Exclusive–Dinesh D’Souza: Holder’s Next Job: Crime Boss!

Conservative filmmaker and author Dinesh D’Souza told Breitbart News that the federal government was “out to get me” and tried but failed to “put me away” during a wide-ranging interview at the National Security Action Summit on Monday.

“I know that the government was not only out to get me but to put me away—and put me away in such a significant way that if I got a sixteen-month sentence, for example, I’d be in a federal prison camp from now until the end of next year,” D’Souza said in the interview, conducted for Breitbart News Radio for Sirius XM Patriot Channel 125 and available on demand.

“The chances that I could film in the presidential election year of 2016 would be very low,” D’Souza said. “But interestingly, the zealous prosecution ran into a wall and that wall was called a judge. Interestingly, this was a liberal Democratic judge—a Clinton appointee—and it was way too much for him. He looked at the facts and he decided that what the prosecution wanted was not going to happen.”

D’Souza faced prosecution from the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York for violating campaign finance laws by illegally donating over federal limits and making false statements to the Federal Election Commission. The office of the U.S. Attorney for that district, Democrat Preet Bharara, recommended that after D’Souza pled guilty to the charges he spend 10 to 16 months in prison for his actions. However, U.S. District Judge Richard Berman sentenced D’Souza to no jail time, five years probation, weekly therapy, one day of community service per week of probation time, and he has to pay a $30,000 fine.

When asked if he’s happy with the terms of the sentence he received, D’Souza told Breitbart News, “I am.”

“I think it’s a fair sentence,” D’Souza said. “It’s kind of a tough sentence. But look, I did do something wrong, and I do deserve to be punished. My issue from the beginning was that I need to be punished in the same manner as anyone else who did it who isn’t me. I think that I got a fair judge, so I’m thankful to him for not going along with a very powerful Justice Department and a very powerful U.S. government that would have liked to put me away.”

D’Souza said that if Bharara is nominated by President Barack Obama to replace outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder—as some have suggested Obama might in the wake of Holder’s resignation announcement this week—Republicans in Congress should fight it. 

“Let’s just say that if that happens, I hope the Republicans take the Senate in November because then they can hold government officials accountable in the way that they should be,” D’Souza said.

As for Holder, D’Souza said he might land a post-government job with a “criminal syndicate.”

“I’m really worried about Eric Holder’s job prospects,” D’Souza said. “I just don’t think he’s going to land—but I don’t know maybe there’s a criminal syndicate somewhere looking for a boss with government experience.”

Administration-wide—not just on his specific case—D’Souza said congressional Republicans need to investigate political targeting, and officials in the Obama administration need to “go to jail” if they did engage in such behavior.

“It’s now time to look at this. In civil rights cases you can tell, for example, if blacks are being systematically discriminated against,” D’Souza said. “You look at all the studies and then look at the rate at which someone commits an offense and then you look at the amount of time they’re prosecuted. For example, if blacks commit 10 percent of the crime but are prosecuted 50 percent of the time, that’s very suspicious and that’s prima facie evidence of discrimination. I think we need to study all the IRS audits and look to see if these audits are falling randomly on liberals and conservatives or if there’s a pattern. If there’s a pattern here, then lots of people need to go to jail. This needs to be vigorously prosecuted and so this is where the Republicans have to step up to the plate. This is not a case where it’s simply kind of just speculating and whining. It’s time to hold the government accountable in the way the founders intended.”

D’Souza said the government’s attempts to shut him down have failed, and he is currently planning a major film for mid-2016 release.

“I am definitely going to make a big film in 2016,” D’Souza said. “I’m going to release it in the summer, just like the movie ‘2016’ which came out in 2012. I’m in a very early stage—I’ve been preoccupied with legal problems and I’ve been trying to dodge a bullet, and I’m very glad I’ve been able to do that and so I’ve been pulling blueprints and starting to think about what that movie will look like.”

During the interview, D’Souza laid out how America is currently facing a political “pathological moment,” in large part thanks to the mainstream media—which hasn’t aggressively investigated the Obama administration or vetted the president’s political agenda. 

“The press does not want the first African-American president to fail, and for that reason, the normal lens of analysis and criticism—which is part of what keeps our democracy healthy—is not properly functioning,” D’Souza said. “Obama knows that and therefore he knows he can get away with things. The great line from Julius Caesar is ‘he would not be a wolf if we were not sheep.’ He knows that, from the press’s point of view, they’re being sheep, and therefore he can run amok.”

D’Souza said that the political left has institutionalized itself in America, taking over education, Hollywood, and other entertainment distribution channels and other parts of the culture.

“The left is dominant in that it has the huge institutions on its side,” D’Souza said. “What helps us is we are at a huge moment of opportunity at which the business models of these institutions are obsolete. These gigantic studios, these tyrannical unions, colleges cost way too much, a lot of the old media models are crumbling. So out of this chaos comes hope, and what I’m hoping to do is to create some new institutions in these areas, take advantage of the free market system and technology to not only make rival movies but create a business model that works better than theirs.”

Because of the left’s dominance in American culture, D’Souza said that the right needs to expand its influence on the culture as well—and do things like his documentary films rather than just writing books or fighting day-to-day political and policy battles.

“My last two books, for example, were both number one on the New York Times bestseller list—they sold between 100,000 and 200,000 copies, which is a lot, and I’m certainly happy to be outselling, say, Hillary’s book,” D’Souza said. “But on the other hand, 7 million people saw ‘2016.’ We put one and a half million people in the theater to see ‘America,’ and it’s coming out on DVD in October. So you have a different level of reach. The left has been really effective while conservatives are kind of huddled on ‘how do we take the Senate?’ The left has been moving in higher education and media and Hollywood and taken over the high ground of the culture. So what I’m trying to do is create institutions and megaphones to be able to get out a rival message and contest the leftist hegemony on its own grounds.”

D’Souza said that he’s not thrilled with the GOP establishment, a party that seems to be “slumbering” and “incompetent at best.”

“The 2012 election was the Republicans’ election to lose, and they lost it,” D’Souza said. “This election is a Republican election to lose—I don’t know how it’s going to come out. I sometimes feel like I’m out on the front lines on these battles, and I look around for the RNC and it’s nowhere to be found. So we have a Republican Party that’s slumbering, incompetent at best. The donors who give to the Republican Party need to hold the party accountable. I’m not saying not to help or not to contribute—we need the Republican Party—but we need the Republican Party to fight.”

Moving forward and heading into the 2016 presidential cycle, D’Souza said the Republicans will lose the White House yet again if the GOP keeps shunning the different elements of the conservative movement—national security conservatives, social conservatives, and libertarians or fiscal conservatives.

“There’s no way to win elections without national security conservatives, without social conservatives, and without libertarians,” D’Souza said. “We need all those groups. That coalition, I strongly believe, can be put back together. By and large, entrepreneurs and business guys—big money—they’ve got wives, they’ve got small kids, they are socially conservative. But the social conservative issues need to be articulated in a little bit of a new way, sort of like national security—there’s a little bit of weariness over the way it was done under Bush. So it’s important for conservatives to say we’re not just against Obama and that Bush was right. We have learned some lessons under Bush, and we’re going with a sort of new prudence but also a new idealism into the future.”




Source: Breitbart Feed

Chicago Man Accused of Making Terror Threats

The St. Louis Dispatch is reporting a Chicago resident Derrick Dawon Burns, 21,  was arrested Monday on eight federal charges alleging that Burns made a series of bomb and violence threats toward Southern Illinois University-Carbondale students and workers, prosecutors said. :

The alleged threats were made in Fall 2012 and in October 2013, prosecutors said.

Postal workers discovered seven handwritten letters in postal sorting machines and collection boxes titled “The War on SIUC” or “The War on SIU,” court documents say. Another letter was directed to the FBI, and university police, staff, and students.  “These letters collectively included various threats to rape and murder, to blow up buildings, and to cause major damage to property,” according to court documents.

One letter included threats to rape and decapitate female students, and said, “Give me $50 million or SIU is history,” court documents say.

One letter received in September 2012 prompted officials to evacuate three Brush Tower dorms on campus to search for explosives. None were found.

 Developing…




Source: Breitbart Feed

George Clooney’s Father-in-Law: Wedding Is ‘Very Good News’ for Middle East

George Clooney’s new father-in-law Ramzi Alamuddin has stated that the American Hollywood star’s wedding to his Lebanese-born, anti-Israel, and human rights attorney daughter Amal Alamuddin was “more than perfect” and that their marriage is “very good news” for both their family as well as for the entire Middle East.

In a telephone interview with the AFP from Venice, Italy following the couple’s “grand, simple and perfect” nuptials, Ramzi Alamuddin said the marriage “is very good news among the bad news we are living now,” adding that “the couple really do match.” His statement a testament to Clooney and Alamuddin’s similar views with regard to the Middle East and Arab World. 

Amal’s mother, Baria, is an editor of the Arabic news site Alhayat.com and her father, Ramzi, is a retired professor of the American University of Beirut.

Clooney, 53, and Alamuddin, 36, wed at the scenic Aman Canal Grande resort on Saturday, according to the Hollywood Reporter. Clooney’s friend, Italian journalist and politician (who served as mayor of Rome between 2001 and 2008) Walter Veltroni officiated the ceremony. The marriage will reportedly be made legal on Monday.

In August, Clooney’s then-fiancée Alamuddin had turned down an appointment to serve on a special three-person panel for the United Nations Human Rights Council to conduct a probe into violations of international law and allegations of human rights abuses in Gaza. The panel specifically targeted Israel; a move that is not uncommon in the biased United Nations and UNHRC.

Alamuddin’s reasoning for turning down the post was her busy schedule. However, she did provide the following statement to the UNHRC before declining the post: 

I am horrified by the situation in the occupied Gaza Strip, particularly the civilian causalities that have been caused, and strongly believe that there should be an independent investigation and accountability for crimes that have been committed

Addressing the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Monday, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cited “history, archaeology, and common sense” as he addressed the world and stated that “the people of Israel are not the occupiers in the land of Israel.” In fact, the Gaza Strip is not “occupied” by Israel, as Alamuddin claimed in her statements in August. 

Years ago, Israel withdrew its “occupation” from that region and “continues to control the population registry for residents of the Gaza Strip, years after it withdrew its ground forces and settlements there,” according to Human Rights Watch.

Clooney has reportedly been eyeing a transition from Hollywood into politics with talks swirling around a possible run for Governor of California (most likely in 2018) and a potential presidential run down the line. In June, a source identified as a Clooney “pal” revealed to the United Kingdom’s Mirror that “now he [Clooney] has Amal by his side it will give him more credibility to run for office.”  

The Mirror had also reported that President Barack Obama has been courting Clooney to consider a run himself. Obama and Clooney share very similar views with regard to foreign policy and specifically with strengthening relations between the United States and the Middle East.

In 2013, Clooney spoke in support of Iran during a red carpet interview:

And your hope is that as Iran becomes more and more integrated into the United States — I mean, into the world…you would hope that banning them would seem archaic… because it should be.

The upcoming November deadline for negotiations between the United States and the Islamic State of Iran isquickly approaching. Secretary of State John Kerry stated his “fervent hope” that a deal would be struck. 




Source: Breitbart Feed

Review: GOP 2016 Discussion Begins with Joel Pollak’s ‘Wacko Birds’

On the day after November’s midterm elections, the political world will instantly shift its focus and attention to 2016. And because Hillary Clinton is the clear frontrunner for the Democrats, most of the action–and chatter–will be on the Republican side, where the battle between Tea Party conservatives and establishment Republicans will rage again. 

Joel Pollak’s new book, Wacko Birds: The Fall (and Rise) of the Tea Party, is the perfect place to start that discussion. Conservatives and grassroots activists at the center of Tea Party movement, establishment Republicans and operatives under siege, mainstream media reporters looking for a better understanding of the political history of the movement, and liberals who may even come to appreciate the Tea Party’s anti-cronyism will all find insights by reading Wacko Birds.

Pollak, the Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large, brings a unique set of experiences. He was in the arena as a Tea Party candidate before teaming up with the late Andrew Breitbart as the Age of Obama–and the Tea Party movement–started in earnest. As a naturalized citizen, he also is able to view America’s exceptionalism from the perspective of an immigrant.

Maligned by the mainstream press, liberals, establishment Republicans, and operatives in the bipartisan permanent political class, the Tea Party, as Pollak notes, blocked comprehensive amnesty legislation, checked runaway spending, emboldened conservative new media, ousted establishment Republicans, and brought more citizens into the political arena. The movement proved that the country was not shifting to the far left with Obama’s election and brought “new faces, and new diversity, to the Republican Party.”  

“Far from being extreme, the substance of the Tea Party’s overarching principles—limited government, fiscal responsibility, individual liberty—were broadly shared by the American people as a whole,” Pollak writes.

And that is why the mainstream press, liberals, and especially the Republican ruling class sought to destroy it. 

Pollak’s book takes readers back to the rise of the movement and explains why it was the perfect antidote to Barack Obama’s community organizing. He details the movement’s triumphs and failures and how Tea Party conservatives can learn from the last six years to succeed in the years ahead.

The media revealed their biases in favorably covering Occupy Wall Street, Obama, and pro-amnesty demonstrations while denigrating more peaceful Tea Party rallies, Sarah Palin, and anti-amnesty rallies. And conservatives felt that how the media unfairly trashed former Palin, considered the North Star of the movement after 2008, “was only a more obnoxious and obvious example of the way they had been treated for years.” As I wrote, Palin exposed the media’s biases against conservatives “just like Barack Obama exposed the media’s biases for liberals, especially those Obama’s mold.”

Pollak observes that “the Tea Party’s obituary has been written many times over–and yet it refuses to die.” 

“To supporters, it is an authentic grass-roots conservative movement restoring the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, restraining a runaway federal government, and bringing power back into the hands of the people, often against the will of an entrenched GOP establishment that prefers power to principle,” Pollak writes. “To opponents, it is a racist mob, funded by shadowy corporate interests and manipulated by populist demagogues, that has blocked nearly everything that President Barack Obama has attempted to achieve, and which has corrupted our democratic system of government.”

Tea Party opponents are not just found on the left, of course. In fact, their most hostile adversaries may be establishment Republicans, as was made evident in this year’s Mississippi Senate runoff when establishment Republican operatives painted conservatives as racists to lure black Democrats to push Thad Cochran ahead of Chris McDaniel in the GOP race. 

New media outlets have made the movement more resilient–and Pollak hails Breitbart’s vindication during the Anthony Weiner sexting scandal in which a citizen journalist broke “through the traditional defenses that mainstream media erected around politicians in power,” to eventually “rally the media itself in bringing down those walls. Pollak writes that Breitbart’s “legacy remains that of ‘citizen journalism,’ the idea that anyone, anywhere, through solid reporting, can break through the screen of the Beltway media and rock the foundations of power. Culturally, that challenge to the mainstream media monopoly remains the Tea Party’s enduring achievement.” 

Staying outside of the established political system kept the movement’s purity in tact. Pollak writes that “the Tea Party was effective, in other words, because it could not be controlled, and because it did not play by the established insider rules of Washington politics.” But unlike the left’s netroots that took over the party’s establishment, to a certain extent, after Howard Dean failed to win the 2004 nomination, the Tea Party’s failure to secure leadership positions inside the halls also was responsible for some of its failures. The movement failed to win the White House and take back the Senate, could not coalesce around a candidate for president, did not counter the one-percent meme, and could not take over the stubborn machinery of the GOP.  

Though the movement has succeeded in making the party more conservative when it comes to policy, it has swung wildly between triumphs and failures in elections. In 2014, the Tea Party could not knock off a Senate incumbent for the first time the movement formed, but it ousted House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA). But even after doing so, a Tea Party conservative could not again secure a top leadership slot, as Pollak explains in the book. 

Cantor’s loss–and the movement’s failure to capitalize on it in the halls of power–sums up the state of play heading into 2016. And Pollak’s book is a must-read for political forecasters or anyone looking to learn more about the potential candidates as they try balance the need to engage the conservative grassroots and the institutional support the establishment provides.

In 2012, the Romney campaign mismanaged vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan, and Pollak observed that “on the campaign trail, he seemed tired and reluctant, as if he were chafing at being too closely managed.”

“He was not able to speak about the topics with which he was most comfortable, in his favored wonkish style: instead he was expected to give inspiring rally speeches, which he had rarely done beore in his political career,” Pollak writes. “Crowds were enthusiastic, but not inspired by his appearances.” Ryan, a potential 2016 candidate, crafted the most recent budget compromise with Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) and has tried to cobble together a comprehensive amnesty bill, perhaps with an eye toward a future general election. He has to make it there, of course, which may be more difficult in light of his policy positions in 2014.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is trying shed his “isolationist” label on foreign policy and courting Wall Street and high-tech executives who may want more amnesty legislation. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-TX), who got elected in the 2010 Tea Party wave by knocking off the GOP establishment’s preferred choice in Charlie Crist, has seen his poll numbers plummet after championing the “Gang of Eight” comprehensive amnesty bill. Pollak writes that Rubio was far from “the young man who had shaken up the establishment” and now “seemed part of it” after the Senate’s amnesty vote. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), another likely presidential candidate, may have been vindicated after being maligned for trying to defund Obamacare once Obamacare went live. GOP primary voters may remember–and reward–Cruz’s stanch opposition to Obamacare and trust him more than others when he vows to repeal every word of it in 2017. 

Pollak also profiles Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who may also be a candidate if he wins reelection. The late Breitbart, along with Palin and others, helped Walker prevail (Pollak describes the famous “Game On” rally in Wisconsin that featured both Breitbart and Palin in vivid detail in his book) after enacting much-needed fiscal and entitlement reforms on the state level after the left threw the kitchen sink at him. 

But if grassroots conservatives become more successful, they will have to try to change Washington without being changed by it, as the saying goes. Advance conservatism from the inside while resisting the temptation to plunge into the Washington cesspool that may now look like jacuzzi. And try to make the prose of governing a bit more poetic. 

But conservatives have to win first, and 2012 showed that Republicans never win national elections if they do not run as conservatives. In 2012, Pollak wrote what I felt was the most important piece of strategic advice to the squeamish Romney campaign. After the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare by ruling that the “penalty” was somehow a “tax” even though the Obama administration argued that it was not a tax, Pollak presciently wrote that “now that Obama’s lawyers went to court and called it a tax, and Chief Justice John Roberts called it a tax (and spare us the non-distinction between “tax” and the “taxing power”) Obamacare is, undeniably, a massive tax on the middle class”:

The individual mandate was never intended to be a tax, Congress never called it a tax, and it wasn’t a tax in Massachusetts, either. Fine–but now that Obama’s lawyers went to court and called it a tax, and Chief Justice John Roberts called it a tax (and spare us the non-distinction between “tax” and the “taxing power”) Obamacare is, undeniably, a massive tax on the middle class. Obama lied. It’s that simple.

Obama lied. It’s that simple. The Tea Party has been ready to rally to Romney’s side over the Obamacare decision, overlooking his past in order to use him as the vehicle for repealing Obamacare and toppling Obama,” Pollak continued. “But if Romney won’t fight for conservative principles, the Tea Party is going to start looking elsewhere–fast. No one wants to live through the frustration of October 2008 all over again. No one wants to watch another conservative capitulate to Obama… This ain’t Etch-A-Sketch, Mitt. Go hard or go home.

Romney never attacked Obamacare as a tax on the middle class, perhaps because he didn’t want RomneyCare to be called a tax. And conservatives–and perhaps even many blue-collar Reagan Democrats–just stayed home on election night. Game over. 

But it was hardly over for the Tea Party movement, despite all of its critics. And the Tea Party’s greatest test may come when the movement that formed in part because of George W. Bush’s big-government policies ultimately gains more power in D.C. Pollak writes that many “people perceive abuses of power when they feel themselves, or their political loyalties, to be on the receiving end,” yet “few display the same interest in, much less passion about, the importance of opposition once they or their party are in power.” Democrats have folded on issues they supposedly held dear–like privacy–once Obama occupied the White House. And if Tea Party conservatives don’t keep its leaders in line if they assume positions of power, then a new movement will replace it because the love of freedom and keeping government in check is in America’s DNA.

Speaking of the “Wacko Birds” label that Tea Partiers proudly wore, Pollak observes that there is “something about the eagle’s lonely, almost maddened cry that perfectly encapsulates the American character” and writes that, “today, the fate of liberty rests once again in the hands of the ‘Wacko Birds.'”

Potential candidates, consultants, and reporters will want to read Wacko Birds to better understand the landscape that awaits in the 2016 GOP primary. But Pollak’s Wacko Birds: The Fall (and Rise) of the Tea Party is worth reading particularly for those who identify with the Tea Party “Wacko Birds” who are trying to figure out how the movement can not only can win but endure. 




Source: Breitbart Feed

Tillis Slams Hagan For Absence on The ISIS Threat

Republican Thom Tillis is out with a new ad slamming Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) for her numerous absences from Senate Armed Services Committee hearings and failing to raise warnings about the threat of the Islamic State.

The ad, released Monday highlights Obama’s initial labeling of the Islamic State or ISIS as a “jayvee team” and Hagan’s apparent absences from key hearings on the threats.

“President Obama failed to take the threat of ISIS seriously at the same time Sen. Kay Hagan stayed quiet and skipped over half of her Armed Services Committee hearings that addressed vital national security issues,” Tillis, who is in a tight race against the incumbent Hagan, said in a statement. 

“While I support keeping all options on the table to completely destroy ISIS, the President and Kay Hagan still have no strategy and continue to lead from behind,” he added. “This election presents the opportunity to reverse course on President Obama’s failed foreign policy and restore America’s standing in the world.”

Watch:

 

In its response, reported by The Hill, the Hagan campaign attacked Tillis for his “waffling” comments on the ISIS threat. 

“Speaker Tillis is desperate to distract from the fact that while he has no position on how to eliminate ISIS and his comments have been called ‘waffling’ and ‘vague’ Kay has been decisive and clear about what action must be taken to destroy these terrorists,” Hagan spokesman Chris Hayden told the Hill. “Just last week Speaker Tillis admitted that he doesn’t know what we should or shouldn’t do to eradicate ISIS and North Carolinians — especially our servicemembers and their families — deserve better than Speaker Tillis’ spineless fence-sitting on this pressing national security threat.”

In recent days Tillis has spoken out more about the ISIS threat, campaigning with Sen. Lindsey Graham on Friday and even delving into foreign policy matters during his delivery of the Republican Weekly Address over the weekend — which focused on economic growth.

“As we look at the crises boiling over across the globe, we see a President who has been leading from behind with a failed foreign policy that has weakened America….And the President still doesn’t have a strategy to destroy the terrorist group known as the Islamic State. Simply put, America lacks leadership and is no longer considered to be an exceptional nation by our allies and our adversaries alike. But this November, we can change that,” he said. 

Read the ad transcript: 

Voice Over: In January, President Obama referred to the Islamic State as a “jayvee team.”

Days later, the Armed Services Committee holds a hearing on new global threats.

Senator Kay Hagan? Absent.

In fact, Hagan’s missed half the Armed Services Committee hearings this year.

While ISIS grew, Obama kept waiting and Kay Hagan kept quiet.

 The price for their failure is danger. To change direction, we have to change our senator.

THOM TILLIS: I’m Thom Tillis, I approve this message.




Source: Breitbart Feed