I had planned on taking a day off from the blog, but developments with the Wikileaks email dump obliged me to stay on the job.  Late last night a friend informed me that Julian Assange’s internet access had been disrupted.  Let me give you a bit of background on Assange and Wikileaks.  Julian Assange is an Australian citizen, computer programmer by occupation, who created the organization known as Wikileaks.  Since its inception over ten years ago, Wikileaks has been dedicated to hacking into private government and business computer systems, and releasing to the public confidential information.  The organization claims no political bias, and only releases information that it decides is in the public interest.  You may recall that former U.S. Army soldier Bradley Manning was Court-martialed for sharing Top Secret military intelligence with Assange and Wikileaks.  While Wikileaks was making a name for itself in the Bradley Manning affair, Assange found himself in “unrelated” difficulty with the Swedish police.  Two women accuse Assange of sexual assault, relating to the time period that Assange was living in Sweden.  Assange, who was in England when the accusations became public, has been hiding out at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in order to avoid extradition to Sweden to face trial.  While he has been holed up in the Embassy of Ecuador, Assange has continued to control Wikileaks.  In fact, Assange claimed that Wikileaks had hacked into Hillary Clinton’s server when she was Secretary of State, and that Wikileaks intended to release these emails in October, just prior to the U.S. presidential election.

When October rolled around, and Wikileaks started releasing Clinton emails, the U.S. media was busy giving airtime and legitimacy to a string of slanderous, false stories about Donald Trump.  A number of us noted with anger the “coincidental” timing of the stories about Trump, but we also realized that the media could not distract the American public forever.  The Wikileaks emails would eventually be disseminated, and barring any unforeseen developments, the release would take place before the November election.  Imagine my surprise when I discovered Sunday night, that Assange’s email access had been disconnected, just prior to the release of another batch of emails.  Wikileaks, which claims to have other methods of sharing the emails, announced that Assange’s access was terminated by the government of Ecuador.  I have also read that the CIA was involved, but I doubt the veracity of that particular accusation.  I am convinced that the Obama Administration put the heat on the Ecuadorians, strongly advising them to shut down Assange’s access in order to avoid an incident with the U.S. government.  We all know just how popular Barack Obama is internationally, so I doubt the effort required much arm-twisting. continued>>

A senior State Department official proposed a “quid pro quo” to convince the FBI to strip the classification on an email from Hillary Clinton’s server – and repeatedly tried to “influence” the bureau’s decision when his offer was denied, even taking his plea up the chain of command, according to newly released FBI documents.

Fox News first reported Saturday that the FBI interview summaries and notes, known as 302s, contained allegations of a quid pro quo. Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who initially told Fox News of the claim, called it a “flashing red light of potential criminality.”

Documents published Monday morning confirm the account. Notes from an interview with an unnamed FBI official reveal the State Department Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy tried to horse-trade with the FBI, offering additional slots for the bureau overseas if they would de-classify a particular email marked “SECRET.”

According to the documents, an unnamed individual said he was “pressured” to “change the classified email to unclassified.”

“[Redacted] indicated he had been contacted by PATRICK KENNEDY, Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the email’s classification in exchange for a ‘quid pro quo,’” the 302 states. “[Redacted] advised that in exchange for marking the email unclassified, STATE would reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more Agents in countries where they are presently forbidden.”

At a subsequent meeting at the State Department regarding the classification review of Clinton’s materials where Kennedy presided, someone asked whether any of the emails in question were classified.

“Making eye contact with [redacted] KENNEDY remarked, ‘Well, we’ll see,’” the document says. The official, according to one account, was “attempting to influence the FBI to change its markings.”

Kennedy allegedly asked at that point who else he could speak with and was referred to Michael Steinbach, then a top official with the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division. Kennedy “continued to pressure the FBI to change the classified markings on the email to unclassified,” the document says. “STEINBACH refused to do so.”

The document says Kennedy then asked about whether the FBI would be making a public statement and was told they would not. Shortly afterward, the story about the email contents broke in the press and Clinton publicly denied having sent classified emails on her server.

In the wake of the document release, House Oversight Committee Chairman Chaffetz and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., have written letters to Secretary of State John Kerry and Inspector General Steve Linick seeking Kennedy’s removal and a misconduct investigation.

“We find Under Secretary Kennedy’s actions extremely disturbing. Those who receive classified intelligence should not barter in it – that is reckless behavior with our nation’s secrets,” they said in a statement. “Someone who would try to get classification markings doctored should not continue serving in the State Department or retain access to classified information. Therefore, President Obama and Secretary Kerry should immediately remove Under Secretary Kennedy pending a full investigation.”

State Department spokesman Mark Toner on Monday denied the “quid pro quo” allegation.

At a press briefing, he said, “[Kennedy] contacted the FBI to understand what their rationale was for requesting an upgrade of this particular information.”

A spokesperson at the FBI provided a lengthy statement to Fox News on Saturday night ahead of the document release — disputing Chaffetz’s characterization and stating that, while the conversation did happen, the two issues discussed were not connected.

The FBI account is as follows:

“The FBI determined that one such email was classified at the Secret level. A senior State Department official requested the FBI re-review that email to determine whether it was in fact classified or whether it might be protected from release under a different FOIA exemption. A now-retired FBI official, who was not part of the subsequent Clinton investigation, told the State Department official that they would look into the matter. Having been previously unsuccessful in attempts to speak with the senior State official, during the same conversation, the FBI official asked the State Department official if they would address a pending, unaddressed FBI request for space for additional FBI employees assigned abroad. Following the call, the FBI official consulted with a senior FBI executive responsible for determining the classification of the material and determined the email was in fact appropriately classified at the Secret level.”

According to the FBI, “The classification of the email was not changed, and it remains classified today. Although there was never a quid pro quo, these allegations were nonetheless referred to the appropriate officials for review.”

The FBI documents fueled GOP allegations about Clinton’s handling of classified material.

“These documents further demonstrate Secretary Clinton’s complete disregard for properly handling classified information. This is exactly why I called on DNI Clapper to deny her access to classified information,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement. “Moreover, a senior State Department official’s attempt to pressure the FBI to hide the extent of this mishandling bears all the signs of a cover-up.”

Kennedy appears in other sections of the FBI documents as well. According to another FBI interview, Kennedy wanted some information changed to an obscure code known as B9 to “allow him to archive the document in the basement of DoS [Department of State] never to be seen again.”

The State Department inspector general also told the FBI Kennedy’s “tone and tenor were definitely not positive when dealing” with their office.

Fox News’ Catherine Herridge contributed to this report. 

 

WikiLeaks said Monday that its founder Julian Assange’s Internet link was severed by a “state party” and that “appropriate contingency plans” had been activated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The website’s announcement came hours after it published three cryptic tweets. The messages referenced Ecuador, Secretary of State John Kerry and the United Kingdom’s Foreign Commonwealth Office. Each tweet was matched with a string of numbers.

Gizmodo noted that the 64-character codes sparked a whirlwind of rumors that the 45-year-old Assange had died. Rumors on Reddit and Twitter said the numbers triggered a so-called “dead man’s switch,” which could be enacted in case Assange did die. Gizmodo reported that such switches do exist.

WikiLeaks hasn’t tweeted anything else about Assange’s Internet access or how it may have been “severed.”

Various U.S. officials and pundits have made threatening statements directed at Assange in the past. WikiLeaks tweeted in early October an alleged 2010 quote from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking if Assange could be killed in a drone strike, and, that same year, former Democrat strategist Bob Beckel said on Fox News Channel that “a dead man can’t leak stuff.” This month, “specific information” prompted Assange to scrap a dramatic London balcony address to celebrate WikiLeaks’ 10th anniversary.

Assange also has hinted that deceased DNC staffer Seth Rich may have been a secret source for WikiLeaks. Rich, 27, was discovered with multiple gunshot wounds to the back at a Washington, D.C., intersection in July. He died soon thereafter. Authorities believe Rich was the target of a botched robbery; however, odd circumstances surrounding his death have invited conspiracy theories.

The controversial anti-secrecy website has been busy in October, methodically releasing a trove of emails allegedly stolen from the gmail account of Clinton presidential campaign chair John Podesta. WikiLeaks had released just more than 12,000 emails of a purported 50,000 they have access to as of Monday morning. The Podesta emails have raised questions about a too-cozy working relationship between the Clinton campaign and some members of the media and has also shed light on how Clinton’s team handled various scandals.

It wasn’t immediately clear if the Podesta revelations were the “October surprise” Assange hinted his group would release in advance of the U.S. election.

Many experts believe WikiLeaks is not an independent organization, but in fact a front for the Russian government. Podesta suggested recently on “Fox News Sunday” that his emails had been hacked by the Russians, and officials also have determined a recent hacking of the Democrat Party’s computer files was likely the work of Russian actors.

Vice President Joe Biden told NBC News on Friday that the U.S. would be “sending a message” to Russian President Vladimir Putin “at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact.”

Assange has lived in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London for five years as officials in Sweden have sought him on criminal charges.

One of the last reported interactions with Assange came Saturday when former “Baywatch” star Pamela Anderson brought the WikiLeaks boss a vegan meal.

FoxNews.com

In the second debate of the 2016 presidential race, Trump came back strong, obviously deciding that the “gentleman” approach he had adopted for the first debate had not worked well in his favor.

Trump had suffered over the weekend by the revelation of an audio tape made over a decade ago wherein he sounded like a rock star who could take any woman he pleased. As the debate took shape, however, the focus quickly and clearly shifted to Mrs. Clinton’s actual acts against women, not just words.

In this debate, Clinton often looked like a deer in the headlights as Trump laid bare the details of her husband’s many abuses of women, one even claiming he raped her, and how Hillary had become an accomplice-after-the-fact by publicly flogging his accusers, despite the overwhelming evidence of his guilt. Mr. Clinton was later impeached, lost his license to practice law, and paid an $800,000 settlement in court as a result of his attacks on some of these women. Hillary, however, never apologized for her public besmirching of the victims.

Similarly, Trump confronted Clinton with evidence of her wrongdoing in regard to erasing over 30,000 emails and “acid washing” the email server AFTER she received a congressional summons telling her to preserve the emails as evidence in a congressional investigation.

When Hillary was asked by moderators about the recent Wikileaks posting of her Wall Street speeches, which she had previously refused to make public herself, where it was revealed that she actually supports completely open borders among other things, Hillary attempted to advocate a schizophrenic view of public life, where it’s alright for a politician to express one view publicly, and the opposite view behind closed doors, invoking Abraham Lincoln’s methods of dealing with a pro-slavery Democratic party as an example. Trump rebuked Clinton, saying, “You’re no Lincoln,” telling her that her unwavering dishonesty with the American people was in stark contrast to Lincoln’s pristine reputation for honesty.

As she did in the first debate, Hillary Clinton repeatedly cried for help from so-called “fact-checkers,” in an effort to deflect Trump’s blows, but everyone watching the debate was painfully aware that Hillary’s record is cemented in historical fact, and that no amount of spin from her campaign or the press could provide relief as she took punch after punch.

When Trump was allowed to speak to substantive issues, he was thoughtful and pro-American, in contrast to Mrs. Clinton. He pummeled her on her record as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State, pointing out that she had accomplished nearly nothing in her 25+ years of accumulating power, while making many foreign policy blunders (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, etc.) and accumulating hundreds of millions of dollars in personal wealth by selling favors as Secretary of State.

When asked about their choices for Supreme Court justices, Mr. Trump said he would appoint justices in the mold of the late Justice Scalia, men and women who honor the Constitution and the Founders’ intent when they adopted it. Mrs. Clinton, conversely, said she would look for justices who would provide a modern, liberal interpretation of law.

Mrs. Clinton was clearly shaken by the overwhelming evidence of her corruption and self-dealing (with much more to come in debate #3), and was on the ropes much of the evening, stammering and white-faced on several occasions. As the debate drew to a close, Clinton was reduced to wandering incoherence while Trump remained focused and substantive. It was a clear victory for Mr. Trump.

by James Thompson

visit Mr. Thompson @facebook and on his website

 

On Thursday, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine will release its report on “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration.” According to the report, first generation immigrants as a group increase the nation’s fiscal deficit. In other words, the government benefits they receive exceed the taxes paid.

The National Academies’ report provides 75-year fiscal projections for new immigrants and their descendants. The fiscal impact varies greatly according to the education level of the immigrant. Low-skill immigrants are shown to impose substantial fiscal costs that extend far into the future. The future government benefits they will receive greatly exceed the taxes they will pay.

On average, a nonelderly adult immigrant without a high school diploma entering the U.S. will create a net fiscal cost (benefits received will exceed taxes paid) in both the current generation and second generation. The average net present value of the fiscal cost of such an immigrant is estimated at $231,000, a cost that must be paid by U.S. taxpayers.

The concept of “net present value” is complex: it places a much lower value on future expenditures than on current expenditures.

One way to grasp net present value is that it represents the total amount of money that government would have to raise today and put in a bank account earning interest at 3 percent above the inflation rate in order to cover future costs.

Thus, as each adult immigrant without a high school diploma enters the country, the government would need to immediately put aside and invest $231,000 to cover the future net fiscal cost (total benefits minus total taxes) of that immigrant.

Converting a net present value figure into future outlays requires information on the exact distribution of costs over time. That data is not provided by the National Academies.

However, a rough estimate of the future net outlays to be paid by taxpayers (in constant 2012 dollars) for immigrants without a high school diploma appears to be around $640,000 per immigrant over 75 years. The average fiscal loss is around $7,551 per year (in constant 2012 dollars).

Slightly more than 4 million adult immigrants without a high school diploma have entered the U.S. since 2000 and continue to reside here. According to the estimates in the National Academies report, the net present value of the future fiscal costs of those immigrants is $920 billion.

This means government would have to immediately raise taxes by $920 billion and put that sum into a bank account earning 3 percent plus inflation per year to cover the future fiscal losses that will be generated by those immigrants.

To cover the future cost, each taxpaying U.S. household, on average, would have to pay an immediate lump sum of over $10,000. Costs would go up in the future as more than 200,000 additional adult immigrants without a high school diploma arrive in the country each year.

Again, converting a net present value figure into future outlays requires information on the exact timing of future costs that are not provided by the National Academies. However, a rough estimate of the future net outlays (benefits minus taxes) for the 4 million adult immigrants without a high school degree who have entered the U.S. since 2000 is perhaps $2.6 trillion.

One might argue that these estimates are exaggerated because many immigrants may return to their country of origin. But the report estimates already have a re-emigration rate of 31 percent built in.

A surge of low-skill immigrant workers may push down wages and thereby reduce consumer costs. But the National Academies report indicates such consumer gains would be modest, and if the wages of less-educated immigrants are driven down, the wages of less-educated U.S. workers will fall as well. Any consumer gains would come at the cost of wage losses for the most vulnerable American workers.

One might also argue that is it misleading to assign the costs of government “public goods” such as defense and interest of the national debt to recent immigrants. But the National Academies estimates exclude such public goods costs.

Advocates of ongoing, massive low-skill immigration have suggested that low-skill immigrants generate large-scale economic externalities that benefit U.S. workers. The National Academies report finds minimal evidence of such effects.

The continuing inflow of low-skill immigrants into the U.S. creates large fiscal burdens for U.S. taxpayers in both the present and the future.

By Robert Rector / Jamie Bryan Hall / @Mr_Jamie_B_Hall /

The Obama administration opposes states verifying citizenship status of registered voters. Inquiries into voter fraud are typically met with derision from both government and the media—and in at least one instance with prosecution. Prosecutors don’t prioritize voter fraud, while convictions only garner light sentences.

These are among the voter fraud problems facing the United States, experts noted this week, even as prominent voices on the left say such fraud is a myth.

The left’s opposition to voter integrity laws or even inquiry can be simply explained, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

“Why on earth would you not want to make sure that only citizens are registered and voting?” Fitton, author of “Clean House: Exposing Our Government’s Secrets and Lies,” said at a forum at The Heritage Foundation Tuesday. “That to me shows that the Obama administration and the left generally, which is behind this, wants to be able to steal elections if necessary. To me, that’s a crisis.”

A 2014 study by Old Dominion University found that 6.4 percent of all noncitizens voted in the 2008 election and 2.2 percent voted in the 2010 midterm elections. The study concludes this likely put Minnesota Sen. Al Franken, a Democrat, over the top in the race in his 312-vote statewide victory over Republican Norm Coleman in 2008.

“The left generally, which is behind this, wants to be able to steal elections if necessary,” says @TomFitton.

Fitton said this is approaching 15 percent of all noncitizens voting.

In the past, opponents have argued that ID requirements hurt minority participation. Meanwhile, studies have found minority voting has increased after voter ID was implemented.

“If you think your vote is going to be stolen, especially in urban areas where you have political machines controlling the voting process or the perception that they control the voting process, you may not bother to vote,” Fitton said. “But, if you think your vote will be counted, of course you’re going to be more likely to turn out.”

Some recent cases cited by the panelists demonstrate the reality of voter fraud.

In August, in St. Louis, a court ordered a do-over in a Democratic primary for a Missouri state legislative seats after finding absentee voter fraud.

Last year in Bridgeport, Connecticut, a state legislator was convicted of voter fraud and given a suspended sentence.

Still, some commentators contend there is no voter fraud problem in the United States. For example, this week a New York Times editorial called voter fraud a “myth” and “fake”:

As study after study has shown, there is virtually no voter fraud anywhere in the country. The most comprehensive investigation to date found that out of one billion votes cast in all American elections between 2000 and 2014, there were 31 possible cases of impersonation fraud. Other violations—like absentee ballot fraud, multiple voting and registration fraud—are also exceedingly rare. So why do so many people continue to believe this falsehood?

Credit for this mass deception goes to Republican lawmakers, who have for years pushed a fake story about voter fraud, and thus the necessity of voter ID laws, in an effort to reduce voting among specific groups of Democratic-leaning voters.

However, it was in New York City where the city’s Department of Investigation (DOI) determined the city’s Board of Elections (BOE) was doing a poor job of preventing ineligible voters from voting. During the 2013 mayor’s race, 63 city investigators went to polling places impersonating someone who was either dead, moved outside the city, or was in jail. Of those, 61 were cleared to vote. The department’s report stated:

The 60 investigators, among other investigative activities, conducted quality assurance surveys of voters at poll sites throughout the five boroughs, logging complaints from 596 of 1,438 voters relating to subjects such as ballot readability, poll workers, and poll site locations. DOI’s operations also revealed that there are names of ineligible voters (e.g. felons and people no longer City residents), and deceased voters, on the BOE voter rolls, some for periods of up to four years.

Accordingly, DOI investigators posing as a number of those ineligible or deceased individuals, were permitted to obtain, mark, and submit ballots in the scanners or in the lever voting booths in 61 cases, with no challenge or question by BOE poll workers. Investigators were turned away in 2 other cases. No votes were cast for any actual candidate or on any proposal during the course of the DOI operation.

Interestingly, the result was not to demand more accountability from the city’s Board of Elections. Rather, the New York City Council voted to prosecute the investigators for impersonating voters, said John Fund, a National Review columnist, previously with The Wall Street Journal, during the panel.

Progressive critics reference the rarity of voter fraud prosecutions as evidence of a “myth.” Fund said it is actually because such cases can be politically disadvantageous to elected district attorneys.

“Most prosecutors run for election. Most prosecutors want to have higher election,” Fund said. “The last thing you want to do is take on voter fraud cases which are highly politicized and infuriate half the people in your community on partisan basis. Judges require incredible standards of proof and often the sentences of the few people who are convicted of voter fraud are community service.”

Maintaining clean voter rolls from ineligible voters is also important and required by law, said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow with The Heritage Foundation. And New York isn’t the only place with a problem. In Indiana, 16 counties had more registered voters than voting-age adults based on U.S. Census Bureau data, he said.

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, better known as the “Motor Voter Law” allows people to register to vote when they get their driver’s license law. But it also requires local governments to maintain clean voter rolls, which the federal government can enforce. The Obama administration has never enforced this provision, von Spakovsky said at the forum.

“There has been a war being waged against election integrity for the past decade,” von Spakovsky said. “The leader in this has been the U.S. Justice Department. Instead of making sure every voter can vote and that no one’s vote is stolen through fraud, they have been on the other side of that, waging war against any efforts to prove election integrity.”

By Fred Lucas

What did we know about Barack Hussein Obama in 2008? His qualifications listed on his public resume were 1) Foreign Exchange Student?, 2) Law School “Professor,” 3) Community Organizer, 4) State Senator, and 5) and freshman U.S. Senator.

What do we mean by Foreign Exchange Student? Fact-checkers attempting to vet him at the time first found that Obama was unknown to his fellow Columbia classmates, and no one recalled seeing him in any classes he says he took at the university. A 2008 Wall Street Journal article cited a survey of 400 people who were Columbia students from 1981 to 1983 and found no one who remembered him.This, in itself, caused doubts about Obama’s backstory.

Then it was discovered that the only people who knew him as a child have said that he presented himself as a “foreign exchange student.” Strike two.

On his book publicity bio (right –>) he says of himself: “. . . was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.” Our point here is not to suggest that Obama was actually born in Kenya, because the state of Hawaii eventually produced a birth certificate for him. It is to show that Obama himself garnered special attention and favors as he was growing up through various false claims, like being “born in Kenya.” Strike three.

Regarding Mr. Obama’s tenure as a Law School Professor, the man was never a professor, but merely collected a paycheck for having an office at the University of Chicago Law School. He lectured infrequently, in any capacity, and was rarely seen by anyone at the school.

Community Organizer is one of those catch-all terms, meaning that Obama was active in leftist political causes. By his own admissions in his multiple autobiographies, from his early youth Obama was influenced by friends of his parents and grandparents who were blatant communists and socialists. He was a drug user and dealer, and frequently attended anti-American rallies and strategy sessions throughout his formative years.

Obama was elected an Illinois State Senator in 1996, suddenly unopposed in the election, and took office in 1997, where he remained until 2004 when he ran for the U.S. Senate seat. As a state senator he was often a no-show, and learned to vote “present” instead of yea or nay, to avoid creating a track record.

As a U.S. Senator Obama voted as a straight leftist, but 143 days into his term launched his bid for the presidency, and stopped voting on most issues thereafter.

Whether or not Obama was born in America, which issue the Hawaiian birth certificate puts to rest as far as we know, the fact that he grew up claiming otherwise is precisely why the original vetting process turned up questions and doubts about his American origins. His entire life was one of pretense and subterfuge, leading to confusion. We don’t blame Hillary Clinton’s people for floating the confusion as a reason to doubt him, any more than we blame Donald Trump for raising the Clinton Campaign’s doubts as an issue at the time. We just want everyone to remember who created the birther issue–and it was Barack Hussein Obama.

PUBLIUS

Federal lawmakers seeking to pinpoint the number of illegal immigrants who successfully sneak across the southern border ordered up a report from the Department of Homeland Security, but the agency refuses to release it and instead cites a misleading statistic that overstates the number who are nabbed, sources told Fox News.

DHS denied it is holding back the report, but sources say it was completed in November and that it shows roughly half of adults who attempt to cross the border make it. But that number that is at odds with DHS’ official estimates that authorities catch 80 percent, a number critics say is padded to make the feds look more effective. If released by the Obama administration, the true numbers could have major implications in the current presidential race, in which illegal immigration and border security has become a key issue, say observers.

One source familiar with the report told Fox News DHS is suppressing the report for “political reasons…because it would ‘look bad’ and ‘help elect Donald Trump.”

Republican lawmakers are furious that the report they ordered is not being released.

“It erodes the trust as to whether the administration is being honest with the American people about what the threat is,” said Rep. Martha McSally, R-AZ, who serves on the Committee on Homeland Security and chairs the Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee. “This should not be a partisan issue. Democrats, Independents and Republicans in my community want to make sure that border communities are safe.”

The report was requested by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees as part of the Fiscal 2016 Omnibus Bill, but has been shrouded in secrecy. Viewed by a select few in key administration figures, critics say it is being withheld because of its explosive findings, which could potentially benefit GOP nominee Donald Trump. FoxNews.com requested a copy from both DHS and the White House, but was told the report is not yet finished, an assertion disputed by sources familiar with the process.

“Any suggestion that DHS is delaying release of a report on new border enforcement measures for political reasons is false,” a DHS spokesperson told Fox News. “To the contrary, at Secretary Johnson’s direction, DHS has been making significant progress in the development of such measures.  At this point, however, the work is still preliminary and requires further refinement, to ensure the new measures are accurate and reliable.

“The November 2015 report purportedly obtained by Fox News is one building block provided by a research organization DHS has been working with to develop these measures,“ the spokesperson added.

The study was written by analysts from DHS and the outside firm Institute for Defense Analyses, and is the most extensive survey of illegal activity and U.S. enforcement at the southwest border to date. Researchers went to the Southwest border three times over 9 months and conducted independent surveys of Mexican migrants caught by the Border Patrol. They also reviewed Border Patrol intelligence, internal DHS records, apprehensions at ports of entry and detention records. The report was peer reviewed by a number of experts.

The document examines, in part, the Interdiction Effectiveness Rate (IER), or the number adults caught at the border by law enforcement. But when DHS briefed members of the House and Senate earlier this year, sources familiar with the report say it was blended with non IER statistics, such as unaccompanied children and those who surrendered to Border Patrol. Those figures were used to buttress the claim that only 20 percent of would-be illegal immigrants are successful when the real IER estimation was half, sources said.

“There is a distrust, because of the shifting measurements,” McSally said. “We would like to follow up with those researchers and better understand what is going on related to suppressing those results, if that’s an accurate report.”

It is concerning, but not surprising, that the Obama administration has kept secret this credible research, said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy research for the Center for Immigration Studies.

“It appears to me that this research could have been suppressed because it contradicts the Obama administration’s narrative that the border is secure, and it contradicts the administration’s wish for people to believe that illegal immigration is a thing of the past,” Vaughan said.

The taxpayer-funded research should be released to the public and available for review by experts, said Edward Alden, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a co-author of the CFR report, “Managing Illegal Immigration to the United States: How Effective is Enforcements.” Alden was one of the private sector researchers who worked on the DHS report.

“How can we expect Congress to make decisions on border enforcement if it doesn’t know how many people are entering illegally, if it doesn’t know the apprehension rate, if it doesn’t know the detection rate…. what percentage of people the border patrol is seeing,” Alden said. “All of these are critical variables about making intelligence decisions about border enforcement and they simply at the moment are not in the hands of the Congress and the public.”

The irony is the data, by and large, reveals what appears to be a “good news” story, Alden said.

“We have seen a significant decline in illegal immigration from Mexico to the United States and it’s clear that the Border enforcement build up has been a big reason why that decline has been as sharp as it has been,” Alden said. “Our estimates suggest that the number of successful illegal entries has fallen from extremely high numbers – more than 3 million annually up to the mid-2000s– to much, much smaller numbers, about 250,000 last year. Keep in mind that these numbers do not represent individuals who came to stay in the United States – these are the total number of illegal border crossings.”

The numbers have fallen dramatically in recent years partly due to economic and demographic changes, such as a smaller population of young Mexicans looking for work, Alden said. But enforcement also has played a significant role because the odds of getting caught while crossing have gone up, and more importantly the consequences for getting caught are much greater, he acknowledged.

The Institute for Defense Analyses report is not classified or marked in any way and can be publicly disseminated without restriction, its authors said. But the chances of it getting out look dim, as a decades-old report also commissioned by DHS – the 2006 “CBP Apprehensions at the Border” study prepared by the Homeland Security Institute – has also never been released.

By Malia Zimmerman, William Lajeunesse

Sen. Chuck Schumer has reminded us just how important the upcoming presidential election will be in shaping the federal judiciary, calling getting a progressive Supreme Court his “number one goal.”

“A progressive majority on the Supreme Court is an imperative, and if I become majority leader, I will make it happen,” Schumer, D-N.Y., said to attendees at a conference last week hosted by the Rev. Al Sharpton.

These statements should concern individuals with a proper understanding of the limited role of the judiciary. The next president will appoint at least one justice to the Supreme Court and could fill one-third of judgeships on the lower courts by the end of two terms.

And a “progressive” Supreme Court is not outside the realm of possibilities.

The high court has been closely divided on a number of contentious issues in recent years: the Second Amendment (Heller, McDonald), religious liberty (Hobby Lobby, Town of Greece), the First Amendment (Citizens United), racial preferences (Fisher I), and the death penalty (Glossip), among others. One vote made the difference in each of these cases, which most consider as victories for the conservative wing of the court.

Schumer specifically criticized a 2013 decision involving a 5-4 decision about voting rights. In Shelby County v. Holder, the court held that Section 4 of the Voting Right Act, which set forth a 40-year-old coverage formula laying out which states needed to get preapproval from the federal government before making any changes in their voting laws, was unconstitutional.

The court explained that Congress “did not use the record it compiled to shape a coverage formula grounded in current conditions” and that the formula had “no logical relation to the present day.”

As Roll Call reported, Schumer “predicted that the Shelby County decision on voting rights would be overturned by a Supreme Court with the kind of progressive justices he would prioritize confirming as majority leader.”

But returning to an outdated coverage formula and continuing to subject states that no longer rampantly discriminate to extra burdens can no longer be justified. In fact, if Congress had updated the coverage formula using recent registration and turnout data, none of the previously existing covered states would have remained so because the registration and turnout of black voters in those states is either on par or exceeds that of white voters.

We don’t need judges who impose their own policy predilections on the rest of society, read new rights into the Constitution that are not grounded in the text, or strain the text to achieve their desired ends. Instead, we need judges who are faithful to the text of the Constitution and of statutes and who interpret the text and structure of the law based on the original public meaning of that text at the time it was adopted.

As we have written, the fate of the federal courts rests with the next president. Yet the Senate has a critical role to play too. The president must nominate and the Senate must confirm individuals who understand the proper, limited role of the judiciary. Any nominee’s record should demonstrate that he or she will apply the Constitution and laws according to their original public meaning.

Importantly, the Senate should not rubber-stamp nominees who would be bad judges. In fact, the Senate has a duty to reject any nominee who would not uphold the Constitution.

The next election could transform the federal judiciary and impact the law for decades. We don’t need a results-oriented “progressive” Supreme Court. We need one that’s faithful to the Constitution.

By Tiffany Bates / @TiffanyHBates / John G. Malcolm / @malcolm_john /

Moments ago, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton suddenly left 9/11 ceremonies at Ground Zero in New York City, stumbling to the curb to await her motorcade to arrive. Police sources say Mrs. Clinton seemed to be suffering from some kind of “medical episode.” Witnesses say she stumbled off the curb and appeared to faint, losing one of her shoes under the van. We are awaiting word of her condition.

Publius

With the presidential election two months away, a Kansas law requiring voters to show proof of citizenship remains in legal limbo.

Late last month, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach asked a U.S. appeals court to reinstate a provision of a law requiring Kansans to prove their citizenship when registering to vote while obtaining driver’s licenses.

Kobach, a conservative crusader in a movement in Republican-led states to toughen voting laws, wants the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a ruling by a federal judge in May. The judge’s decision temporarily restored voting rights to about 18,000 individuals who, as of the ruling, had registered to vote at motor vehicle offices without providing citizenship paperwork.

Kobach estimates that 18,000 will swell by November to about 50,000 potential voters who haven’t proven citizenship, so the appeals court decision will determine the fate of their votes.

He views the Kansas law as a guard against illegal immigrants voting.

“There is a huge potential for aliens’ votes to swing a close election,” Kobach told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “Even if it’s just a handful of votes, it’s still a huge injustice. Every time an alien votes, it effectively cancels out a vote of a U.S. citizen.”

“We have law-breaking when it comes to elections, and solving the problem is not difficult,” @KansasSOS says.

Since 2013, Kansas has required voters to provide proof of citizenship when voting—whether they are applying at a motor vehicle office or elsewhere in the state—by showing birth certificates, passports, or naturalization papers.

Kansas is one of four states—the others are Alabama, Arizona and Georgia—to have adopted laws requiring proof of citizenship during voter registration.

In February, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit on behalf of the League of Women Voters and individual Kansans who said they were left off the voter rolls after registering at the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles.

The ACLU lawsuit specifically targets the issue of Kansas’ requiring proof of citizenship from those registering to vote at the DMV.

The plaintiffs argue that the Kansas law violates the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, particularly a provision that requires states to offer people the opportunity to register to vote when they get a driver’s license. That section says that those who register to vote in this way can be asked only for “minimal information,” allowing them to simply affirm that they are citizens—under the threat of perjury if they lie.

The federal law does not require registrants to bring more documentation than they would need to get a driver’s license.

Kobach says that motor vehicle clerks sometimes accidently offer noncitizens the option to register to vote.

He argues that federal law doesn’t expressly bar states from asking for documentation proving citizenship for people registering to vote at the DMV.

“If a state wants to ask for proof of citizenship, nothing in the law prevents it,” Kobach said. “The absurdity of the legal argument that the ACLU is advancing is this notion that Congress intended to present a special privilege for people registering to vote at the DMV that other people don’t get to enjoy.”

But the ACLU counters that, under the Kansas proof of citizenship law, people who register to vote at the DMV are not always told that they have to provide additional paperwork to get on the voter rolls. These people only learn later on—after they thought they had registered successfully—that they actually were blocked from voting.

Critics also note that Kansas identified to the court only three cases of noncitizens who voted between 2003 and the implementation of the law in 2013.

“We do not have proof of fraud in Kansas,” Marge Ahrens, co-president of the League of Women Voters of Kansas, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview, adding:

We do not have illegal persons who want to vote. It’s the last thing illegal people would want to do. I do think it appeals to our sense of fear, but we just can’t find the evidence to support these laws.

Like other opponents of tougher voter identification laws, Ahrens contends that such requirements disenfranchise poor citizens who may not have the money or means to obtain documentation easily.

The League of Women Voters generally focuses its voter registration efforts on people 60 years or older. Ahrens says the elderly encounter similar challenges in trying to meet the requirements of Kansas’ proof of citizenship law.

“Older people can be stymied just by the idea of trying to pull together documents that may or may not exist,” Ahrens said. “Under this law, the complexity of the voting process has become so difficult that we really cannot do our work in a way that is effective.”

In response to these concerns, Kobach notes that Kansas eases the registration process by allowing voters to fax, email, or text a copy of their birth certificate to the DMV.

Kobach said he expects a decision from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals before the Nov. 8 presidential election. Even if a decision comes close to the election, he says, his state has contingency plans no matter the ruling.

Voters subject to U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson’s May 17 ruling—those who registered at the DMV since 2013 but haven’t provided proof of citizenship—will vote with provisional ballots and whether they’re counted won’t be decided until after Election Day.

While he acknowledged a wave of recent court rulings against voter identification laws in the states, Kobach said he intends to continue his push for stronger legal provisions, and will appeal to the Supreme Court if he loses.

“This about the rule of law,” Kobach said. “We have law-breaking when it comes to elections, and solving the problem is not difficult.”

By Josh Siegel / @SiegelScribe

Phyllis Schlafly, the iconic pro-family activist who rose to fame in the 1970s when she campaigned against the Equal Rights Amendment, has died at age 92, according to the Eagle Forum, the conservative organization she founded.

Schlafly had been an activist since the early Cold War era, but gained national prominence by leading traditional-religious women in the movement against the Equal Rights Amendment. President Reagan praised her campaign against ERA as “brilliant” and called Schalfly “an example to all those who would struggle for an America that is prosperous and free.”

Schlafly rose to national attention in 1964 with her self-published book, “A Choice Not an Echo,” that became a manifesto for the far right. The book, which sold three million copies, chronicled the history of the Republican National Convention and is credited for helping conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona earn the 1964 GOP nomination.

She went on to become one of the most influential pro-family activists in the 1980s and 1990s, and her support was courted by all GOP presidential candidates. She authored 27 books and thousands of articles.

Founded in 1972, Eagle Forum focuses on pro-family and socially conservative issues and now has an estimated 80,000 members.

Republican candidate Donald Trump praised the conservative activist in a statement released Monday evening.

“Phyllis Schlafly is a conservative icon who led millions to action, reshaped the conservative movement, and fearlessly battled globalism and the ‘kingmakers’ on behalf of America’s workers and families,” the statement read. “I was honored to spend time with her during this campaign as she waged one more great battle for national sovereignty.”

Schlafly endorsed Trump at a rally in St. Louis in March, and she co-authored a book called “The Conservative Case for Trump” that is being released Tuesday. Trump says he was “honored to spend time with her.”

In April, Schlafly’s endorsement purportedly sparked uproar among Ted Cruz supporters on the Eagle Forum board of directors.

In a statement posted on its website Monday afternoon, the Eagle Forum said Schlafly died at her home in St. Louis surrounded by family members.

“Her focus from her earliest days until her final ones was protecting the family, which she understood as the building block of life,” read the statement. “She recognized America as the greatest political embodiment of those values. From military superiority and defense to immigration and trade; from unborn life to the nuclear family and parenthood, Phyllis Schlafly was a courageous and articulate voice for common sense and traditional values.”

Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement that Schlafly was “an unflinching champion of many ideas Republicans have long held dear.”

“Through her tireless activism that continued even into her 90s, Phyllis Schlafly never wavered in giving a voice to millions of Americans concerned about preserving constitutional rights, strong families, and American greatness. Her influence will continue to be felt for years to come, and as we celebrate an iconic figure in the conservative cause, our thoughts and prayers go out to her family, friends, and many admirers.”

Schlafly was born Aug. 15, 1924, and grew up in Depression-era St. Louis. Her parents were Republican but not politically involved.

With the country involved in World War II during her college years, Schlafly worked the graveyard shift at the St. Louis Ordnance Plant. Her job included testing ammunition by firing machine guns. She would get off work at 8 a.m., attend morning classes, then sleep in the middle of the day before doing it all over again.

The schedule limited her options for a major. “In order to pick classes to fit my schedule I picked political science,” Schlafly recalled in a 2007 AP interview.

She graduated from Washington University in 1944, when she was 19. Her first taste of real politics came at age 22, when she guided the 1946 campaign of Republican congressional candidate Claude Bakewell, helping him to a major upset win.

In 1952, with her young family living in nearby Alton, Illinois, Schlafly’s husband, attorney John Schlafly Jr., was approached about running for Congress. He declined, but she ran and narrowly lost in a predominantly Democratic district. She also ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 1970.

Schlafly earned a master’s degree in government from Harvard in 1945. She enrolled in Washington University School of Law in 1976, and at age 51, graduated 27th in a class of 204.

Schlafly received an honorary degree at Washington University’s commencement in 2008. Though some students and faculty silently protested by getting up from their seats and turning their backs to the stage, Schlafly called it “a happy day. I’m just sorry for those who tried to rain on a happy day.”

She is survived by six children, 16 grandchildren and 3 great-grandchildren.

Fox News’ Chris Snyder, Joe Weber and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Moviegoers have attended American theaters over the past five years and watched three movies produced by conservative writer and producer, Dinesh D’Souza: 2016: Obama’s America (2012); America: Imagine The World Without Her (2014); and now, Hillary’s America: The Secret History Of The Democratic Party (2016).

These movies provide the viewer with historical context for modern politics, and meticulously document and chronicle how the American Left has systematically undermined personal liberties preserved in the original Constitution, exploiting Blacks and other minorities to wrest political power and wealth from The People.

Unfortunately, most Blacks and minorities have never seen these movies. Indeed, they would be shocked to see the truth of American history unfold before them on the big screen.

D’Souza’s latest installment, “Hillary’s America: The Secret History Of The Democratic Party,” exposes how the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, and those who wore the masks of the KKK; and when they lost the Civil War, they continued to discriminate against Blacks and minorities through fighting the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, which granted Blacks rights as citizens, and to vote, etc., It also documents subsequent Republican efforts to overrule Democrat laws and doctrines, like the Jim Crow laws.

The modern media has turned history on its ear, rewriting the truth about Republicans being the Party of equality and civil rights, and Democrats fighting them at every turn.

When the Left lost its fight against equality and civil rights, they decided to exploit Blacks and other minorities to undermine the American economy and accumulate political power, with Great Society and similar legislation–greatly expanding governmental powers while ensnaring American Blacks in ghetto life as a permanent underclass. Today, Blacks and minorities are born into fatherless families, and lose around 3,500 babies daily to abortion clinics. They live in poverty, in violent neighborhoods, trapped in drug use and lives of crime, and are given no choice of which schools they can attend–all thanks to the impoverishment policies of the Democratic Party.

Why do American Blacks and other minorities continue to believe the lie about Republicans and Democrats, and their role in enslavement and liberation? Because the media and educational institutions purposefully protract the lie. See articles herein, i.e.: Dems Entrenched in Power Institutionally – We Must Eliminate Institutional Power July 28, 2016; Independence Day 2016: Revolution July 3, 2016; Democrats Destroying Minorities July 13, 2012.

Because Presidential hopeful Donald Trump is seeking to educate Blacks and minorities about Democrat party exploitation, and has begun spreading his message that their policies have been destructive to Blacks and other minorities, it occurs to me that broadcasting D’Souza’s latest cinematic work might have immediate and far reaching benefits in spreading that message.

Indeed, the Trump campaign might be well served by making “Hillary’s America: The Secret History Of The Democratic Party” available for free viewing to as many American Blacks as possible. How? By buying out showings in theaters located in predominantly black neighborhoods, and advertising on black radio stations that the movie is free, along with free drinks and popcorn.

Similarly, Trump could purchase broadcast programming on cable television networks that cater predominantly to American Blacks and other minorities and run “Hillary’s America: The Secret History Of The Democratic Party.”

There are many Blacks and minorities who are beginning to question the validity of the false message the media and others have been broadcasting. D’Souza’s movies, produced by Spielberg veteran Gerald R. Molen, would provide much needed ammunition for traditionalists in the Black community, who would like the opportunity to explain to the rest of the community why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican.

By James Thompson

 

 

Let’s concede at the outset that many students find their college years enlightening and enriching. But something is rotten in the state of academia, and it is increasingly hard not to notice.

There once was a time when employers could be reasonably certain that college graduates had a basic sense of the world and, as a minimum, could write a coherent business letter. That is simply no longer the case, as some academic leaders appear ready to admit.

Harvard’s former president, Derek Bok, mildly broke ranks with the academic cheerleaders when he noted that, for all their many benefits, colleges and universities “accomplish far less for their students than they should.” Too many graduates, he admitted, leave school with the coveted and expensive credential “without being able to write well enough to satisfy employers … [or] reason clearly or perform competently in analyzing complex, nontechnical problems.”

Bok noted that few undergraduates can understand or speak a foreign language; most never take courses in quantitative reasoning or acquire “the knowledge needed to be a reasonably informed citizen in a democracy.” Despite the massive spending on the infrastructure of higher education, he conceded, it was not at all clear that students actually learned any more than they did 50 years ago.

This knowledge deficit has been a long time coming.

Indeed, a recent survey of the nation’s top-ranked public universities by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni found that only nine of them required an economics course for graduation; just five required a survey course in American history; and only 10 required that students take a literature course. Despite the lip service given to “multiculturalism” on campus, the study found that: “Fewer than half required even intermediate study of a foreign language.”

This knowledge deficit has been a long time coming.

By 1990, the cost of four years at an elite private college had passed the median price of a house in the United States. But a survey sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities in 1989 found that a majority of college seniors would flunk even a basic test on Western cultural and historical literacy: 25 percent could not distinguish between the thoughts of Karl Marx and the United States Constitution (or between the words of Winston Churchill and those of Joseph Stalin), 58 percent did not know Shakespeare wrote “The Tempest,” and 42 percent could not place the Civil War in the correct half-century.

Most seniors were unable to identify the Magna Carta, Reconstruction, or the Missouri Compromise; they were “clearly unfamiliar” with Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice,” Fyodor Dostoevsky’s “Crime and Punishment,” and Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter From a Birmingham Jail.”

The question is no longer whether students have learned specific bodies of knowledge; it is whether they are learning anything at all.

These concerns now seem almost—quaint. The fact that college students had huge gaps in their knowledge was old news by the early 1990s. But today the question is no longer whether students have learned specific bodies of knowledge; it is whether they are learning anything at all.

Let’s concede at the outset that many students find their college years enlightening and enriching. But something is rotten in the state of academia, and it is increasingly hard not to notice.

There once was a time when employers could be reasonably certain that college graduates had a basic sense of the world and, as a minimum, could write a coherent business letter. That is simply no longer the case, as some academic leaders appear ready to admit.

Harvard’s former president, Derek Bok, mildly broke ranks with the academic cheerleaders when he noted that, for all their many benefits, colleges and universities “accomplish far less for their students than they should.” Too many graduates, he admitted, leave school with the coveted and expensive credential “without being able to write well enough to satisfy employers … [or] reason clearly or perform competently in analyzing complex, nontechnical problems.”

Bok noted that few undergraduates can understand or speak a foreign language; most never take courses in quantitative reasoning or acquire “the knowledge needed to be a reasonably informed citizen in a democracy.” Despite the massive spending on the infrastructure of higher education, he conceded, it was not at all clear that students actually learned any more than they did 50 years ago.

This knowledge deficit has been a long time coming.

Indeed, a recent survey of the nation’s top-ranked public universities by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni found that only nine of them required an economics course for graduation; just five required a survey course in American history; and only 10 required that students take a literature course. Despite the lip service given to “multiculturalism” on campus, the study found that: “Fewer than half required even intermediate study of a foreign language.”

This knowledge deficit has been a long time coming.

By 1990, the cost of four years at an elite private college had passed the median price of a house in the United States. But a survey sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities in 1989 found that a majority of college seniors would flunk even a basic test on Western cultural and historical literacy: 25 percent could not distinguish between the thoughts of Karl Marx and the United States Constitution (or between the words of Winston Churchill and those of Joseph Stalin), 58 percent did not know Shakespeare wrote “The Tempest,” and 42 percent could not place the Civil War in the correct half-century.

Most seniors were unable to identify the Magna Carta, Reconstruction, or the Missouri Compromise; they were “clearly unfamiliar” with Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice,” Fyodor Dostoevsky’s “Crime and Punishment,” and Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter From a Birmingham Jail.”

The question is no longer whether students have learned specific bodies of knowledge; it is whether they are learning anything at all.

These concerns now seem almost—quaint. The fact that college students had huge gaps in their knowledge was old news by the early 1990s. But today the question is no longer whether students have learned specific bodies of knowledge; it is whether they are learning anything at all.

In their widely cited book “Academically Adrift,” Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa concluded that 45 percent of students “did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning” during their first two years of college. More than a third (36 percent) “did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning over four years of college.”

Traditionally, the authors wrote, “teaching students to think critically and communicate effectively” have been claimed as the “principal goals” of higher education. But “commitment to these skills appears more a matter of principle than practice,” Arum and Roksa found.

“An astounding proportion of students are progressing through higher education today without measurable gains in general skills,” they wrote. “While they may be acquiring subject-specific knowledge, or greater self-awareness on their journeys through college, many students are not improving their skills in critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing.”

But those are precisely the skills that employers increasingly expect from college graduates. A 2013 survey of employers on behalf of the Association of American Colleges and Universities found that 93 percent of employers say that a demonstrated capacity to think critically, communicate clearly, and solve complex problems is more important than a candidate’s undergraduate major.

More than three-quarters of the prospective employers of new college graduates said they wanted colleges to put more emphasis on such basic skills as “critical thinking, complex problem solving, written and oral communication, and applied knowledge.”

Trashing the Curriculum

So how could we spend so much for so little? The most obvious answer is that colleges and universities frankly don’t care whether students learn much of anything.

Once again, Harvard’s Bok is willing to admit that administrators have few incentives to worry about something as irrelevant as student achievement because student learning can’t be monetized and doesn’t do anything to advance academic careers. “After all,” he writes, “success in increasing student learning is seldom rewarded, and its benefits are usually hard to demonstrate, far more so than success in lifting the SAT scores of the entering class or in raising the money to build new laboratories or libraries.”

The dumbing down of elementary and secondary education has made its way to the collegiate level.

There are, of course, other factors at work. The dumbing down of elementary and secondary education has made its way to the collegiate level; too many unprepared students are admitted despite their inability to do college-level work. Nearly four out of 10 college faculty now agree with the statement “Most of the students I teach lack the basic skills for college-level work.” This inevitably contributes to the flight from teaching (few professors want to teach remedial courses) and the overall lowering of standards.

This general indifference to what, if anything, students learn is embodied in the modern curriculum that enables students to study just about anything, without necessarily learning much at all.

By Charles Sykes @SykesCharlie. This is an excerpt from “Fail U.: The False Promise of Higher Education” by Charles Sykes. Copyright © 2016 by the author and reprinted with permission of St. Martin’s Press, LLC.

Read our article on overhauling higher education titled It’s Time to Overhaul Higher Education of October 25, 2015.

In back-to-back interviews with Fox News, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange criticized the U.S. media for “incredible politicization” in its coverage of the presidential election, and vowed there are more shoes to drop before the Nov. 8 vote.

Assange appeared Friday morning on “Fox & Friends,” where he said “significant” information would be published on the site regarding Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, but did not specify what it would be.

“I know you guys would love it if we scooped ourselves on ‘Fox & Friends,’ but we’re not going to do that,” Assange said from the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he has lived for nearly five years as he fights extradition to Sweden where he is wanted on charges relating to sexual assault that his supporters say are politically driven.

Assange said information regarding Clinton’s health is fair game, and noted that in an email already disclosed by the organization, Clinton refers to her own “cracked head.” He said he had information about GOP nominee Donald Trump as well, but indicated it may not be as revelatory as critics might hope.

It is difficult “for us to publish more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every day,” Assange said. He also suggested Clinton and other officials have enjoyed a form of “elite immunity.”

“Fox & Friends” spoke with Assange hours after Fox News’ “The Kelly File” aired an interview, the second in a two-part series of questions and answers with him.

Assange’s group was behind a trove of Democratic National Committee emails leaked on the eve of the party’s convention revealed a bias against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign and led to the resignation of chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

“I’d like to believe that no media organization would not publish the DNC emails,” Assange told Fox News’ “The Kelly File”. “[But] I think MSNBC wouldn’t publish [nor would] The New York Times … That’s sad.”

Assange discussed Wikileaks offering a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in the killing of DNC staffer Seth Rich, who was shot and killed in Washington early on July 10.

“Why are you so interested in Seth Rich’s killer?” Kelly asked Assange.

“We’re very interested in anything that might be a threat to Wikileaks’ sources,” Assange answered, later adding that Wikileaks had “received a variety of information” about the case. Assange would neither confirm nor deny that Rich was “necessarily connected to our publications.”

Assange also accused the Clinton campaign of stoking “a kind of neo-McCarthy hysteria” about Russia’s alleged role in the DNC hacking and Moscow’s purported links to the Trump campaign.

“The Trump campaign has a lot of things wrong with it,” Assange said, “but as far as we can see being Russian agents is not one of them.”

On Wednesday, Assange told “The Kelly File” that “absolutely” new information culled from Clinton’s emails would be released prior to the November election.

Earlier Thursday, a federal judge ordered the State Department to begin releasing almost 15,000 more emails from Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state by Sept. 13. The emails were uncovered by the FBI during their investigation into Clinton’s use of a private server.

Federal authorities are investigating a weekend stabbing in Virginia to see whether the attacker may have been trying to behead a victim and whether the attack was inspired by the Islamic State terror group.

Wasil Farooqui, 20, was charged with two counts of aggravated malicious wounding in the stabbing attack Saturday that left two people wounded.

The FBI confirmed to Fox News it is investigating the dual stabbing alongside the Roanoke County Police Department. A source familiar with the incident also told Fox News the FBI is investigating the incident as a possible terrorism-related incident.

“The FBI is working with the Roanoke County Police Department following the incident that occurred on Saturday evening,” said Adam Lee, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Richmond Division.

“While I cannot discuss details of the investigation at this time, I do want to reassure the community that we are working to determine the nature of the incident,” Lee said.

According to ABC News, Farooqui had traveled to Turkey in the last year and may have tried to sneak into Syria to meet with ISIS militants.

Farooqui allegedly attack a man and woman at an apartment complex in Roanoke, according to WDBJ-7. Both victims were seriously injured in the attack. Witnesses told authorities that Farooqi was yelling “Allah Akbar.”

Authorities believe that Farooqui may have been trying to behead the male victim, according to ABC News. Investigators said that there was no connection between FarooqUi and the victims.

“The FBI is working with the Police Department following the incident that occurred on Saturday evening,” Special Agent In Charge Adam Lee, head of the FBI’s Richmond field office told ABC News in a statement. “While I cannot discuss details of the investigation at this time, I do want to reassure the community that we are working to determine the nature of the incident.”

Farooqi was being held without bond at the Western Virginia Regional Jail.

ABC News. Fox News’ Matt Dean contributed to this report. 

Did you know that 64 people were hacked to death by Islamist Terrorists this week in the Congo?

Okay, no one had mentioned that. So did you know that 392 people were killed and 330 were severely injured by Islamic Terrorists in the second week of this month? No?

So why is the mainstream media burying these stories? And why has the Obama Administration been falsifying its reports on ISIS and other Islamic Terrorists? During Obama’s tenure, after all, there have been over 18,000 Islamic terror attacks around the world, in which more than 130,00 people were killed and 170,000 more were seriously injured.

This certainly seems newsworthy, but the Obama Administration and the press have buried these numbers, and the sad and critical reality they reveal.

How about America–any Islamic Terrorist attacks here? During President Obama’s time in office, over 130 Americans have been killed on American soil by Islamic terrorists, and nearly 400 Americans were injured. The president, however, prefers to call these “workplace violence” or “senseless violence.” This, of course, does not include the 2,996 Americans killed in the 2001 9/11 attacks.

How about recently? What have you heard? For instance, in the month of July there were 197 Islamic Terror attacks in 24 countries, killing 1,699 innocent victims and severely injuring 2,249 others. Hadn’t heard that?

2016- Thus far in 2016 there were 1,497 Islamic Terror attacks in 50 countries, in which 13,323 people were killed and another 16,023 injured. You haven’t heard this mentioned on the evening news either?

2015- In this single year there were 2,862 Islamic Terror attacks in 53 countries, in which 27,594 people were killed and another  26,141 injured.

And hey–whatever happened to those hundreds of kidnapped school girls in Nigeria–taken to be sold off as young wives and sex slaves of Islamic Terrorists (cashing in on their promised virgins a little early)? Remember Michelle Obama’s #BringBackOurGirls campaign? If so, you’re the only one, because Michell and Barack haven’t mentioned a word about them in quite a while.

So what about the peaceful Muslims around the world? Do they condemn Islamic Terror? Do they support it? Why are they so quiet when asked to condemn it?

Multiply the numbers: The numbers above appear to be magnified by polling data that shows tens of millions of Muslims are supportive of violent jihad to expand Islamism throughout the world. For instance, recently, a pro-Muslim polling firm in the Middle East interviewed 3,500 Muslim male young adults (18-24) face-to-face, and asked them questions regarding their level of support for radical Islamic terror groups like ISIS (Daesha in Arabic). (ASDA’A, Burson, Marsteller, 2016) The firm touted that young Muslim support for violent global jihad went down this year to just 13 percent, with 9 percent saying they were undecided, celebrating that 78 percent of young Muslims do not support violent jihad.

Here is the problem with these kinds of poll results. If these number hold true throughout the global Muslim population, 13 percent of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world leaves us with approximately 208 million Muslims who support violent jihad.

Pro-Muslim groups tell us that despite the accuracy of these kinds of polls, we should believe that the number of Muslims who actively support global violent jihad is close to just 1 percent. Of course, 1 percent still leaves us with 16 million Muslims involved at the grassroots level of violent jihad. These numbers are overwhelming when compared with, for instance, the number of soldiers in the United States Army—less than 500,000.

All of this adds up to hundreds of thousands of mothers, fathers, and children whose lives have been devastated by the murder of a loved one, or an entire family. Most Americans are unaware of the gravity of the problem, and although the press reports individual attacks, sometimes, total numbers are rarely given.

With the rapid global expansion and Westward movement of Islamic Terrorism, many American leaders believe the U.S. should attack Islamic Terrorists at their source, most of whom are assembled near Syria at this time. The administration, however, adheres to the “ignore it and it will go away” philosophy. I don’t think Islamic Terrorists are going anywhere anytime soon–except farther west.

In case you didn’t hear this on the evening news, Muhammad is the most popular baby boy name in the UK’s London, and a few other European Countries.

By James Thompson

James Thompson is a political writer and a ghostwriter of many political books and books by national and global business leaders.

With this November’s election looming just over the horizon, the topic of voter fraud is popping up much more frequently in our news feeds.

Progressives insist that voter fraud is a myth, a charade meant to justify repressive voting laws. The facts, however, tell a different story: Voter fraud is real, and if we ignore it, we leave our ballot boxes open to fraudsters who would rather steal elections than risk losing in a fair and open contest.

The Heritage Foundation’s “Does Your Vote Count” report identifies reasonable measures states can take to protect the integrity of their electoral systems without disenfranchising voters.

Many states have adopted these measures. Nevertheless, these safeguards, including voter ID laws, have come under scrutiny in state and federal courts. In the past few weeks, courts have struck down election integrity laws in Kansas, North Carolina, North Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin, although some provisions of Texas’ challenged election laws will likely remain in effect this election and a stay has been entered against the order striking down Wisconsin’s law.

Many on the left may celebrate the results in these cases, but it is increasingly difficult for them to deny the basic fact that election fraud exists. In fact, Heritage’s voter fraud database catalogues over 400 examples of individuals convicted of numerous offenses, from impersonation fraud at the polls, to duplicate voting, to schemes to buy votes and steal elections.

Some recent additions to the database include:

Kentucky

Ruth Robinson, the former mayor of Martin, Kentucky, was sentenced to 90 months’ imprisonment on a variety of charges that included vote buying, identity theft, and fraud.

With specific regard to the election charges, Robinson and co-conspirators James “Red” Robinson and James Steven Robinson threatened and intimidated residents of Martin in the run-up to the 2012 election, in which Robinson was seeking re-election.

The cabal targeted residents living in public housing or in properties Robinson owned, threatening them with eviction if they did not sign absentee ballots the Robinsons had already filled out. Robinson also targeted disabled residents, and offered to buy the votes of others. James “Red” Robinson was sentenced to 40 months in prison, and his son James Steven Robinson received a total of 31 months’ imprisonment.

Texas

Guadalupe Rivera and Graciela Sanchez illegally “assisted” absentee voters in Rivera’s 2013 re-election bid for city commissioner. Rivera won the election by 16 votes, but the result was invalidated after a judge determined that 30 absentee ballots had been submitted illegally.

Rivera pleaded guilty to one count of providing illegal assistance to a voter and was sentenced to one year of probation and a $500 fine. Sanchez also pleaded guilty to four misdemeanor counts of violating Texas’ election code and was sentenced to two years’ probation.

Iowa

Erin Venessa Leeper registered and voted in a 2015 school board election. As a convicted felon, however, she was ineligible to do so, and pleaded guilty to perjury last May. She was ordered to pay a $750 fine, plus $240 in court costs, and was sentenced to a suspended five-year prison term and two years of probation.

Wisconsin

Robert Monroe pleaded no contest to 13 counts of voter fraud, making him the worst duplicate voter in state history, according to Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Bruce Landgraf.

The judge in the case rejected Monroe’s claim that he was insane at the time, concluding that Monroe’s mental state did not prevent him “from appreciating the wrongfulness of his votes or from conforming his actions to election laws.”

Monroe will serve up to a year in jail, in addition to a suspended three-year prison sentence, five years’ probation, 300 hours of community service, and a $5,000 fine.

As the old adage goes, we are entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. These cases—along with the hundreds of other convictions Heritage has documented—are the inconvenient facts many on the left choose simply to ignore. Reasonable Americans should not follow their lead.

Elections—our most direct means of political participation—should be fair and untainted by fraudsters. Every time a vote is cast illegally, it nullifies a legitimate vote and undermines the entire system by eroding public trust in our political institutions. It is imperative that this not be allowed to happen.

By Peter Tapsak / Jason Snead / @jasonwsnead

Guns are a tricky topic. Very rarely do you find voters ambivalent about gun violence, gun safety, etc. Someone is either strongly pro-gun rights or pro-gun control, which makes a civil conversation difficult to start or maintain. But the solution isn’t to avoid the topic.

As I mentioned in my last column, you may be the only conservative who tries to challenge a liberal’s worldview. No pressure.

It may sound like a heavy weight to bear, but not if you’re prepared. So, let’s talk guns.

Here are a few strategies that work well:

1.) Common Ground

Even though the other side often demonizes those who support gun rights, it’s important that you not return the favor.

Instead, work hard to find common ground on such a hostile topic. You will develop instant goodwill and buy some credibility as you support a viewpoint the media often finds “crazy.”

So, what’s the common ground? Whether pro-gun rights or pro-gun control, both sides are motivated by one general desire: safety.

The goal is to keep people safe. One side aims to do so via tougher restrictions and therefore fewer guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens; the other side aims to do so via looser restrictions and therefore more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. The goal is the same—prevent future gun violence. The means to that end is the sticking point.

Start by acknowledging your shared goal.

2.) Examples

Personal anecdotes and stories can go a long way to diffuse a hostile topic like gun ownership. Humanizing your position will only strengthen your argument and paint a clearer picture of what you believe.

For example, when I discuss the importance of gun rights, I like to highlight that I am a woman who values safety in an often unsafe city like the District of Columbia.  Since the police can’t be everywhere at all times, it’s important for someone like me to be able to protect myself.

Another way to lend credibility to your argument is to highlight real-life, recent, or current events where having a gun could’ve saved lives. The shootings at both the Pulse nightclub in Orlando and the Bataclan theater in Paris are examples of long-lasting hostage situations that could’ve ended much sooner if someone on the scene had a gun.

Don’t just tell your audience that more shootings happen in gun-free zones, cite examples to show when and how.

3.) Words

Sadly, in the age of the Kardashians, “Bachelor in Paradise,” and Snapchat, most Americans don’t know what the Second Amendment is, or even understand the phrase “right to bear arms.” Instead, use words that are easy to comprehend and evoke more emotion like “the right to protect yourself.”

Also, you can’t go wrong stealing the other side’s language like “fair” or “choice” (i.e.: “As a woman, it is important that I have the same rights to choose to defend myself…”).

In summary, find common ground by talking about this issue from a safety perspective, use real-life examples, and steal the left’s language to frame your narrative.

So, bite the bullet (pun intended) and speak up.

By Beverly Hallberg @bevhallberg