++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The insanity of Democrat candidates was best exemplified by Pocahontas' comment she will shut all fracking the day after she is elected. Hillary wanted to put coal miners out of work and now The Cherokee from Mass. wants to put most of the petroleum and gas industry out of work and return us to dependency on the Middle East and boost Russia's ability to control Europe energy wise.
Meanwhile, Merkel buddies up to China.
What next?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Lefty Democrats/liberals are rolling in dough.Bless their hearts. (See 1 below.)
And:
I had just written a memo about radical California Federal Judges and their use of nationwide injunctions to throw sand in Trump's gears as a result of anti-Trumper Court Shopping. (See 1a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Finally, Omar challenged by her own. (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This from a very old and dear friend and fellow memo reader in response to something I wrote in previous memo. (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NYT journalist can't sleep: NYT columnist discloses 'insomnia' she's had since 'cursed night' of Trump's election.
If you enjoy long articles and intrigue then open this link.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Some interesting articles:
The Cure for Confused Male/Female Relationships By Lloyd MarcusAmerica is suffering the dire consequences of allowing radical feminists and progressive anti-biblical ideology to dominate our culture. More
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Dick
1) The Left’s Lucrative Nonprofits
‘Powerful interests’ and ‘dark money’ are mostly on the Democratic side.
By Kimberley A. Strassel
This year’s Democratic presidential candidates have a favorite whipping boy: “powerful interests.” Get ready to hear again in coming weeks how the National Rifle Association rules Washington, how the Koch empire dominates politics, how the right is pouring “dark money” into its agenda. And then remember that these are among the biggest whoppers of the 2020 election. One side will do battle with the aid of a huge and savvy nonprofit political empire—and it isn’t the right. Though the sooner Republicans understand that, the better.
A helpful tutorial arrived this week, “Power Grab,” a new book by Republican former Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah. Mr. Chaffetz has been digging into nonprofits since his time as House Oversight Committee chairman, and the book details how powerful the liberal nonprofit sector has grown. It may surprise many Americans—those who read daily stories about conservative “influence”—that the likes of the NRA, Judicial Watch and the National Organization for Marriage barely rank by comparison to the assets and revenue of Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union or the Nature Conservancy.
These aren’t only big political players; they’re the biggest political players. In 2018 the nonprofit watchdog Capital Research Center analyzed grants handed out in the 2014 election year by six big foundations on the right (including the Bradley and Charles Koch foundations) versus six on the left (including the Open Society and Tides foundations). Liberal public-policy charities, organized under chapter 501(c)(3) of the tax code, bagged $7.4 billion of this foundation money in 2014. For conservative charities, the figure was a mere $2.2 billion. That $7.4 billion also dwarfed total 2013-14 campaign receipts to federal, state and local campaigns ($4.1 billion) and spending that cycle by independent groups ($830 million).
Mr. Chaffetz’s contribution is to refocus attention on the way liberal charities channel their huge funds into political work that benefits the Democratic Party. We’ve long known that some of them engage in nominally nonpartisan voter registration, conveniently only in places likely to yield Democratic votes. The Chaffetz book adds new data highlighting contracts between liberal charities and overt political organizations.
Dark, powerful money? The left has a monopoly here, too, via the creation of a new “sponsor” model. Take Arabella Advisers, also the subject of a Capital Research Center report. Arabella is a for-profit, privately held entity. It manages four generously funded liberal nonprofits, which according to tax filings between 2013 and 2017 received $1.6 billion in donations. Those four entities in turn collectively “sponsor” dozens of political outfits. The beauty of this arrangement, for the left, is that the “projects” don’t have to disclose any information—salaries, vendors, original funders, boards, nothing. They are black holes.
And they are influential. Just one of these recent “pop-up” groups is Demand Justice, a “project” of Arabella’s Sixteen Thirty Fund. The outfit got rolling in early 2018, with the express purpose of combating Republican judicial nominees, and was a major player in the drive-by hit on Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Almost nothing is known about Demand Justice beyond that it is run by former Hillary Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon. Where are all those media sleuths when you need them to sniff out “dark money”?
The history of campaign-finance laws is largely a history of groups getting around them. As the power of liberal charities grows, so too will the calls for new rules or investigations. Conservatives would be wiser to educate themselves about this rapidly changing money environment, and get in the game. Elections are increasingly about identifying voters, engaging them, and getting them to the polls. One person at a time.
Conservatives can also start fighting more aggressively the nonsense media and Democratic claims that wealthy networks of conservative or corporate donors run the country. The reality is completely opposite, and the money Goliath is the left.
1a) End Nationwide Injunctions
The Dreamers case shows how willful courts can ruin the chance for political compromise.
By William P Barr
When a federal court issues an order against enforcement of a government policy, the ruling traditionally applies only to the plaintiff in that case. Over the past several decades, however, some lower court federal judges have increasingly resorted to a procedural device—the “nationwide injunction”—to prevent the government from enforcing a policy against anyone in the country. Shrewd lawyers have learned to “shop” for a sympathetic judge willing to issue such an injunction. These days, virtually every significant congressional or presidential initiative is enjoined—often within hours—threatening our democratic system and undermining the rule of law.
During the eight years of the Obama administration, 20 nationwide injunctions were issued while the Trump administration has already faced nearly 40. Partisans who cheer this trend should realize that someday the shoe will be on the other foot. One can easily imagine the signature policies of a future Democratic administration—say, on climate change, immigration or health care—being stymied by courts for years on end.
The best example of the harm done by these nationwide injunctions is the current litigation over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. In 2012, after Congress repeatedly failed to grant legal status to so-called Dreamers, the Obama administration declined to enforce the immigration laws against them. Five years later, the Trump administration announced it would restore enforcement of federal law, prompting Democrats to negotiate in search of a broad solution. Just as a compromise appeared near, a district court judge in San Francisco entered a nationwide injunction prohibiting the Trump administration from ending DACA, thus awarding the Democrats by judicial fiat what they had been seeking through a political compromise.
Far from solving the problem, the DACA injunction proved catastrophic. The program’s recipients remain in legal limbo after nearly two years of bitter political division over immigration, including a government shutdown. A humanitarian crisis—including a surge of unaccompanied children—swells at the southern border, while legislative efforts remain frozen pending Supreme Court resolution of the DACA case.
Under Article III of the Constitution, courts are supposed to apply the law to the parties before them—not to thousands or millions of third parties. The Framers rejected the idea that the courts should act as a “council of revision” with sweeping authority to reach beyond concrete controversies and rule on the legality of actions taken by the political branches. Moreover, the power of federal courts to issue injunctions derives from English practice, which allowed courts to restrain a defendant to the extent necessary to protect the rights of the plaintiffs in the case. Nationwide injunctions are a modern invention with no basis in the Constitution or common law.
Nationwide injunctions are also inconsistent with the mechanism the law recognizes to provide relief to nonparties: a class action, in which class members are bound by the result, win or lose, unless they opt out. Nationwide injunctions, by contrast, create an unfair, one-way system in which the democratically accountable government must fend off case after case to put its policy into effect, while those challenging the policy need only find a single sympathetic judge.
Proponents of nationwide injunctions argue that they are necessary to ensure that the law is uniform throughout the country. But the federal judiciary wasn’t made to produce instant legal uniformity. To the contrary, the system—in which local district courts are supervised by regional courts of appeal—was constructed to allow a diversity of initial rulings until a single, national rule could be decided by the Supreme Court.
This system has many virtues. It prevents a solitary, unelected, life-tenured judge from overriding the political branches and imposing on the nation potentially idiosyncratic or mistaken views of the law. A Supreme Court justice must convince at least four colleagues to bind the federal government nationwide, whereas a district court judge issuing a nationwide injunction needn’t convince anyone.
When the system works as it should, it encourages what one leading jurist has called “percolation”—the salutary process by which many lower federal courts offer competing and increasingly refined views on a legal issue before higher courts definitively resolve it. Allowing a single district court judge to issue a nationwide injunction against the government short-circuits this process. The first judge to issue an injunction effectively nullifies the decisions of all other courts that have already been issued—not only other courts’ decisions, but even those of higher appellate courts in other circuits.
For example, even though the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia—often called the second-highest court in the land—vacated an injunction against the Trump administration’s policy on transgender military service, that decision had no practical effect. Two district judges had enjoined the policy nationwide. The Supreme Court’s intervention was necessary to fix this backward state of affairs.
By short-circuiting the process of percolation, nationwide injunctions cause critical policies to be litigated through a truncated, emergency process. When an important statute or policy is enjoined, the Justice Department must seek emergency relief from higher courts. The alternative is for the government to wait years for an appeals court to overturn the injunction before implementing a statute or policy. As a result, nationwide injunctions threaten to turn every case into an emergency for the executive and judicial branches.
Nationwide injunctions “are legally and historically dubious,” noted Justice Clarence Thomas, concurring in Trump v. Hawaii (2018). “If federal courts continue to issue them, this Court is dutybound to adjudicate their authority to do so.” It is indeed well past time for our judiciary to re-examine a practice that embitters the political life of the nation, flouts constitutional principles, and stultifies sound judicial administration, all at the cost of public confidence in our institutions.
Mr. Barr is U.S. attorney general
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
Ilhan Omar Challenged in Minnesota by Muslim Reformers
Clarion Project
Muslim reformers are challenging the Islamist narrative Congresswoman Ilhan Omar represents — and they’re taking this challenge straight to her district in Minnesota by holding a “Muslim town hall.”
The video is a dig at Omar who bashed Ani Zonneveld, president of Muslims for Progressive Values, for asking Omar a question about female genital mutilation (FGM). Zonneveld asked Omar to make a statement against FGM, to which Omar launched into a tirade against Zonneveld, calling her request an “appaling question.”On the eve of the 18th anniversary of 9/11, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, Asra Nomani and Clarion Project’s Shireen Qudosi, along with local Minnesotan Ayah Abuserrieh, will host an open conversation at the University of Minnesota. The September 10th town hall will also be attended by Iraqi journalist and refugee Dalia Al-Aqidi, who in recent days trended on Twitter for challenging Ilhan Omar to an interview.
The event is also attracting other special guests, many of whom are traveling from out of state to support the reform initiative. The Muslim Reform Movement is poised to host other town halls and local events in the months ahead, as part of a grassroots initiative to meet with the community.
For Clarion Project’s National Correspondent, Shireen Qudosi, the move is a vital next step in the fight against the Islamist narrative.
“A ground game is critical for us at this juncture. We’re winning battle of ideas. It’s time to win the hearts and minds of people in the community, many of whom do agree with us but are afraid to speak out. In coming together, they get to meet other members of their community who are like-minded. The counter Islamist narrative is real and it has the numbers. We just need to bring those numbers out.”
In addition to serving as a wellspring for new alliances, there’s local history of a Muslim vs. Islamist struggle. Local Minnesotans have challenged the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the past. CAIR is a steadfast supporter and ally of Congresswoman Ilhan Omar.
That’s a history that goes back to 2011. As Clarion Project reported, two local Minneapolis Muslim American activists were branded as “anti-Muslim” for their participation in a seminar which included a discussion about an Islamic terrorist group in Somalia.3)
The West
By
Raymond Ibrahim
Another of the 2018 Christmas books given me by
G----. This one recommended by Pat
Robertson of the 700 Club of which I had mentioned to G----. I had read the Koran which was presented and which I interpreted as a book of
peace, but Sword and Scimitar has
dispelled that view. Islam’s creed of
Jihad with its unbridled terrorism is scary.
The Sword and Scimitar is a history of Jihad. Muhammed founded Islam in the seventh
century. He claimed revelations from God
and thus to be God’s messenger. His
first message was that God is the one and only god which was in opposition to
the prevailing Arabic belief of polytheism.
After ten years of preaching monotheism, love and peace, Muhammed had
about one hundred followers, mostly family members, until the polytheist threw
him out of Mecca. Then new messages from
God revealed the righteousness of Jihad, conquering non‑believers. Non-believers were those who did not submit
to God or in other words to Muhammed.
God revealed Jihad’s rewards on earth and in heaven. On earth, Jihad justified all the spoils of
war: conquest, rape, murder, torture, pillage,
domination, humiliation, extortion, slavery, sex trafficking and harems. In heaven, those who died waging Jihad were
forgiven all their sins, given a crown with a ruby greater than the world and
all it contains, food, drink, eternally young boys, and copulation with seventy‑two
Houris, wide‑eyed, big‑bosomed
supernatural celestial women. And oh, forgiveness
of sins meant that on earth a Jihadist could ignore Islam’s edicts of righteous
living. Muhammed led Jihad to
consolidate regional power before returning to and conquering Mecca. Before he died three years later, Muhammed’s Jihad
conquered all of Saudi Arabia and Christianity’s most holy land.
The book chronicles Jihad in eight
chapters, each ending with one of Jihad’s turning point battles in winning or
losing Christian lands. Three points impressed
me most. One, big battles aside, Jihad has
been a constant since the founding of Islam.
Two, Jihad’s atrocities have been remarkably consistent over the
centuries, current atrocities are nothing new.
[The book responsibly cites Christian atrocities but makes clear they were
responses to and not the cause of Jihad.] And three, as with any good history book,
details are thoroughly documented with references to source material not only from
current experts but also from periodic sources both Islamic and Christian. My only regret is that Sword and Scimitar did not address Jihad’s history against the rest
of the non‑Christian world, specifically Africa, Asia and Indonesia.
S------
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
S------
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
