliens failed to attend court hearings. (Photo: CactuSoup/Getty Images)

COMMENTARY BY

Mark Metcalf

Mark H. Metcalf served in the administration of George W. Bush in posts at the Justice and Defense departments, including a judgeship on the Miami Immigration Court. He is a Kentucky prosecutor and a veteran of Iraq.

Among the least talked about scandals in Washington is how immigration officials spent decades misleading Congress about the number of migrants evading court. I discussed that scandal at length in my last article.

In advancing this decadeslong effort, no accounting trick and no false narrative was out of bounds. Never in any year did these officials tell the real story of a court system in crisis. Brave rhetoric and bleached numbers consistently camouflaged the courts’ disarray.

“The fight against terrorism,” the Bush and Obama administrations boldly declared from 2005 through 2012, “is the first and overriding priority of the Department of Justice. … A key component of this effort is the securing of our nation’s borders and the repair of the immigration system as a whole. The application and enforcement of our immigration laws remain a critical element of this national effort.”

Both administrations insisted that immigration courts serve “as the front-line presence nationwide in immigration matters.”

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

Yet court officials’ words and actions didn’t match up with a “front-line presence.” While nearly a million people ran from court over the last 22 years—meaning 37 percent of all those free pending trial failed to appear for their hearings—no alarm was sounded by those in charge.

The courts’ 2007 annual report is just one example of the misleading numbers court officials pushed out for congressional oversight and public consumption each year.

“The overall failure-to-appear … rate decreased,” officials stated, “to 19 percent in 2007 from the five-year high of 39 percent in 2006.” This was pure whitewash. Accurate accounting showed the failure-to-appear rate in 2006 was 59 percent—51 percent higher than court executives admitted. Nor was the real failure-to-appear rate in 2007 a lowly 19 percent. It was 36 percent, nearly double what the courts reported to Congress.

But gaming failures to appear in court was just one dynamic that officials suppressed to the point of dishonesty. Others, like unexecuted deportation orders, received scant official mention, but got out anyway.

“All should be troubled,” wrote immigration appeals Judge Edward Grant in 2006, “by the fact that only a small fraction of final orders of deportation … are actually executed.”

Records confirm this. Of the 1,254,152 aliens who were ordered deported from 1996 through 2016, 76 percent of them—953,506 to be exact—remained in the U.S. They not only remained, but grew.

From a total of 557,762 unexecuted removal orders in 2008 were added 395,744 through August 2016—a 71 percent increase in less than eight years. Despite expanded enforcement since 2017, court records say failures to appear in court will only increase and with them, experience shows, unexecuted removal orders.

None of this is new—yet nothing has been done. Failures to appear in court have predicated evasion of removal orders for years and are chronic symptoms of an immigration system turned upside down.

A 1989 Government Accountability Office audit on immigration courts foreshadowed today’s extremes. It concluded that “aliens have nothing to lose by failing to appear for hearings” and noted that over the preced­ing 30 years illegal entry into the United States increased by 2,200 percent—from 45,000 in 1959 to 1.2 million in 1989—and, as illegal entry grew, so did failures to appear in court.

The Government Accountability Office’s audit also addressed cause and effect—and it didn’t blame illegal aliens. “Disregard for the courts,” it stated, stemmed from a “lack of repercussions.” Few aliens, it said, faced any “adverse consequences,” deportation included.

A 2006 Justice Department inspector general’s report agreed, stating the “program for deporting illegal aliens had been largely ineffective” and that “89 percent of nondetained aliens released into the U.S. who were subsequently issued final orders of removal were not removed.”

For a watchful public, these failures prove the gross inadequacy of federal response to problems now years in the making. All involve frail courts, feeble enforcement, and the willingness of government executives to hide embarrassing truths that worsen the causes underlying them.

What’s more is that in human terms, these trends also bring tragedies.

Algerian-born immigrant Ahmed Ferhani was arrested by New York City police on robbery and narcotics charges in 2010. Facing deportation, he remained free pending trial, then fled court in 2011. He was later arrested—but not before plotting attacks on Manhattan synagogues and the Empire State Building.

Jose Alfaro, a Salvadoran national, was ordered deported in 2002. Despite two later arrests, he remained at-large for nine years before murdering three people in Manassas, Virginia, on Feb. 10, 2011.

Kesler Dufrene, a Haitian national and twice-convicted burglar, was ordered deported upon completing his Florida prison sentence in 2010. Still, Immigration and Customs Enforcement released him, and on Jan. 2, 2011, he gunned down two adults and a 15-year-old in North Miami.

From these self-inflicted failures that now tarnish our immigration institutions, a simple lesson emerges: The nation that can elevate the immigrant must likewise sanction the violator.

Immigration done right—by attracting the talented, redeeming the persecuted, and removing the offender—dignifies and enriches us all. The systemic disorder America now faces does neither.