Get PJ Media on your Apple

Rule of Law

Ebola Fumble: Obama Fails to Use Legal Power to Deny Entry

October 3rd, 2014 - 10:11 am

As the Ebola epidemic has spread through West Africa over the last several months, President Obama has not used legal powers he possesses to help prevent the deadly virus from entering the United States.

Federal law gives the president the power to issue a proclamation to seal the borders to any class of aliens who pose a threat to the United States. The law is broad enough that Obama could have issued a proclamation months ago denying entry to any foreign national from the countries of Sierra Leone, Guinea, Nigeria or Liberia. Under the law, such a proclamation could have also included any passport holder who visited those countries as evidenced by visas or entry/exit stamps on the passport.

Section 1182 (f) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act gives the president this power, which the Obama administration has refused to use even as Ebola threatens Americans. The law states:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

This means that Obama could, in the time it takes to write out a few paragraphs, stop the flow of people into American communities who have been exposed to Ebola in West Africa.

As I previously reported, four direct flights from Ebola ravaged nations fly into the United States. (PJ link to “Air Ebola“.) Passport checks could be conducted prior to boarding aircraft bound for the United States from foreign destinations.

Also read: 

Piers Morgan DESTROYS Obama in Daily Mail Editorial

The Democrats and the institutional left have a new political tool that allows them virtually to ignore moderates yet still win elections.

This tool, the Catalist database, was employed in the 2012 election. That election defied conventional wisdom: Mitt Romney sought and won independent voters overwhelmingly, but still lost. If you wondered why the conventional wisdom about independents and moderates didn’t seem so wise in 2012, the answer is Catalist.

Beyond winning elections, Catalist also allows the Democrats to turn the policy narrative upside down and suffer no political consequence for implementing radical policies which appeal to their base. The Obama administration’s lurch to the far left without consequence can be understood by understanding Catalist. Obama thrives politically by satisfying his base. Simply, Catalist is a game changer not just for politics, but for policy. It is the left’s machinery for fundamentally transforming America.

And candidates, organizations, strategists, and consultants who do not understand what they are up against in Catalist risk being overrun.

I’ll explain how it works in a moment. I had the opportunity to explore the functionality and architecture of Catalist in a way few — if any — others on the opposite side of Catalist have had, and what I discovered sure explains a lot about the last six years.

No longer are Democrats anchored to the preferences of Americans in the middle. Bill Clinton’s triangulation is as obsolete as color film and bag phones. Obama has pushed policies far outside the mainstream, and even far outside popular will, but succeeded in wringing out an Electoral College majority in 2012 because of Catalist.

Unfortunately, Republicans have no functioning counterpart data tool to Catalist. They have multiple and competing shells of Catalist, but they have nothing on the collaborative scale as Catalist, largely due to the fact that Republicans won’t collaborate and are fiercely territorial of their competing data sets. Democrats and the institutional left, in contrast, have created a collaborative and fully integrated system that allows them to ignore the middle while extracting unprecedented turnout from a micro-targeted, ideologically far-left base.

Catalist is an example of the consultant, profit-driven culture of the GOP being beaten by the messianic crusader culture of the left.

Next: two examples demonstrate the power of the institutional left’s data tools.

Pages: 1 2 3 | 141 Comments»

White House Yanks Debo Adegbile Nomination

September 16th, 2014 - 9:01 am

The Debo Adegbile story has ended.  The White House yesterday pulled his nomination to head the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division after it was defeated on a procedural vote in the Senate in March.  PJ Media was the first to report on the radical background of Adegbile within hours of the nomination being made.  After Adegbile was defeated in a procedural vote, left wing groups held out hope that another vote would be scheduled in the Senate and Democrats who opposed Adegbile would suddenly support him.  That didn’t happen.

Now there  is little chance that a nominee to head the Civil Rights Division can be confirmed before the November elections.  If Republicans take control of the Senate, don’t expect the White House to nominate someone with Adegbile’s radical background.


The bloody 20th century saw more Christian and Jewish martyrs die for their faith than did any other century. In Mexico and Germany, in Sudan and Soviet Russia, in Korea and Poland, Christians and Jews died by the millions because they believed in God. This modern martyrdom occurred because men followed ideologies which believed men were greater than God in shaping the world. The masterminds of these bloodbaths assumed the world could be perfected to suit their ideologies.

One cannot know the history of the last century without recognizing the stark reality of black evil.

This evil that touched every corner of the globe is a starting point for David Limbaugh’s journey to faith. In his new book — Jesus on Trial (Regnery, 2014) — Limbaugh provides a lawyer’s brief on the certainty of God.

The book is a turnkey exploration of faith for those who doubt, and those who don’t. Limbaugh argues for God’s existence.  It is sequenced with the precision of a lawyer building a case based not just on faith in God, but on evidence, experience and facts.

aOf course faith will always ultimately remain just that, faith. But Limbaugh reaches across thousands of years of human history to argue on behalf of God’s existence.

Evil appears as Exhibit Number One.

To many, the violent sufferings of the last hundred years must mean there is no loving God who would allow so much suffering and pain.

Limbaugh contrasts the religious view “with the humanist’s view of the perfectibility of mankind. The humanist worldview, whether consciously or not, presupposes that man can be his own god — he has the ability to remake and perfect himself over time. But as the last century has shown, these godless ideas have led to totalitarian regimes that enslave and murder millions. Even if you deny that godlessness has led to this depravity, you will still have a difficult time making the case that mankind is on a linear path to enlightenment.”

The “sheer extensiveness and pervasiveness of evil in the world,” for Limbaugh, reinforces belief more quickly than anything else.

On the other extreme of Limbaugh’s evidentiary quiver are those impossible moments. Implausible events become the still, small voice that reinforces that the universe is ordered. Limbaugh retells the improbable story of Joseph, Jacob’s son:

His sovereign plan to nurture and preserve the emerging Hebrew nation is consummated in spite of and sometimes because of the sinful actions of certain people, including Joseph’s brothers. . . . had Jacob not doted on Joseph in the presence of his brothers, they would not have become jealous and hateful toward him. Had the brothers not harbored such hatred, they would not have plotted against him. Had the Ishmaelites not been on the road to Egypt, Joseph’s brothers probably would have killed him instead of selling him into slavery in Egypt. Had the cupbearer not been imprisoned with Joseph, he would not have been impressed by Joseph’s dream-inspiring gift. Had the cupbearer chosen to ‘remember’ Joseph when the cupbearer was released, Joseph may have been released from prison and would not have been available to interpret pharaoh’s dreams later. . . .the entire nation of Israel would likely have died in its incipiency.

I even omit Limbaugh’s more complete series of improbable events surrounding Joseph for the purposes of space! Limbaugh notes that the human and divine perception of evil come together in the wisdom of Joseph and the future nation of Israel.

Pages: 1 2 | 14 Comments»

Stay Lifted In Wisconsin Voter ID

September 13th, 2014 - 9:43 am

In a decision that has little substantive meaning, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction against Wisconsin Voter ID that a lower court imposed.  This was not a decision on the merits.  It merely means that the 7th Circuit will allow voter ID to go into effect for the November elections absent the injunction being reimposed by the full 7th Circuit or United States Supreme Court.

The other significant part of the decision is that it is predictive.  It gives an indication what the 7th Circuit will decide in the appeal of the lower court’s injunction.  The left has been hailing the lower court opinion as providing a new architecture for attacking voter ID under the Voting Rights Act.  The Voting Rights Act does not provide an easy fit with voter ID laws, largely because of an absence of proof that they were enacted with a discriminatory intent.

The left has been trying to graft a pure statistical analysis onto voter ID.  This analysis seeks to show that minorities suffer an adverse impact in marginally larger numbers.  This, indeed, is usually the case. But the difference is so infinitesimal to render the difference virtually meaningless.

But that won’t cut it to the folks who want to make any difference a justification for a federal injunction.

United States District Judge Lynn Adelman had written an opinion that adopted this new and yet untested theory. For a brief time, the judge was a star in academia and among left leaning reporters when the court blocked Wisconsin voter ID. His opinion was built on a house of sand in its interpretation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Now the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals says Wisconsin Voter ID is ALIVE for November election.

The decision by the 7th Circuit also gums up efforts in North Carolina and Texas for voter ID opponents who were eager to borrow Adelman’s reasoning to strike down those laws.  Some left-wing  academics who dislike voter ID have suggested the Supreme Court may step in to block Wisconsin Voter ID before the election.  They are whistling past the graveyard, as it is unlikely to happen.


Nigel Farage is the leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party, also known as UKIP. UKIP has stormed onto the political scene over the last few years. In March, UKIP received more votes than any other party in elections for the European Parliament. The party stands for keeping the British pound and enhancing British sovereignty, usually at the expense of the European Union. The parallels to the Tea Party in the United States are obvious, and so are many of the same political fault lines.

I had the chance to sit down with Nigel Farage today in Washington, D.C., to interview him for PJ Media. My impression was that Farage, unlike so many pre-programed, scripted and cautious politicians, was deeply sincere about what he said. He spoke with a gleam in his eye, and a passion for what he was saying. It was the sort of refreshing breeze sorely lacking sometimes on both sides of the Atlantic. My interview with Nigel Farage:

Adams: What are you doing here in the United States?

Farage: Firstly, just to reacquaint and broaden my connections with the Republican movement, because there were no Democrats worth seeing unfortunately. Then, your State Department has got this EU project wrong; if we ever get more immersed into Europe, you’ve lost your best ally. So there is a political purpose for me being here, to keep that pressure moving. Of course you aren’t getting it from the Conservative Party. You have wave after wave of Conservatives coming over here, but they support the bloody EU project, and I don’t.

The second reason for coming here is I’m meeting with some business people, some of whom have subsidiaries in London as well.

Adams: You’ve seen the comments by the government that they were going to withdraw the passports of folks in ISIS who are Brits . . .

Farage: . . . That’s not what they said at all. They said they’d like to do something. I said two weeks ago, we don’t want these guys back in Britain. Once again, Cameron just mirrors everything I say because he realizes the public agree with me. He worded it beautifully, he’s brilliant. He said he would like to take away their passports, knowing full well that the European Court of Human Rights won’t let us do it.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 | 23 Comments»

In a pleading filed in federal court in the lawsuit brought by Shirley Sherrod against Andrew Breitbart (and now his widow), Shirley Sherrod is trying to pry privileged attorney client communications from Breitbart News.  The communications involved legal advice given by Larry Solov to Andrew Breitbart in the wake of publication of stories relating to Shirley Sherrod’s speech to the NAACP. Sherrod is the former Department of Agriculture official fired after it was revealed that at one time she intended to withhold benefits from a white farmer because he was white. Sherrod filed a defamation lawsuit against Breitbart and substituted Andrew’s widow Suzy after his death in February 2012. (Links here, here and here).

In seeking to justify the forced disclosure of Solov’s emails, Sherrod has referred to the false allegation that Tea Party demonstrators opposed to Obamacare used racial slurs while yelling at members of the Congressional Black Caucus during a Capitol Hill demonstration.    (You can read the full memorandum here.)

Moreover, Defendants assert that the Blog Post stemmed from events in Washington. As Defendants explained at length in their Motion to Dismiss, the Blog Post was written in the “context of [a] months-long and very loud public clash between Tea Party conservatives and the NAACP[.]” Dkt. No. 22 at 20. They claim that this clash began during a four-day rally in Washington, D.C. at which Tea Party members were alleged to have hurled racial epithets at members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Id. at 17. Defendants have made the Washington, D.C. events a lynchpin of their motivation for publication.

Sherrod wants Breitbart to be forced to disclose communications between attorney Solov and Breitbart employees related to the publication of the Sherrod speech.  Solov is a Harvard law graduate and litigated case for years before joining Breitbart.

You can read the Breitbart legal response here.

Sherrod is being represented pro bono by Kirkland and Ellis, a large lawfirm that donates significant time to other left wing causes, most recently failing in attempts to block North Carolina election integrity laws, and also has represented a Nazi concentration camp guard and German companies which used slave labor.


While the beheading of one of their own has journalists suddenly very concerned about the threat of Islamic terror, some were sounding the alarm for years.  The rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) fulfills the predictions of those who just three years ago were mocked for using the term “Caliphate.”   The rise of the Islamic State also represents an existential threat to the survival of Israel.  The threat is not as easily contained as the previous existential threats to the Jewish state.

On September 9, 2014, at the Ahavath Torah Congregation in Stoughton, Massachusetts, some of the nation’s leading authorities on Islamic terror will hold a Israel Security Summit.  Participants include Lt. General Tom McInerney, Lt. General Jerry Boykin, former CIA Station Chief Gary Berntsen and Tom Trento. The event will be moderated by Allen West.

Here is the flyer for the event.


Ten pages into David Horowitz’s new book Take No Prisoners: The Battleplan for Defeating the Left (Regnery, 2014), I realize putting dog-ears on pages with important quotes for this review is hopeless. I’ve placed a dog-ear on every page. By the end, the whole book might be dog-eared.

If there was a single book to add to the swag-bag for the attendees at the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Take No Prisoners is the book. Not only is the book helpful in understanding the modern political battlespace, as Horowitz makes clear throughout, the delegates who will be in Cleveland are sorely in need of help.

Many still think elections are won or lost because one side has better ideas than the other. Election losers convinced that they had better ideas harbor all sorts of excuses for their loss — the media, economic earthquakes, silly character attacks.

Recall in 2012 the relentless and unopposed effort to define Mitt Romney as beholden to the richest of the rich, out of touch with most Americans. Republicans delivered wet noodle complaints that the attacks were “class warfare” and “divisive.” Horowitz:

These were weak and whiny responses, all too familiar from previous Republican campaigns. Common to both was failure to address the specific charges . . . The term “class warfare” is a polite way of discussing a real problem, namely leftist agendas in national politics. But politeness protects others – in this case, opponents who are busy defaming you as mean spirited and selfish. . . it fails to hold your adversaries accountable for what they have actually done and are likely to continue doing if elected.

And what of the zinger that Obama was “divisive?” Horowitz:

Complaining about “divisive politics” is not only futile, it is incomprehensible. Elections are by nature divisive. They are competitions between winners and losers. They are about defeating opponents. Why wouldn’t they be divisive??

The strongest part of Take No Prisoners, is how Horowitz matches his skill as a word-smith with real campaign choices. Every Horowitz book is characterized by brilliant writing, and sharp word choices. Take No Prisoners is about how Republicans have dropped the ball on writing the national narrative, and how they can get it back by crafting words and tactics that counter the left’s mastery of the process.

Many in the GOP and conservative movement might not like the taste of Horowitz’s medicine. A party raised on the primacy of ideas and policies will feel uncomfortable with the smashmouth suggestions in Take No Prisoners. I’ve heard the complaints — ‘we don’t want to become them’ — a complaint more convenient when the threats to liberty were less advanced. It’s also a complaint that misses the mark as a matter of fact:

Behind Republican failures at the ballot box is an attitude that reflects an administrative rather than political approach to election campaigns. Republicans focus on policy proposals rather than electoral combat and the threat posed by their opponents. Administrative politicians are more comfortable with budgets and pie-charts than with the flesh and blood victims of their opponent’s policies and ideas. When Republicans do appeal to the victims of Democrat’s policies, those victims are frequently small business owners and other job creators – people who in the eyes of most Americans are rich.

At the root of this strategic mistake is the belief among many Republicans that the two parties still share the same goals, but have divergent ways to get there. News flash: Democrats like John F. Kennedy and Scoop Jackson no longer exist. The Democrats have been taken over by messianic progressives seeking to craft the world in their own image. “Republicans do not hope to change the world. They are too mindful of the human catastrophes that have been brought about by those who do,” the former Communist Horowitz writes because he knows it all too well.

As a result of this attitude, conservative’s emotions are not inflamed as progressives’ are when confronting those with whom they disagree. The conservative instinct is to search for common ground and to arrive at practical measures to address public problems. That is why they take a lot of time explaining to voters how their proposals might work. But by the time they reach them, many voters are not listening.

This may be the central dividing line between the establishment and the Tea Party — a division Horowitz notes is more a question of tactics than goals.

I regularly encounter this aversion to the fight, despite the fact I receive emails and expressions of thanks from lawyers across Holder’s Justice Department. Lawyers trapped inside DOJ are filled with gratitude that I (and a few others) aggressively shine a light on Holder’s misbehavior and radicalism. Some GOP alumni of the DOJ grumble that it hurts the institution or goes too far.  But the good people still trapped inside a radicalized Justice Department, who see the disappearance of standards which governed the place for decades, are thankful. Even leaders of the Department of Justice during the age of Reagan are on the side of sunshine, not in the camp of those giving Eric Holder quarter. Horowitz didn’t name his book Take no Prisoners by accident.


Horowitz’s prescription: 1) Put the aggressors on defense. 2) Throw their victims in their faces. 3) Start the campaign now because they already have.

Horowitz dissects the left’s machine — not just the electoral tactics from the 2012 election and the inadequate GOP response, but the interplay between narrative, words, tactics, and ultimately questions involving race.

Pages: 1 2 | 43 Comments»

I joined Megyn Kelly on Kelly File this week to talk about Eric Holder going to Ferguson.  I later noted that Holder’s swift appearance in Ferguson was driven by two things: 1) dividing people on the basis of race to take sides inappropriately, and 2) stoking turnout for the mid-term elections for Democrats.  The issue is never the issue with this crowd.  The issue is power,  getting it, using it, and keeping it.
YouTube Preview Image
In the interview, I noted that Holder has kept a race card in wallet for decades, a literal race card.  Megyn asked “what?!” and I didn’t have time to get into the details.  Below is an excerpt from the first two pages of my book Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department It describes the rancid racialist attitude Holder brings to his job, and the race card he really keeps in his wallet.  From Injustice:

For much of his life, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. carried around something peculiar. While most people keep cash, family photos, and credit cards in their wallets, Holder revealed to a reporter in 1996 that he keeps with him an old clipping of a quote from Harlem preacher Reverend Samuel D. Proctor. Holder put the clipping in his wallet in 1971, when he was studying history at Columbia University, and kept it in wallet after wallet over the ensuing decades.

What were Proctor’s words that Holder found so compelling?

Blackness is another issue entirely apart from class in America. No matter how affluent, educated and mobile [a black person] becomes, his race defines him more particularly than anything else. Black people have a common cause that requires attending to, and this cause does not allow for the rigid class separation that is the luxury of American whites. There is a sense in which every black man is as far from liberation as the weakest one if his weakness is attributable to racial injustice.

When asked to explain the passage, Holder replied, “It really says that … I am not the tall U.S. attorney, I am not the thin United States Attorney. I am the black United States attorney. And he was saying that no matter how successful you are, there’s a common cause that bonds the black United States attorney with the black criminal or the black doctor with the black homeless person.”

Has anyone ever asked Holder what exactly is the “common cause” that binds the black attorney general and the black criminal? More important, what should the black attorney general do about this common cause? Should the black criminal feel empathy for the black attorney general, or more likely, do the favors only flow in one direction?

Holder’s explanation of Proctor’s quote offers some key insights into our attorney general’s worldview. First, being “more particular” than anything else, skin color limits and defines Americans—in other words, race comes first for Holder. Second, despite Americans’ widespread belief in trans-racial principles such as individual liberty and equal protection, blacks are expected to show solidarity with other blacks. And third, black law enforcement officers are expected to show this solidarity toward their racial compatriots, including toward black criminals.

It may seem shocking to hear these racialist views ascribed to America’s top law enforcement officer. But to people who have worked inside the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, these attitudes are perfectly familiar. In fact, Holder’s revelation is small stuff compared to the racial fanaticism and leftwing extremism that pervade that division.

The rest of Injustice documents that racial extremism.