Muslim “Welfare Queen” Refuses to Remove Headscarf in Court… Judge Puts Her in Her Place

BY · NOVEMBER 28, 2016

Muslim immigrant Rania El-Alloul had a rude awakening in a Montreal court when she showed up wearing her Islamic head covering.

Arrogantly assuming that the court would bow to her beliefs, she was told by Quebec Judge Eliana Marengo that if she wanted to be heard she would have to remove her hajib.

“The courtroom is a secular place and a secular space,” said Marengo. “There are no religious symbols in this room. Not on the walls and not on the persons.”

The judge went on to say that she would not hear anyone that appeared wearing a hat or sunglasses either.

“I will therefore not hear you if you are wearing a scarf on your head,” Marengo said.

When asked if she would remove the headscarf so that the court could continue, El-Alloul declined.

“Actually I cannot remove my scarf,” said El-Alloul. “Since long years I’m wearing my scarf.”

El-Alloul then started to give the judge excuses that she was poor, on welfare and a mother of three on her own, but the judge would hear none of it.

“That’s not what I’m talking about,” said Marengo in reference to the excuses.

The judge told her that she would not be hearing her case and that she could consult a lawyer.

El-Alloul was appearing before the court to try to get back her car, which had been impounded after police discovered her son driving it without a license.

Of the incident, El-Alloul says that she now lives in fear. “What happened in the court made me afraid. I felt that I’m not Canadian anymore,” she said.

Just as liberal secular humanists don’t want to be judged under Christian principals, people of other religions must understand that they don’t get a special pass either.

Immigrants to another nation should be ready to assimilate to their chosen country’s laws, language and culture if they wish to live there.

Please share this article on Facebook and Twitter if you agree that Muslims must follow the laws of the country in which they choose to live.

Advertisements

BOOOMM!! Congress Just Stripped Obama Of His Power, He Can No Longer..

 

Barrack Obama has been stripped of his power and he can no longer pass any new laws or impose new policies as Midnight Rule Relief Act passed on Tuesday.

The bill, passed by a 240-179 majority, amends the Congressional Review Act to overturn in a single vote any regulations Obama attempts to put through in his final days in office.

Thehill.com reports

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) urged his colleagues on the floor Thursday morning to pass the legislation and tell the American people that lawmakers heard them on Election Day loud and clear.

“The American people have said no to the continuance of the Obama administration’s policies,” he said.

“This bill guarantees that Congress can prevent any and all last-minute defiance of the people’s will by midnight regulations that stubbornly seem to entrench the last pieces of the administration’s bipartisan agenda.”

House Republicans are doing everything in their power to keep the Obama administration from enacting any new rules in its final days.

Earlier in the week, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) warned the federal agencies in a letter not to finalize any pending rules or regulations from now to the inauguration. Those that are, he assured, will be scrutinized and — if appropriate — overturned.

While the bill targets rules finalized in the lame-duck period between Election Day and President-elect Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 inauguration, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) argues its reach is much further.

Despite the bill’s colorful title, he said the legislation allows Congress to overturn rules finalized as far back as May.

Johnson cited pro-regulatory groups like Public Citizen in disputing Republican claims that midnight regulations are rushed through at the end of an administration in haste. Quoting a recent report, he said rules finalized in the last three months of an administration take 3.6 years on average to complete.

“This is a solution to non-existent and undocumented problem,” he said, adding that once a rule is invalidated, an agency cannot adopt a similar rule without Congressional consent.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) accused House Republicans of trying once again to undermine President Obama.

“This is en bloc destruction of regulations that may save lives,” she said. “This is to say, ‘In your eye, Mr. President.’ ”

The bill’s author, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), rebutted that claim.

“The Congress lady would have you believe it’s an attack on our president. It’s not,” he said. “It’s a law that would allow Congress to reassert the authority that’s constitutionally and inherently always ours.”

Democrats offered several amendments that were ultimately rejected, including exceptions for rules that are issued in response to a matter of national security, address the harmful effects of climate change or have benefits that exceed their costs.

The administration has already threatened a veto if the bill were to make it to the president’s desk.

In a statement, the Executive Office of the President said the bill is unnecessary because the Congressional Review Act already allows for Congress to disapprove rules on a case-by-case basis.

“In addition, the bill would expand the scope of rules subject to the CRA such that by the time a vote on a resolution occurs, some of the rules may have been in effect for over a year,” the executive office said.

“By doing so, H.R. 5982 would create tremendous regulatory uncertainty, potentially impose additional costs on businesses, and represent a step backwards for applying sound regulatory principles to protect public health, safety, the environment, and other critical aspects of society.”

John Major: case for second Brexit referendum is credible

The UK establishment is utterly determined to keep us captive INSIDE the toxic Islamifying EU!!

‘Tyranny of majority’ should not dictate manner of exit from EU, says former PM in remarks likely to anger pro-Brexit Tories

Sir John Major and Tony Blair

Sir John Major has become the second former prime minister within 24 hours to question the Brexit process, saying there is a “perfectly credible” case for a second referendum on leaving the European Union.

Speaking shortly after Tony Blair argued in an interview that Brexit could be reversed if the public changed its mind, Major said that the 48% of voters who wanted to remain should not be subject to the “tyranny of the majority”.

The former Conservative prime minister said in a speech at a private dinner on Thursday that the opinions of remain voters should be heard in the debate about how Britain left the EU, the Times reported.

In his first intervention over the issue since the 23 June referendum, Major said he accepted the UK would not remain a full member of the EU, but hoped any Brexit deal would mean the UK remained as close as possible to EU members and the single market, which he described as “the richest market mankind has ever seen”.

Whatever happened with Brexit, he said, he could not accept that those people who voted to remain should have no input on the terms of Brexit.

“I hear the argument that the 48% of people who voted to stay should have no say in what happens,” he said. “I find that very difficult to accept. The tyranny of the majority has never applied in a democracy and it should not apply in this particular democracy.”

Major argued that it must be parliament, not the government, that made the final decision on any new deal with the EU, and there was a “perfectly credible case” for a second referendum on such a deal.

Major was addressing a dinner and question-and-answer session commemorating the 100th anniversary of David Lloyd George becoming prime minister.

Earlier on Thursday, the New Statesman published Blair’s comments about the possibility of Brexit being halted.

In an interview to mark his return to commenting on political matters, Blair said he was not predicting Brexit would not happen, only that there was a possibility it would not. “It can be stopped if the British people decide that, having seen what it means, the pain-gain, cost-benefit analysis doesn’t stack up,” he said.

Such a turnaround could arise in one of two ways, both of them hinging on negotiations over access to the EU’s single market, Blair said.

“Either you get maximum access to the single market, in which case you’ll end up accepting a significant number of the rules on immigration, on payment into the budget, on the European court’s jurisdiction. People may then say, ‘Well, hang on, why are we leaving then?’

“Or alternatively, you’ll be out of the single market and the economic pain may be very great because, beyond doubt, if you do that you’ll have years, maybe a decade, of economic restructuring.”

Theresa May’s spokesman dismissed the idea of a second referendum.

“We’ve been clear all along that the people of the United Kingdom have given the government a very clear instruction to take us out of the European Union,” he said. “Even Sir John has accepted that we are going to be leaving the European Union.”

Asked about the idea of the 48% of remain voters having no say, the spokesman said such issues were being raised in Commons debate and in the work of the Brexit select committee: “All these opinions will be fully aired and fully debated.”

He dismissed Major’s notion of the “tyranny of the majority”, saying: “It was a full and fair, democratic vote, and the majority voted to bring Britain out of the European Union. It is now the job of the government to deliver on the will that was expressed on that vote.”

The Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, said: “When a former Conservative prime minister publicly comes out in support of a Lib Dem policy, it shows we are the only sensible party on Brexit.

“The British people voted for departure but they didn’t vote for a destination, and they certainly didn’t vote to make the nation poorer and risk jobs. The haphazard way May’s cabinet are handling Brexit makes the case for a referendum on the deal stronger each day, and we’re glad to have growing cross-party support for this campaign.”

Like Blair, Major was notably more pro-EU than many other MPs in his party. The former Tory prime minister’s time in office was marked by persistent battles with his backbenchers over Europe.

The peak of the disruption came in 1995 when Major stood for re-election as Conservative leader against the leading Eurosceptic John Redwood in an attempt to regain his authority on Europe.

Major’s comments are likely to enrage some of his former foes, such as Redwood, who are still in parliament.

John Major: case for second Brexit referendum is credible

 

 

Trump and Brexit success could herald Australian regional, rural revolt

Updated about 3 hours ago

The election of Donald Trump and Britain’s exit from the European Union are the hallmarks of a tectonic shift in Western politics, fuelled by rural and regional revolt.

Key points:

  • Trump and Brexit have shaken up politics in Australia
  • One Nation’s resurgence has rattled the major parties
  • More issue-based voting rather than party-based voting anticipated
  • National Party expected to break ranks with the Coalition more often

As a consequence, the long-forgotten people in the regions of Australia are now at the forefront of every politician’s mind.

Infrastructure Minister Darren Chester said there is a growing push back against the idea of the elites.

“I think there is no doubt there is a bit of an anti-establishment movement in the community,” he said.

“It’s more of a feeling amongst some people that perhaps they may have been left behind.”

Conservative LNP Minister George Christensen believes political movements in the US and UK indicate it is time for Australia to take a drastic change in direction.

“As important as it is, people aren’t interested in the Government’s budget repair, they’re interested in repairing their own household budgets, which are bursting at the seam because of higher electricity prices, petrol prices,” he said.

“It’s the cost for everything. Tax is out of control.”

If George Christensen’s point of view was a slogan, it would echo Donald Trump — “Make Australia great again”.

“Civic nationalism is actually very different to the ethnic Nazi-type nationalism, fascist-type nationalism that we saw throughout Europe and sometimes do see throughout Europe,” he said.

“Civic nationalism is about putting your country first on matters economic, on matters political, and I think that’s where the public wants us to be.”

Rise of One Nation

All of this is music to the ears of One Nation, whose resurgence has rattled the major parties.

Rob Borbidge knows more than most about the threat posed by One Nation.

He was Queensland premier in 1998, when Pauline Hanson’s party won six seats off the Nationals and five off Labor.

“There’s an enormous amount of dissatisfaction with everyone. I mean, people are basically grumpy,” he said.

“They feel disenfranchised, they feel that the political system is letting them down.”

He is urging the major parties to stick to their core values and wait for One Nation to implode, as they did when he was premier.

“I don’t think that mainstream political parties should panic at this stage.

“The types of people that One Nation get into Parliament are rebellious, they are renegades and they don’t want to be part of the football team.

“Sooner or later, they want to go and do their own thing.”

Many in the current crop of Nationals, such as Darren Chester, agree, and for now are resisting calls from within to lurch to the right.

“I don’t think that many people in Australia actually identify as being left or right. I think they tend to vote on issues,” he said.

It is a sentiment shared by Labor, who has a lot to lose in the rise of the anti-establishment movement.

Joel Fitzgibbon, the Opposition spokesman for regional and rural Australia, said politics outside the major cities has changed.

“The National Party represents I think nine of the 10 poorest electorates in the country,” he said.

“And yet over time, people have continued to back them in and support them in those electorates.

“So if the National Party was serious, it would be talking about some progressive change. That’s certainly what the Labor Party wants to do.”

Breaking ranks a feature of the future

The recent Orange by-election in New South Wales was yet another wake-up call.

The Baird Government’s greyhound ban and push for council amalgamations saw a major upset, with the election of a Shooters, Fishers and Farmers party candidate.

A matter of days later in Federal Parliament, the Nationals sent their constituents a powerful message when two Senators crossed the floor to support lifting a ban on the Adler shotgun, and four others abstained.

In fact, not a single National voted with the Government’s position.

Nationals breaking ranks with the Coalition is something we are likely to see a lot more of in future, as regional representatives seek to prove they are different to their colleagues from the big smoke.

“There’ll be times when we disagree and we need to negotiate, we may need to compromise,” said the Nationals’ Darren Chester.

“If we can’t reach that agreement, there will have to be times when the Nationals may well vote differently.”

That is something Labor, with its strict rules about caucus solidarity, will not be trying to replicate.

“Sticking together in a big number is a better way of progressing good public policy and good outcomes than fracturing all over the place,” said Joel Fitzgibbon.

“I mean, fracturing, I think, only further feeds the new and unstable political model.”

Topics: regional, community-and-society, us-elections, government-and-politics, australia, united-states,united-kingdom

Trump and Brexit success could herald Australian regional, rural revolt

The People Have Spoken: They Have Hope For Donald Trump

 

I certainly have more Hope than Ive had since 911. I was raising my little boy on my own and knew that day that my boy faced a very uncertain future. Luckily we survived the worst of the following years and I didnt give an inch for these progressives to poison my sons mind with their Agenda. I cant even describe the relief that came over me the day Donald Trump was elected, I just felt like I had a ton of bricks taken off my shoulders lol

VIDEO Return of Assassination Fascination – Trump and College Chaos

I second this idea, they are Domestic Terrorists!

Reclaim Our Republic

The Return of Assassination Fascination

The Return of Assassination Fascination

Nov 23, 2016 by Michelle Malkin

Alert the CDC: Left-wing America has been overcome by another contagious epidemic of assassination fascination. It’s time to declare a public health crisis.

In San Antonio last week, two high school students performed a sicko skit depicting the assassination of President-elect Donald Trump.

In Cleveland, unhinged 24-year-old Zachary Benson tweeted his “life goal is to assassinate Trump.” The hashtag #AssassinateTrump surfaced on Twitter, along with a flood of bloodthirsty death wishes.

Another #AssassinateTrump threat came from Atlanta public transit employee Aleama Philips, who tweeted, “I wish I had the balls to kill him myself,” illustrated with a photo of Trump dead and riddled with bullets. She was fired by the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority last week.

In San Diego, the loony (and now former) CEO of cybersecurity firm PacketSled, Matt Harrigan, took to Facebook on election night to…

View original post 1,256 more words

VIDEO Ben Carson accepts HUD Secretary position

I really like this guy and have total faith in him

Reclaim Our Republic

Ben Carson accepts HUD Secretary position

November 23, 2016 

A spokesperson for Ben Carson confirmed to the Wall Street Journal that Carson was offered the HUD secretary post, and has accepted it.

Carson alluded to the decision earlier Wednesday when he posted on Facebook, “After serious discussions with the Trump transition team, I feel that I can make a significant contribution particularly to making our inner cities great for everyone.” He went on to say, “An announcement is forthcoming about my role in helping make America great again.”

President-Elect Trump formally offered the job to the retired neurosurgeon on Tuesday.

Carson had previously said he was not interested in serving in Trump’s administration. Though, his business manager Armstrong Williams said, Carson always maintained he’d be open to considering a senior role in the administration if Trump convinced him there was no one else for the job.

Williams said Carson was…

View original post 643 more words

HUD Gives Poor More Rent Money to Live in “Higher Opportunity” Areas With “Lower Poverty”

To help “very low-income families” live in better neighborhoods, the Obama administration has issued a sweeping order requiring the government to pay more for their housing so they can move to areas of higher opportunity and lower poverty. The final rule was announced in the federal register this month by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the agency that annually spends tens of billions on rent for the poor.

A chunk of the money, an estimated $18 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office, goes to a program called Housing Choice Voucher (HCV), which is funded by HUD and administered by local public housing agencies. It allows recipients to choose housing in the private market and pays a set amount based on fair market rent for a metropolitan area. Under the new rule, which goes into effect in January, fair market rents will now be calculated by ZIP code so Uncle Sam will pay a lot more for people to live in nicer areas. Here’s an excerpt of the new regulation: “This final rule establishes a more effective means for HCV tenants to move into areas of higher opportunity and lower poverty by providing the tenants with a subsidy adequate to make such areas accessible and, consequently, help reduce the number of voucher families that reside in areas of high poverty concentration.”

HUD Secretary Julián Castro said in an announcement that the goal is to “offer these voucher-holding families more opportunities to move into higher opportunity neighborhoods with better housing, better schools and higher paying jobs.” The agency decided to spend more money to house the poor after a group of Ivy League social scientists published a study on the effects of moving families away from neighborhoods with deeply concentrated poverty to low-poverty environments. They found that children who moved to low-poverty neighborhoods before the age of 13 did better as adults, had significantly higher earnings and a greater likelihood of attending college. To keep with one of the agency’s key missions of “fostering opportunities for economic mobility,” American taxpayers will foot the bill for the higher rent in more upscale neighborhoods.

To justify the added expense HUD is playing the race card, asserting that the current method of doling out vouchers “has not proven effective in addressing the problem of concentrated poverty and economic and racial segregation in neighborhoods.” The agency fully expects that when the new system kicks in it will be “more effective in helping families move to areas of higher opportunity and lower poverty.” To some this may sound like social engineering and yet another Obama administration example of spreading the wealth around. For instance, the “better jobs” argument is a huge red herring, particularly in the area surrounding the capitol, which will be deeply impacted by the new rule. For example, the highest new fair market rent areas in the District of Columbia are in the northwest while the lowest are in the southeast. Commuting to downtown is actually easier from the southeast because of its proximity, metro rail coverage and bus routes. Also, the highest rent allowances in the area are in places like Fairfax—again, far less accessible to employment centers than anywhere in the District.

The new regulation will have a significant impact on the composition of targeted neighborhoods. As an example: In 2016, the fair market rent for the entire D.C. metropolitan area for a two-bedroom apartment was $1,623. Under the new rule, voucher amounts in the D.C. area will range up to $2,420 a month for a two-bedroom apartment in northwest D.C and parts of Fairfax and Arlington counties. Among the areas that will implement the new system are the nation’s largest cities, including Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, Philadelphia and San Antonio. HUD claims that its current system artificially inflates rents in some higher poverty neighborhoods rather than incentivize voucher holders to move to higher opportunity neighborhoods.

This is an agency that’s been embroiled in a multitude of serious scandals—under both Democrat and Republican administrations—over the years and Judicial Watch has reported on many of them, including the discovery that $200 million had been wasted at local public housing agencies run by people with “troubled backgrounds” in high-ranking positions. Agency leadership has also been rocky over the years. George W. Bush’s HUD secretary, Alphonso Jackson, was forced to resign in the midst of a federal investigation involving cronyism. Bill Clinton’s HUD secretary, Henry Cisneros, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about payments to a mistress. Ronald Reagan’s HUD secretary, Samuel Pierce, was involved in an influence-peddling scandal that saw 16 people, including some of his top aides at the agency, convicted.

HUD Gives Poor More Rent Money to Live in “Higher Opportunity” Areas With “Lower Poverty”

ALERT: Trump’s STUNNING Move About Hillary Scandals May Not Be What It Seems

trump-hillary

Is President-elect Donald Trump’s first big battle with the Republican Congress going to be over Hillary Clinton’s reputation?

In another bizarre twist to the already bizarre political year of 2016 — and one that has outraged the president-elect’s anti-Clinton base — key Trump aide Kellyanne Conway says the incoming administration has no plans to pursue investigations into the private email server Hillary Clinton used when she was secretary of state.

And while word on that no-go position by Trump in getting to the bottom of the Clinton email scandal as well as Clinton Foundation offenses has been met with shock on the right, it doesn’t mean the matter is closed by a long shot — or that Trump isn’t getting something out of the deal.

A slew of pundits across the political spectrum — liberal and conservative — predicted a “Republican civil war” after this year’s election, but this was definitely not supposed to be a cause of it.

The stunning moment came on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program Tuesday, after hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough broke the news from a “source” close to Trump that the president-elect was not interested in pursuing an investigation of his former rival for the presidency.

Conway confirmed the story in an appearance shortly afterward – in what appeared to be a message directed at the Republican House and Senate majorities.

“I think when the president-elect, who’s also the head of your party, tells you before he’s even inaugurated that he doesn’t wish to pursue these charges, it sends a very strong message, tone and content to the members,” Conway said.

Conway then made it sound like an act of charity on Trump’s part. Besides, she implied, an incoming administration has more important things to worry about than the battles of the past.

“I think Hillary Clinton still has to face the fact that a majority of Americans don’t find her to be honest or trustworthy, but if Donald Trump can help her heal, then perhaps that’s a good thing,” she said.

“I think he’s thinking of many different things as he prepares to become the president of the United States, and things that sound like the campaign aren’t among them.”

The decision is likely to stand, as far as the executive branch goes.

The incoming Trump administration has the fig leaf of the FBI’s twice-concluded probe to hide behind, so the new Trump Justice Department can let Clinton slide without batting another eye — even if hardliner Jeff Sessions becomes the next attorney general. (Quite possibly Trump’s change of heart about prosecuting Hillary has to do with getting the Sessions nomination approved by the Senate.)

But Congress might have other ideas about what Conway called Trump’s “message, tone and content.”

A lot of Americans, especially Democrat members of Congress, seem to have forgotten during the imperial presidency of Barack Obama that Congress is a branch of power equal to the presidency (more powerful in some ways). If the Republicans who hold a majority in both houses decide they want to continue to investigate Clinton, there’s nothing stopping them.

And Republicans after Trump’s election certainly sounded determined to go ahead, which could be the overarching master plan that Trump can use to his political advantage.

Whether the subject is Clinton’s email server, the alleged “pay-to-play” scheme Hillary had going with the State Department to benefit her family’s “charity,” the Clinton Foundation, or the general cloud of corruption that’s surrounded the Clintons for the 25 years they’ve been on the national stage, there’s plenty of fodder to feed any number of criminal probes.

As Rep. Jason Chaffetz told the Washington Post shortly after Trump’s unexpected victory, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform he chairs has a duty to continue the Clinton email investigation.

“It would be totally remiss of us to dismiss [the email investigation] because she’s not going to be president,” he said.

Obviously, the news of Trump’s decision caused outrage among his strongest supporters, where “lock her up” was a fervent campaign chant at numerous Trump rallies.

Breitbart News, a conservative-leaning website once helmed by Trump’s newly named chief strategist Steve Bannon, headlined its coverage with “Broken Promise: Trump ‘Doesn’t Wish To Pursue’ Clinton Email Charges.”

Some social media reaction was angry and disappointed.

Pamela Geller, the anti-Muslim activist and staunch Trump supporter, suggested the president-elect was being played for a fool. 

And while I understand that this may very well be an olive branch to the Democrats, Trump is in for a rude awakening. There will be no quid pro quo. The Democrats will not play ball with him or give him an easier time or stop the violent rioting or calm their base. Like jihadis, they see kindness and peace offerings as signs of weakness.

I am sure many Trump supporters whose chant, “lock her up!,” is now a rallying cry for government corruption and lawlessness, will be hugely disappointed.

In a statement, Judicial Watch, the watchdog group that has been a leader of the fight in the Clinton email case — filing numerous Freedom of Information Act requests that opened new avenues of investigation — attacked the decision, and demanded Trump appoint a special prosecutor to look into the case.

Donald Trump must commit his administration to a serious, independent investigation of the very serious Clinton national security, email, and pay-to-play scandals.  If Mr. Trump’s appointees continue the Obama administration’s politicized spiking of a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton, it would be a betrayal of his promise to the American people to “drain the swamp” of out-of-control corruption in Washington, DC.  President-elect Trump should focus on healing the broken justice system, affirm the rule of law and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Clinton scandals.

But consider this: By taking the “hands-off” position with any further investigation of Hillary by the executive branch — and letting Congress continue to dig up evidence — Trump could have the best of both worlds. He could be seen as a “healer” focused on the future of the country, while making sure that the Clintons are kept in check by congressional inquiry.

Whatever Congress does in the face of executive branch disapproval is going to be up to Congress. Chaffetz, Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., and their colleagues haven’t been intimidated by a Democrat named Barack Obama in the White House, it’s not likely they’re going to be intimidated by a Republican named Donald Trump.

The “Republican civil war” was supposed to be about how the party lost to Hillary Clinton, who would have guessed it would be what do to with her if she was defeated instead?

ALERT: Trump’s STUNNING Move About Hillary Scandals May Not Be What It Seems

VIDEO Giving Thanks for the End of the Pro-Crime Presidency – Al Qaeda favors ‘immigration’ to defeat USA

I still believe he was a Trojan Horse put in to destroy us, glad this Bafoons day is over!

Reclaim Our Republic

obama-my-work

Obama’s Thanksgiving gift to America: putting an unprecedented number of criminals back on the streets

Giving Thanks for the End of the Pro-Crime Presidency


Nov 24, 2016 By Matthew Vadum

This Thanksgiving, Americans can give thanks for the termination of one of the most pro-criminal administrations in American history, though the damage done to the criminal justice system may far outlast outgoing President Barack Obama’s tenure in office.

To date, President Obama has now freed more than a thousand prisoners as part of his crusade against a criminal justice system he considers to be racist.

With fewer than 60 days remaining in his second and final term of office, the most felon-friendly president in American history just “reduced the sentences of 79 people in prison for non-violent drug crimes,” bringing his total to 1,023 commutations of prison sentences, Quartz reports.

“Unlike pardons, commutations don’t officially constitute forgiveness of…

View original post 2,319 more words