Rule of Law

Rule of Law

Race for House Speaker in Chaos: McCarthy Doesn’t Have the Votes

October 7th, 2015 - 12:25 pm

The race to elect the next Speaker of the House is in a state of chaos. The truth is that the anointed successor to Speaker John Boehner, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), does not have the 218 votes required to win the seat in the House vote.

The truth is that nobody does.

McCarthy has a variety of problems, most notably his Benghazi moment. When he framed the Benghazi committee as politically designed, he gave a jolt to Hillary Clinton’s tail-spinning campaign and undermined the authority of the investigative panel.

McCarthy’s stumble and the chaos surrounding the Speaker’s race might be good news for southern states like Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. Racial interest groups and left-wing activists have hung their hopes on McCarthy ascending because, in McCarthy, they believe they have a friend to reimpose federal control over state elections in southern states.

They are relying on McCarthy to support amendments to the Voting Rights Act that would place Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia back under federal control as they were before the Supreme Court struck down federal oversight in the 2013 landmark case of Shelby County v. Holder.

Before Shelby County, the Justice Department had used the Voting Rights Act to block voter identification laws in Texas and efforts to purge non-citizens from the voter rolls in Georgia and Florida.

It would be something to see if members from Texas, and from other southern states now in the crosshairs of the racial interest groups, vote for speaker someone whom the institutional left thinks may be the best hope to pass a law to then use against Texas and other southern states.

The speaker is second in line to the presidency. If the president and vice president were to die or leave office, the speaker becomes the president. That fact merits public attention to the speaker’s race.

On Thursday, the race for speaker kicks off when House Republicans pick a nominee to present to the floor. McCarthy may be that nominee, but that doesn’t mean all Republicans will support him on the floor.

There are signs of trouble for the current House leadership team. The number discontent with leadership extends far beyond the “30 House members” figure that defenders of the current House leadership frequently cite as the base of opposition to Boehner.

Recent votes show the number is far larger.

For example, 153 House Republicans recently voted against leadership in voting against a continuing budget resolution. This was the vote that prompted Boehner’s departure.

The reasons for the discontent aren’t hard to find. On multiple occasions, leadership has advanced legislation without the majority of the House Republicans in agreement. In other words, the GOP House leadership has jettisoned the Hastert Rule, repeatedly.

Many in the House also want to see a return to regular order of the sort that characterized Republican control in the 1990s. They want budget and appropriations recommendations actually followed, not merely ignored late in the legislative game by leadership.

But the bigger question hanging over the speaker’s race is who is in charge of the federal budget process. Should the budget primarily be the will of the House, as the Constitution contemplates? Or, does President Obama dictate budget priorities?

This fundamental question hangs over the race because the current House leadership, scared of a government shutdown like Puritans in Plymouth feared witches, have allowed President Obama to dictate budget terms.

This fundamental question also hangs over America.

Pages: 1 2 | 17 Comments»

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey delivered a sharp criticism of the Obama Justice Department, particularly the DOJ Voting Section, in a speech republished in Hillsdale College’s Imprimis. In a broadside aimed at the Obama-era DOJ, Mukasey hits the department’s biased and partisan law enforcement policies.

Mukasey’s speech should be required reading for every presidential campaign.

Mukasey revisits the dismissal of the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party by Eric Holder and other political appointees shortly after the 2009 inauguration:

During the 2008 election, two members of the New Black Panther Party showed up at a polling place in Philadelphia dressed in black battle fatigues. …  In the waning days of the Bush administration, the DOJ’s Voting Section filed a lawsuit and won a default judgment. But in the spring of 2009, after the Obama administration took over, those handling the case were directed to drop it. The only penalty left in place was a limited injunction that barred the person with the nightstick from repeating that conduct for a period of time in Philadelphia. And when the Office of Professional Responsibility looked into the matter, their finding criticized the bringing of the case more than the dropping of it.

As one “handling the case,” the benefit of hindsight has revealed the New Black Panther dismissal as a sign of things to come. By 2015, we’ve grown used to outcome-driven law enforcement from the Justice Department. Laws are mere suggestions, not commands to this administration. If the Obama administration disagrees with a law, they simply refuse to enforce it.


In the New Black Panther case, the incoming Obama administration found it reprehensible that the civil rights laws would be used to protect anyone other than Democrat Party constituencies. While the Office of Professional Responsibility behaved as General Mukasey described, the Justice Department inspector general issued a report that documented the pervasive hostility inside the Voting Section to equal enforcement of the law to protect all Americans.

Simply, if the victims of civil rights violations are white, they don’t receive protection. This outcome is no accident. It is a result of beliefs held by civil servants working inside the Justice Department.

If a Republican wins the presidency, he or she would be well advised to listen to General Mukasey and implement fundamental changes to the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, particularly the Voting Section. Step One may will be remedial training on what the Rule of Law means. (PJ Media coverage of the New Black Panther dismissal can be found here, here, and here.)

The New Black Panthers would enter the national narrative many times after 2009 in places like Ferguson, Sanford and New York City. Naturally, each time it would seem that in those places, the Justice Department was taking sides before the investigations were complete. Naturally, over and over, the department was on the side of the New Black Panthers, even if it did not publicly embrace the gangsters. Again, Mukasey:

Consider as well the 2012 case of Trayvon Martin, a young man who was shot in an encounter with a neighborhood watch member. Notwithstanding that the shooter was not a member of any police department, and that he was acquitted of criminal responsibility in the incident — nevertheless, in the wake of the case the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division zeroed in on the police department of Sanford, Florida, where the incident occurred, suggesting discriminatory policing. A similar pattern — whereby a confrontation between a police officer and an African-American is followed by a Justice Department proceeding against the jurisdiction, regardless of the legal outcome or the equities of the incident—has been followed in cities such as Baltimore, New York, and Ferguson, Missouri.

Instead of combating violations of civil rights laws by the New Black Panthers, Mukasey notes we’ve seen the DOJ Civil Rights Division turned into a weapon against the administration’s pro-life opponents:

Contrast that response with the DOJ’s treatment of a 79-year-old protestor outside an abortion clinic who was sued by the Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section for praying outside the clinic and urging entrants to reconsider abortion. When that protestor was pepper sprayed by an abortion supporter for exercising his First Amendment rights, the Criminal Section did nothing.

(PJ Media coverage on DOJ’s abuse of peaceful pro-life protesters is here.)

Every Republican presidential candidate, and the next attorney general, should listen to what Mukasey noted in his speech next:

One lesson to draw from all this is that personnel is policy. If you examine the resumés of people hired into the DOJ beginning in 2009, you will find that the governing credential of new hires was a history of support for left-leaning causes or membership in leftist organizations.

PJ Media did an exhaustive study of the resumes of lawyers hired by the Obama administration after taking power in 2009. The results are described in the Every Single One series.

Mukasey is right. Every single one of the attorney hires was a partisan or ideologue. You can access the PJ Media series here.) Again, this outcome was no accident. It was driven by a desire of those doing the attorney hiring to self-replicate their worldview inside DOJ.

Pages: 1 2 | 10 Comments»

The Revolution Has Begun

September 28th, 2015 - 11:54 am

“You can almost see the circuits blowing.” – Neil Peart, in Far Cry

It’s hard to pinpoint exactly when it started, but with Speaker John Boehner’s resignation announcement, there’s no doubt the revolution has begun. Perhaps it was the first time you bookmarked the Drudge Report. Or maybe, when at the Drudge Report, you said: “Who is this Breitbart?” Eric Cantor’s primary loss to Dave Brat was certainly a moment when the revolution was stirring and produced tangible results rather than just internet narrative.

Regardless of when the revolution started, it’s clearly underway.

First, what do I mean by revolution? Like with all revolutions, the old ways are being replaced. But this revolution has a twist: the revolution is trying to replace the old ways of doing business with even older, and more timeless ways. Namely, this revolution is a revolution against centralized power.

It could be that this revolution really started two centuries ago. Perhaps it never stopped. We were warned about the price of eternal vigilance, weren’t we?

There was a time when the Republican Party stood as the bulwark against centralized power, against Washington, D.C., eroding personal space. When both houses of Congress were held by President Obama’s party, the Republican Party stood as the most well-placed institution to oppose his agenda.

Things were bad. But if only we had the House! That was the rallying cry from fundraisers, politicians in the minority, and their consultants. So the revolution delivered the House in 2010. But things didn’t seem to change. Obama consolidated his gains and entrenched. There was no consequence.

If only we had the Senate! That was the new rallying cry from the fundraisers, politicians in the House majority, politicians in the Senate minority, and their consultants.

So the revolution delivered the Senate in 2014. Again, things didn’t seem to change. Instead of opposing Obama with every constitutional tool available, yes including the power of the purse, the new leadership failed to return the favor that the revolution bestowed on them in 2010 and 2014.

Instead of the speaker of the House rolling back Obama’s counter-American revolution, Boehner gained a golf buddy. (And yes, that’s precisely what Obama represents — a retreat from American ideals two centuries old. But more on that another day.)


The revolution is bad news for a number of Republican figures. Jeb Bush might top the list.

Jeb’s presidential campaign seems like a political sitcom from Antenna TV – the cable network with the rabbit-ears logo that plays shows from a kinder, gentler time, decades ago. That was before the progressive left marched through federal institutions and turned them against mainstream America.  Jeb’s campaign is suited for another time.


The revolution was also very bad for Eric Cantor and others who seem to feel more at home appearing on the pages of the New York Times than in conservative media.

One of the favorite canards used against the revolution is: “What would you have us do, shut down the government?!” Fear of a government shutdown is to Republican leaders inside the Beltway what fear of witches was in colonial New England. But the Planned Parenthood videos changed everything, and rendered GOP fear of a shutdown a morally bankrupt position. The revolution isn’t happy.

Pages: 1 2 | 163 Comments»

Jeb: Multiculturalism Was Good Before It Was Bad

September 23rd, 2015 - 5:33 am

Jeb Bush has come out swinging against multiculturalism.

In this Drudge Report-linked story, Bush hammers the multicultural dogma that differences between Americans should be talked about and treasured:

“We should not have a multicultural society,” Bush said, before beginning a longer explanation of his views of what comprises culture in the U.S. “When you create pockets of isolation – and in some places the process of assimilation has been retarded because they’ve slowed down – it’s wrong,” he added. “It limits people’s aspirations.”

Jeb Bush has had these strongly held views . . .  for at least seven days.

Just last week, Bush sent a fundraising letter praising the virtues of his “modern” and “multi-cultural family.”



In a postscript to his fundraising letter of last week, Bush says:

My adult life began when I was seventeen, and I met my beloved bride-to-be Columba. . . . We are a modern American family – multi-cultural, devoted to our Christian faith, active in our community, business and politics.

The fundraising letter asks for up to $500 and promotes Bush’s leadership of a “thoughtful conservative reform movement.”  Bush believes he can win by campaigning “in every corner of America . . .  including places where Republicans have rarely gone and where there is great opportunity for our nation and our Party.”

In the 2012 election, Hispanics voted for President Obama over Mitt Romney 71% to 27%.  Over 4,000,000 Evangelicals and conservative Catholics stayed home.  So did large numbers of middle class white voters.


I appeared on “The Kelly File” Friday to discuss the actual law about anchor babies.

Here’s the bottom line: the Supreme Court has never taken the issue as to whether the children of illegal aliens enjoy birthright citizenship.

The closest the Court came was a case from 1898 involving the child of legal permanent residents from China. There, the court found that the child was a citizen, but contrasted that finding with a potential case arising out of a child of a foreign invasion or a diplomat’s child.

On “The Kelly File,” I noted Congress has the power to clarify this issue under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment. But the bottom line is that, contrary to what some pundits have said, the Court has never taken the issue up and decided that the children of illegal aliens enjoy birthright citizenship:

A federal appeals court has blasted misconduct by Justice Department lawyers in a civil rights prosecution against New Orleans police officers. The case arose in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s grant of a new trial because Justice Department lawyers — including those responsible for protecting the civil rights of the defendant police officers — engaged in an anonymous blogging campaign to taint the defendants during the trial. The court noted that Justice Department lawyers stoked a “mob mentality” against police officers.

The federal appeals court took note that one of the Civil Rights Division lawyers responsible appears to have gone unpunished.  For sure, one lawyer is still employed and earning in excess of $157,000 per year with her government salary and benefits.

(See previous PJ Media coverage: Justice Dept. Lawyer Karla Dobinski’s Misconduct Sends Cops to Prison)

As the court described:

In the anarchy following Hurricane Katrina, a group of heavily armed New Orleans police officers were dispatched to the Danziger Bridge in response to an emergency call reporting shots being fired at police. There, amid chaos, they shot and killed two unarmed men, one of them developmentally disabled, and wounded four other unarmed civilians.

The notorious Civil Rights Division then brought a criminal prosecution against the police officers (just as many are now clamoring for the same DOJ unit to launch such prosecution against other police departments). The federal appeals court described what happened next:

No less than three high-ranking federal prosecutors are known to have been posting online, anonymous comments to newspaper articles about the case throughout its duration. The government makes no attempt to justify the prosecutors’ ethical lapses, which the court described as having created an “online 21st century carnival atmosphere.” Not only that, but the government inadequately investigated and substantially delayed the ferreting out of information about its in-house contributors to the anonymous postings. The district court also found that cooperating defendants called to testify by the government lied, an FBI agent over stepped, defense witnesses were intimidated from testifying , and inexplicably gross sentencing disparities resulted from the government’ s plea bargains and charging practices.

Read the full outrageous opinion here.

The exact same Justice Department unit which engaged in this misconduct is also investigating police departments across the nation — including in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore.

One such lawyer who engaged in misconduct according to the court was Karla Dobinski. She posted anonymous comments online about the police during the trial in New Orleans. Yet her job was to protect the police officers:  ”Her responsibility in the course of the prosecution was to protect indicted police officers’ civil rights,” said the appeals court.

“Dobinski remains in federal employment with only a bare reproof for her online commenting,” the court said. Dobinski remains employed today at the Justice Department Civil Rights Division, the very same unit that prosecutes police officers.

Karla Dobinski

Karla Dobinski

When the federal court at trial asked the lead DOJ prosecutor if DOJ lawyers were posting anonymous comments, the judge didn’t get the truth:

Additionally, the DOJ’s chief prosecutor in this case, Barbara Bernstein, represented to the district court that no member of “the trial team” had commented online. The district court acutely observed that its concern about leaks and publicity was not limited to the “team” but extended to all of the federal government.

Pages: 1 2 | 15 Comments»

As his speech ended, and before he could be whisked from the room, I ignored his bodyguards and rushed the podium. I approached the small and unlikely man and silently held out the book and pen. He beamed with a smile. Authors quietly rejoice whenever they are asked to sign their own works — even this giant whose words steered the events of world history.

The well-worn paperback was Open Secrets, a collection of essays by the Czech poet President Vaclav Havel. It was 1998 and President Havel was visiting the United States. I had been tipped off that he’d be speaking to an audience in the bowels of Congress, so I grabbed my copy of his book and set off.

I’ve collected signed books of moonwalkers and rock stars, politicians and new-media pioneers, but I treasure my signed copy of Open Secrets above all. Under his signature, he drew a simple and charming heart.


1998 seems so far off now, and not merely in time. In 1998, America had lived through an age of moral clarity, despite the best efforts of Havel’s foes to blur those lines at home and abroad. America had enjoyed a largely unbroken string of presidencies where America’s moral place in world affairs was without question: Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Nixon, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and on.

Decade after decade, American leaders had defended the universal truth of human liberty.

Naturally, Havel himself had experienced this binary battle between human dignity and what he would refer to as “living the lie.” His recurring visits to the regime’s prisons sharpened this understanding. Good was good and evil was evil.

Only the most dedicated administration shill or the most comfortable Beltway parasite could deny today that America has become detached from the moral clarity that guided the nation through those decades. Nearly 7 in 10 Americans think the country is headed down the wrong track. A sizable majority thinks that America’s best days are in the past, not in the future.

Americans in 2015 might find value in discovering, or revisiting, one of Havel’s monumental essays, “The Power of the Powerless.” Though in that essay Havel was describing efforts to escape from what he referred to as a “post-totalitarian” existence, the essay has value for those in the West seeking to arrest the drift toward it.

To Havel, “post-totalitarian” was not a term relating to sequence. “Post-totalitarian” did not mean a government that arises after the evolution or collapse of a totalitarian structure of the sort we typically associate with singular omnipotent leaders.  Instead, “post-totalitarian” to Havel described a massive, bureaucratic culture that controlled vast territory over people’s lives, the economy, and was not tolerant of deviation or dissent.

Havel’s distinction between “post-totalitarianism” and the more consuming and familiar forms of totalitarianism has serious implications for our discourse today. Americans, even conservatives, tend to skip over Havel’s post-totalitarian nightmares in the continuum between Scandinavian-style socialism and Hilter’s style of totalitarianism. We forget about a big bureaucratic leviathan that masks its truly evil nature. Reading “The Power of the Powerless,” you explore a post-totalitarian bureaucratic system that sucks out the soul in ways that a traditional totalitarian system does not.

Pages: 1 2 3 | 20 Comments»

The United States Supreme Court has been asked to end a political subsidy to aliens through the use of alien population in allocating legislative seats. In a case arising out of the decision by Texas to count aliens — illegal and legal — in drawing legislative districts, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether using aliens violates the principle of “one person, one vote.”

The case is Evenwel vs. Abbott.

Currently, many states count aliens when establishing the population of legislative districts, therefore diluting the legislative clout of citizens. Legislative districts — whether for Congress, a state legislature, or a county council — must be more or less equal in population.

The case before the Supreme Court will decide what population must be used to calculate that “population.” If Texas prevails, illegal aliens and noncitizens may be counted. This means areas with high alien population will dilute the legislative clout of areas where the residents are almost all citizens.

For example, assume every legislative district must have roughly 10,000 people. A district with 5,000 aliens and 5,000 citizens might receive one legislative seat. A district with 10,000 American citizens might receive another legislative seat.  The district with the heavy alien population has 5,000 citizens getting a vote in a legislature while the other district where all 10,000 residents are American citizens would get the same legislative vote.


The implications for the American political landscape are profound.  Presently, in places like Texas, California, Arizona, and elsewhere, aliens are enjoying a political subsidy in legislative bodies — and in Congress.

The practice offends the concept of “one person, one vote,” a term which derives from the 1964 Supreme Court case Reynolds vs. Sims. Back then, Alabama gave rural counties the same voice in the Alabama Senate that the most urban and populated counties enjoyed. The Supreme Court said that practice offended the 14th Amendment’s promise of Equal Protection and the principle of “one person, one vote.” It ruled Alabama had to have equal population in each Senate district.

The impact of Reynolds in 1964 was the termination of the political subsidy enjoyed by rural areas, and a massive shift of power to urban America.

Now, areas with high alien populations enjoy the same political subsidy that rural areas of Alabama once enjoyed.

The defenders of this status quo make many of the same arguments Alabama made and which the Supreme Court rejected. Most notably, they characterize the decisions to use aliens to allocate power as a political question beyond the reach of the Supreme Court.

Pages: 1 2 | 21 Comments»

The murder of Kathryn Steinle on the Embarcadero in San Francisco by an illegal alien is the most familiar example of a crime committed by an alien.  But an unreleased internal report by the Texas Department of Public Safety reveals that aliens have been involved in thousands of crimes in Texas alone, including nearly 3,000 homicides.

PJ Media obtained a never-before-released copy of a Texas DPS report on human smuggling containing the numbers of crimes committed by aliens in Texas.   According to the analysis conducted by the Texas Department of Public Safety, foreign aliens committed 611,234 unique crimes in Texas from 2008 to 2014, including thousands of homicides and sexual assaults.

The report describes an alien crime wave of staggering proportions exacerbated by federal officials unwilling to enforce immigration laws.

The Texas DPS report says well over 100,000 individual criminal aliens have been booked into Texas jails:

From October 2008 to April 2014, Texas identified a total 177,588 unique criminal alien defendants booked into Texas county jails. These individuals have been identified through the Secure Communities initiative, in which Texas has participated since October 2008.

There are almost certainly more criminal aliens who haven’t been identified as aliens.  The 177,588 criminal aliens identified by Texas through the Secure Communities initiative only can tag criminal aliens who had already been fingerprinted.  Arrests of illegal aliens who have not been fingerprinted prior to arrest are not included in these arrests numbers derived from the Secure Communities initiative.

That means that the already stratospheric aggregate crime totals would be even higher if crimes by many illegal aliens who are not in the fingerprint database were included.

Confessed hammer killer Juan Francisco De Luna Vasquez

Confessed Texas killer Juan Vasquez

The Secure Communities initiative is an information-sharing program between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice. Presumably, both departments would have data on the number of fingerprint searches conducted that revealed a criminal act involved an alien.

Texas has been ground zero in illegal alien crossings into the United States.  The Texas DPS report shows that in the Rio Grande Valley, 154,453 illegal aliens were apprehended in 2013.


Total illegal alien apprehensions by sector. (Source: Texas DPS report).

Other Texas sectors saw approximately 86,000 illegal aliens apprehended.  All other sectors combined on the southern border only saw approximately 170,000 illegal alien apprehensions in the same time period.  The Obama administration releases a sizable portion of the illegal aliens captured.

The criminal aliens identified by the Texas Department of Public Safety have been responsible for the most heinous types of crimes — and in astonishing numbers. From the Texas DPS report:

A review of these 177,588 defendants shows that they are responsible for at least 611,234 individual criminal charges over their criminal careers, including 2,993 homicides and 7,695 sexual assaults.

One such murder was committed by Juan Francisco De Luna Vasquez. Vasquez confessed to killing his wife with a hammer in Laredo.

The increasing flood across the border combined with the existence of sanctuary cities bolstered by Obama administration policies allowing the release of the most violent criminal aliens has fueled these crimes.

(Source: Texas DPS)

“Other Than Mexican” apprehensions. Most are released. (Source: Texas DPS report)

The House Judiciary Committee has passed the Davis-Oliver Act, introduced (S.1640) in the Senate by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and in the House (H.R.1148) by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), which would address many of these issues.

Yesterday, Texas Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) grilled Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Sarah Saldaña about the 104,000 criminals that ICE released in 2013, and the 68,000 criminals against whom ICE refused to start deportation proceedings.  Saldaña calls it “good news” that only 30,558 criminal aliens were released by ICE in 2014.

Federal hate crime laws criminalize racially motivated violence. The Obama Justice Department, over and over and over again, has refused to enforce these laws in a race-neutral manner. Instead, justice is available to some Americans, but not all.  Some victims are protected by federal law in the age of Obama.

Some aren’t.

The latest example of racially motivated violence the Obama administration is likely to ignore occurred in Chicago:

Broken glass littered the pavement at 60th and King Drive across from Washington Park, where the attack took place around 9 p.m. Thursday night. Pedersen says she had just dropped off a friend at the University of Chicago when she stopped at a red light and found her car surrounded by several dozen young people.

“They were walking around both sides of the vehicle – in the front, in the back – and as they were walking across, they were hitting my car, using racial slurs and telling me that I didn’t belong in their neighborhood because I was white,” Pedersen said.

The group, all African-American, she says, kicked the vehicle and shook it violently. Her children were screaming from the back of the vehicle.

Susan Pedersen and her two children do not fit the correct victim profile to bring protection from the United States Department of Justice.

The victims

The victims

Instance after instance of racially motivated violence has gone unpunished since Obama’s inauguration in 2009 when the victim looks like Susan Pedersen.

Robert Moossy is the chief of the Criminal Section at the Civil Rights Division.  His section is responsible for bringing criminal charges in Chicago, or not.

Be sure to read: 

It’s Time to Eliminate ‘Hate Crimes’ From the American Legal System