We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ D.O.J., America.

DOJ CLOSED DUE TO CORRUPTION small copyI love this idea. Love, love, love, love, LOVE this idea. I present this article to you from The American Thinker in part, but heartily recommend it in its entirety. Bolds are mine.


May 22, 2016
Abolish the Department of Justice
By Bruce Walker

The Obama Justice Department has revealed its final descent into naked politics and totalitarian bullying. Lois Lerner and Hillary Clinton, two transparently guilty criminals whose crimes are compounded by the fact that both are also lawyers, will face no indictments and no prosecution. The corrupt bosses of the Veterans Administration likewise face no sanction at all despite the manifest criminality of their actions.

Lying under oath to Congress, failing to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests, conspiring to obstruct justice, and many other clear wrongdoings permeate almost every single crevice of the Obama administration, and yet no one who matters has faced any trouble from the Department of Justice. …

The hyper-politicization of the Department of Justice by the left has been used unceasingly as a bludgeon against conservatives, Christians, and constitutionalists in America… (and) there is no real cure at the federal level. …The only effective solution is to do what may make many gasp, even many conservatives, and simply abolish the United States Department of Justice

How, then, would federal laws and regulations be enforced?

States have full authority to do just that, and Congress can return to state courts and to state authorities the enforcement of federal laws. This is perfectly proper, as many federal laws are already enforceable by state officers. Congress can confer on states the right to enforce its laws, and, indeed, it can confer upon state courts exclusive jurisdiction over “federal questions,” with the single caveat that the Supreme Court would have appellate jurisdiction. This would solve many problems.

…It would mean folks like Lerner and Clinton, whose violations occurred in several states, would not be able to fix the system so that they are immune to prosecution. The powerful would suddenly find it impossible to game the system with fifty different states able to prosecute offenses.

…Returning the prosecution of federal offenses to state criminal justice agencies would have the practical effect of also devolving power back to the states. …This provides a practical check on the abuse of federal power… The diffusion of power that today is so concentrated in a few hands in Washington would be another vital and happy result of devolving back to states the power to enforce federal laws.

The president, of course, would still have the constitutional duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed, but nothing in the Constitution says that he must be given an army of federal bureaucrats to do that …Abolishing the Department of Justice is a good place to begin the Herculean task of cleaning this horrid mess.

###

Withdraw Your Own Money? 15 Months in Jail.

The government stopped printing bills larger than $100 in 1945 and hasn't issued any since 1969. This one was found in a safe deposit box. It features Lincoln's Treasury Secretary, Salmon P. Chase, and is kept in the New York corporate office of the bank that bears his name.

The government stopped printing bills larger than $100 in 1945 and hasn’t issued any since 1969. This one was found in a safe deposit box. It features Lincoln’s Treasury Secretary, Salmon P. Chase, and is kept in the New York corporate office of the bank that bears his name.

I could not agree more with this article from The American Thinker. It was brave and needed to be said.

Enjoy.


The Troubling Prosecution of Dennis Hastert
April 29, 2016 By Michael Filozof

I don’t like Dennis Hastert. During his tenure as Speaker of the House, my attitude toward him was, more or less, “Meh.” Hastert is undoubtedly the pervert and sexual predator he is accused of being – he admitted so in court. In all probability, he got exactly what he deserved when he was sentenced to prison Wednesday.

That being said, I am troubled by the way Hastert was prosecuted. It seems to me that the government targeted Hastert because he was a prominent politician and, in so doing, threw the constitutional rights of criminal defendants out the window.

Hastert was accused of numerous incidents of homosexual contact with teenage boys over forty years ago, when he was a high school wrestling coach in Illinois. Hastert was never charged with those alleged crimes, because the statute of limitations for prosecuting him expired.

Hastert was instead indicted for violating federal banking law when he tried to pay one individual to keep quiet about the alleged abuse. The crime of “structuring” is utterly bizarre: if you take $10,000 cash out of your own bank account, the bank must report it to the federal government. If, however, you take $9,999 out, you will be accused of “structuring” the transaction to avoid the $10,000 reporting requirement.

In other words, the $10,000 number for reporting to the government that you took your own cash out of your own bank account isn’t really the true number at all; whenever the government thinks you are “structuring” by taking out less, they will nail you for that anyway. It’s like getting a ticket from a cop for driving below the speed limit because you were trying to avoid a speeding ticket. It’s one of the most questionable prosecutions I’ve ever heard of.

But at Hastert’s sentencing, both the federal prosecutor and the judge made clear that the case was really about the sexual allegations, not the banking issue. Hastert was sentenced to fifteen months – more than double the six months recommended by federal sentencing guidelines. U.S. district judge Thomas Durkin called Hastert “a ‘serial child molester,’ and ignor[ed] the defense’s request for no prison time. ‘Some conduct is unforgivable no matter how old it is,’ Durkin told Hastert in a lengthy statement at the sentencing.”

The judge’s statement constitutes a serious problem in my view. Child molestation is not a federal crime; it’s a state-level crime. Judge Durkin had no business sentencing Hastert in federal court for state-level crimes for which the Illinois statute of limitations had expired and for which Hastert never stood trial. But that’s essentially what he did.

The accuser whom Hastert was trying to pay off remained anonymous. Why? In court documents, he is known as “Individual A.” Individual A received over a million dollars from Hastert. Did he pay income taxes on the money? Did he report the cash payments he received in excess of $10,000 to the government? If not, shouldn’t he be charged with tax evasion and failure to report cash transactions? What about blackmail? (In yet another strange twist, the Associated Press reports that “on Monday, Individual A filed a lawsuit saying he’s been paid only about half of the money and is still owed $1.8 million.”)

Other accusers who had not been paid off stepped forward at the sentencing – including the sister of a man who died from AIDS 21 years ago in 1995. “Stephen Reinboldt was named by prosecutors, who cited his sister, Jolene Burdge[.] … She told prosecutors Reinboldt’s first homosexual experience was with Hastert[.]” Is Burdge accusing Hastert of “turning” her brother gay? (I thought the gay lobby tells us we’re “born that way.”)

Even if Burdge’s allegations are true – which cannot be proven – what do they have to do with a sentencing in a federal banking case? Shouldn’t the judge have thrown out such hearsay? And doesn’t the testimony of relatives of long-dead “accusers” violate the Sixth Amendment’s right of a defendant to “be confronted with the witnesses against him”?

This whole matter stinks to high heaven. It’s pretty clear that the prosecution targeted Hastert because of his political status as a high-ranking Republican. Hastert may well have deserved it – and indeed, he cooperated with the prosecution by pleading guilty.

But the fact remains that other politicians – liberals, gays, and Democrats – have avoided criminal prosecution, while the feds threw the book at Hastert for things they didn’t even really have jurisdiction over. Democratic rep. Gerry Studds had a homosexual relationship with a 17-year-old boy in 1983. He was censured by the House but subsequently re-elected and regarded as a gay icon for being the first openly gay congressman. Openly gay Democrat Barney Frank lived with a gay prostitute in the 1980s and was reprimanded by the House. He, too, was re-elected and regarded as a gay pioneer.

Why didn’t federal prosecutors pursue Studds and Frank on flimsy unrelated charges? Why hasn’t Hillary Clinton been charged with mishandling classified information, like Gen. David Petraeus – or sent to prison, like Bradley (ahem – “Chelsea”) Manning? Why did Sen. Ted Kennedy get no jail time for killing Mary Jo Kopechne while driving drunk at Chappaquiddick – while Hastert will do fifteen months for withdrawing his own money from his own bank account? And what about the rape allegations against Bill Clinton?

The answer is clear: the criminal justice system isn’t neutral; it’s politicized. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, when the left was the counterculture, leftists were quite concerned with the criminal defense of Communists, hippies, draft evaders, pornographers, gays, civil rights marchers, and the like. Today, the left is politically ascendant and all too happy to stand idly by or be complicit in the prosecution of its Republican and conservative political opponents – e.g., Scooter Libby, Tom Delay, Rick Perry, and Dinesh D’Souza. Legions of liberal lawyers are willing to defend minority drug dealers and murderers – was none of them willing to question the prosecution of Hastert? Why did the gay lobby not speak out on his behalf?

The Constitution requires that the government must prosecute people fairly and abide by the letter and the intent of the law. That means that sometimes, people who morally deserve punishment will legally get off without it (such as O.J. Simpson).

Hastert is unquestionably a bad guy to defend. But the object here isn’t to defend Hastert; it’s to criticize the government. In the Hastert case, the government seems to have railroaded a guilty man. But if they can railroad Hastert, they can railroad anybody – including you and me.

###

Obama, Explained, in ONE PARAGRAPH

Here it is.  You ready?  Because this is Obama, thus the insidious cancer of Progressivism, explained with the most sparkling clarity & brevity as I have ever seen.  Via Kevin D. Williamson at NRO, from whom I always learn something (the highest praise I can offer any writer) Bold text is my addition:


Barack Obama isn’t a policy guy; he’s a personnel guy. An underappreciated aspect of Barack Obama’s politics is that he has been trying to convert the Democratic party from a party that lives in Congress to a party that lives in the White House. The Democrats owned Congress, and especially the House of Representatives, in the postwar era, with unbroken control of the speakership from 1955 to 1995. Until Newt Gingrich came in with the 1994 tsunami, the last Republican speaker had been a man born in 1884 who rode into office on the coattails of Calvin Coolidge. Except for a few brief interludes (January 3, 1947 to January 3, 1949; January 3, 1953 to January 3, 1955; January 3, 1981 to January 3, 1987), the Democrats ran the Senate, too, from the Great Depression until the Gingrich years. That version of the Democratic party was a lawmaking party. (It made a lot of bad laws.) Barack Obama’s Democratic party, the one he is giving birth to, is a different animal. He didn’t give a hoot what was in his signature health-care law — just so long as it empowered him to start putting his people in positions to make health-care decisions. His patron saint is Roy Cohn, who proclaimed the gospel ‘Don’t tell me what the law is. Tell me who the judge is.’ Barack Obama doesn’t want to write laws — he wants to appoint judges. He doesn’t want finely crafted legislation — he wants ‘The secretary shall issue.'”


Parenthetically, Mr. Williamson also illuminates why we are $18 trillion in debt. Democrats had the purse at the dawn of the Great Society and did not let go until 1996. That’s not to say Republicans don’t own some of this disaster; they most certainly do. But it wasn’t conservatives who ushered in the welfare state and support it to this day. That’s on progressives. And that’s why we’re $18 trillion in the hole. Every social welfare program they have supported from the New Deal through the Great Society to Obamacare is not just broke, it’s breaking the back of the Republic.  Everything they touch turns to sh*t.

Everything.

I heartily recommend your read the entire thing, here.

“The” Chickens Roosted!

Politico opined:

“President Barack Obama made a big gamble last January when he issued four recess appointments during a three-day break between meetings of the Senate — and with the court ruling Friday broadly undercutting his ability to make such appointments, he may have lost even bigger.”

That’s an understatement!

This ruling was the bitch-slap of all bitch-slaps. Not only did the court rule that Obama’s unprecedented pro-forma recess-not-recess appointments violate the Constitution, they went back and *gasp* read not only *gasp* the Constitution, but *double-gasp* The Federalist Papers! They ruled that not only were the intrasession pro-forma appointments unconstitutional, they ruled that all intrasession appointments are unconstitutional!  Intersession won the day and all because of one little word: “the”. (You can read more about “the” here.)

The White House, The New York Times, and all the usual suspects are in spasms, naturally.  The N.L.R.B., amazingly, and with the White House’s blessing, is blowing it off and continuing their work. And once again, the left is dusting off “Bush did it first!” like that matters. They hate the guy except when his bad behavior justifies theirs. Kindergarten!  Bush, and, in fact, a dozen Presidents have made intrasession appointments. For decades. But no President had ever made a pro-forma appointment. That was uniquely brazen (In addition to the brazen pro-forma part, these appointments hadn’t even been submitted for Senate review. They’d been sitting there. Obama didn’t even go through the motions of starting the Senate review process. Didn’t lift a finger. Didn’t even give the Senate a chance to say no: just blew right past ’em. It’s breath-taking.) But that’s not even the point. The point is, through a dozen Presidents, nobody ever called them on it.

Until yesterday.

Lefties (bless their hearts 🙂 ) will never  learn that just because it’s been done before and gotten away with doesn’t make it right!  Especially when the Constitution is the rule!

Of course, the bonus is, it was Harry Reid who birthed the pro-forma strategy to stop Bush from making “recess” appointments.  Harry & his evil minions got their chickens plucked but good with this one.

The ruling is a work of art, truly, for lovers of originalist interpretation.  You can read it below or here.

Noel Canning v. NLRB by