.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) on Tuesday announced he is suspending his campaign for the White House.
“I’ve come to the realization that it is not my time,” Jindal said during an early evening Fox News interview with Bret Baier. “I am suspending my campaign for president of the United States.
“I cannot tell you what an honor it has been to run for president of the United States,” he added.
Jindal’s campaign failed to resonate with voters since his entrance into the 2016 race last summer.
He never appeared in a main stage GOP presidential debate based on his low polling numbers, which often have registered at or below 1 percent.
During the Fox interview, Jindal declined to immediately name a GOP rival that he would support. Fourteen candidates remain in the Republican race.
“Going forward, I believe we have to be the party of growth and we can never stop being the party that believes in opportunity,” Jindal said in a statement on his decision.
“We cannot settle for The Left’s view of envy and division. We have to be the party that says everyone in this country – no matter the circumstances of their birth or who their parents are – can succeed in America,” he added.
Jindal is the third Republican presidential candidate to drop out of the race, after former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.
Perry dropped out of the race in September after the first GOP debate, while Walker dropped out later that month after the second debate.
Jindal, who leaves office in January, said that he would return to the America Next think tank that he established.
Jindal, a Christian and fierce advocate for religious liberty, had hung his long-shot bid on winning Iowa, but he never gained traction with conservatives in the Hawkeye State.
On Tuesday, Jindal sat at just over 3 percent in the polls there, according to the RealClearPolitics average, despite spending as much time in the state as anyone. He raised just more than a half-million dollars last quarter, making it very difficult for him to last until the first votes are cast in early February.
Jindal was largely relegated to the margins in the GOP race as Ben Carson, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and others vacuumed up support from the social conservatives and Evangelicals that Jindal needed in his camp.
His rivals will not miss his presence on the campaign trail, as he frequently slammed the other GOP contenders for being all talk and no action. Jindal also often took aim at Republican leadership in Washington as being spineless and “Democrat-lite.”
Jindal regularly pointed to his record as governor in Louisiana to back up his criticism of the other contenders.
He sued the federal government to rid his state of Common Core, signed a controversial executive order meant to protect religious liberty in the state after similar legislation in other states provoked huge backlash, and has said Louisiana will not accept Syrian refugees in accordance with an Obama administration plan.
Jindal also has perhaps the most hawkish fiscal records of any governor running for president, refusing to raise taxes even as his state scrambled to fill holes in the budget.
But ultimately Jindal could not cut through the huge and fractured GOP field, leaving a very small imprint on the race. Many believe he was running to angle for a Cabinet slot in a future Republican administration.
Perry praised Jindal’s decision Tuesday evening in an Instagram post.
“Bobby Jindal [is a] great governor, standup friend, loyal American,” he wrote. “We’ve not seen the last of this serious public servant.”
Retired neurosurgeon and GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson echoed Perry’s compliments.
“Thank you to @BobbyJindal for being a conservative governor and running a campaign he should be proud of,” Carson wrote. “Wishing the Jindal family well.”
.
Bobby Jindal is showing once more he’s making the biggest play of any 2016 candidate for the pro-life vote.
This afternoon, while abortion supporters protested outside the Governor’s mansion in Baton Rouge, Jindal set up a huge movie screen and speakers and played on a continuous loop all of the videos released in recent weeks showing the brutality of Planned Parenthood’s baby-parts business.
Among the handful of states that have either started investigations or defunded Planned Parenthood altogether is Jindal’s Louisiana. Supporters of Planned Parenthood are protesting Jindal’s moves against Planned Parenthood funding. Earlier this month, Jindal ended the state’s Medicaid contract with Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood’s Louisiana state director Melissa Flournoy said today, “Governor Jindal isn’t even in Louisiana today, but he’s made sure to prove that he’s always ready to put politics before Louisianan’s health.” She called his screening of the videos “a stunt”, which is certainly is, and certainly one to get under the skin of the protesters.
Flournoy said Planned Parenthood serves 5,000 women a year. What she did not say is that Planned Parenthood has only two clinics in the entire state and that the state has 67 Title X clinics who do much more for women’s health than Planned Parenthood except perhaps sell the body parts of aborted babies.
“Planned Parenthood has a right to protest today, but Governor Jindal’s office will ensure that anyone who shows up will have to witness first-hand the offensive actions of the organization they are supporting,” the Governor’s office said this morning.
The most recent video, released yesterday, shows a whistleblower describing how a Planned Parenthood medical technician laughingly restarted the heart of a nearly fully developed baby boy and then proceeded to cut through his face with scissors to retrieve his intact brain, which was then sold to StemExpress for medical experimentation.
Jindal is working hard to appeal to the social conservative base of the GOP. Earlier this year, in the wake of corporations forcing Indiana Governor Mike Pence to overturn religious freedom protections for businesses objecting to gay marriage, Jindal dared the corporations to mess with him and Louisiana.
Louisiana governor and GOP presidential candidate Bobby Jindal will counter pro-Planned Parenthood protests today with a protest of his own — in the form of a continuous video loop of the seven undercover videos showing illegal abortions and fetal harvesting by Planned Parenthood clinics.
The videos, some of which include graphic footage of abortion workers sorting through the dismembered arms, legs and other body parts of aborted babies as old as 20-weeks gestation, will show on an outdoor movie theater outside the Louisiana governor’s mansion.
The pro-Planned Parenthood protest is set to take place at 4:30 CT. The screening of the videos will happen at the same time.
Jindal, who was one of the first governors to pull funding of the abortion giant, said in a statement earlier today that, “Planned Parenthood has a right to protest…but Governor Jindal’s office will ensure that anyone who shows up will have to witness first-hand the offensive actions of the organization they are supporting.”
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (R) is looking for a way to block attempts to remove historical statues–statues of Confederate leaders in this instance–from their current positions in New Orleans.
Jindal’s presidential campaign described efforts to remove the Confederate statues as “political correctness run amok.”
The statues marked for removal include one of Confederate President Jefferson Davis and Confederate Generals Robert E. Lee and P.G.T. Beauregard. Breitbart News previously reported that New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu was spearheading the effort to have the statues removed.
The Governor opposes tearing down these historical statues and has instructed his staff to look into all relevant laws to determine the legal authority we have to stop it. We need to preserve our history to remember what we’ve learned and how far we’ve come. This is political correctness run amok. What’s next? Maybe we can edit our history books too, and then burn all the books we disagree with.
.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Tuesday he is directing his state’s Department of Health and Hospitals to launch an investigation into Planned Parenthood. This comes on the heels of the release of an investigative video by pro-life group Center for Medical Progress depicting the abortion giant’s chief medical officer speaking about how to abort a baby intact to harvest its body parts for sale.
“Today’s video of a Planned Parenthood official discussing the systematic harvesting and trafficking of human body parts is shocking and gruesome,” Jindal, a Republican presidential contender, said in a statement sent to Breitbart News.
“This same organization is seeking to open an abortion clinic in New Orleans,” he continued. “I have instructed Louisiana’s Department of Health and Hospitals to conduct an immediate investigation into this alleged evil and illegal activity and to not issue any licenses until this investigation is complete. I am also asking the FBI to assist DHH in investigating this alleged criminal activity by this organization.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is calling for a full investigation into Planned Parenthood after a high-level official was caught in an undercover video discussing the harvesting of aborted fetal tissue.
“Congress should immediately begin an investigation of Planned Parenthood’s activities regarding the sale and transfer of aborted body parts, including who is obtaining them and what they are being used for,” Cruz wrote in a statement late Tuesday.
The now-viral video, which was created by an anti-abortion group called the Center for Medical Progress, has inflamed conservatives on Capitol Hill since it surfaced early Tuesday. He is the third GOP White House hopeful to condemn the reported trafficking of “fetal parts.”
Earlier Tuesday, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, also a Republican, charged his state health department with investigating the issue.
Planned Parenthood, which receives some of its funding from the federal government, has acknowledged that the video includes one of its executives but denied that she was discussing the sale of fetal tissue. Instead, the group said she was “speculating on the range of reimbursement that patients can receive after stating they wish to donate any tissue after a procedure.”
Cruz also renewed calls for lawmakers to “fully defund” Planned Parenthood, a long-time rallying cry among anti-abortion Republicans.
“There is no place for taxpayer funding of organizations that profit from taking away innocent life, much less profiting off the bodies of the lives they have stolen,” he wrote in a statement.
I have had enough of smug liberal elites wrapped in their “Celebrate Diversity” banners tearing down minority conservatives.
Look in the mirror, media and academia bigots. Your own reflexive racism and divisive rhetoric are poisoning public discourse. There’s nothing “progressive” about attacking the children and grandchildren of immigrants who proudly embrace an American identity.
We are not “self-hating.” You just hate what we believe.
The most recent grenade tossed by the jack-booted Enforcers of Ethnic Authenticity came from The Washington Post this week. The Beltway fish-wrapper hyped a 2,100-word investigation of GOP Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal with a condescending quote from Professor G. Pearson Cross, who sneered: “There’s not much Indian left in Bobby Jindal.”
Has pallid Professor Cross invented an ambient diagnostic test to measure sufficiently acceptable levels of ethnicity?
The Post quoted a grand total of one disgruntled Democratic donor who railed against Jindal for “forgetting” his “heritage” and his “roots.” But that was more than enough for the apartheid-lite adherents to heed the dog whistle immediately. The Post’s splashy attack on Jindal’s assimilationist ethic spawned a vile Twitter hashtag game: #BobbyJindalIsSoWhite.
Left-wing racists mocked his skin color, his kids and his decision to change his name from “Piyush” to “Bobby.” A New York Times digital editor, Shreeya Sinha, gleefully linked to a BBC compilation of “The best of #BobbyJindalisSoWhite.” NBC News gloated over tweets from liberal Indian-Americans who mocked the accomplished governor, Rhodes scholar and father of three as a “Jindian.”
Great piece, go read it all. Michelle lays bare the bigotry, and hatred of the Left
.
On Tuesday night, Fox News’s Megyn Kelly conducted an incisive interview with Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.) about his opposition to the National Security Agency’s metadata-collection program under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act (the business-records provision). The abbreviated version of the interview as aired is on the Kelly File website, here; the full interview (which runs about 13 minutes and also features Kelly Paul, the senator’s wife) has been posted on Fox News’s blog, here.
I have been making the argument that, while there is a serious question about whether the metadata program violates the statutory limitations spelled out in Section 215, Senator Paul’s claim that it flouts the Constitution is frivolous. It was on this point that Ms. Kelly pressed him Tuesday night. I will address two of the senator’s constitutional claims: the “general warrant” objection and the notion that the Fourth Amendment protects private confidentiality arrangements. I will then add some closing thoughts on other misleading and misguided elements of Paul’s argument.
General Warrant
The senator contends that a court order directing a telecommunications company to turn over the records of usage by its customers is a “general warrant,” an evil the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent. He evidently does not understand the concept he is invoking.
A general warrant is a government grant of authority to search and seize unspecified persons or places without limitation. To prohibit it, the Fourth Amendment requires that a search warrant describe with particularity “the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
There are two fatal flaws in Paul’s general-warrant claim.
One: The Fourth Amendment requires the government to obtain a judicial search warrant only if it wishes to search or seize categories of very personal property that are spelled out explicitly in the amendment – namely, one’s “person, house, papers and effects.” Business records that are the property of a third party (namely, a telecom) do not constitute the customer’s person, house, papers, or effects. You do not have a constitutional privacy interest in property that belongs to a third party. (You may have a statutory privacy interest . . . but I’ll come to that in due course.)
Consequently, to obtain a customer’s phone records, the government is not required to secure a search warrant. Indeed, in ordinary law enforcement, the government commonly compels the production of copious quantities of business records (very much including telephone records) by mere subpoena.
Note that this means the PATRIOT Act, which requires the government to go to court first and highly regulates what the government may do with the phone records it collects, provides more privacy protection than Americans get in everyday law enforcement. Prosecutors, for example, do not need court permission to issue subpoenas, and they may make unlimited use of phone records they gather, including scrutinizing the information that identifies the customers. By contrast, as Rich Lowry observed in his column a couple of days ago, the metadata program under the PATRIOT Act does not collect personal identifying information.
Two: Senator Paul confuses a demand for a large amount of information with a lack of specificity. The fact that Section 215 orders require the telecoms to produce lots of data does not mean the orders do not particularize what data is sought.
Again, because we are not dealing with matters that trigger Fourth Amendment protection (one’s person, house, papers, and effects) there is no requirement for a Section 215 order to comply with the Fourth Amendment’s specificity mandate. Yet it is quite specific nevertheless. The order does not tell the telecom, “Provide all your records, of any kind”; it directs the telecom to provide for all subscriber numbers (but not names, addresses, or other identifying information) records showing what numbers (not names) were called, plus the date, time, and duration of the calls. Yes, it is a lot of information, but the orders are particular about what may and may not be collected. Clearly, they are not “general warrants.”
Note that under Paul’s analysis, a prosecutor or FBI agent would not be able to subpoena, say, the ledgers kept by drug traffickers. After all, those ledgers might contain records pertaining to hundreds or thousands of drug transactions involving dealers and customers whose names are not specified in the subpoena and whose private activities the government would be able to pry into. Of course, this would be untenable: We all know that we do not have a property right in another person’s belongings, and if his papers and effects happen to detail activity in which we’ve been involved, we do not have a constitutional right to shield that information from government agents conducting legitimate investigations.
Private Confidentiality Arrangements
Senator Paul acknowledges that the Supreme Court, in Smith v. Maryland (1979), held that the Fourth Amendment is not implicated by a service provider’s records of the customer’s telephone usage. (Again, we’re talking here about subscriber numbers, numbers called, date, time, and duration – not the content of conversations.) From a constitutional standpoint, that should be the end of the matter. Yet Paul makes some futile efforts to distinguish Smith.
He claims, for example, that Smith is an old case (not from “modern times”), and that it involved the records of a single person who was suspected of crimes, not – as in the metadata program – the records of millions of people who are not criminal suspects. These assertions are at once irrelevant and odd.
First, the Smith Court’s rationale was that third-party business records do not trigger Fourth Amendment privacy protections. The question was not whether the customer at issue was a criminal; it was whether he had a cognizable privacy interest – his status as a suspect was beside the point. Second, what is Paul relying on to show that the 36-year-old Smith ruling is obsolete? Why, it’s the 226-year-old Fourth Amendment. Even if Smith really were ancient history (and it’s not), the justices were relying on an understanding of technology and privacy that was over two centuries more modern than that of the Framers.
Another claim that Paul posits warrants a bit more discussion because it has some surface appeal. The senator observes that a service provider has a contractual duty of confidentiality to the customer: It could be sued if, for example, it sold or gave away the customer’s calling data to another private party without permission. From this premise, Paul reasons that (a) this confidentiality duty is breached when the telecom gives this same information to the government pursuant to a court order, and (b) this purported breach somehow rises to the level of a constitutional violation.
The suggestion has populist appeal: The senator is tapping into the outrage we’d all feel if a phone company gave out information regarding our personal calling habits to just anyone. But legally, his contention, as applied to lawful investigative demands by the government, is specious.
There are some private confidential relationships our law protects by shielding communications from even judicial proceedings – e.g., privileges against disclosure for married couples, and for persons in a priest-penitent, doctor-patient, or attorney-client relationship. Other than these longstanding exceptions, however, the rule is that private confidentiality arrangements must yield to lawful investigative demands.
If you and I agree to share a secret, but you get subpoenaed to a grand jury, neither of us has an enforceable legal privilege that would allow you to refuse to disclose the secret. Even journalists, whose critical function in a democracy is recognized by the First Amendment’s nod to freedom of the press, are nevertheless required to disclose communications with their confidential sources if compelled by grand jury or trial subpoena. (That is why, to take a prominent example, reporter Judy Miller spent many weeks in jail upon refusing to honor a subpoena seeking information about her conversations with a source, then-government official Scooter Libby. The press has lobbied for a “shield law” precisely because the Constitution does not immunize reporters from investigative demands for information.)
Telecoms do and should have contractual and even statutory obligations to keep customer information confidential – not to mention having a competitive business interest in doing so. But those obligations have always been trumped by lawful investigative demands for information.
When, as we’ve seen, the information at issue is not itself protected by the Fourth Amendment, it is silly to argue, as Paul does, that a confidentiality agreement between the service provider and the company changes the Fourth Amendment analysis. The Supreme Court’s “expectation of privacy” jurisprudence involves one’s expectation of privacy from government intrusion. No one has a reasonable expectation of privacy that the government will not seek a corporation’s business records in an investigation. A confidentiality arrangement gives the customer an expectation that the corporation will refrain from irresponsible disclosures to private parties, but not from disclosures based on lawful demands made by government agencies pursuant to court process or federal statutes.
Finally: Honesty, Capability, and Regularity
Three last points.
One: Senator Paul repeatedly and disingenuously blends together his claim that the metadata program violates the Constitution with the fact that the federal appeals court for the Second Circuit recently ruled that the program is “illegal.” Transparently, he is implying that the court concurred in his legal analysis – an effort to give his Fourth Amendment claims the patina of judicial heft. But as the senator well knows, the Second Circuit did not hold that the metadata program violates the Constitution; it concluded that the program transgressed the limitations of a statute – Section 215.
That is a debatable conclusion. The Second Circuit makes a strong case, but the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (which Congress created to specialize in intelligence issues) clearly disagrees, having issued Section 215 metadata orders over two dozen times. The statutory issue is a complicated one (I’ve addressed it here), but it is statutory. Senator Paul should stop suggesting that the courts have found merit in his constitutional claims.
Two: Senator Paul and like-minded critics of government counterterrorism authorities misleadingly conflate government capabilities with government action. Paul, for example, told Megyn Kelly that an academic study of metadata showed that, by scrutinizing it, researchers could figure out personal information like what religion a person belonged to and what medicines the person took. As Ms. Kelly pointed out, the government’s program does not permit metadata to be scrutinized that way; access to the information and the manner in which it may be searched are tightly controlled by statute and court-ordered minimization rules.
Now, to be sure, the government has the capability to abuse the metadata program just as it can abuse any other government program or power. Senator Paul’s argument is akin to saying that because the enormous power of our armed forces could enable a rogue executive branch to take over American cities and impose martial law, we should disband the armed forces.
As I have frequently argued (and made a theme of Faithless Execution), it is a mistake to repeal government powers just because they can conceivably be abused. The powers exist because they may be needed to protect the country in a crisis. The objective should be to get rid of government officials who abuse their power, not to get rid of the power. Rogues will be rogues no matter what the rules are. When we repeal or hyper-regulate national-security authorities, we are simply making it harder for the law-abiding officials to do the job of protecting us; the rogues are largely unaffected.
In any event, when critics like Senator Paul inveigh against counterterrorism measures, it is a good idea to ask: “Is he talking about what they could do if they were of a mind to be abusive, or is he talking about what they are doing?” It is easy to spin imaginary worst-case scenarios, but we should be focused on what actually happens in the real world, especially in a program that features court supervision and congressional oversight.
Three: Finally, Senator Paul is entirely right that we need legal privacy protections that evolve with modern technology and societal views of what should be private. As a self-proclaimed constitutionalist, however, he should understand how the Framers thought this evolution should occur. In the Fourth Amendment, they gave us a core of protection from government intrusion on specific, intimate privacy interests – our physical persons, our homes, and our private papers and effects. But that core of protection is only the bare minimum of what we now call our “privacy” rights; it was never meant to be the totality of those rights.
We were always meant to have additional privacy protections beyond the Fourth Amendment. But those protections are supposed to be enacted by Congress, which can weigh competing concerns and strike the right balance between liberty and security. They are not supposed to be judicially manufactured by pretending that the Fourth Amendment is “organic” and that it says things it plainly does not say.
Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act attempts to strike the right balance. Even though the Supreme Court has said phone data are not protected by the Fourth Amendment, and therefore that investigators could scrub it for all kinds of personal information without violating the Constitution, Section 215 sharply limits the government. Investigators may only collect metadata, not scrutinize it, and they are prohibited from collecting personal identifying information. If they want to scrutinize the data, they must have just cause (e.g., known terrorist phone numbers calling various other numbers) and they must follow strict court-imposed rules for conducting their search – rules that are designed to minimize the chance that innocent people’s records will be analyzed. And they must destroy data periodically to minimize the amount of time the records of innocent people are retained.
Now, it is entirely possible that people will conclude these protections are insufficient to justify the collection of data on tens of millions of Americans, only a statistically negligible number of whom will have any connection to terrorism. As I’ve contended before, proponents have not done a good job of convincing people that the program materially advances our security. I happen to believe the program is important and that its privacy intrusions are trivial (and mostly theoretical). But if my side cannot persuade the public, then the program will be repealed or reformed in a way that ratchets up privacy protections. That is the way a problem left to the wisdom of legislators in a free society is supposed to be resolved.
As any real constitutionalist should recognize, that is the way the Framers designed it.
.
After three days of speeches at the conservative cattle call that is the Southern Republican Leadership Conference (SRLC), one presidential candidate stood out in an already crowded Republican field of hopefuls: neurologist-turned-politician Dr. Ben Carson.
Carson, who announced his candidacy for the White House earlier this month, emerged victorious at the SRLC’s closing straw poll, drawing just over a quarter of the votes.
Considered an early indicator of southern primary voter support, the conference straw poll is also the first in the election cycle. A win in this contest, however, does not always guarantee a strong showing in Republican primaries: In the 2011 straw poll, for example, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul won by a margin of nearly 15 percentage points over former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman.
At this year’s SRLC, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker finished in second place, currying favor with just over 20 percent of the crowd. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz followed with 16.6 percent of votes. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie came in fourth at 5.3 percent, with former Texas Gov. Rick Perry trailing close behind with 5 percent of votes.
The conference kicked off Thursday in Oklahoma City with numerous conservative superstars on its lineup. Though several senators – and likely presidential candidates – were scheduled to speak, some were not in attendance because of Friday’s prolonged Senate session. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio both addressed the Republican crowd via taped messages, along with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
About 1,500 eligible voters from across 25 southern states took part in the conservative confab, according to event organizers. Just under two-thirds of the registered attendees voted in the straw poll.
Full SRLC straw poll results:
Dr. Ben Carson: 25.4%
Gov. Scott Walker: 20.5%
Sen. Ted Cruz: 16.6%
Gov. Chris Christie: 5.3%
Gov. Rick Perry: 5.0%
Gov. Jeb Bush: 4.9%
Sen. Rand Paul: 4.1%
Sen. Marco Rubio: 4.1%
Gov. Bobby Jindal: 4.1%
Carly Fiorina: 2.7%
Gov. Mike Huckabee: 2.7%
Sen. Rick Santorum: 1.9%
Donald Trump: 1.2%
Mark Everson: 0.8%
Sen. Lindsey Graham: 0.5%
Gov. John Kasich: 0.2%
Gov. Jim Gilmore: 0.0%
Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Rand Paul, Governor Scott Walker, Senator Kelly Ayotte, and Governor Bobby Jindal take part in the New Hampshire Republican Party’s “First in the Nation” leadership summit in Nashua, NH. Streaming begins at 9:00am eastern time.
.
………………………Click on image above to watch stream.
.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) is standing by Rudy Giuliani, saying that the essence of the former New York City mayor’s comments questioning President Obama’s love of country is true.
“The gist of what Mayor Giuliani said — that the President has shown himself to be completely unable to speak the truth about the nature of the threats from these [Islamic State in Iraq and Syria] terrorists – is true,” Jindal, a potential 2016 presidential contender, said in a statement shared with The Hill. “If you are looking for someone to condemn the Mayor, look elsewhere.”
Republicans wring their hands and wonder how we beat the media bias? Well being wimpy and surrendering our principles is not the way.This is it! Tell it like it is! I really wish Jindal would run in 2016
* President Of The ‘Center For Security Policy’ Frank Gaffney
* Former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey
* William Boykin (Lieutenant General – U.S. Army, Ret.)
* British Lord Malcolm Pearson
* Representative Scott Perry (Brigadier General – Pennsylvania Army National Guard)
* Former FBI Special Agent John Guandolo (Second Lieutenant – U.S. Marine Corps, Ret.)
* Former Westchester County Court Judge Jeanine Pirro
* Former Federal Prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy
* Syndicated Columnist Diana West
* ‘Americans For Peace And Tolerance’ President Charles Jacobs
* Former Department Of Defense Inspector General Joseph Schmitz (Captain – U.S. Navy, Ret.)
* ‘American Freedom Law Center’ Co-Founder David Yerushalmi
* ‘Claremont Institute’ President Brian Kennedy
* Former Senior CIA Clandestine Operations Officer Clare Lopez
* Former Joint Chiefs Of Staff Intelligence Analyst Stephen Coughlin (Major – U.S. Army Reserves)
* ‘Institute Of World Politics’ Professor J. Michael Waller
* Pastor Rick Joyner
* Rabbi Jonathan Hausman
* James Lyons (Admiral – U.S. Navy, Ret.)
* Representative Mike Pompeo (Captain – U.S. Army, Ret.)
* Senator Ted Cruz
* Representative Steve King
* Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich
* ‘Center For Security Policy’ Director Of State Legislative Outreach Tommy Waller (Major – U.S Marine Corps Reserves)
* American Airlines Flight 77 Pilot Charles Burlingame’s Sister Debra Burlingame
* ‘Former Muslims United’ Director Nonie Darwish
* ‘American Islamic Forum’ President Zuhdi Jasser M.D. (Lieutenant Commander – U.S. Navy, Ret.)
* Dutch ‘Party For Freedom’ Founder Geert Wilders
* Australian Pastor Mark Durie
* Former Israeli Ambassador To The U.S. Yoram Ettinger
* ‘International Free Press Society’ President Lars Hedegaard
* ‘American Freedom Law Center’ Co-Founder Robert Muise (Major – U.S. Marine Corps, Ret.)
* Former CIA Analyst Frederick Fleitz
* ‘National Religious Broadcasters Association’ President Jerry Johnson
* 9/11 Survivor Deborah Weiss
* Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal
* Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra