Another Democratic Scumbag Pervert Outed

BUSTED! Obama promoted sexual pervert that spied on girls

MAY 12, 2018

• FACEBOOK
• LINKEDIN
• TWITTER

“On the Holmes Front,” with Frank Holmes

The Democrats’ decision to play up sexual harassment just gave them a big black eye. Federal documents prove former President Barack Obama defended a pervert who secretly took “upskirt” pictures of women on the subway.

To make matters worse, the perpetrator used taxpayer-funded benefits and snapped the pics while was supposed to be at work!

Federal employment files obtained by Judicial Watch tell a sordid tale of perversion, porn, and public transportation.

William Mendoza, a member of the Lakota tribe, joined the Obama administration in January 2011. Obama appointed him as a “special assistant” in the Department of Education for American Indian tribes – and the promotions and pay raises came fast and furious.

Mendoza’s official title got longer and longer. Eventually he was “Executive Director of the White House Initiative on American Indian and Native Alaskan Education” – and more importantly, Obama bumped up his salary at each step of the way.

When he started, he made $71,674 annually. By the time he left in August 2016, Mendoza pulled in a total salary of $168,872 per year – not to mention all the perks and benefits of federal office.

One of those perks is free transportation on the D.C. subway, known as the Metro. And that’s where Obama’s hand-picked political appointee was caught in his dirty games.

Mendoza took pictures of women wearing short skirts or loose shorts in the sweltering summer heat, without their consent.

Mendoza may have thought his government connections would protect him. If so, he was wrong. Police were able to piece together his crimes from eyewitnesses and security camera footage.

Mendoza staked out the historic Union Station and took pictures up the skirts of two different women on July 5, 2016 – within 20 minutes.

In both cases, police say, Mendoza aimed his camera “in the proximity of their bottom.”

Two days later, he was back at it, this time at another D.C. Metro stop. As a woman reached down to adjust her loose shorts, she saw the glow of somebody’s cell phone shining on her body. Mendoza got caught red-handed trying to take sneak-peek pictures.

As he ran out, a female witness told him to stop – then told police a man who looked just like Mendoza tried to take a picture of her a few days earlier!

You’d think that kind of a close call would convince Mendoza to quit… but the very next day, he moved on to yet another Metro stop.

This time, he followed two women wearing dresses up the escalators, aimed his cell phone “near the bottom of her dress,” and snapped a picture.

The Metro’s own police department decided to investigate Mendoza in August 2016. Mendoza decided to quit his job before the officials could close in on him.

But the Education Department’s internal investigation found that Mendoza used his government-issued free subway card, known as a SmarTrip card, to prowl the subway for fresh victims – and claimed it was official business.

Mendoza “engaged in criminal conduct while on government work time and/or while utilizing government transit benefits,” the department’s inspector general report found.

Even after officials had him on tape, Mendoza got away with a slap on the wrist. Last January, he plead guilty to attempted voyeurism and got 90 days in jail – suspended – as well as a year’s probation and a $100 fine.

His lawyer, Paul Y. Kiyonaga, tried to make Mendoza out to be the victim. “He’s received treatment for the underlying issues that gave rise to this incident, and, with the strong support of his family, is moving forward productively with his life,” the attorney told the media.

But what about the women who are afraid to go on the subway for fear that a rogue government employee will take perverted pictures or videos of them?

Still, Obama was cool with Mendoza, because Mendoza supported all the right PC causes.

Mendoza railed against sports teams using American Indians as mascots and protested the Dakota oil pipeline.

In fact, Mendoza had already gotten away with actions that would be unthinkable from a Republican official. He was accused of beating up a 28-year-old American Indian college student with Asperger’s Syndrome in October 2015 – because the man wore a shirt featuring the Washington Redskins.

Obama didn’t fire Mendoza after that altercation, and his behavior escalated to taxpayer-funded voyeur porn.

For Democratic extremists like Obama, hating Chief Wahoo and promoting eco-extremism is more important than treating women and minorities with basic human respect.

Frank Holmes is a reporter for The Horn News. He is a veteran journalist and an outspoken conservative that talks about the news that was in his weekly article, “On The Holmes Front.”

No One, No Administration, No Congressman, No Senator, Or Government Agency Should Be Above The Law. If They Break It, They Should Be Held Responsible

The FBI Shouldn’t Be Above the Law Either

David Harsanyi / @davidharsanyi / May 04, 2018 / comments

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has a habit of slow-walking documents to Congress that make the FBI look bad. (Photo: Cheriss May/ZUMA Press/Newscom)

These days, a number of people seem to be under the impression that investigating President Donald Trump is the most vital project undertaken by this nation since its founding. Perhaps. But their feelings shouldn’t override the Constitution, because for all the principles allegedly being whittled away by this administration, its antagonists seem to be doing everything they can to keep pace.

For instance, while it might come as a surprise to many, the Justice Department is not an “independent” entity. Presumably, those who work for the DOJ have fealty to law and justice first, yes. But they are ultimately subordinates of the president of the United States, who was elected legally and has powers identical to those of former Presidents Barack Obama or George W. Bush.

In other words, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein doesn’t work for CNN personalities or Vox explainer writers. He works for Trump.

And while it might also come as a surprise to some people, Congress—a separate, co-equal branch of government run, for the moment, by Republicans—is tasked with oversight of the executive branch, which includes the Justice Department. Now, you may deem Congress scandalously incompetent or hopelessly partisan, but it’s within the purview of a congressional committee to ask the FBI for documents pertaining to an ongoing investigation. Congress isn’t breaking the law or “extorting” anyone by asking for more transparency, as Rosenstein recently asserted.

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

Yet most Democrats (and never-Trumpers) have taken the exceptionally convenient position that not only should the president (well, this president) not have a say over the goings-on at the Justice Department but Congress (well, this Congress) also has no right to demand oversight. Most of the media frame their work accordingly, creating the impression the FBI doesn’t answer to anyone.

Fact is, Rosenstein has a habit of slow-walking documents to Congress that make the FBI look bad. This is a political consideration. The deputy attorney general is now refusing to hand over redacted documents that pertain to former Trump aide Michael Flynn’s statements about interacting with Russians. Will Flynn’s statements magically change if the public or Congress see them? Rosenstein has yet to explain why he’s not cooperating with a congressional inquiry. Instead, he plays martyr to a friendly media.

Last time we went through this charade, in fact, Democrats and their allies were claiming that releasing congressional findings on alleged FBI abuses would be a reckless attack on the nation’s security. Whatever you make of the veracity of the claims in the Devin Nunes memo, this claim turned out to be untrue. We went through a similar circus with the release of the James Comey memos, which ended up giving Americans more context to the endless leaks that have consumed news coverage for the past year and a half.

The idea that partisans and journalists who’ve made a living using favorable leaks regarding the investigations into the Trump administration are suddenly concerned about the sanctity of a criminal investigation is ludicrous. Moreover, Congress, whether you like it or not, is also conducting an investigation. Let’s see more, not less.

Which brings me to special counsel Robert Mueller. There has been a continued effort in Congress to pass a law insulating the special counsel, which would create a super prosecutor with wide-ranging autonomy that would allow him to investigate whatever he likes for as long as he likes. I’m not sure such a law would be constitutional, but it’s certainly an attack on the separation of powers.

Let’s face it: Most Democrats or Republicans have acted in partisan ways during the Russia collusion investigation because much of it is a partisan concern. The only thing left is to try to save the already-tattered process because by creating the impression that wholly constitutional actions are abuses, we are also creating precedents that undermine norms of governing oversight.

Now, firing Mueller would almost surely have major political ramifications, giving Democrats fodder to seek impeachment without any proof of criminality, much less “collusion.” And considering the questions Mueller reportedly wants to ask Trump—a net-casting expedition that has almost nothing to do with collusion—doing so would probably be an act of self-destruction on the president’s part.

Or maybe Mueller will uncover criminality. Maybe Trump will abuse his office in an effort to bury the investigation. If the House believes so, it can impeach the president. If the Senate believes so, it can remove him. If the Republicans believe it, they can nominate someone else. If the American people agree, they can elect another president.

This is all proper. But changing how government works by effectively stripping embedded constitutional oversights for political reasons is just another kind of corruption.

Leftist Ideologues Get Freedom Supporting Law Firm Kicked Off Site

How a ‘Far-Left Propaganda Machine’ Got a Respected Legal Group Expelled by Amazon

Greg Scott / @GScottSays / May 03, 2018 / comments

A stellar record was not enough to prevent Alliance Defending Freedom from being banned from participating in the AmazonSmile program. The reason? Southern Poverty Law Center. (Photo: Bhishek Chinnappa/Reuters/Newscom)

Alliance Defending Freedom has won seven cases at the U.S. Supreme Court in as many years, including one that upheld an Arizona school choice program and another that prevented the state of Missouri from discriminating against a Christian preschool.

The legal powerhouse, which fights for religious freedom, is awaiting decisions in two more landmark free speech cases it argued this term before the high court. It is counted as one of the most successful legal advocacy organizations in the country.

But even that stellar record was not enough to prevent Alliance Defending Freedom from being banned from participating in AmazonSmile, which allows Amazon.com customers to contribute “0.5% of eligible purchases” to “almost one million eligible 501(c)(3) public charitable organizations.”

ADF had been one of those charities since the 2013 launch of AmazonSmile until recently, when those who had assigned the legal organization as their charity were notified that it was no longer eligible.

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

The reason? Southern Poverty Law Center.

Those who had selected ADF as their charity received the following explanation of why they’d no longer be able to give to the religious freedom group through the program:

The AmazonSmile Participation Agreement states that certain categories of organizations are not eligible to participate in AmazonSmile. We rely on the Southern Poverty Law Center to determine which charities are in certain ineligible categories. You have been excluded from the AmazonSmile program because the Southern Poverty Law Center lists Alliance Defending Freedom in an ineligible category.

For those unfamiliar with SPLC, they are the hysteria-stokers responsible for producing a slanderous list of “hate groups” that lumps together actual violent extremists with respectable organizations such as Alliance Defending Freedom and the Family Research Council and with international human rights activists such as Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

So, the “ineligible category” to which Amazon’s statement refers is really nothing more than a hit list of groups and people SPLC disagrees with. Amazon’s decision to rely on the false accusations of such a bad actor is inexplicable.

In response to the ban, Alliance Defending Freedom’s CEO, Michael Farris, sent a letter urging entrepreneur and philanthropist Jeff Bezos’ Amazon to reconsider its alliance with the widely discredited Southern Poverty Law Center:

Although the SPLC did good work many years ago, it has devolved into a far-left propaganda machine that slanders organizations with which it disagrees and destroys the possibility of civil discourse in the process. The group has been discredited by investigative journalists and charity watchdogs as a ‘direct mail scam’ that has seen its leaders amass enormous fortunes. It is no surprise that the United States Department of Defense and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have severed ties with the SPLC.

Lest one think that Southern Poverty Law Center is a misunderstood group of would-be do-gooders just trying to provide a public service, but not quite hitting the mark, consider the words of a senior executive, Mark Potok, who said: “Sometimes the press will describe us as monitoring hate crimes and so on … I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, to completely destroy them.” (Emphasis mine.)

By its own admission, SPLC is in the game not to inform, but to obliterate. Nice set of friends you have there, Mr. Bezos.

“Southern Poverty Law Center spends its time and money attacking veterans, nuns, Muslims who oppose terrorism, Catholics, evangelicals, and anyone else who dares disagree with its far-left ideology,” ADF Senior Vice President Kristen K. Waggoner said. “Meanwhile, ADF works every day to preserve and affirm free speech and the free exercise of religion for people from all walks of life and all backgrounds because we believe freedom is for everyone.”

I can affirm the truth in the above statement, as I spent 13 years working alongside Kristen and many other honorable people at Alliance Defending Freedom. From firsthand experience, I know ADF is committed to building freedom’s future, while Southern Poverty Law Center is hell-bent on vaporizing any opposing views.

With SPLC having been repeatedly exposed as a huckster racket for decades by voices from across the ideological spectrum, it is mind-boggling that one of the largest companies in the world would align itself with its  destructive bigotry.

As a private business, Amazon has the freedom to make choices like this.

But faithful Amazon customers should know that Amazon’s choice is to side with a torch-and-pitchfork fear merchant over millions of people who have the audacity to believe in religious freedom, free speech, strong families, and the sanctity of human life. Those are all causes that Alliance Defending Freedom has spent a quarter of a century ably defending.

When You Don't Know Or Understand History, You Are Bound To Repeat It, Mr. Hogg!

The Consequences of Historical Ignorance

Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman / May 03, 2018 / comments

Gun control activist David Hogg said on Twitter that only nonviolent movements have succeeded. (Photo: Aaron P. Bernstein/Reuters/Newscom)

COMMENTARY BY

Jarrett Stepman@JarrettStepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor and commentary writer for The Daily Signal and co-host of "The Right Side of History" podcast.Send an email to Jarrett.

America is suffering through a crisis in education, especially when it comes to history.

Many were horrified when a poll, released in April, showed that two-thirds of millennials don’t know what Auschwitz is, despite the fact that it was the most notorious Nazi death camp in World War II.

That was hardly the only worrisome poll of late.

Americans should be outraged that our schools have failed to teach even the most basic historical facts to the younger generations. Worse, the education they receive has often only turned into a justification for superficial social activism, lacking in depth and veracity.

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

David Hogg, the teen survivor of the February school shooting in Parkland, Florida, who became a gun-control activist, exemplifies this worsening problem. He recently tweeted:

David Hogg

✔@davidhogg111

Throughout history violence and war only creates more of itself for example WWI->WWII->Cold War ->Korean War->Vietnam and up to today. While nonviolent moments like Gandhi’s, the suffrage movement or Civil Rights movement lead to peace and long lasting change. Ours will too.

10:00 PM - Apr 29, 2018

• 23.8K
• 12.8K people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

This is little more than bumper sticker history, demonstrative of Hogg’s historical illiteracy.

For one thing, it’s unlikely that Gandhi’s pacifism would have been of much use against the Nazi war machine. People willing to put other humans in ovens are unlikely to be moved by passionate pleas for peace.

It should be noted, too, that Hogg’s two examples of nonviolent movements succeeding—Gandhi’s Indian independence movement and the U.S. civil rights movement—were not exactly nonviolent.

The Partition of India was incredibly violent, and led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of people. And the civil rights movement certainly wasn’t an entirely nonviolent affair, either. The rights of many black Americans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were secured almost entirely by gun ownership.

These so-called nonviolent movements occurred in countries with a tradition of respecting the rule of law and individual rights, giving them an actual chance to succeed through ballots instead of bullets.

In China, nonviolent student protests in the 1980s were crushed by the state—literally in the case of the Tiananmen Square protest. Historically, repression has been the norm, not the exception.

For Americans, the right to speak freely and protest was only secured because young men, mostly teenagers, were willing to take up arms—arms that Hogg and others have so relentlessly crusaded against—and risk their lives to fight for their God-given liberties against the British Crown.

At one time, every American would have known this and would have acknowledged the blood and suffering of the Revolution that secured our freedom and independence.

War is a terrible thing, but it is often just and necessary, and it has certainly served to stop tremendous evil in this world.

To deny that is absurd.

Despite the clear gaps in his historical knowledge, Hogg hasn’t shied away from insulting the civic acumen of others and hectoring them. He once said, “Our parents don’t know how to use a f—ing democracy, so we have to.”

Not content to simply insult his parents’ generation, he then followed up in a later interview claiming that those who were against him were on the wrong side of history—a history that his generation would presumably be writing.

“Regardless of what your opinions are or where you come from, you need to realize we are the future of America,” Hogg said in an NPR interview. “And if you choose not to stand with us, that’s OK, because you’ll be on the wrong side of the history textbooks that we write.”

If that’s so, then future history textbooks will look more ideological and baseless than accurate portrayals of the historical record. But perhaps that’s because many current textbooks are, too.

Americans are free, regardless of their education or knowledge level, to use a public platform to espouse their views. At the same time, it’s hard to have a substantive and productive debate on the issues of the day when even the most basic facts of history are unknown to those doing the debating.

Platitudes begin to sound like profound insights when one has an extremely narrow view of history and world events.

It would be nice to see a little more humility from those who have such an incomplete understanding of that history.

Nevertheless, we have only ourselves to blame if we are not doing more to fix the increasingly deplorable state of American schools.

We must admit that the public school education model is failing our youths,despite how much money we’ve pumped into the system.

We should take it upon ourselves to improve our republic through better schools—perhaps charter schools, or even better, private schools funded by caring parents who increasingly can use vouchers or education savings accounts to escape the current institutions that have failed them.

Currently, many of our schools don’t meet even the basic requirements of what Americans need to be informed citizens. Worse, the education students are receiving, especially in civics, is heavily skewed toward left-wing politics.

As my wife, Inez Stepman, wrote for The Federalist:

If education reform is going to be about more than ticking up the United States’ score on international exams, and if school choice is also our only opportunity to break a left-wing ideological monopoly on public education, we must deliver meaningful, universal education choice to parents now, while Generation X parents are still the majority of those with school-age children.

We must give all parents the opportunity now to choose education options that align with their values, or the values we cherish will continue their slide into extinction.

Historical ignorance and cultural disintegration are only going to become more pronounced until we find a way to expand the net of education that works for the youngest generation.

School choice can no longer be treated as a back-burner issue.

Our future and our freedom depend on it.