‘Fourth Amendment protections don’t apply to dead terrorists…’
PHOTO: Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines
(Joshua Paladino, Liberty Headlines) Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., asked Apple Inc. to follow the FBI’s request of bypassing password protections on two iPhones used by Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, the Saudi Arabian terrorist who attacked Naval Air Station Pensacola.
The FBI asked for Apple’s assistance after a court authorized investigators to probe the phones for evidence about the terrorist’s connections and motivations, NBC News reported.
“Every American should be greatly concerned about last month’s terrorist attack that killed three brave sailors in Florida,” Scott said. “It is unthinkable that any American business would refuse to offer their resources to help get to the bottom of an attack on our nation.”
As the FBI waits for Apple’s response, the bureau is trying a low-tech option.
“Investigators are actively engaging in efforts to ‘guess’ the relevant passcodes but so far have been unsuccessful,” according to the FBI’s letter to Apple’s general counsel.
Beyond the guessing game, FBI General Counsel Dana Boente said the bureau is asking for help from other government agencies, foreign experts and “familiar contacts in the third-party vendor community.”
Following the 2015 San Bernardino shooting, a third-party vendor unlocked the phone of one of the shooters, Syed Rizwan Farook.
Apple said in vague terms that it has worked and will work with the federal government.
“We have the greatest respect for law enforcement and have always worked cooperatively to help in their investigations,” Apple said in a statement. “When the FBI requested information from us relating to this case a month ago, we gave them all of the data in our possession and we will continue to support them with the data we have available.”
Yet, Apple would not unlock Farook’s phone after the San Bernardino shooting, and the Justice Department decided to sue the company.
“Fourth Amendment protections don’t apply to dead terrorists,” Scott said. “I hope Apple Inc. decides to comply with the FBI as soon as possible and be proactive in the effort to prevent future terrorist attacks.”
PRESIDENT: ‘Entire Wall is under construction or getting ready to start!’…
Government contractors erect a section of Pentagon-funded border wall along the Colorado River./AP Photo
(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) A federal appeals court ruled today that the Trump administration can allocate Defense Department funds to the construction of a southern border wall, overruling a federal court that had tried to block the administration’s efforts last month.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the Texas federal judge’s order, which the administration had appealed.
The case is still ongoing, but President Trump hailed the 2-1 ruling as an important victory.
Breaking News: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals just reversed a lower court decision & gave us the go ahead to build one of the largest sections of the desperately needed Southern Border Wall, Four Billion Dollars. Entire Wall is under construction or getting ready to start!
U.S. District Judge David Briones ruled in December that the Pentagon could not use $3.6 billion it had drawn from “a variety of sources, including cost savings, programmatic changes, and revised requirements,” according to spokesman Tom Crosson, to help build Trump’s promised border wall.
The U.S. Supreme Court had issued an earlier ruling allowing Trump to use a separate set of military funds allocated from counter-drug and Treasury Forfeiture Funds.
Because of this, the 5th Circuit concluded that the Supreme Court’s ruling must become precedent, according to CNN.
Kristy Parker, counsel for Protect Democracy, one of the liberal groups that sued the administration, decried the 5th Circuit’s ruling.
“It’s unfortunate that the people of El Paso will continue to suffer harm while the government appeals, but we’re confident that we’ll prevail again in this next stage of litigation,” she said in a statement.
(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) The Iraqi Consulate in Detroit is opening its doors this week to offer condolences after the U.S. military killed Iranian general and terrorist Qassem Soleimani.
The consulate said on its Facebook page that it will open “a register of condolences to the lives of the martyrs who have fallen as a result of the recent American raids in Iraq.” From 2 to 5 p.m. on Tuesday and Wednesday, the consulate will invite Detroit Arab–Americans to join them in offering condolences, according to WXYZ-TV.
One community member said Iraq directed the consulate to open a register of condolences, and many Detroit residents aren’t pleased.
“We are Iraqis not Iranians … we’re against it,” said Nabby Yono, a member of the Arab American & Chaldean Council, adding that the consulate’s decision is “really, really disgusting.”
Others responded to the consulates Facebook post and raised their concerns.
“Shame on u. How about the thousands of people who died in Iraq since October during the revolution, how come there was no funeral for them?” wrote one user.
And another urged the Iraqi people to fight for freedom and stand up to the Iranian militias in Iraq.
“Message to Trump: we, the people of Iraq, declare that the Iraqi parliament does not represent the Iraqi people, and we ask the United Nations to intervene quickly to save us from the hands of Iranian militias in Iraq. We want to live freely, and we yearn for freedom,” the user wrote.
Iran fired tens of missiles at the U.S.’s military base in Iraq on Tuesday night, but President Donald Trump announced on Wednesday that the attack did not result in a single casualty or injury.
All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning.
The immigrants were “in a precarious situation” Sunday night, according to immigration officials, and agents found them trying to get down from the border wall to enter the U.S. illegally.
“A man and two women, under the cover of dense fog, tried to enter the U.S. illegally by climbing San Diego Sector’s new 30-foot, steel bollard wall,” USCBP said in a press release, when “the trio became stuck at the top of the wet, slippery wall after smugglers abandoned them.”
San Diego’s Fire–Rescue Department assisted border officials with the rescue, using a ladder to bring the illegal immigrants safely to the ground.
“These three were very fortunate to not have fallen from the top of the wall which could have resulted in serious injury or death. These dangers are not important considerations to smugglers, who place an emphasis on profits over safety,” said San Diego Sector’s Chief Patrol Agent Aaron Heitke.
This is just one of thousands of rescues Border Patrol agents conduct every year. In the fiscal year 2019, agents participated in nearly 5,000 rescues along the border and escorted about 25,000 migrants to hospitals for medical attention, according to the USCBP.
“Although we’ve made great progress, I am here today to respectfully remind this committee and the American people that there continues to be a humanitarian crisis, and importantly, a national security crisis.
In fiscal year 2019, CBP’s enforcement actions exceeded 1.1 million nationwide—an increase of 68% over the previous year,” Mark Morgan, the acting commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, said in his testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee last year. “They’re being pulled into the United States by the loopholes in our current legal framework.”
‘We understand how some thought we were abandoning our longstanding support of faith-based organizations…’
Photo by ccPixs.com (CC)
(Joshua Paladino, Liberty Headlines) Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, sent a letter to Dan Cathy, chairman and CEO of Chick-fil-A, that requested clarification regarding the company’s charitable giving strategy.
“In my personal letter to Mr. Cathy, I asked him two questions: (1) Will Chick-fil-A publicly state that it does not believe the Salvation Army and [Fellowship of Christian Athletes] are hate groups because of the ministries’ beliefs about sexuality, marriage, and family? (2) Will you publicly state that Chick-fil-A will not hesitate to fund these two ministries again, should the opportunity arise in the future,” Wildmon asked in the letter.
Cathy responded tepidly, though he reaffirmed Chick-fil-A’s commitment to its Christian Corporate Purpose statement: “To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us and to have a positive influence on all who come into contact with Chick-fil-A.”
Cathy avoided direct responses to both of Wildmon’s questions while conveying a positive attitude toward the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.
“We inadvertently discredited several outstanding organizations that have effectively served communities for years,” Cathy wrote, as he described Chick-fil-A’s new giving strategy.
“These changes were made to better focus on hunger, homelessness and education,” he said. “We understand how some thought we were abandoning our longstanding support of faith-based organizations.”
After receiving Cathy’s response, Wildmon said that his words “will mean a lot to evangelicals,” though Wildmon said he still has concerns about the company’s charitable giving to organizations like the Covenant House.
“While it is admirable to help hurting youth in desperate circumstances—including those who are LGBTQ—Covenant House also openly promotes homosexuality as normal, natural, and healthy,” Wildmon said, affording to the AFA.
AFA said it will keep watching Chick-fil-A’s corporate giving to ensure that it aligns with Christian values and the company’s Corporate Purpose statement.
“Most of the Christians I know love Chick-fil-A and want to trust the company to uphold scriptural principles. We have all been huge fans of Chick-fil-A, and want that to continue,” Wildmon said, Todd Starnes reported.
‘This is people rising up. We are the good people. We follow the rules. Why can’t you leave us alone?’
Virginia Beach Municipal Center
(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) Virginia Beach, Va., declared itself a “Second Amendment Constitutional City” just months after a mass shooter killed 12 people and injured four others at the Virginia Beach Municipal Center.
It was the Virginia Beach mass shooting that state Democrats originally capitalized on as a rallying cry to push for Draconian anti-gun measures, which failed under the previously GOP-controlled legislature.
Gov. Ralph Northam—himself trying to rehab from a shocking scandal involving racist yearbook photos—immediately called for a special session on gun control, which the Republican General Assembly adjourned.
But Democrats took control of both chambers for the first time in two decades during Virginia’s state elections late last year, and they promptly announced a radical agenda that included some of the most extreme gun-control laws in the country.
Among other things, the proposed legislative package would ban so-called “assault style” weapons, require universal background checks, limit ammunition, and more.
More than 200 people attended the city council meeting on Monday, many of them wearing “Gun Saves Lives” stickers. Before the meeting even started, five council members signed onto the resolution designating Virginia Beach a “Second Amendment Constitutional City.”
“This truly is a grassroots movement,” Philip Van Cleave, the president of the pro-gun-rights Virginia Citizens Defense League, told the council. “This is people rising up. We are the good people. We follow the rules. Why can’t you leave us alone?”
Another resident, Travis Fox, said the city council’s resolution to ban carrying firearms in government buildings, which will be debated this week, is a violation of the Second Amendment.
“You think we won’t pack this building again, again, again, again and again?” Fox said during the meeting. “This is the collective voice of Virginia telling Richmond that we will not be bullied.”
‘We need to be completely behind the president, what he did, because every one of those countries are watching our news media right now…’
(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) After Nikki Haley, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, accused Democrats of “mourning the loss” of Iranian general and terrorist Qassem Soleimani, leftists complained Haley was promoting a “ridiculous, inflammatory, and dangerous” narrative.
Responding to several Democratic presidential candidates’ statements in the wake of Soleimani’s death, Haley praised President Donald Trump’s decision to order the drone strike and slammed Democrats for hating Trump more than they hated Soleimani.
“You don’t see anyone standing up for Iran. You’re not hearing any of the Gulf members. You’re not hearing China. You’re not hearing Russia,” Haley said. “The only ones that are mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership, and our Democrat presidential candidates.”
“The only ones mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership and Democrat Presidential candidates.” pic.twitter.com/IZJJqpxkBE
“This was something that needed to be done and should be celebrated,” she continued. “And I will tell you right now, partisan politics should stop when it comes to foreign policy. This is about America united. We need to be completely behind the president, what he did, because every one of those countries are watching our news media right now, seeing what everyone’s saying.”
Former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile said retorted that Haley’s attacks on Democrats were equally polarizing.
“[R]ather than inform viewers, Ambassador Haley wants to divide Americans,” Brazile claimed.
And presidential hopeful Marianne Williamson responded to Haley on Twitter, chiding her for the “dangerous” remark.
Shameful, dangerous comment. We’re in trouble as a nation when an ex-Governor and UN Ambassador would say something so dishonest, Nikki Haley. I’ve rarely agreed with your politics but I’ve always before respected you as a person. It demeans everyone when politicians go low.
‘The most obvious thing for the candidate to say about his son … is that he loves his adult children but has limited control over their decisions…’
Hunter and Joe Biden / IMAGE: Donald J Trump via Youtube
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) The leftist editorial board at USA Today desperately sought to shield Democratic front-runner Joe Biden from genuine scrutiny over his scandalous Ukraine misconduct with a ‘tough-love’ editorial on Tuesday that glossed over the real issues.
While couching its own defense of Biden in the ostensibly critical write-up, the newspaper then offered the former vice president a platform to wage an unfettered attack on President Donald Trump through a phony point–counterpoint format.
From the very beginning of its editorial, USA Today falsely framed the problem it was pretending to address. “Like it or not, Democratic presidential front-runner Joe Biden and his son Hunter have been dragged into President Donald Trump’s sleazy arms-for-dirt dealings with Ukraine,” it said, exercising remarkable forbearance in its deployment of loaded language.
“Biden can’t control that,” the editorial whined, “but he can control how he handles questions about the matter.”
Contrary to the torqued-up claims, however, the Bidens dragged themselves into the Ukraine quagmire of their own making well before Trump became president and—according to Democrats—threatened to withhold military support if newly-elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy did not re-open a corruption investigation into the Burisma natural gas company.
Hunter Biden, under duress, finally acknowledged in an October interview that his decision to introduce a clear conflict of interest into U.S. foreign policy during his five years on the Burisma board of directors had reflected poor judgment on his part.
But then, who could blame him for assuming he wouldn’t get caught? After all, his father, in 2017, gloated with impunity about forcing the firing of the prosecutor–general who was investigating Burisma.
Despite the video evidence confessing a cover-up, many in the media continue to include the requisite throwaway line in their reporting that there remains “no evidence” of misconduct on the part of the Bidens.
For USA Today, the issue was not even the fact that Biden engaged in unethical behavior, which closely mirrors the “abuse of power” accusations Democrats have waged against Trump during their impeachment efforts.
Rather, it was that Biden hadn’t done a better job of lying about it, resorting instead to a cagey evasiveness—and sometimes even open hostility—when confronted.
“His responses haven’t been a good look,” the paper scolded.
‘Less a Scandal than a Family Embarrassment…’
Hunter Biden / IMAGE: ABC News via Youtube
Characterizing skeptics as “ill-informed,” USA Today said Biden should have spared the dodgy waffling—not by supplanting them with candor and an acknowledgement of the clear-cut impropriety, but by refusing outright to answer any questions about it.
The great offense he committed by dishonestly flip–flopping on his answers was that he was “potentially giving comfort to Trump loyalists trying to contrive a rigged Senate trial,” charged the newspaper.
It then sought to diminish Joe Biden’s role and downplay Hunter’s by painting a false equivalency to a pair of former presidential black-sheep.
“Less a scandal than a family embarrassment, it falls more into the category of Billy Carter, the ne’er-do-well brother of Jimmy Carter who hawked Billy Beer and lobbied for Libya, and of Neil Bush, the son of George H.W. Bush who got himself embroiled in the savings and loan crisis while his father was vice president,” it said.
Oddly enough, the paper excluded Frank Biden, Roger Clinton and Tony Rodham, three Democratic siblings whose White House access benefited them in far more concerning ways.
Although Hunter Biden’s drug abuse, sex addiction and tax evasion all happened concurrently with the five years that he was drawing millions in “consulting” fees from Burisma as his father directed US–Ukraine policy and anti-corruption efforts, the editorial board wrote off the soon-to-be-50-year-old’s “misjudgments” as the youthful indiscretions of a mischievous scamp.
“If his decision to make some easy money caused his father grief, it would not have been the only time,” wrote the paper, presumably as a sitcom-esque trombone womp–womp played in the background.
But the editorial ignored altogether the evidence—which President Donald Trump sought to expose—that the former vice president directly intervened on his son’s behalf by pressuring Ukraine to withhold a billion-dollar loan if it continued to investigate Burisma.
Instead, it claimed, Joe Biden—currently auditioning to be the most powerful person in the world—had no influence over his son’s actions while he was second-in-line to the presidency.
“The most obvious thing for the candidate to say about his son … is that he loves his adult children but has limited control over their decisions,” said the paper. “Any parent can relate to that.”
It further bemoaned the distraction that the unfortunate situation had created for this “experienced, empathetic figure who appeals to working-class voters in key battleground states” (tapping into another false narrative promoted by the Biden campaign).
Nonetheless, it wagged its finger at Biden for having been caught off-guard by the controversy since “to be clear, Trump will do his damnedest to make a big deal of Hunter Biden’s poor judgment and to use him as a justification for his own rogue actions.”
‘The Truth Is Not Up for Debate…’
Joe Biden / IMAGE: Late Show with Stephen Colbert
Adding insult to injury was the editorial’s companion op-ed, attributed to none other than Joe Biden, himself.
Biden pretended to lick the wounds of his light jostling by the USA Today board, presenting a false dichotomy in order to work the “refs” in the mainstream media by equating their supposed criticism to (gasp) Trump support.
“The fourth estate shouldn’t carry Trump’s water on these debunked attacks or perpetuate controversy where there is none,” the aggrieved career politician wrote indignantly.
True to form, though, the bulk of his ink was spent not on an apologia for his own conduct, but rather a full-fledged deflection from it.
“Here’s the only question we should be asking: Did Donald Trump abuse the presidency for personal, political gain?” Biden commenced. “The answer is clear. He openly, brazenly and repeatedly called for foreign interference in our elections.”
Of course, such an outlandish claim on the periphery of the debate at hand hardly bears fact-checking of its own.
But unlike Biden, Trump has been assured of his day in court to definitively resolve any questions surrounding his conduct—and, to some extent, he already has been held accountable for the allegations.
Central to the president’s defense will be whether Biden’s prior misconduct provided reasonable justification for his actions.
Nonetheless, having—to his and the USA Today editorial board’s satisfaction—established Trump’s unquestioned guilt, Biden used the balance of his space as a complimentary campaign ad, pitching his case for why he deserves the nod over his fellow Democratic competitors.
Trump is “going to attack whoever wins the nomination, but I have already proved I can withstand his dirty tricks,” Biden insisted.
“Despite months of lies and vicious attacks against me, my only surviving son, my entire family—my campaign is gaining strength, because the truth is not up for debate,” he continued, presumably as a symphony of tiny violins played behind him.
Dianne Feinstein screen shot (Washington Post/Youtube)
(Joshua Paladino, Liberty Headlines) Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ken., appears to be winning the battle with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Cal., to determine the rules for President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate.
At least eight Senate Democrats said that Pelosi should send the articles of impeachment to the Senate.
Sen. Diane Feinstein of California, the top Democrat in the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on Jan. 8 that the impeachment trial should begin.
“If we’re going to do it, she should send them over,” Feinstein said, Politico reported. “I don’t see what good delay does.”
She even exposed the House Democrats’ hypocrisy: They claim Trump is an existential threat to the nation, yet they have delayed the articles of impeachment that could remove him from office.
“The longer it goes on the less urgent it becomes,” Feinstein said. “So if it’s serious and urgent, send them over. If it isn’t, don’t send it over.”
Making matters worse for Pelosi, McConnell said yesterday that he has the votes necessary to set the rules for the impeachment trial, as moderate Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine have agreed to the majority leader’s plan.
McConnell plans to conduct the impeachment trial according to the rules used during President Bill Clinton’s trial.
Sen. Joe Manchin, a vulnerable West Virginia Democrat, said the impeachment trial should begin.
“I think it needs to start, I really do… Let us do what we have to do over here,” he said.
Democratic Sens. Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut stated more clearly that Pelosi should send the articles of impeachment to the Senate.
“I think the time has passed,” Murphy said. “She should send the articles over.”
“We are reaching a point where the articles of impeachment should be sent,” Blumenthal said.
Blumenthal also defended the reason for Pelosi’s delay, arguing that Democratic Senators would continue the battle that she began.
“We were ready on the day the articles were voted, to conduct the trial,” Blumenthal said. “At some point it’s appropriate to send them and in effect pass the baton to senators who are going to continue to insist on witnesses and documents.”
Sens. Angus King, I-Maine (who caucuses with Democrats), Doug Jones, D-Ala., John Tester, D-Mont., and Chris Coons, D-Del., also came out in support of beginning the impeachment trial, Politico reported.
When former National Security Advisor John Bolton announced on Jan. 6 that he is willing to testify in an impeachment trial, reporters thought Pelosi was on the verge of declaring victory.
Quite amazing. A seismic shift in leverage. Before just two hours ago, most Rs and even Ds privately thought Schumer & Pelosi would send the articles w/ no witness agreement since McConnell had the upper-hand. Bolton just changed all that. https://t.co/FCKMMs0Ctx
It was never made clear what “leverage” Pelosi had that would force McConnell to make a deal regarding new documents and witness testimony.
Even Democrats admitted that Pelosi’s so-called leverage was thin.
“We need to get folks to testify and we need more information … but nonetheless I’m ready,” Tester said. “I don’t know what leverage we have. It looks like the cake is already baked.”
‘If it wasn’t painfully obvious, this partisan impeachment charade was never about protecting Democracy…’
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) With the announcement from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., that his chamber intended to proceed with an impeachment trial before determining whether new witnesses will be called, one might expect House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to be delighted.
“They keep taking it to court and, no, we’re not going to wait till the courts decide,” Pelosi said on Nov. 11, as noted in a recent piece by America Rising. “We can’t wait for that.”
But after stating the urgency of their hasty timetable by declaring Trump an “imminent” threat, Democrats—led by Pelosi—have been quick to backpedal, attempting to withhold the articles of impeachment from the Senate and, thereby, exposing their sheer political motives.
No comment from @SpeakerPelosi upon arrival to the Capitol when asked about timetable for transmitting impeachment articles to the Senate, per @jparkABC.
New data from the pollsters at Morning Consult confirmed this week that Democrats’ efforts last month to railroad impeachment through the House of Representatives have benefited President Donald Trump.
Its 50-state survey, which tracks whether Trump’s net approval has gone up or down since his January 2017 inauguration, indicated that the month of December was Trump’s highest for the year 2019.
The poll said the president’s positive approval remained the same, but his disapproval number had dropped a percentage point among independents.
It also found a record 58 percent of GOP voters “strongly” approving, showing that the divisive House proceedings had—as anticipated—helped Trump to shore up his base.
Consistent with other left-leaning polls that place Trump’s approval in the low 40s and disapproval in the low 50s, Morning Consult’s numbers—assuming their methods are consistent—still may accurately reveal insights into national approval trends, despite any inherent biases.
Naturally, the conservative America Rising made hay of the Left’s embarrassing reversal of fortune.
Nancy Pelosi / CSPAN via Youtube
“If it wasn’t painfully obvious, this partisan impeachment charade was never about protecting Democracy,” wrote the group in a send-up that highlighted several of the hysteria-laden quotations from top Democrats during the House proceedings.
“It was a purely political attempt to satiate the Democrats’ radical base and damage President Trump heading into the 2020 elections,” it continued.
The incoming data may come as little shock since signs of the backlash had already sent the Left into a panicking tailspin once the buyer’s remorse from its cathartic self-indulgence set in.
The move immediately whittled away at their precarious majority after Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey switched parties.
Additionally, Trump campaign officials have reported that impeachment is helping drive their fundraising efforts, with Trump’s fourth-quarter haul of $46 million being roughly equal to that of Democratic front-runners Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg combined.
Even Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who led the way for the Left with $34 million last quarter, fell about $12 million short of the president.
