Monday, March 6, 2017

Trump Triumphs - Observations and Information Gathered that are Interesting on March 6, 2017

Gather ye data, those who will...sit by the fire and learn from the sages of the age...

Why do we even have to be bothered with this garbage of wiretapping? Because flaccid Democrats started the meme in summer 2016 as cover to wiretap Trump because their candidate was a drunk, a pathological liar, criminal, child molester, child trafficker, daughter of a mafia member, and was simply ready because it was "her turn."  No amount of conditioning could've prepared me for the smug evil of that fat fucking face Cankles.

So...child molesters such as Chucky Schumer and Lindsay Graham run around giving orders to the minion attorneys on staff to file baseless charges against our newly-elected president, while the Soros-funded and taxpayer-funded anarchists beat on conservatives.

Cold anger is the word used on many conservative blogs, but I'd take it a step further and call it murderous rage.

Watch it, libtard faggots.

Today's circumspections include wading through the completely corrupt and propagandist mainstream media about whether Barry, the wimpy gay usurper, had permission to spy OR whether the media has been lying their asses off all along.  Illegal either way.

And we're tired to being flogged, beaten, and bloodied by paid Marxist thugs of George Soros.  We will find this wormy, beastly flaccid globalist and put his head on a pike, if he hasn't already died and his body has been long-ago frozen for his hoped-for trek through forever.  Sorry, Dickwad, even you won't escape.  But we will look for you just the same.

Appears that Bannon knows.  He's telling us to chill...that they're on this.  We know that they know.  The Deep State is holding the entire country in a vise right now and our democratically-elected leader has been unable to fill his role with gusto because of a bunch of bureaucrats and handlers.

All we need is names, really, and we will go after them.  Anyone with names?  Feed them to the comment section and we will be about the work of the people.  Trump can't do this alone.

One of the better articles from today's readings:

Obama Administration Looks To Be In Very Serious Legal Trouble

There is no reblog feature, but full credit to the author, A J Strata

There is a lot of breaking news this weekend as the nation learns that a sitting President (Obama) looks to have used the nation’s national security apparatus – which is empowered to protect this nation from foreign enemies and threats – for crass political gain (read “personal gain”).  If this is even partially true, this would be Watergate on steroids and irreparably tarnish the Obama administration for all history.
These high stakes may also explain the irrational fear and hate by the democrat leadership we have seen in their scorched-Earth actions since the election.  Events may be unraveling on them big time, events that started last summer in a very different world.
Let’s begin by setting down a hard and fast rule to blunt the coming weasel words from team Obama. The President runs his administration. The President’s cabinet has some individual authority, but they confirm with the Commander-in-Chief anything that could erupt back on them either legally or politically. No cabinet member – especially the Attorney General – would run near or across legal or ethical lines without concurrence (i.e., cover from) the top person.
To say Obama did not “order” the “wire tap” against the Trump campaign is as ridiculous as it sounds. Note: Trump used figurative parentheses when he tweeted “wire tap”, so read that as meaning “surveillance” legally.
It is not like the Captain of a ship actually “weigh’s the anchor” themselves! Captains order it be done. Or more accurately, it is one step of a process that has been established by the command chain so that when the Captain orders the ship to prepare to “get under way” this action is taken. However executed, the Captain is legally responsible for the people under him, and any mistakes they make. This would include any issues or damage done “weighing” the anchors.
So when someone tries to split hairs about who ordered the surveillance on Team Trump, remember this:
First, as Obama officials well know, under the FISA process, it is technically the FISA court that “orders” surveillance. And by statute, it is the Justice Department, not the White House, that represents the government in proceedings before the FISA court.
The fact is no one would be dumb enough to run afoul of the laws protecting the American People from our intelligence apparatus without top cover – because these represent very, very serious crimes. So let’s stop pretending AG Lynch did this on her own. If this happened, it was all coordinated.
We also need to start with specifying which laws were broken, and then get to the all critical timeline – because that is where we will discover how thin the ice is under Team Obama.
The best overview of the laws broken is here, and the following excerpts summarize the issues our nation faces. To understand the issues one must understand the very narrow and special role the FISA Court and our Intelligence Apparatus plays in our nation. Because of its special powers, it is very restricted on what it can do.
Rather shockingly, no law currently forbids misusing the power of the presidency to spy on one’s adversaries. What the law does forbid is lying to any judicial officer to obtain any means of surveillance. What the law does forbid, under criminal penalty, is the misuse of FISA. Both derive from the protections of the Fourth Amendment itself. Under section 1809, FISA makes it a crime for anyone to either “engage in” electronic surveillance under “color of law” under FISA without following the law’s restrictions, or “disclose” or “use” information gathered from it in contravention of the statute’s sharp constrictions.
Emphasis mine. As we deal with this explosive situation, remember the core issue. It is not run-of-the-mill political skulduggery (is there any other kind?). It is the criminal misuse of a critical national defensive capability. Liken it to using a military weapon against your political opponent, because that is the nearest and best analogy. If Obama ordered the military to intervene with Team Trump during the election, that would not be much different from using the intelligence powers to intervene. This is not on the same level as using the IRS to target political opponents – not by a long shot.
Why is this the case? Because the FISA court operates outside the US Constitution, and therefore any misuse is much more serious:
FISA, 50 USC 1801, et seq., is a very limited method of obtaining surveillance authority. The reason for its strict limits is that FISA evades the regular federal court process, by not allowing regularly, Constitutionally appointed federal judges and their magistrates to authorize surveillance the Fourth Amendment would otherwise forbid. Instead, the Chief Justice handpicks the FISA court members, who have shown an exceptional deference to the executive branch. This is because FISA court members trust the government is only bringing them surveillance about pending terror attacks or “grave hostile” war-like attacks, as the FISA statute limits itself to. Thus, a FISA application can only be used in very limited circumstances.
Again, emphasis mine.  The capability to use our intelligence resources against any entity is restricted to critical national security. These resources are NOT to be applied for other legal matters, such as questionable business interests, hacking computers, etc. This is important because the evidence seems to show Team Obama tried to abuse these resources – and were rebuffed!
FISA can only be used for “foreign intelligence information.” … The only “foreign intelligence information” allowed as a basis for surveillance is information necessary to protect the United States against actual or potential “grave” “hostile” attack, war-like sabotage or international terror. Second, it can only be used to eavesdrop on conversations where the parties to the conversation are a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. An agent of a foreign power cannot be a United States person unless they are knowingly involved in criminal espionage. No warrant is allowed on that person unless a FISA court finds probable cause the United States person is knowingly engaged in criminal espionage. Even then, if it involves a United States person, special steps must be taken to “minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of non publicly available information concerning un-consenting United States persons.”
This is the crux of Obama’s legal trouble. In order to legally capture information about members of the Trump Campaign (one of which was a sitting Senator), then retain it and distribute it, the reason would have to border on high crimes and treason – not “discussions” or “hacking” or “business transactions”. Even coordinating national policies and treaties with foreign leaders would not rise to the level of urgency required to invoke these intelligence resources.
To summarize, it is Team Obama’s collection, retention and distribution of  information protected by the US Constitution that constitute the high crimes here, specifically when it pertains to members of Trump’s campaign, emphasized here:
This includes procedures that require they never identify the person, or the conversation, being surveilled, to the public where that information is not evidence of a particular crime.
Since the Fake News media has been reporting these very same details to the public, and citing current and former Obama administration sources, it is not debatable on whether laws were broken. They were.
Bottom line: this should never have happened:
At the outset, the NSA should have never been involved in a domestic US election. Investigating the election, or any hacking of the DNC or the phishing of Podesta’s emails, would not be a FISA matter. It does not fit the definition of war sabotage or a “grave” “hostile” war-like attack on the United States, as constrictively covered by FISA. It is your run-of-the-mill hacking case covered by existing United States laws that require use of the regular departments of the FBI, Department of Justice, and Constitutionally Senate-appointed federal district court judges, and their appointed magistrates, not secretive, deferential FISA courts.
So how did this happen? How did our extensive intelligence apparatus come to be misused against members of the Trump campaign?
Well, the simplest answer seems to be Team Obama misled the courts:
This raises the second problem: Obama’s team submission of an affidavit to to the FISA court. An application for a warrant of any kind requires an affidavit, and that affidavit may not omit material factors. A fact is “material” if it could have the possible impact of impacting the judicial officer deciding whether to authorize the warrant. Such affidavits are the most carefully drawn up, reviewed, and approved affidavits of law enforcement in our system precisely because they must be fully-disclosing, forthcoming, and include any information a judge must know to decide whether to allow our government to spy on its own. My assumption would be that intelligence officials were trying to investigate hacking of DNC which is not even a FISA covered crime, so therefore serious questions arise about what Obama administration attorneys said to the FISA court to even consider the application. If the claim was “financial ties” to Russia, then Obama knew he had no basis to use FISA at all.
Since Trump was the obvious target, the alleged failure to disclose his name in the second application could be a serious and severe violation of the obligation to disclose all material facts.
President Trump now owns the records of the United States of America. One thing he and his Attorney General (former Senator Sessions) can get their hands on are these affidavits to the FISA Court. If they are as damning as some believe they must be, then Team Obama is going to be in serious trouble.
Remember, back when this all started no one believed Trump would win and be given the keys to all the evidence lockers. Which is why one has to ask why did Team Obama double down in January and push the laws even further?
Team Obama has a responsibility to the FISA Court to not disclose any information on US Citizens accidentally caught up in a surveillance activity, but this is what they began doing in January 2017.  This may be the second smoking gun – diligently reported by the Fake News media.
That raises the third problem: it seems the FISA-compelled protocols for precluding the dissemination of the information were violated, and that Obama’s team issued orders to achieve precisely what the law forbids, if published reports are true about the administration sharing the surveilled information far-and-wide to promote unlawful leaks to the press.This, too, would be its own crime, as it brings back the ghost of Hillary’s emails — by definition, FISA information is strictly confidential or it’s information that never should have been gathered. FISA strictly segregates its surveilled information into two categories: highly confidential information of the most serious of crimes involving foreign acts of war; or, if not that, then information that should never have been gathered, should be immediately deleted, and never sourced nor disseminated. It cannot be both.
Recognizing this information did not fit FISA meant having to delete it and destroy it. According to published reports, Obama’s team did the opposite: order it preserved, ordered the NSA to search it, keep it, and share it; and then Obama’s Attorney General issued an order to allow broader sharing of information and, according to the New York Times, Obama aides acted to label the Trump information at a lower level of classification for massive-level sharing of the information. The problem for Obama is simple — if it could fit a lower level of classification, then it had to be deleted and destroyed, not disseminated and distributed, under crystal clear FISA law.
There is much more in the article, so please take the time to read the whole thing.
This is about as open-and-shut as you can get in my humble opinion. All this has been faithfully reported (i.e., corroborated) by the Fake News media – citing sources. Along with the internal trail of documents the government is required to keep, it would seem Team Obama has a real problem on their hands.
So let’s visit the timeline of events (best one can be found here), and recall that when all this started Hillary was a shoe-in as the next POTUS. Therefore she would be able to keep a lid on all the critical internal government documents Team Trump now has unfettered access to.
  1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.
Note that the article above identifies a prior attempt to gain surveillance through the normal criminal courts process, before this event. This is one month prior to the RNC and DNC conventions. At this time Trump as POTUS seems to be pure fantasy.
This prior attempt is confirmed (supposedly independently) by Andrew McCarthy:
To summarize, reporting indicates that, prior to June 2016, the Obama Justice Department and FBI considered a criminal investigation of Trump associates, and perhaps Trump himself, based on concerns about connections to Russian financial institutions. Preliminary poking around indicated that there was nothing criminal involved. Rather than shut the case down, though, the Obama Justice Department converted it into a national-security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
In June, the Obama Justice Department submitted an application that apparently “named” Trump in addition to some of his associates.  …  In any event, the FISA court reportedly turned down the Obama Justice Department’s request.
Both the normal courts and the FISA court reject the administrations requests. These requests should be made public ASAP.
Very few people expected Hillary to lose the election at this stage. Bernie was clearly on his way to being vanquished from the Democrat ticket. The effort in June 2016 is clumsy and quickly abandoned. Hillary has her email problems, but she also looks invincible.
I would note one other event on this timeline, when former President Bill Clinton tried to secretly meet with Obama’s AG, Loretta Lynch:
Attorney General Loretta Lynch said she regrets her controversial meeting over the summer with former President Bill Clinton, saying she should have recognized ahead of time how it would be perceived by the public.
Mrs. Lynch had met with Mr. Clinton privately after the two wound up on the same airport tarmac in Phoenix on June 27, just days before FBI Director James Comey would announce that he would not press charges against Hillary Clinton over her private email server.
AG Lynch is the only person authorized to make FISA court requests. Coincidence?
Anyway, nothing happens for months, until …
3. October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.
4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.
By October 2016 things are looking really serious for Hillary, but not desperate yet. The Democrats are trying to find a way to neutralize the Podesta emails, which expose serious collusion with the Fake New media. They also remind everyone of Hillary’s own email issues.
But more importantly, the Clinton Foundation was being exposed as a pay-for-power enrichment scheme (rivaling anything thrown at Team Trump in the last few weeks). Did all these events panic the White House and the Democrat power structure? Did they attempt a Hail Mary and try and resurrect their plan to use our nation’s Intelligence Apparatus against Trump?
Not an unreasonable assumption to be honest. And somehow Team Obama actually get the authority for surveillance (maybe by withholding key information about Trump?). Anyway, no one is challenging the fact surveillance began.
But after losing the election to the GOP, team Obama does something stupendously stupid: they issue a memo that attempts to overturn very clear laws about dissemination so they can try and “leak” damning innuendo about Trump through their surrogates in the Fake New media:
6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.
The new rules, which were issued in an unclassified document, entitled Procedures for the Availability or Dissemination of Raw Signals Intelligence Information by the National Security Agency (NSA), significantly relaxed longstanding limits on what the NSA may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations.
  • Jan 3rd 2017 – Loretta Lynch signs off on rule changes for phone taps.
  • Jan 12th 2017 –  WaPo reports On Phone Calls Anonymous Intel Sources
Obama’s administration had become so addicted to circumventing laws by executive orders, procedures, rules, etc they apparently went to that well one time too many.
There is no legal cover behind an illegal rule. This is not going to protect these people from legal jeopardy (may reduce their sentences somewhat). And the more players involved (Lynch, her successor Yates, etc) the more this runs into the RICO statutes.
Team Trump looks to have a great case here. Plus they have access to the government “smoking gun” documents spread throughout. I do not understand why Obama’s administration would dig their legal hole deeper in disseminating the classified information the law required them to delete and not leak. But they did.
So what does that indicate about team Obama? Either colossal stupidity, uncontrolled panic, or a combination of both. Maybe by they time they realized Trump would find the FISA court records their only avenues was to try and turn public opinion using their robots in the Fake News media.
All Trump has to do is let out the smoking gun documents one at a time. Let the left deny and parse words, then drop his counterveiling bombshells.
Rinse and repeat.
If this is as bad as some say, Trump will milk this all the way – as he should.

Thoughts:  Americans have wanted justice for the usurper for over eight years regarding the usurper Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama and we will have it.

He believes that he will slide and walk away as he has during his tenure, but his fantasy world of drugs, children sex slaves, and Muslim cohorting days are over and he will now account for his theft of years and wealth from Americans.

There is a reckoning.  And it is now.

On February 28, Barry's Attorney General, the affirmative action hire and liberal "progressive" extraordinaire, Loretta Lynch Hargrove, made a tape that effectively calls Black Lives Matter and Muslims to jihad.  She, too, will face her reckoning:

A dog-whistle for unpaid anarchists to take to the streets, and as Democrats have admitted to, encouraging those unhinged individuals to commit violent crimes in the "name" of their current movement...which even they can't seem to articulate.


James Comey's resignation - or the NYPD will reveal the contents of Anthony Weiner's laptop, which will corner 1/3 of elected Republicans and Democrats and news folks in the pedophilia/human trafficking investigation.

And why not come out with it NOW, NYPD?

Don't Americans have the right to know where the children of our country go when they go missing?


Saturday, February 25, 2017

Tom Perez, Racist Extraordinaire

Name the inequity that you've seen in the past eight years of the Obama terror and you'll find this racist demagogue:  Tom Perez.  Recently named the Head of the RNC, this nation-destroying, insane, police-hating racist deserves nothing but the greatest disrespect, having earned the honor from his scorn for our Constitution and rule of law.

Perez is the son of immigrants...imagine that, a man with divided loyalties and with Communistic/Nazi tendencies to destroy every facet of American culture...seeking to destroy America's pride and ability to function as a nation state.

Fuck Tom Perez and every liberal Communist weakling that ever breathed.

Reblogged from:

by Dr. Steven J. Allen
July 18, 2016

The Racist: Labor Secretary Tom Perez is said to be near the top of Hillary Clinton’s VP list

Few Americans have heard of Tom Perez, but the current Secretary of Labor is one of the front-runners for the Democratic nomination for Vice President.
If he’s not Hillary Clinton’s running mate, he’ll likely play a big role in her administration (Attorney General?) if she wins, or in the next Democratic administration, whenever that occurs.
He is, by all accounts, a rising star on the Left and in the Democratic Party—one who just might soon be Vice President of the United States.
And he is a racist. If you’re in the political mainstream, and the prospect of Perez as VP doesn’t give you a chill down your spine, you don’t know Tom Perez.

Running mate
Edward-Isaac Dovere, writing in Politico:
Aside from the wonkiest of Washington circles and the most progressive corners of the left, no one’s heard of Tom Perez. He isn’t young or handsome. He has zero foreign policy experience. The highest office he’s been elected to is a suburban county council.
Yet the labor secretary has emerged as a sleeper pick for vice president, with chatter building among top Democrats—including Elizabeth Warren.
Warren is a radical firebrand, now a U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, who became rich and famous by exploiting “affirmative action” with the pretense that she is an American Indian. Politico quoted Warren during a discussion of possible running mates for Hillary Clinton, “Oh, you’d be great, Tom.” Politico added that the “other senators quickly started agreeing [that] maybe Perez was the one who could make Clinton stick to the progressive politics people in that group wanted.”
According to Politico, many top aides in the White House favor the selection of Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who’s close to the President.
But over beers, some of the rank-and-file White House staffers who are part of what’s been referred to as the “cult of Perez” see things differently.
“My strong guess,” one White House aide said, “is that if you took a straw poll of staffers here about who they’d pick for the ticket, Tom would do very well.” . . .
Perez has more credibility with committed progressives—who measure politicians by their battle scars—than almost anyone else around. The unions love him so much that they campaigned against his nomination to replace Eric Holder as attorney general in late 2014 because they didn’t want to lose him at the Labor Department.
Per Politico, Perez is adored in the White House, a key player in setting President Obama’s second-term agenda. He checks the boxes that, in the view of many Hillary Clinton supporters, would make for a good VP pick: He’s the son of immigrants (Dominican). He’s wildly popular among “Progressives” (the Far Left), yet he endorsed Hillary Clinton early in the 2016 contest, only the third current Cabinet member to do so. And, unlike his fellow-Latino rival for VP, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro, Perez speaks fluent Spanish.
Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, called him “one of the finest labor secretaries since Frances Perkins,” FDR’s labor secretary.
Perez appeared on USA Today’s “power ranking” of potential Democratic VP candidates, ranked as the third most likely pick for Clinton’s running mate.
Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post ranked Perez as fourth most likely, on the ground that “The Labor secretary checks two boxes for Clinton (and, yes, some of vice presidential picking is box-checking): He’s well regarded in liberal circles, and he’s Hispanic. Also, he’s not named ‘Elizabeth Warren’ or ‘Bernie Sanders’—neither of whom Clinton wants to pick.”
Amie Parnes of The Hill, who put Perez on her “top five” list, made essentially the same argument: “Perez is very well-liked in the White House and maintains a close relationship with Obama chief of staff Denis McDonough. Many see him as having all the right attributes to fill the ticket and win over progressives. Unions love him, plus he speaks fluent Spanish, which could help further drive Latinos to Clinton’s column.”
Alex Pfeiffer wrote in the Daily Caller: “There has been much worry recently on the Left that Trump could get union support not typical for a GOP candidate, and Perez could quell those fears.” (See our report on Trump’s appeal to union members in the April and May issues of Labor Watch.)
In National Review Online, Jim Geraghty noted Perez’s relative obscurity outside the world of unions and leftists.
On the shortlist of potential Democratic running mates filled with senators and governors, one name stands out for its obscurity. Tom Perez? Who? . . .
Perez’s liberal credentials are as impeccable as they come. [The leftist magazine] Mother Jones called him “one of the administration’s most stalwart progressives.” Conservative policy experts who have followed his work in the Justice and Labor Departments consider him perhaps the Obama administration’s most radical and relentless ideologue.
Iain Murray, the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s vice president of strategy, calls Perez “possibly the most dangerous person in the administration right now.”
“His rewriting of U.S. labor law is probably the most fundamental attack on the free-enterprise system going on at present,” Murray says. “If he has his way, we won’t just revert to the 1930s. We’ll do things that even Franklin Roosevelt couldn’t do, like eliminate vast numbers of independent-contractor jobs and unionize those that remain.”
Murray sees Perez’s ideological vision as driven by an arrogant insistence that most workers are oblivious to their own exploitation by employers, and need the state to intervene to help them understand proper “work-life balance” or to make basic choices about work.
His work in the Justice Department was just as extreme. “He essentially operationalized Eric Holder’s radicalization of the Department of Justice,” says Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute. “No civil-rights theory too crazy to pursue, no litigants too awkward to pay off.”
“Perez has shown a glaring inability to tell the truth and dispassionately apply the basic constitutional tenet of ‘equal justice under law,’” declared Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Origin story
A 2005 profile in the Washington Post described Perez’s background:
Perez, 43, grew up in Buffalo in the 1960s and ’70s, the youngest of five brothers and sisters. His maternal grandfather, Rafael Brache, was the Dominican Republic’s ambassador to the United States in the early years of Rafael Trujillo’s dictatorship. After Brache spoke out against the regime in 1935, the ambassador was declared persona non grata by his own government. He chose to stay in the United States.
Brache’s daughter Grace, Perez’s mother, married Rafael Perez, a Dominican who received U.S. citizenship after serving in the Army following World War II. “Politics,” Perez says, “was my dad’s passion,” in part because it had cost his father-in-law his country. Both men risked their lives by defying Trujillo.
Perez’s father, Rafael, was a physician in Atlanta, then moved to Buffalo, New York, to work at a veterans’ hospital. The Post:
Perez’s father was a Democrat unimpressed by centrists: “A Rockefeller Republican is still a Republican,” he used to say. Rafael Perez died when Tom was 12; he found a surrogate in a friend’s father, a Teamster who had lost his job. The union helped keep his friend’s family afloat in hard times, and their experience made Perez a labor supporter
Perez was born in Buffalo in 1961. He graduated from Canisius High School, an all-male Roman Catholic Jesuit private school in Buffalo, in 1979. To supplement grant and scholarship money for college, Perez worked his way through school, as a trash collector, in a warehouse, in Brown University’s dining hall, and for the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights.
In 1981, he received an A.B. in international relations and political science from Brown University. In 1986, as a Harvard law student, he worked as a law clerk for U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese (who today is a member of the board of the Capital Research Center). In 1987, he received a J.D. from Harvard Law and a Master of Public Policy from Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.
From 1987-89 Perez was a law clerk for a federal judge, Zita Weinshienk of the U.S. District Court in Colorado, who had been appointed by President Jimmy Carter. In 1989-95, he was a federal prosecutor, then as deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights under President Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno. From 1995-98, Perez worked as special counsel to Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.).
In 1996, Perez was instrumental in the passage of the Church Arson Prevention Act, a bill founded on the false premise that African-American churches were being targeted at a disproportionately high rate by arsonists. (For information on the church arson hoax, see “A Church Arson Epidemic? It’s Smoke and Mirrors” by Michael Fumento, Wall Street Journal, July 8, 1996, and “Fanning Imaginary Flames: A Look Back At The Great Church Fire Propaganda Campaign” by Scott Swett, American Thinker, June 11, 2011.)
In the last part of the Clinton administration, Perez served as deputy assistant attorney general and in the Department of Health and Human Services as director of the Office of Civil Rights. He chaired the inter-agency Worker Exploitation Task Force, which focused on the working conditions of illegal aliens.
An advocate of “disparate impact” theory, which sees racism as a driving force in human affairs, he worked to eliminate the supposedly disproportionate assignment of black and Hispanic students to special-education programs and Asian and “white” students to gifted-and-talented programs. Perez and others of his mindset, in the name of fighting racism, have effectively denied many students the sort of education that was appropriate to their academic ability.
Perez was a volunteer for CASA de Maryland, a George Soros-funded advocacy group representing the interests of illegal aliens. He served on the organization’s board in 1995-2002, rising to president. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) has called CASA de Maryland “a fringe advocacy group that has instructed illegal immigrants on how to escape detection and also promoted illegal labor sites and driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.” Big donors to CASA de Maryland include Soros’s Foundation to Promote Open Society (at least $270,000 in 2010-2013), the National Council of La Raza ($70,000 in 2004-2013), and two government-supported entities, the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corp. (at least $40,000 in 2011-2013) and the Maryland Legal Services Corporation, which is supposed to provide legal services to the poor (at least $630,203 in 2005-2013). For more on CASA de Maryland, see our sister publication Organization Trends, September 2012.
Perez was elected in 2002 to the county council of Montgomery County, Maryland, outside Washington, D.C. In that race, with the help of unions, he defeated the local head of the Chamber of Commerce. As a council member (and, in 2004-2005, council president), he continued his advocacy for illegal aliens, calling for the state to recognize matricula consular cards, issued by Mexican and Guatemalan consular offices, as a valid form of ID. Such cards, notoriously prone to being issued and used fraudulently, help illegals get easier access to taxpayer-funded social services.
He sponsored a bill aimed at giving illegals better access to banks and backed a policy to permit illegal immigrants who attend college in their state of residence to qualify for the same discounted, in-state tuition rates that are available to legal residents. In 2004, he went before the Maryland state legislature to testify against a number of immigration-enforcement bills, including one that sought to prevent illegals from acquiring driver’s licenses and another proposing that people be required to prove their citizenship before registering to vote. He opposed efforts to study and document the financial burdens that illegal aliens placed on the Maryland state budget.
From 2001 to 2007, Perez taught at the University of Maryland School of Law and, part-time, at the George Washington University School of Public Health. Former Justice Department official J. Christian Adams (about whom, more below) wrote that Perez, during his time working on healthcare policy, he focused on matters of race. “While at George Washington University’s School of Public Health in Washington, D.C., his teaching and research centered on ‘health care workforce diversity” and “racial and ethnic disparities in health status.’ At the University of Maryland’s School of Law in downtown Baltimore, he taught courses and law clinics which ‘explored the intersection between health care and civil rights issues.’”
In 2005, Perez served as a trustee and an action-fund board member of the Center for American Progress, a left-wing group closely associated with the Clintons. Its founder, John Podesta, served as President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff and currently chairs the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.
In 2007, he ran for attorney general in Maryland, backed by the teachers’ union and the Service Employees International Union, but was disqualified by the Maryland Court of Appeals (the state’s supreme court) for failure to meet the requirement that the state AG have 10 years’ experience as a lawyer in Maryland. (He had joined the state Bar in 2001.) After the disqualification, he focused on supporting Martin O’Malley in the governor’s race and was rewarded by Gov. O’Malley with the appointment to run the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation.
In 2008, Perez backed Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and served on the presidential transition team. President Obama nominated Perez to be assistant attorney general in charge of the Civil Rights Division. His controversial background brought the opposition of Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and David Vitter (R-La.), and the confirmation process was further slowed when it was revealed that the Civil Rights Division had dismissed an open-and-shut, caught-on-video case of election-day voter intimidation by a gun-toting member of the racist New Black Panther Party. (Perez, it would be revealed, was a key player in the decision to dismiss.) Nominated in March 2009, Perez was not confirmed until October. The vote was 72-22, with only Coburn and Vitter speaking against confirmation.
Race obsession
Upon taking office, Perez declared that part of the mission of the Civil Rights Division was to help those Americans who were “living in the shadows”—illegal aliens as well as “our Muslim-American brothers and sisters subject to post-9/11 backlash,” “communities of color disproportionately affected by the subprime meltdown,” and “all too many children lacking quality education.”
Perez pledged to greatly expand DOJ’s prosecution of alleged hate crimes, depicting such crimes as predominantly cases in which a “white” person targets an African-American. (Actually, according to statistics gathered by the Obama administration, an African-American is 12 times as likely to murder a “white” person as vice versa.)
In his new job, Perez focused on cases of “disparate impact.” Under that concept, any mathematical difference among groups serves as prima facie evidence—proof, unless rebutted—that illegal discrimination has occurred.
An example: American Samoans are 57 times as likely as other Americans to play in the NFL. Under “disparate impact” theory, that fact would be prima facie evidence that the NFL discriminates against non-Samoans.
Under this concept, it would be unlawful for an employer to, say, use test scores as a basis for hiring or promotion, unless different groups all did equally well on the tests.
In 2009, Perez and the Civil Rights Division pressured several universities to discontinue an experimental program whereby students could purchase their textbooks in digital formats which they could read via the Amazon Kindle, because the Kindle—notwithstanding its text-to-voice feature for the narration of books—was not fully accessible (in its menu options) to blind students. Until the Kindle rectified this injustice, said Perez, universities that made their textbooks available on the e-reader would be investigated for possible violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
That year, Perez and the CRD launched an investigation of Maricopa County, Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, known for his strict enforcement of immigration laws. This investigation, which led to a federal lawsuit, grew out of a February 2009 demand by some Democrats in Congress that the Justice Department examine Arpaio’s “discriminatory” practices toward illegal aliens. Perez and his associates also sued to block an Arizona law deputizing state police to check the immigration status of criminal suspects whom they believed might be in the U.S. illegally.
On April 23, 2012, Perez’s Justice Department sued the city of Jacksonville, Florida, claiming that its use of written tests to determine promotions in its fire department had “resulted in a disparate impact upon black candidates,” who registered passing grades at significantly lower rates than others. “This complaint should send a clear message to all public employers that employment practices that have the effect of excluding qualified candidates on account of race will not be tolerated,” said Perez.
This was just one of numerous Perez/DOJ lawsuits designed to force various municipal fire (and police) departments to do away with written tests. In a case against the New York Fire Department, Perez and DOJ argued in favor of what amounted to strict racial quotas, even if the candidates scored as low as 30 percent on their qualifying exams.
Likewise, bankers and mortgage lenders are committing discrimination if they reject loan applications for different groups at different rates, even if that’s because some people are rated, based on objective criteria, as less likely to pay back their loans. Such lenders, says Perez, discriminate “with a smile” and “fine print,” but their subtle brand of racism is “every bit as destructive as the cross burned in a neighborhood.” In other words, they’re Klansmen!
Remember: Forcing lenders to give loans to unqualified borrowers, in order to avoid accusations of discrimination, was the spark that led to the financial crisis of 2008. Perez would continue to support the idea of government intimidation of lenders, based on their “disparate” lending, long after the American people and the world saw the disastrous consequences of a race-based lending policy.
Perez’s desire to protect the preposterous basis for his policies—the idea that “disparate impact” is prima facie evidence of discrimination–led to a scandal known as “Perez’s quid pro quo.”
According to Perez in testimony before Congress, the Civil Right Division filed “a record eight lending-related federal lawsuits” in 2011, resulting in eight settlements that netted “more than $350 million in relief to the victims of illegal lending practices.” In many of those cases, Perez used “disparate impact” analysis to advance the notion that if banks were rejecting “white” and “nonwhite” loan applicants at different rates, they were, by definition (and regardless of intent), engaging in discrimination that violated the Fair Housing Act.
In February 2012, Perez had used his influence to prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from hearing Magner v. Gallagher, a case where local slumlords from St. Paul, Minnesota, were accusing that city of racism for enforcing its housing code. St. Paul, in turn, challenged the notion (embraced by Perez) that racial discrimination can be proven simply by presenting disparate-impact statistics, rather than actually ascertaining intent or examining the specifics of each case.
Here’s how it all went down, according to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal:
Soon after Mr. Perez assumed his job [at the Civil Rights Division] in October 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder established a unit under Mr. Perez to examine loans to minorities. The unit proceeded to threaten a series of lawsuits against banks under the 1968 Fair Housing Act.
The lenders quickly settled these cases rather than run the reputational risk of being called racist in court. But on November 7, 2011 the Supreme Court agreed to hear the City of St. Paul’s appeal in Magner v. Gallagher, which concerned the legality of disparate-impact theory in housing. St. Paul believed it had an excellent chance to prevail because the text of the Fair Housing Act doesn’t explicitly allow for disparate impact.
That’s when the Obama Administration kicked into gear. On November 17, Mr. Perez emailed a former colleague . . . to probe if city officials might be convinced to withdraw Magner . . .  according to documents that the Justice Department sent to Congressional investigators. . . . [Perez was referred to another lawyer] who was advising St. Paul on a pending False Claims Act case against the city filed by a private citizen.
Mr. Perez had stumbled onto a potential quid pro quo: The feds could decline to intervene in the false claims case (known as Newell) in exchange for the city withdrawing Magner from the Supreme Court. . . . [A series of contacts and negotiations followed.] In early January, Justice made a proposal to St. Paul: The feds would decline to intervene in another private False Claims Act case against St. Paul (known as Ellis) if the city would withdraw Magner from the Supreme Court. Then Justice would also decline to intervene in Newell.
In other words, Perez and the DOJ agreed to give up a case that could have recovered $200 million for taxpayers, in exchange for the City of St. Paul dropping its legal challenge to Perez’s theory of “disparate impact.” Why? Because at that point, prior to the death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, it appeared that the Court would throw out the concept, which is critical to the success of Perez and other race-baiting politicians. The Journal summed it up: “A senior Justice Department official, Mr. Perez, intervened to undermine two civil complaints against the City of St. Paul in order to get St. Paul to drop a Supreme Court case that might have blown apart the legal rationale for his dubious discrimination crusade against law-abiding businesses.”

Vote fraud
Perez and his associates assert that voter ID laws—the same kind of laws used in Mexico, in Canada, and in South Africa under Nelson Mandela—are a racist effort to deprive “people of color” of their voting rights. Consistent with that claim, Perez led the Obama administration’s assault on voter ID laws during the run-up to the 2012 elections.
In December 2011, for instance, the Justice Department blocked a new South Carolina law requiring voters to present valid identification at their polling places on Election Day. Perez contended that the law violated Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, because of a supposed racial disparity: that 8.4 percent of the state’s registered “white” voters lacked photo ID, compared to 10 percent of “nonwhite” voters.
Perez also led a 2012 Civil Rights Division lawsuit that succeeded in overturning Texas’s voter ID law.
In 2012, Florida election officials had identified some 53,000 still-registered voters who were deceased, and another 2,600 who were non-citizens. State officials began an effort to verify the identity and eligibility of the people listed on its voter rolls—and Perez and DOJ ordered the state of Florida to halt its efforts.
DOJ explained its actions by saying that it had not yet been able to verify that Florida’s efforts “neither have the purpose nor will have the effect of discriminating on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.” In a letter to the Florida Secretary of State, Perez charged that Florida was violating the National Voter Registration Act and the Voting Rights Act. “Please immediately cease this unlawful conduct,” he wrote.
The U.S. Constitution and federal statutory law prohibit the denial of voting rights. Leftists like Perez get around that restriction by blocking measures like voter ID laws. As a result, real voters have their votes cancelled out by fraudulent voters.
Actual law runs against Perez’s efforts to prevent honest voting. For example, the Supreme Court in 2008 ruled 6-3 that an Indiana law requiring photo ID did not present an undue burden on voters. In recent years, officials in various states have bent over backwards to ensure that all people have access to them. For example, South Carolina’s law explicitly addressed potential disenfranchisement by offering state-issued IDs free of charge, and free transportation to anyone who needed a ride to a location where a picture ID could be obtained. South Carolina also showed how badly the state needed voter ID when an extensive data review conducted by Department of Motor Vehicles Director Kevin Shwedo found that more than 900 deceased people had “voted” in recent elections in South Carolina—depriving more than 900 living people of their right to vote by cancelling their votes out.
Whistle blown
In 2010, a Justice Department official, J. Christian Adams, resigned from the department to protest the “corrupt nature” of DOJ’s dismissal of the New Black Panther Party voter-intimidation case mentioned above.  The case involved two Philadelphia-based members of the New Black Panther Party who had intimidated voters with racial slurs and threats of violence on Election Day 2008. Adams cited Perez and Thomas Perrelli (the associate attorney general) as the two DOJ officials most responsible for dropping the case. In July 2010, Adams gave damning public testimony about how Perez and other Obama DOJ officials believed that “civil rights law should not be enforced in a race-neutral manner, and should never be enforced against blacks or other national minorities.”
In sworn testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Perez claimed that “no political leadership” was involved in the DOJ decision to back down on a voter-intimidation lawsuit brought against the New Black Panther Party. However, the organization Judicial Watch, in a Freedom of Information Act suit, later obtained documents contradicting Perez’s claim. According to Judge Reggie B. Walton, “The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision.”
This contradiction led Judicial Watch to declare that “Thomas Perez has shown a glaring inability to follow his sworn duties to tell the truth and dispassionately apply the basic constitutional tenet of equal justice under law.”
In September 2010, Christopher Coates, chief of the DOJ’s Voting Section, testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and corroborated Adams’ assertion that the department had routinely ignored civil rights cases involving “white” victims. For more than a year, Perez had denied the Commission’s requests to hear Coates’ testimony and had instructed Coates not to testify. But Coates finally chose to go public with his story and asked for protection under whistleblower laws. In a similar vein, an Inspector General report released in March 2013 stated that Perez believed voting rights laws did “not cover white citizens.”
In July 2011, Perez addressed a luncheon meeting of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), a group with which he has long had a close relationship. NCLR supports amnesty for illegal entry/immigration, and takes its name from the term “La Raza,” which means “the race” in the context of the supposed racial superiority of Latinos. (The late Cesar Chavez considered the term racist and refused to use it, noting that, “when you say ‘la raza,’ you are saying an anti-gringo thing, and our fear is that it won’t stop there” before being used to exclude other groups from “la raza” status, including dark-skinned Mexicans. Chavez’s lieutenant LeRoy Chatfield once said, “A few months ago the Ford Foundation funded a la raza group and Cesar really told them off. The foundation liked the outfit’s sense of pride or something, and Cesar tried to explain to them what the origin of the word was, that it’s related to Hitler’s concept,” i.e., of a superior or “master” race.)
In his remarks to the “La Raza” group, Perez praised NCLR’s work and expressed gratitude for its steadfast support of President Obama’s agenda. He also lauded the organization’s members as valuable “change agents” and “serial activists” who will help “move America forward.” And he asserted that those who oppose a left-wing version of “immigration reform” are bigots, creators of “an absolute headwind of intolerance.”
In August-September 2011, the journalism group PJ Media published a series of exposés revealing that, without exception, every attorney hired by the Civil Rights Division under Perez had a pedigree as an activist for the Left or the Democratic Party. (The Justice Department refused to provide the résumés, but PJ Media sued successfully to obtain them.)
In March 2013, the American Spectator expanded on PJ Media’s work, noting that “Perez has overseen most of the unprecedentedly naked politicization of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division,” as evidenced by the fact that “every one” of the 113 people his CRD had hired for supposedly non-political civil-service positions were “demonstrably liberal activists.” Moreover, said the report, Perez had “insisted on personally approving each of these new hires.”
From DOJ to DOL
In 2013, President Obama nominated Perez for Secretary of Labor. Praise for the nomination came pouring in from the Left. AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka said, “At a time when our politics tilts so heavily toward corporations and the very wealthy, our country needs leaders like Tom Perez to champion the cause of ordinary working people.”
Conservative commentators strongly opposed the nomination. Michelle Malkin, for example, referred to Perez as an “extremist race-baiter” for “selectively enforc[ing] the law in a racially, not neutral way.” And Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called Perez “a committed ideologue who appears willing, quite frankly, to say or do anything to achieve his ideological end.”
Most Republican Senators participated in the filibuster against Perez’s confirmation, but six “RINOs” joined Democrats to invoke cloture and bring about a vote. (A “RINO” or “Republicans In Name Only” is a Republican who runs from fights with the Left.) The Republicans who backed cloture were Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker of Tennessee, Susan Collins of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and John McCain of Arizona.
Having voted to bring Perez’s nomination forward, the six switched and opposed his confirmation on the final vote. Thus, Perez was confirmed with a 54-46 party-line vote.
Little more than a year after his confirmation, Politico reported that Perez had “energized” the Labor Department. Enforcement had gone up, the department was raising the profile of issues like minimum wage and paid medical leave, and employees were happy. According to a survey by the Office of Personnel Management, federal government employees since 2011 had been reporting increasing disengagement and dissatisfaction, employees at Labor reported feeling more engaged and more satisfied.
And why not? Perez has turned the Labor Department into a regulation-issuing machine, just as the Left wants.
Persuader rule
As Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute warned in the May 2013 Labor Watch, the Labor Department changed the so-called “persuader rule,” overturning more than 50 years of precedent. This rule stacks the deck against employers when employees are considering unionization, requiring employers to publicly disclose any consultants they hire when faced with unionization efforts.
According to Politico, while the rule doesn’t require that employers disclose what advice they are being given, “it will require them to report when they ‘plan, direct, or coordinate managers to persuade workers; provide persuader materials to employers to disseminate to workers; conduct union avoidance seminars; and develop or implement personnel policies or actions to persuade workers’ on union organizing, according to the Labor Department.”
Unionization votes are often forced on employees in short periods of time so they are pushed to make rush decisions with little information. Meanwhile, their employer is limited from discussing the issue with them, even as they are bombarded with union propaganda. Perez seems to care only that, “too often, workers don’t know that the messages being delivered by management, including trusted front-line supervisors, have been in fact created by paid outsiders.”
Furchtgott-Roth noted in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed that the new rule “will require companies to make public the names of the outside attorneys and consultants that give them advice on unionization. These attorneys and consultants, in turn, would have to make public all the other clients they help with union matters, and how much they charged these clients. The rule would deter many if not most outside attorneys and consultants from offering their services to companies facing a unionization drive. The burden will fall heavily on small businesses that do not have the in-house staff of large corporations. The rule does not apply to consultants offering advice to unions.” How ridiculous is the new rule? “Suppose a firm puts in a gym at the same time as a rival is unionized. The gym could be construed as an attempt to fend off a union drive and the designer could qualify as an adviser—and be forced to declare its other clients.”
Overtime rule
Politico called the overtime rule “the most ambitious intervention in the wage economy in at least a decade.” Christine Harbin of Americans for Prosperity said the rule—
will dramatically increase the salary threshold exemption for overtime pay from $23,660 to [$47,476], requiring employers to pay time-and-a-half for hours worked exceeding 40 hours per week for employees below the arbitrary new limit.
Like the fiduciary rule, this overtime rule will make it significantly more difficult for many Americans to move up the economic ladder—particularly those who are just starting their careers. Moreover, recent research from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University shows that employers will face a high cost of compliance and workers will face cut hours, lower overall compensation, and less flexibility.
The Labor Department itself predicts that pay will drop for salary workers covered by the new overtime threshold by around 5.3 percent next year.  Businesses will face added costs in money and time as they move employees from salaried positions to hourly in order to better keep track of hours and not run afoul of the law. Overall, retail chains, restaurants, colleges, and any small business with on-site managers will be the hardest hit.
As Walter Olson of CATO wrote, this regulation would “frustrate ambitious individuals who willingly tackle long hours to rise into management ranks.” It would also “force millions of workers into time-clock or hour-tracking arrangements even if they themselves prefer the freedom and perks of salaried status.”
When House Democrats attempted to make a point by complying with the spirit of the rules in their own offices, they allegedly faced “a series of headaches including the prospect of unanswered phones and other gaps in constituent service, layoffs, and even closure of some district offices.”
Trey Kovacs of the Competitive Enterprise Institute wrote in The Hill that businesses will, of necessity, cope with the overtime rule by cutting hours and pay. “Cutting wages would make up for 80 percent of overtime costs, according to U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics economist Anthony Barkume. Or businesses could hire more part-time employees and hourly workers, limiting workers’ hours to 40 and reducing fringe benefits. Workers will bear the brunt of the harmful impact of the overtime rule and its unintended consequences. Salaried employees now on a management track may have their work status downgraded to hourly, which will have some impact on their long-term career prospects, earnings, and other benefits, like healthcare and a pension.”
The overtime rule will be particularly tough on women. In the December 2014 Labor Watch, Diana Furchtgott-Roth noted that, as the rule was proposed, “employees who receive overtime pay would not be allowed to take time off, or comp time; they would have to receive overtime pay. Some people may prefer overtime pay, but others, especially working mothers, may prefer more leisure. . . . Overtime rules hurt women by reducing flexibility with their employer. Many women with children, particularly young mothers who cannot afford childcare, would prefer flexibility in their schedule rather than extra overtime pay. When overtime hours are allowed to count toward time off instead of pay, women can change their work schedules according to their needs.”
Fiduciary rule
The Labor Department’s new “fiduciary rule” adds new disclosure requirements and compliance costs on financial advisors, which could raise the costs of these advisors beyond what lower-income Americans are able to pay. Christine Harbin of Americans for Prosperity wrote in the Daily Caller that the fiduciary rule
will empower unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to take control over Americans’ retirement choices by imposing significant new disclosure requirements and compliance burdens on the nation’s financial advisors—and at a significant cost to ordinary workers. American Action Forum estimates that the final rule will create nearly 57,000 paperwork hours and will cost Americans over $75 billion in duplicative fees, making it the most expensive proposed or finalized rule of 2016.
For average Americans, the fiduciary rule means that they will face restricted access to financial advice and have a harder time opening and maintaining an Individual Retirement Account (IRA). Small businesses may be less likely to offer 401(k)s to their employees. Experts predict many brokers will stop serving households with less than $50,000 in assets—small investors who need guidance on their investment decisions the most.
Congress passed a resolution expressing disapproval over the fiduciary rule; the House had a party-line 234-183 vote, while the Senate voted 56-41 to criticize the rule. But Perez and the Labor Department are charging forward with the rule, regardless of the will of Congress.
Joint employers
Perhaps the most insidious action perpetrated by Perez’s Department of Labor is the redefinition of the term “joint employer.” According to Iain Murray, writing at National Review Online, the category of joint employer applies when “two or more employers are jointly responsible or liable for a worker’s employment conditions.”
By reinterpreting legal terminology—without notice, without a hearing—the Labor Department under Tom Perez is threatening the future of some 800,000 small businesses that use the franchise model. National franchisors (for example, McDonald’s) would be held liable for actions taken by each of the thousands of McDonald’s franchises—which would mean that McDonald’s could no longer afford to let the local franchises be run by local people. Meanwhile, local franchises would be subject to the same regulations that apply to colossal multinational companies.
Here’s what we wrote about this, in the March 2015 Labor Watch:
If you’ve taken your car to Jiffy Lube, stayed at a Choice Hotel, or ordered a pizza from Papa John’s, you’ve most likely patronized a business built on the franchise model. From KFC, Wendy’s, Arby’s, and Dairy Queen, to Planet Fitness, Ace Hardware, Supercuts, RE/MAX, and H&R Block, franchises are at the heart of small business in America.
Despite the strong national brand identification associated with these names, they are actually part of the small business mosaic of America. Franchisees are independent business people, running their own shops under the marquee of a brand customers that know and trust, often actually located on Main Streets across the country. Franchises give small businesses, many of them family businesses—literally “mom-and-pop operations”—the opportunity to take advantage of national brand-name recognition and advertising, supply networks, business expertise, and other advantages that would otherwise be available only to the big guys. Many franchise operators are the first in their families to run businesses, and many are immigrants or members of “minority” groups.
There’s a world of difference between a local franchise business and a multinational corporation. The point seems so obvious it should hardly need to be made. Yet a series of developments in federal labor law is lumping these two classes of businesses together in a way that could imperil some of the 8.9 million jobs the franchise industry provides in this country.
In addition, the new rules could lump subcontractors in with the companies that hire them to perform such services as waste disposal and recycling, office cleaning, clothes cleaning, security, parking services, and photocopying.
The inevitable result of this is obvious. Being held liable for labor decisions whether they make them or not, corporations will bring local personnel decisions under their control, effectively ending the franchise model and destroying small businesses across the country.
Why would the Department of Labor do this? It’s simple once you recall that Perez believes the Department exists to serve union bosses, not workers. Today, fast-food workers can only be unionized franchise by franchise. But if fast food workers were all employed by a single large corporation, then tens if not hundreds of thousands of workers could be unionized in one fell swoop, swelling the pockets of union officers as well as the campaign chests of the Democratic candidates to whom those officers send nearly 100 percent of their organizations’ political contributions.
But wait, there’s more!
Tom Perez’s record of corruption and extremism is so extensive that it’s hard to keep track of all his wrongdoing and kookery. A few more examples:
►In a July 2014 speech to hundreds of students at the historically black Howard University, Perez denounced the so-called “school-to-prison pipeline” that, he suggested, funnels large numbers of African-American youth into the prison system without cause. To drive the point home, Perez declared that school authorities in Mississippi had recently had black high-schoolers arrested for infractions as small as wearing the “wrong color tie” or the “wrong color socks,” or for “flatulence.”
“This is Meridian, Mississippi, where we still see separate and unequal. . . . We thought we had made progress [but] this is America” today. Perez assured the students that “I’m not making this up.”
Yes, he was. Hoover Institution Fellow Paul Sperry noted that, in fact—
Meridian Public School District students have never been jailed simply for breaking school dress code, as he implied. That would be false imprisonment. They have, however, been mildly disciplined for wearing the wrong uniform to school. Meridian, which is mostly black, has a strict dress code to prevent gang violence. . . . Perez made it sound as if Meridian were run by a bunch of white, racist Bull Connors. What he failed to mention is that the Meridian school superintendent, Dr. Alvin Taylor, and four of the five Meridian school board members are all black. So is the judge running the juvenile court.
Why would Perez say these things? Sperry’s answer: “To rile young African-Americans up about the specter of a still-racist America.”
►Under Perez at the Justice Department, the DOJ repeatedly slow-walked efforts intended to help ensure that overseas military personnel (who tend to support Republican candidates by a wide margin) could exercise their voting rights. Meanwhile, Perez’s division strove, without jurisdiction, to help felons (who overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates) regain voting privileges in a number of states.
►During his time at the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, Perez was a featured speaker at a number of events held by the American Constitution Society, telling its members that “your mission and ours [at the Civil Rights Division] share a lot in common.” ACS promotes the idea of a “living Constitution,” asserting that judges can and should ignore the Constitution and just decide cases in ways that reflect the political climate of the times (which is exactly what the Supreme Court did in Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 decision that established the doctrine of “separate but equal”). The ACS was founded by a law professor who was involved in the 2000 effort by Al Gore’s presidential campaign to deprive Florida voters of their rights. It is the far-left counterpart to the mainstream/conservative Federalist Society. A 2014 report by our sister publication, Foundation Watch, found that “benefactors of ACS include George Soros’s Open Society Institute ($2,201,500 since 2002), Ford Foundation ($600,000 since 2003), Sandler Foundation ($200,000 in 2003), Tides Foundation ($25,000 since 2002), Barbra Streisand Foundation ($20,000 since 2002).”
►In January 2015, Perez said that raising the minimum wage and changing the overtime rule were religious imperatives. “This is really about biblical teachings,” he told an AFL-CIO conference. “This is about what is taught in the Quran and what is in the Torah and what we learn about making sure we ‘do unto others.’ . . . This about who we are as a nation.” He attacked businesses that, in his view, violate the will of God: “Low wages are a choice, not a necessity. Low benefits are a choice, not a necessity.” (As noted in the June 2014 Labor Watch, minimum wage laws make it effectively impossible for unskilled workers to find employment, which disproportionately hurts minorities, which is why those laws were originally promoted by groups that wanted to protect “white people’s jobs”—groups like the Ku Klux Klan.)
►It is illegal for government employees to conduct government business on a personal e-mail account or to destroy government e-mails. That’s because such e-mails belong to the taxpayers and must be kept accessible in case of Congressional or criminal investigation, or Freedom of Information Act requests from reporters and others seeking to expose corruption. Yet the Obama administration has seen one official after another caught in the practice of stealing these public documents by using private e-mail systems or by destroying e-mails on a government system. That includes former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, EPA Region 8 Administrator James Martin, former director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Unit Lois Lerner, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Add Perez to the list.
At a May 2013 hearing before members of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, Perez testified that he could not recall ever having used his personal e-mail account to conduct Justice Department business at his Takoma Park, Maryland home. Perez was then confronted with e-mails showing conclusively that he had conducted DOJ business on his home account, and he conceded their authenticity.
►Another type of corruption in which Perez was involved is a despicable practice that allows corrupt officials to funnel money to activist groups that support them. It works like this: After plaintiffs win judgments in civil rights cases, compensatory payments then go not only to the actual victims of discrimination, but also to “qualified organizations” approved by the Justice Department. How do you “qualify”? Support the administration’s political agenda. (More on this in future publications of the Capital Research Center.)
One heartbeat
The vice presidential candidate rarely plays a significant role in voters’ choice for President. Typically, the only direct effect of the VP selection on the election results is a point or a point-and-a-half in the VP candidate’s home state, added to the vote a party would otherwise have received in that state. Indirectly, the selection is important in what it tells us about the presidential candidate’s character and values—for example, John Kerry’s choice in 2004 of the appalling John Edwards.
People should pay more attention than they do. After all, a Vice President can become President at any moment. And the odds of a Vice President eventually becoming President by succession or election are about one in four. Hillary Clinton’s running mate may have a better than average chance of making it to the Oval Office, as Robert Spencer noted at PJ Media:
. . . it could well be 1944 all over again. That year, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was virtually assured of victory over the strutting New York prosecutor Thomas E. Dewey. The real race was at the Democratic convention—for vice president. Everyone knew FDR was gravely ill, and that the vice presidential nominee would likely become president sometime before the 1948 election.
Sitting Vice President Henry Wallace was ultimately cast aside in favor of Harry Truman, largely because Democratic Party leaders were alarmed at the prospect of a Communist sympathizer like Wallace becoming president. (How times have changed, at least in that respect.)
Hillary Clinton is 68, and beset by a persistent cough that she has never adequately explained. According to Ed Klein, author of Unlikeable: The Problem with Hillary, she also suffers from “blinding headaches, exhaustion, insomnia, and a tremor in her hands.”
Not only Is there the possibility that Clinton’s health problems might cut short her presidency, or that she might retire after one term with her VP as a likely successor, but
If Clinton became unable to serve prior to the election, the obvious move for the Democrats would be to promote her vice presidential nominee to the presidential slot—and it will not be Bernie. Hillary has not yet announced her choice, but one name that has been bruited about for months as one of her most likely running mates is Tom Perez, the Secretary of Labor.
The notion that Perez, or whomever the Democratic vice presidential nominee turns out to be, could become president of the United States on January 20, 2017—or sometime thereafter—is not just a remote possibility.
And what will it mean, if Perez is a key player in the next administration? J. Christian Adams, who resigned from the Justice Department to protest the policies of Perez and his allies, wrote in an April 2016 article for PJ Media:
Although much of Perez’s history is well-known to PJM readers due to his many fringe polices at the Justice Department Civil Rights Division, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) recently obtained his revealing eight-page résumé. Nearly every single entry of his career history involves some form of racial activism. . . .
The document shows that with Perez near the White House, race-based politics and social division in America will be sure to intensify. Picking Perez would ensure the most extreme and marginalized policies of the Obama years would carry on into a Clinton administration.
With Perez in the White House, the current “war on cops” likely won’t skip a beat. His résumé praises his heavy involvement in “Department efforts to address police misconduct,” and for having “[p]rosecuted federal civil rights violations nationwide involving police misconduct and racial violence.” His résumé also mentions a paper he published with an academic journal on what the DOJ could do to “curb police misconduct” and further police accountability.
Another career focus for Perez seems to be injecting race into health care policy. When he was appointed director of the Office for Civil Rights in the Health and Human Services Department, he worked on cases involving “redlining and other racial discrimination in health care,” and “discrimination in welfare to work programs based on race.”
He also worked to “address the wide-ranging challenges confronting immigrant populations seeking to access health and human services.”
This means using the levers of federal powersuch as attaching strings to federal moneyto force local recipients of the federal money to adopt race-centric transformative policies that beltway bureaucrats dreamed up. . . .
Perez is a utopian. I’ve sat in rooms with him listening to his progressive vision of a future free from everything he dislikes. He is a true believer that the government can force the transformation of a culture and a society for good. He isn’t enough of a student of history to know where those ideals lead.
Tom Perez’s history of racialized decision-making at the Department of Justice further politicized an already tarnished executive agency, and his actions at the Department of Labor have added untold costs to small businesses and burdened our nation’s economy while benefiting his union allies.
As Mitch McConnell put it when Perez was nominated to be Secretary of Labor, he is “a committed ideologue who appears willing, quite frankly, to say or do anything to achieve his ideological end.” How far will his zealotry take him? This year or in the years to come, the sky’s the limit.
Dr. Steven J. Allen (J.D., Ph.D.) is vice president & Chief Investigative Officer of the Capital Research Center, and editor of Labor Watch. This article incorporates material from CRC senior vice president Matthew Vadum and from the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s website Discover the Networks.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Obama's OFA or Organizing for America Proof of His Treason and He Should Be Charged and Jailed

February 15, 2017

Obama is using a non-profit 501 (c)(4), tax-exempt foundation, much like Hillary Clinton's Clinton Foundation, as a slush fund to fund criminal enterprises that seek to overthrow the People's President Trump and his administration.

The organization is OFA, or Organizing for America.

Trump's organization uses fascist tactics, including violence and the threat of violence, to threaten and harm Trump supporters. 

According to the laws of the United States, these actions are construed as treason and Obama should be picked up, charged, and await conviction and sentencing:

18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government. Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

Americans have waited long enough for this undocumented usurper to face justice and we demand it now.

Prepper? Now More Than Ever is Time to Be Prepared with Arms

Skull-Stomping Sacred Cows: Reality Isn’t Nice. It’s a 2×4 to the Teeth.

February 7, 2017

Sam Culper posted a comment on FB recently, in light of the protests-turned-riots in Berkeley, and elsewhere, asking, “What happens when the black bloc (“anarchists”) get AR’s?” A legit question, all things considered, and one deserving of serious consideration, which we’ll get to in a moment. The problem that arose, which I, in turn, confronted in a FB post on the MG FB page, was that the responses to Sam’s questions were retarded. Seriously. The comments read like the locker room bragging of a bunch of 13 year olds, after PE class, about the hot dates they’d had last Friday night.
Seriously….these ranged from “Open season on liberals!” type macho posturing, to “they’re just a bunch of cowards who can’t do shit in a stand-up fight!”

Here’s the reality. I am going to share my response to the commentary, from Facebook, then I’m going to discuss some harsh truths that are the 900-pound guerrilla in the room (see what I did there?).
(The below has been edited from FB to make it more legible.)

So, I saw this come across my FB feed today, from Sam. I’m going to address it, because there’s a whole bunch of fucking stupid in the comments. Since I’m reasonably certain some of those commenters are also subscribers here, it will probably be wasted effort, but I’m willing to give it a shot….

Comment on Sam’s page: ‘Battlefield pickup: Plan for it. Make sure your people know how to clear them, get them into duffle bags, and into your supply channels to be re-issued as necessary. You may keep ammo as needed to replace expenditures, but the rest goes to the S4 for caching and resupply.
My response: While technically about the closest thing to a legitimate response I saw, this is ridiculously optimistic. In all of the classes I’ve taught, over the last half-decade plus of teaching through the MG blog,including the auxiliary and support classes, nobody—NOBODY—has even come close to having anything near an organizational footprint that this answer would matter too…except the Left.
Comment on Sam’s page: ‘This is what I have been chatting with some friends about for a few months. Particularly the myopic ones who don’t understand that the hapless morons will eventually be armed and given some level of training to escalate their own surge. Arming these ppl is not the next move, but it’s not far off.
My response: Dunning-Kruger much? “Hapless morons?” These “hapless morons” are off their fucking couches, engaging in the physical violence that the Right yammered about for the last eight years, without doing fuck all. I’m not condoning it, and certainly not supporting it, but intellectual dishonesty about skill at organization, and willingness to engage in violent direct-action is going to get a whole fuckton of “prepared militias” killed dead…and there ain’t no fucking restart to this game.
Comment on Sam’s page: ‘They maybe (sic) psychologically conditioning the left for kinetic operations, but it takes years to build capability and capacity. They maybe (sic) ten years out if they started today.‘\
My response: Bullshit. They could go hardcore tomorrow, and be effective, at least for some time. They’ve got organizational infrastructure in place. They’ve got leadership cadre and numbers. They’ve got the will to get violent, right now. What they don’t have is their puppet masters handing them guns and ammo…yet. Sam’s right. It’s an ugly potential that is probably not far off. Ten years? You’re fucking dreaming.
Comment on Sam’s page: ‘The left gas lighted themselves into destroying their gun culture. Where are the black block gun blogs? Training videos? PT videos? Discussion about Intelligence capability? The design of OPSEC programs? How to effectively use Command and Control for tactical, operational and Strategic success? Fuck blogs even where are their white papers? There are none.
My response: Again, see my comment above about Dunning-Kruger. Intellectual study is important, but getting out from in front of the computer, and getting out and DOING counts for more, and the other side IS DOING.
Comment on Sam’s page: ‘A blood bath.
My response:Yep. Because only one side has consistently displayed a willingness to get violent, right now, right here, despite the blatherings of the Right about ‘Molon Labe!’ and ‘From My Cold Dead Fingers,” etc….Talk is cheap. It will be a number of blood baths, but 99% of the victims are NOT going to be the Leftist pseudo-Anarchists that are willing to fuck shit up, already, without quality weapons at their disposal.
Comment on Sam’s page: ‘We get to slaughter them wholesale! YeeeeHaw!
My response: (parenthetical note to point out, I specifically referenced LaVoy Finicum in this response because the dumb motherfucker who posted the above comment had Finicum’s cattle brand as his profile picture. I’ll address the stupidity of the “Let’s Be a Martyr” mindset of Finicum below, this really wasn’t the attack on Finicum that some readers assumed it to be. This was a comment about a dumb motherfucker saying dumb shit.) Ah yes, the redneck, LaVoy Finicum response. How many people you slaughtered tough guy? Nobody? Then, you’re full of shit.
Comment on Sam’s page: ‘Are we talking about the Black Bloc types? I can see them going with drive by attacks because they seem to attack in groups and then run away. Don’t expect a standup fight.
My response: So, they’re smarter than you? Because, I can tell you what…fair fights? “Standup fights?” are a sucker’s bet. I decide to go hunting bad people, I’m going to be rolling up to their back door at 0430, while they’re sound asleep, and lighting their house on fire, while they’re still asleep inside. I’m only gonna stick around long enough to make sure nobody gets out before the house the engulfed. I’m into winning, not playing macho games.
Look, I get it. It’s fun to poke fun at the opposition. It’s easy to make jokes about ‘safe spaces,’ etc. Those dudes smoking people in the head with bricks? Those people staring down the riot cops, and taking bean bag rounds to the face and chest, to get a chance to lob a brick or a Molotov Cocktail at them? They’re not scared of you and they’re not looking for a fucking safe space. They’re willing to stand by their convictions, right or wrong.
That doesn’t make them good guys, by any stretch. It does make them far more qualified for the change in velocity of the collapse that we’re witnessing. People have been talking smack since election night, about how now, the Left was going to go away, because POTUS wasn’t going to put up with their shenanigans. Well, he may not, but it’s going to take a lot more to stop them than people are ready to understand. I’m not even saying that won’t happen, but if you’re sitting here, talking shit on your computer, instead of DOING shit, and TRAINING, and PRACTICING for how you’re going to REALISTICALLY respond to this shit, when it shows up in your neighborhood? You’re full of shit.

That was my Facebook response. Here, as ol’ Paul Harvey liked to say, “is the rest of the story.”

A whole lot of ‘ardent patriots’ and ‘expert preppers/survivalists,’ breathed a giant sigh of relief on the morning of WED 9NOV16. They woke up to the news that “R” had one, both the White House and a majority of Congress. All was saved from immediate damnation, and since everything was cool now, they could get on with not worrying about the future anymore. Big D got this, right?
There is a huge problem with normalcy bias in this country—a subject I’ve written about a lot on this blog, in the past. As long as “our guys” have control in DC, all is fine, right? Well, just like this last presidential cycle demonstrated that people on the Right were no longer content with the Beltway status quo, it should have demonstrated that people on the Left were no longer content with the Beltway status quo as well. The DNC pissed all over their own party, broke their own rules, and then basically, told the voters to “go fuck yourselves if you don’t like it,” in order to get their gal the nod to run. People on the Left are not fucking happy, and just like people on the Right swore they would contest the election results, and be ready to take up arms if Hillary Clinton got the White House, people on the Left are ready to take up arms, since there is a dude with an R behind his name sitting their instead.
It’s not that they wanted HRC—although, I know for a fact, some of them did—it’s that they didn’t want a person with an R behind their name in there. Donald Trump getting the White House was, to the modern day Left in this country, the exact same as Abraham Lincoln getting the White House in 1860 was to the Southern States. We are, make no mistake, in a Civil War. Fort Sumter is past, folks. Seriously. Wake the fuck up already.
Now, before I’m accused of being melodramatic, or hysterical, slow the fuck down for a second. There are some pretty serious differences that DO have to be taken into account, when we look at this.
#1) The people of Dixie weren’t stupid, and neither was their leadership. They didn’t run right out and start attacking the Army of the United States. They took a defensive role, and said, basically, “Hey, leave us alone, and all is well.” They didn’t want a fight. The Left today isn’t content with that, for a variety of reasons. They DO want a fight, and they’re not taking a defensive role. They are already attacking their enemies. They’re just not doing it with guns…yet….much.
#2) The Confederate States of America was the disgruntled party in the last go-round, and they were the more “libertarian/anarchist” of the belligerent parties. In this go-round, the roles have reversed; the “disgruntled party” is the statist party that wants to control everything, in accordance with their world view.
#3) While not technically accurate, Fort Sumter was the first “official” battle of the War of Northern Aggression. It was the real opening of hostilities between the uniformed services of two distinct, autonomous governments. In the current conflict, the legitimate government of the United States is, at most, a bit player, thus far. The War of Northern Aggression, while labeled a civil war, was not. It was a conflict of conquest by a sovereign state, against a sovereign state, that had declared its independence, and been recognized as a sovereign state, in accordance with international law. None of that mattered of course, but the difference with the current conflict should be obvious.
This is an actual civil war, as in a conflict between ideologically-opposed factions within the civilian and political population of a country. Like real civil wars, it is not going to be pretty. It’s not going to be armies, in pretty uniforms, fighting pitched, conventional battles. It’s going to be a matter of assassination, sabotage, hit-and-run raids, targeting ideological leadership figures, enemy families, etc.
As Matt Bracken pointed out in a recent Facebook post himself, we’re looking at more of a Balkans and/or Argentine “Dirty War” conflict. People just haven’t accepted that, because it doesn’t fit their mental images of what “war,” even “guerrilla war” looks like. That, in turn, is because, even the most devout conversions to the “Church of the Anti-Media” in this country today, have a lifetime of conditioning to the media’s portrayal of what “reality” is. From what a “proper” war looks like, to what “collapse” looks like, to what “bad guys” look like.

We commonly jump to the idea of “well, George Soros is funding this shit, so it’ll cause a breakdown, and currency collapse, and he can make a fortune off it.” There’s probably a lot of truth to that. I don’t know Soros, so I can’t tell you what his ultimate goals and motivations are. I have however, met a lot of Leftists, both in the US and elsewhere, and I can tell you, they are not looking for a currency collapse, in order to get richer.
It’s easy to sit in your lounger, with your laptop across your knees, and pontificate on the false motivations of the Leftist activists. “Oh, they’re just attention whores!” “Oh, they just want their safe spaces!” “Oh, they’re just useful idiots being played.” “Oh, they’ll quit as soon as the money stops.” There’s a very real problem with that though, and it’s called underestimating your enemy. If you don’t believe that a dude who is out, in wintertime, in a protest/riot, and eating some riot cops baton, as he receives a solid washing with “hickory shampoo,” is not a dedicated True Believer, you’re deluding yourself.
If you think that some twenty-something kid, who just saw his buddy take a bean bag round from a PD riot gun, in the dick, and then ignored his friend’s screams, to continue advancing, is not dedicated, and a True Believer, you’re fucking stupid.
If you think POTUS is going to magically save you? You’re dumb. Large urban areas and entire states are telling the federal government to go fuck itself on the immigration issue (and granted, the states are wrong on this one, but that doesn’t change the fact that this—as I mentioned, in detail, in Forging the Hero—is symptomatic of the collapse of the American Empire.) Things are not normal, and if you’re still stuck in your normalcy bias about “Make America Great Again,” you’re WAY behind the learning the curve.
I’ve talked with a number of friends in recent days; police officers and public services personnel, in large urban areas, across the country. None of them are taking this shit lightly. A fireman friend, from a major urban enclave on the east coast, that has been the scene of a number of ethnic conflicts in the last year or two, posted the following on FB recently,
They are organized, they are violent. The cops aren’t shooting back because when some Tumblr shit biscuit doxxes them, their kids will be targets. Molon Labia and snowflake bluster isn’t cutting it anymore.
I’m a fucking fireman and have had body armor issued. That should say something very loudly and clearly
A cop friend told me, in private conversation, “Yeah, man. It’s serious. We know it can kick off at any moment. Sitting in your cruiser, at a stoplight; writing a citation, sitting at lunch. We just have to be ready to rock, all the time.”
Another cop friend, “Man, I’ve upped my off-duty EDC to three twenty-round mags for the Glock, and I keep eight loaded mags for the AR in the plate carrier behind my seat. It’s getting weird out there.
So, if THEY get it, why don’t you, Mr. Expert Prepper/Survivalist?
This is not about being a tough guy. This is not about the questionable PSYOP value of talking shit with social media memes about the opposition. This is about knowing, and understanding, the realities of the battlespace.
#1) Dirty civil wars are ‘tribal’ guerrilla wars. This was discussed in-depth in The Reluctant Partisan, Volume One: The Guerrilla. This is not about dudes in cute camouflage coveralls, running through the woods with Kalashnikovs. This is about people burning down their neighbors’ houses and businesses, to run them out of town, over ideological differences. Look at the Balkans in the early 1990s.
This is about a group from one side, murdering the entire family—Dad, Mom, Brother, and baby Sister—of their neighbors, over political differences.
There’s nothing pretty or heroic about it. It’s about pragmatism. It’s not about dying for anybody or anything. It’s about changing the dynamic of the battlespace, so none of your people die…or at least, as few as possible.
#2) Heroic gestures and martyrdom are dumb. LaVoy Finicum, bless his heart, may have had good intentions, but he was a fucking idiot if he thought he was accomplishing anything. If you fucking people would get outside of the echo chamber of your masturbation studio, you’d realize that. You think anybody in mainstream America—the undecided majority in the current conflict—remembers Finicum? Go up to some random stranger, in the supermarket and ask. I got good money that says, 99 out of 100 are going to say, “Who’s she?”
So, nobody, outside of his own side’s True Believers, even remembers his “heroic” gesture. There’s Strike One.
What changed, following the Malheur Malcontent Mishap? Anything? Nope. Not a single federal policy changed. He LITERALLY died for nothing. There’s Strike Two.
Despite the acquittals of the ring leaders in federal court, far more of the participants are still in jail, and the other still face trial in Nevada (as far as I know. Did it ever get dealt with down there? I quit giving a shit). At best, it is possible that his death swayed some of the jurors towards leniency, out of pity for the deceased. It didn’t help the majority of them though, that are still dealing with the effects of the case. I’d call that Strike Three, but perhaps I’m being too harsh, and that was a foul ball.
The point isn’t to besmirch the dead. The point is, it was pointless. If you want to survive; hell, if you even just want your team to win, and don’t care about survival, you have to focus on efforts that make a difference. Stand-up fights don’t make differences in this type of conflict, because the other side isn’t interested in them. Quit focusing on some macho, redneck John Wayne image of conflict, and focus on doing what works. Right now? That still means organizing, because, while it’s not “tacticool,” it’s way more important than running around in the goddamned woods in cammie jammies. That means, instead of worrying about running raids and ambushes, you should be focused on gathering intelligence information about the opposition’s leadership cadres in your local area, so you can set about changing their mindset, by focusing your PSYOP activities on a specific target audience (them). It means training with your EDC concealed carry weapon, to protect yourself. And yes—you knew it was gonna get slipped in somewhere—it means doing your PT and combatives training, so you at least have a chance of fighting your way to an escape route when you get caught in the middle of a protest-turned-riot, and then getting away, instead of getting knocked the fuck out, so you have to be rescued by the local riot police.
The Right—especially the preparedness/survivalist/III/Threeper/Militia segment of the Right—is full of tough talk from self-professed badasses about how they’re gonna “slaughter” the other side when “open season on Leftists” is declared. It’s all a bunch of bullshit, written for an audience of people they don’t even know, but need to feel big in front of, for whatever reason.
Let me tell you a couple of trade secrets:
#1) I can train a fucking monkey to run an AR or an AK in three days. Give me ten days, and I can bring a complete novice to a near-expert level of proficiency with the gun. That’s fucking easy. The hard part? Convincing somebody to actually use it. Convincing someone that they actually need to overcome the culturally conditioned aversion to interpersonal violence that Americans have been spoonfed for the last sixty years, is far more challenging than teaching someone the mechanics of gunfighting. Guess which side has already overcome that cultural conditioning? I’ll give you two hints: first, it’s not the guys typing away on FB about how they’re gonna “slaughter” Leftists, as soon as they get permission from their Mommy. Second, it’s the people that are already cracking complete strangers in the head with bricks, then putting the boots to the unconscious victims, before throwing a Molotov Cocktail through their car window.
#2) The Left has won far more dirty civil wars and insurgent conflicts than the Right has won. There are a host of reasons for this, but most notable is the aversion, on the Right, to give up the security of law-and-order. As long as there is a politician telling them, “Now, now, let’s all keep calm. Let the authorities sort this out,” the Right is content to sit at home and bitch about those juvenile delinquents. The Left? They’re all, “FUCK THE MAN! LET’S MAKE IT BURN!” As long as there is a police officer in uniform…even if he is, like so many are currently, telling people, “Hey, we’re probably gonna be busy with other catastrophes when your personal catastrophe happens, so you’re on your own….” as long as he is on the job, the Right is going to say, “Meh, we’ll let the police do their job.” The Left? They’re going, “FUCK THE MAN! KILL THE PIGS!”
#3) The government isn’t going to save you. The government isn’t going to save your neighborhood, your city, or your state. The government MAY try and save itself. Those piranhas in the Beltway, on both sides of the aisle? They don’t give two shits about Mayberry RFD, until Mayberry RFD isn’t paying it’s taxes anymore, and by then? It’ll be too late for Sheriff Andy, Deputy Barney, Aunt Bea, Opie, and all their friends and neighbors. You want to be saved, you’d better be looking around and building what SF once upon a time called “CIDG,” or “Civilian Irregular Defense Groups,” among your neighbors and friends and families….you know…your tribe: the people in your local community that share your values and traditions. There’s a couple of really good books available that tell you exactly how to go about selecting those people, and training them. Let me see if I can recall what they are, and where you can fucking buy them……
People are emailing me and asking, “John, what can we do?” “John, what should we be doing right now to get ready?” I see the same questions getting asked everywhere; Sam’s pages, Matt’s FB page, etc. Here’s the problem….

WE ALREADY FUCKING TOLD YOU WHAT YOU NEEDED TO DO!!!!!! WE’VE BEEN TELLING YOU FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS!!! Hell, in Bracken’s case, he’s been telling you for over a fucking decade!
You want to know how a Dirty War is fought, even on defense? With pistols, in urban areas. Guess what? I know a dude teaching a Clandestine Carry Pistol class in a couple weeks, in Arizona! He’s doing a CQB class the following weekend! If you live in motherfucking Arizona….with the cartels running shit through your neighborhoods every…single…fucking…day….and you’re not already keyed in on this shit? You’re too fucking stupid to save. So, why is it that my wife is telling me that we’re gonna have to cancel these classes, because there’s not been enough people interested in taking them? Because nobody wants to face the ugly reality, that it’s already started. It’s easier to sit on your computer, order multicam gear off, and talk shit about “open season on libtards!” than it is to face the task of somebody maybe telling you that you don’t know what the fuck you’re doing, after all, by bucking up and taking a class on shit that is actually relevant to you.
Don’t want to take my class, because I’m an obnoxious, foul-mouthed prick that calls a spade a spade? There’s a host of classes available from qualified dudes who are far nicer than me (not really. Anyone who has taken a class with me will tell you, I’m actually Prince Charming…in my own inimitable way…)

That’s okay. I get it. Classes are expensive, and might be embarrassing. I mean, not as embarrassing as getting anal raped with your own EDC gun, by the dude that just killed you and took it from you, but, yeah, it could be embarrassing. So, there’s an alternative. I fucking wrote THREE goddamned books for you people. They are all how-to books. Two of them have the step-by-step curriculum, and the techniques and drills that make up those curricula, to train with somebody you know, that already has a background in the skills. I’ve written seven or eight books worth of free information on this blog, over the last six-plus years, explaining what you needed to be, know, and do, to be ready. When you ask, in public, “gee, golly. What should I be training in for this?” it tells me, you haven’t done your fucking homework. You’re just reading shit on the Internet forums and Facebook, and imagining yourself as Sergeant Fucking York.

So, here’s my actionable steps for readers (who haven’t yet) to take, to play catch up, and start getting ready for the festivities to come to their ‘hood:
  1. Enroll in a fucking legit concealed carry-centric gunfighting course.
  2. Get some advanced trauma medical care training.
  3. READ THE FUCKING BOOKS! Yeah, they’re expensive. As someone pointed out, not long ago, they’re a fucking post-grad course in “how to be The Most Dangerous Man You Know.”
Yes, I just pimped my own classes and books. Get over it. They’re that important, and that valuable.