RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/05/the_real_omar_suleiman_.html
On Sunday, the Dallas Morning News published an op-ed by Muslim Brotherhood linked anti-American Omar Suleiman. In this editorial, the Dallas-based imam claims that the accusations of anti-Semitism by Rep. Lee Zeldin of New York, Fox host Lou Dobbs, and others following Suleiman’s delivery of the invocation last Thursday, May 9 are motivated by hate and are comparable to the hate that led to the New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Pittsburgh, and San Diego massacres.

After giving the invocation in Congress last week, I have been attacked online and threatened with violence. This hate is similar to the hate that led to the other massacres above. It’s a hate that seeks to fracture the communities it targets. It’s a hate that takes the most vulnerable communities in the country and intimidates them into silence so that the only thing they can do is brace for another attack.

From his rhetoric it’s easy to forget that Suleiman has provided no direct evidence of any threats of violence and that he has also neglected to mention that the criticisms lobbed against him are based on his social media footprint. In other words, the “haters” are using fact-based evidence to make an argument.

It’s also easy to forget that, in terms of growing influence, Suleiman has had a pretty good year. He has 1.3 million Facebook followers and just last year he was able to convince Google to alter its algorithm on searches related to Islam and Muslim-related issues. This year his fellow Islamists Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar occupy seats in congress. And on Thursday, May 9, 2019, Suleiman, by the request of Texas Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, delivered the invocation from the House floor.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/john-durham-for-accountability-11557876040?mod=cx_picks&cx_navSource=cx_picks&cx_tag=collabctx&cx_artPos=2#cxrecs_s

Attorney General William Barr has assigned U.S. Attorney John Durham to investigate possible abuses by law enforcement and intelligence officials in the 2016 election campaign, and the reaction has been predictably partisan. Trumpians are demanding heads on pikes while liberals are calling it a hunt for conspiracies that didn’t exist. We see it as a necessary step toward accountability and restoring public confidence in America’s enforcement agencies.

Mr. Durham comes with more experience than even special counsel Robert Mueller in navigating U.S. law enforcement, including the FBI and intelligence services. He uncovered rogue FBI behavior in the case of Boston mob boss Whitey Bulger, and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey tasked him to look at the CIA’s destruction of videos of its terrorist interrogation program.

As a U.S. Attorney, Mr. Durham will have the power to convene a grand jury and subpoena people outside the government. Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has been looking into some of the same questions, but he lacks similar power. Mr. Durham can also pick up any criminal referrals from Mr. Horowitz’s looming report.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/liberals-who-cry-roe-11557876134

Who would have thought that a Supreme Court ruling in an interstate tax dispute would devolve into a brawl over abortion politics? Such are our political times as the four liberal Justices on Monday chided their conservative colleagues for overturning a 40-year precedent, which progressives warn will create a stare decisis slippery slope to banning abortion.

At issue in Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt was whether states enjoy sovereign immunity in other states’ courts. California urged the Court to overturn its Nevada v. Hall (1979) precedent, which held that states aren’t required to grant legal immunity to other states. Most do for comity purposes, and state courts have entertained only 14 cases by private citizens against other states in the past four decades.

The Court reasoned in Hall that states have a sovereign interest in protecting their citizens, and the Constitution doesn’t explicitly require interstate sovereign immunity. But there are strong opposing constitutional arguments, which Justice Clarence Thomas explained in the 5-4 majority’s opinion overturning Hall.