The Omar Spin...

She says her remarks were taken out of context.

Let's consider that.

The context of her statement was a speech in which she decried the treatment she says muslims have endured because of the actions of "some people" on 9-11:

“Far too long we have lived with the discomfort of being a second class citizen. And frankly, I’m tired of it. And every single Muslim in this country should be tired of it. CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something, and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”

There is no mistake about what she said, and no one is taking anything she said out of context.

So what, exactly, does she mean when she refers to "some people"?

Given that the context is muslim discontent and justifying muslims, "some people" has to have one of two meanings.

First, she is downplaying the role muslims played during 9-11, as she has been accused.  The 9-11 attacks were insignificant, even justified.

That is one possibility.

But there is another possible interpretation, one that has yet to be discussed publicly but is even more insidious: the "some people" involved in the 9-11 attacks were members of the US CIA and the Israeli Mossad.

Many in the muslim community have bought into the conspiracy theory that there were no muslims and no jets.  9-11 was a false flag operation carried out jointly between the CIA and Mossad to give the US justification to engage in unbridled war against muslims across the world.  The destruction of the twin towers was carried out using nanothermite charges to weaken the structural steel in the buildings.  The destruction of the towers, then, was the result of controlled detonations.  The footage showing the jets?  All manufactured video.  The "witnesses"?  Crisis actors employed by the two intelligence agencies to help sell the narrative.

So it wasn't muslims who attacked, it was "some people": unnamed, mysterious government agents who cannot be named publicly by Omar without REALLY opening her up to accusation.

Of the two possible interpretations, the second one is the most likely.

Gov. Whitmer's Use of UnConstitutional Executive Directives....

The governor is using unConstitutional executive directives to set aside laws with which she disagrees, first with her expansion of Elliott-Larson, now with the order to halt construction of the Enbridge tunnel; she disingenuously equates them with executive orders on her website, downplaying the importance of the need to file orders with the secretary of state's office: 

"What is an Executive Directive? 

"Similar to executive orders, executive directives are issued by the Governor to establish basic internal policy or procedure for the executive branch of state government, assure the faithful execution of law, and to supervise state departments. Executive directives often establish guidelines, rules of conduct, or rules of procedures for state departments and their employees. Executive directives are signed by the Governor and distributed to state departments and agencies, but not filed with the Secretary of State," https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/0,9309,7-387-90499_90704---,00.html.

The problem is, this is a lie.

An executive directive is NOT similar to an executive order - and the governor, who served in the legislature prior to winning the governorship - is fully aware of this.

An executive directive is used to direct the activities of agencies under her executive authority; it brings with it no additional authority and there is no basis in the Constitution for its use as a tool to modify or create law.

An executive order is provided Constitutionally to the executive.  It CAN be used to establish laws, even potentially change legislation.  However, an executive order must be duly published to the Secretary of State's office prior to being submitted to the state legislature.  The legislature has the authority to override an executive order to prevent it from taking effect. 

The difference is significant.

She will be successful in lowering the legal standard as long as the legislature allows her to treat directives as orders. 

Through her use of executive directives, for which there is NO Michigan Constitutional provision (she has already used more early directives than almost any other governor before her), NO enumerated authority to use as an instrument to enact fiat law, and NO legislative oversight, she is rapidly building the case for impeachment as she abuses her Constitutionally-enumerated authorities and the provided system of checks and balances. 

Republicans need to publicly call her out on this abuse of power before she can solidify her position and incorporate the use of directives as acceptable policy instruments.

Michigan Attorney General Establishes "Hate Crimes" Unit....

The hate crimes unit being established by Michigan Attorney General (AG) Dana Nessel in concert with Michigan Department of Civil Rights director Augustin Arbulu within the office of the Michigan AG poses a significant danger to the Constitutional rights of Michigan citizens.

This unit will begin operation by surveilling thirty-one Michigan organizations that have been identified by the discredited, ultra left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as hate and extremist organizations, specifically monitoring the social media activities of these organizations. It must be noted that inclusion on the list compiled by the SPLC has little to do with actual hate CRIMES, and is instead based largely by what it determines to be hate SPEECH, something that its own website acknowledges to be protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution:

Hateful speech – often intended to degrade, intimidate or incite violence or discrimination against certain groups – is protected by the First Amendment and is not punishable under criminal law. However, racial, anti-Semitic or anti-LGBT slurs – or other speech that vilifies a targeted group – can be evidence of a hate crime when used by someone during the commission of an underlying crime. In fact, in 99% of cases reported to police, hate crime victims cite the language used by the offenders, https://www.splcenter.org/20180415/hate-crimes-explained.

 The Statement on the SPLC website further acknowledges that the vast majority of what is reported to police as “hate crime” is in fact “hateful speech,” which, while reprehensible, is nonetheless protected by the First Amendment. This distinction is critical, as the many of the organizations contained on the SPLC list have never actually engaged in an activity that could be classified and prosecuted as a hate crime under applicable federal or state law, neither have they necessarily encouraged their members or associates in any way to engage in such illegal activities.

In short, the SPLC is targeting most organizations for the very activity they acknowledge to be protected under the Constitution – speech. The fact, then, that the Michigan AG’s office is using the SPLC’s list of organizations is very disconcerting, and it raises the concern that it will be criminalizing speech, treating a Constitutionally protected activity as a crime. There is ample reason for this concern. The news release posted on the Michigan Attorney General’s website offers scant details regarding the proposed activities of the new hate crimes unit:

LANSING – Attorney General Dana Nessel has officially launched her new Hate Crimes Unit within the Criminal Division of the Department of Attorney General that is charged with investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. Assistant Attorney General Sunita Doddamani has been tasked as lead prosecutor in the unit and Special Agent David Dwyre has been named lead investigator 

“Hate itself is not a crime and our civil liberties protect the right to speak about even the most terrible of things,” said Nessel. But when a criminal offense is committed against a person or property and it is motivated by an offender’s bias against a particular group, then my Office will act. To do that we intend to work with both federal and local authorities to ensure these crimes are thoroughly investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent possible under the law.” 

Attorney General Nessel is encouraging members of the public and other law enforcement agencies to contact the Hate Crimes Unit if they have knowledge of, or are a victim of, a crime motivated by hate. The Department of Attorney General will follow-up on every credible tip, will launch independent investigations when sufficient cause exists, and will offer departmental resources to assist our local and federal law enforcement partners. 

“Hate crimes are not just an attack on a specific individual but a message to an entire group,” Nessel added. “That’s why they’re so damaging to communities and why we need to partner with our local authorities if we hope to eradicate them. I’m happy to have the opportunity as Attorney General to put a spotlight on this important issue.” 

Doddamani, who heads the unit, is a career prosecutor and first-generation American with more than 15 years of experience prosecuting violent felonies and hate crime. She is a Wayne State University Law School graduate and has tried more than 150 felony cases in her career. 

If you are a victim of a hate crime or have credible information about a hate crime, please contact the Department of Attorney General at 313-456-0180, https://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,4534,7-359-82916_81983_47203-491579--,00.html. 

Public Statements made by AG Nessel and Dir. Arbulu and recorded by the press, however, give us more of the details. In addition to pursuing actual incidents that rise to the level of hate crimes under applicable State law, the Detroit News reports that “Michigan Department of Civil Rights Director Agustin Arbulu announced the department is creating a process to document hate and bias incidents that don’t rise to the level of a crime or civil infraction,” Beth LeBlanc, the Detroit News, Feb. 22, 2019. In addition to employing, to begin with, one full-time prosecutor and one full-time investigator, the unit will develop and maintain a “database [that] would document hate and bias incidents that don’t rise to the level of a crime. The database would then be used to identify areas where awareness and education programs are most needed….” In other words, the Attorney General’s office, in concert with the Department of Civil Rights, are going to be surveilling the public Statements of the organizations and, presumably, the social media activities of these organizations as well. They will be relying on reports they receive from individuals interacting with these organizations regarding speech these individuals find personally offensive. This, presumably, will result in investigations into the speech and activities of these organizations, with the majority being entered into databases for monitoring and mandatory awareness and education training.

It raises a legitimate concern: will such surveillance eventually result in the attorney general demanding copies of sermons, speeches, articles, etc., to insure that the content isn’t determined to be “hateful” and therefore unacceptable?

The fact that these two departments are pursuing this course of action raises yet another concern. 

It is not possible to monitor the speech and activities of organizations without also monitoring the members and associates of the organizations, especially in terms of social media. At what point will the database they wish to develop be expanded to include the names, Statements, and activities of individual citizens in addition to those of the organizations? Will monitored organizations be compelled to turn over membership and contribution records? 

At the risk of being accused of slippery slope reasoning, these are very real concerns brought about by the activities on which two Michigan government departments are embarking in the name of combating hate crime, activities that concentrate more on the ideologies, beliefs, and speech of organizations that it does on actual crimes being committed by the organizations or their members.

The establishment the hate crimes unit, especially using information obtained from a private organization whose classifications are highly subjective and suspect, raises serious Constitutional concerns, both in terms of the Michigan Constitution, as well as the United States Constitution. The protections outlined in Article 1 of the Michigan State Constitution with regard to the new hate crimes unit are quite explicit:

§ 2 Equal protection; discrimination.
Sec. 2. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of his civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, race, color or national origin.

§ 3 Assembly, consultation, instruction, petition. 
Sec. 3. The people have the right peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, to instruct their representatives and to petition the government for redress of grievances. 
§ 4 Freedom of worship and religious belief; appropriations. 
Sec. 4. Every person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, or, against his consent, to contribute to the erection or support of any place of religious worship, or to pay tithes, taxes or other rates for the support of any minister of the gospel or teacher of religion… The civil and political rights, privileges and capacities of no person shall be diminished or enlarged on account of his religious belief. 
§ 5 Freedom of speech and of press. 
Sec. 5. Every person may freely speak, write, express and publish his views on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right; and no law shall be enacted to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. 

It is immediately evident that the protections outlined in the Michigan State Constitution closely mirror those of the United States Constitution. The new hate crimes unit can be found to be in violation of all of the protections. 

First, we are protected from infringement of our rights and discrimination by the government with regard to our freedom of religion. This speaks to the very basic freedom of the individual mind and conscience. We are guaranteed equal protection under the Constitution; we cannot be targeted by the State because our religious beliefs, philosophies, or ethics are found to be disagreeable to some in government. The hate crimes unit is specifically targeting what has been deemed to be “hateful speech” because the ideas, beliefs and viewpoints do not align themselves with an arbitrary, politically correct dogma. 

Second, the right of citizens to assemble is protected. Organizations are the collective expression of the beliefs, views, and ideas of individuals who have gathered for the express purpose of exercising and giving voice to those ideas, beliefs, and viewpoints. Monitoring organizations on the basis of their views, therefore, is a violation of the right to assemble and serves to suppress the freedom of association. It should be noted that the freedom TO assemble protected by Section 3 of Article 1 also assumes the freedom NOT TO assemble. When one finds that the beliefs and ideas of an organization do not comport with their own, they are under no compunction to remain; they are free to leave to find other organizations more to their liking – not use the courts and government agencies to quell ideas with which they personally disagree. 

Third, the hate crimes unit constitutes an attack on the religious and philosophical beliefs of individuals and organizations by labeling those beliefs as hateful speech. This is prohibited under Article 1 Section 4 of the State Constitution. Individuals and organizations are confirmed in their right to believe that abortion or homosexuality are violations of God’s law, that Islam is a heresy, and that the Bible teaches individuals to be in subjection to the laws promulgated by the government – which addresses the belief that those who are in this country illegally are present in violation of both God’s and man’s laws. “Every person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.“ Once again, the right TO assemble also assumes the freedom NOT TO assemble, the freedom TO believe assumes the negative freedom NOT TO believe, and both assume the right leave to find other organizations whose tenets are more closely aligned to their own. With reference to the establishment of the hate crimes unit, it must be observed that Article1 Section 4 contains a very specific guarantee that “The civil and political rights, privileges and capacities of no person shall be diminished or enlarged on account of his religious belief.” The hate crimes unit, by virtue of its stated goal of monitoring speech and belief, violates this explicit protection, setting itself up as the arbiter of what is acceptable belief, what is unacceptable belief, and serving to diminish the civil and political rights of individuals who exercise their religious beliefs. 

Fourth, the State Constitution, Article 1 Section 5 guarantees us the right to speak, write, express and publish our views on ALL subjects. This includes what is spoken within the meeting house, expressed in the literature, or published on the blog, website, or on social media. Short of having credible evidence of a crime, the government is forbidden to enact ANY law that has the effect of restraining or abridging those rights. The hate crimes unit, in that it specifically targets and monitors speech that doesn’t rise to the level of a crime, logging such speech in a government-run and -maintained database, explicitly serves to restrain and abridge these protected rights. 

Those are the protections afforded under the Michigan State Constitution. 

However, the hate crimes unit also violated the provisions of the United States Constitution as well.

Multiple rulings of the United States Supreme Court have established that, under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, six of the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution (Also known as the Bill of Rights) are either fully or partially incorporated to the States, meaning that the States are bound to uphold the Constitutional rights protected by those amendments. This is known as the Incorporation Doctrine. 

Under the Incorporation Doctrine, the following amendments have been fully incorporated, meaning that they are binding on the States in their entirety: the First, Second, and Fourth amendments.  The following amendments have been partially incorporated to the States: the Fifth (the right to indictment by grand jury has not been incorporated), the Sixth (the right to have the jury chosen from the same location in which the crime was committed has not been incorporated), and the Eighth (the prohibition against excessive fines has not been incorporated).  The Third, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth amendments have not been incorporated to the States. 

As it applies to the establishment of the hate crimes unit, then, the Incorporation Doctrine requires FULL COMPLIANCE with the provisions of the First Amendment: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

The same observations made with reference to the protections guaranteed under the Michigan State Constitution apply equally here. Since the determining factor placing organizations – and eventually, individuals – on a Michigan government watch list and database is, in fact, speech and not the actual commission of a hate crime, the hate crimes unit is also a blatant violation of nearly all of the protections outlined in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Constitutional rights of organizations are likewise protected under the association clause of the First Amendment according to numerous United States Supreme Court rulings.

The hate crimes unit is also a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment, as fully incorporated to the States: 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution is quite explicit regarding what is protected and what is required in order to conduct lawful searches. In order for the government to conduct a search of ANY kind, there must be probable cause to believe that a crime has, in fact, taken place. A warrant must be sworn out detailing exactly who and what is to be searched, and what will need to be seized. Classification of an organization as a hate or extremist group by the SPLC, a private, non-law enforcement organization, based on Stated beliefs/writings that may constitute hateful but otherwise Constitutionally protected speech, does not qualify as legal grounds under the Fourth Amendment to surveil, search, or add said organization to a government database. It does not qualify as grounds to monitor the social media interactions between the organization and associated individuals, which would have the effect of diminishing the free exercise of their rights. The hate crimes unit violates these protections. 

The hate crimes unit violates the due process right guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution: 

No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law…. 

This one is self-explanatory. The hate crimes unit is targeting organizations without any evidence that they have actually committed a crime, and are working to infringe and abridge their rights based on the assertion of the SPLC that the group constitutes a threat to society. 

Finally, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial, to know the charges being preferred, to confront witnesses, and to have one’s own counsel and witnesses: 

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. 

The hate crimes unit circumvents all of this, assuming guilt, and placing organizations and, later, individuals, in a government database to be monitored and harassed, set up for mandatory re-education training to force them to comply with a government approved agenda, one in which our new attorney general has a vested interest, and for which she is now weaponizing the attorney general’s office to be used against all who dare disagree with her. 

The course on which the AG’s office and the Department of Civil Rights is setting is dangerous for our State. 

It must be stopped.