Hollywood’s “War” with Russia while it ignores China’s Growing Hollywood Dominance | Sep 22 2017

Tucker Carlson Destroys Leftie Hollywood Hack Rob Reiner Over Crazy Russia War Ad

|| theGatewayPundit

“Tucker Carlson invited Hollywood director Rob Reiner tonight to discuss his latest Russia War video ad he released with Morgan Freeman and a group of leftie and anti-Trump RINOs.

Morgan Freeman told Americans this week in the latest anti-Trump Hollywood production, We are at war with Russia.”

The Committee to Investigate Russia produced the video this week. The committee includes Rob Reiner, James Clapper, and Max Boot.

Tucker Carlson had Rob Reiner on his show and destroyed him over this Hollywood conspiracy.

Tucker Carlson: I agree with you we are very divided. And maybe this is one of the reasons. A lot of this is disingenuous. Anyone who looks at cyber warfare will tell you, any honest person, will tell you the Chinese military is the primary culprit in the United States, hacked into the White House not too long ago… Nobody said anything. You guys in Hollywood sell your movies in China. You bow to the imperatives of their propaganda and censorship office. You change your movies to suit them. And yet no one says we’re at war with China.”

….Continue reading more @ TGP

 

China’s influence over Hollywood grows

|| The Washington Post

“China has never been shy about its desire to acquire “soft power” – the kind of cultural and economic influence that can’t be wielded by military might. And Hollywood has often been a partner in its project.

China’s bid for soft power was on show this week, as Sony Pictures Entertainment formed an alliance with Dalian Wanda, a Chinese company that has become one of the world’s largest media empires, in a deal announced Friday. While the partnership was smaller than some of Dalian Wanda’s previous acquisitions, it attracted attention as the Chinese company’s third major deal in Hollywood this year.

These deals have sparked concern over whether China’s expanding influence in Hollywood could lead to more pro-Chinese propaganda in U.S. films. The Chinese government tightly controls media content, and Hollywood studios have been known to alter films to feature China or the Chinese government in a more flattering light to gain access to the country’s lucrative film market.

For Hollywood, China provides the blockbuster combination of a huge movie market and cash-rich equity funds that are eager to invest in films and companies. The Chinese box office is on pace to soon surpass the U.S. as the world’s biggest market, perhaps next year.

On Sept. 15, 16 members of Congress mentioned the Chinese company by name in a letter that called for greater scrutiny of foreign investments. The 14 Republicans and two Democrats said that Dalian Wanda’s acquisitions have raised concerns “about China’s efforts to censor topics and exert propaganda controls on American media.”

The partnership — in which the Chinese company will help promote Sony films in China and co-finance some of Sony’s biggest China movie releases — comes on the heels of two major acquisitions. In January, Dalian Wanda announced the acquisition of Legendary Entertainment, the Hollywood production company behind such blockbusters as “Jurassic World” and “The Dark Knight.” In March, AMC Entertainment, a U.S. cinema chain previously acquired by Dalian Wanda, made a bid for Carmike Cinemas that would make Dalian Wanda Group the owner of the biggest cinema chain in the United States.

The Chinese company is expanding elsewhere, acquiring cinema chains in Australia and Europe in steps toward its goal of controlling 20 percent of the global film market by 2020. It is also heavily investing in China’s domestic industry, including a 400-acre film studio slated to open in 2017 that will have 30 soundstages, an underwater stage, and a permanent set of a New York City street.”

….Continue reading more @ the Washington Post

 

The NFL Is Dying As Middle Class Americans Say “TURN IT OFF”

|| dcWhispers

“The first two weeks of ratings for the NFL were down twelve and then fifteen percent respectively.

That’s a huge drop and a downward trend that has owners and the league worried as advertising profits are certain to slide as well.

The timing of the decline in ratings is clear – as some players chose to use their platform to push an anti-American/anti-police/anti-military/anti-Trump agenda, millions of fans responded with a collective HELL NO and found other things to occupy their free time.

Last season then San Francisco QB Colin Kaepernick refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance as it played before the game. His protest was a Black Lives Matter inspired gesture – the same Black Lives Matter group that has on more than one occasion called for the killing of police and white people.

Kaepernick now finds himself on the outside of the NFL looking in. He was dropped by the 49er’s for his poor play. Other players this season are now staging similar protests even as an increasing number of fans would clearly rather those players focus on playing football for which they are paid millions of dollars per season for doing so.

And so the ratings continue to drop by double-digits. A New York Post report indicated a ten percent drop in ratings will cost the major networks of CBS, Fox, ESPN, and NBC $200 million in lost operating income.

That’s real money.

Should ratings decline by twenty percent the league would experience a full-blown fiscal crisis that could threaten the very viability of the league itself. Players are protesting themselves right out of a job. A handful of spoiled millionaire athletes taking on the traditional values of millions of Middle Class Americans isn’t good for business.”

…Continue reading more @ dcWhispers

Amazon Censorship Appears Over Hillary’s Failed ‘Blame’ Book | Sep 21 2017

Amazon appears to delete over 900 critical reviews of Hillary Clinton’s book

|| Telegraph UK

“Amazon has apparently deleted over 900 reviews of Hillary Clinton’s book in the first 24 hours since it went on sale, after the publisher raised concern that the reviewers had not actually read the book.

Mrs Clinton’s book, What Happened, went on sale on Tuesday. By Wednesday there were 1,600 reviews – many of which did not discuss the book, but instead offered high praise or scathing criticism of Mrs Clinton.

The website Quartz analysed the data from the reviews and found that of the book’s 1,600 or so reviews as of Wednesday morning, only 338 were from users with verified purchases of the book – that is, those who actually bought the item on Amazon.com. They could, of course, have bought the book somewhere else and then logged onto Amazon to post a review, but the majority of Amazon’s reviews are from people who bought the book on their site.

Jonathan Karp, president and publisher of Simon & Schuster, said he believed many of the reviews were not from people who read the book.

“It seems highly unlikely that approximately 1,500 people read Hillary Clinton’s book overnight and came to the stark conclusion that it is either brilliant or awful,” he said.

He said Simon & Schuster hoped the online commentary would reflect opinions of people who have actually read the book.

“It’s pathetic and immature that Clinton can’t accept personal responsibility for her loss. She was a terrible candidate and had a hard time defeating Bernie,” wrote R.J. Parker.”

….Continue reading more @ Telegraph UK

| Reviews here @ What Happened Reviews at Amazon

|| Note: The actual reviews still left on the Amazon site are quite interesting, and revealing of the obvious blatant attempt at censorship. / CJ

 

Twitter Blows Up Over Leaked Tape of Lawrence O’Donnell Going Nuts: ‘STOP THE HAMMERING’

|| Mediaite

“This afternoon, Mediaite posted a leaked eight-minute video of outtakes from a broadcast featuring MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell. The clip obtained by Mediaiteshows O’Donnell absolutely losing it during what appears to be commercial breaks of The Last Word‘s Aug. 29 telecast.

At one point in the video, O’Donnell goes on a tirade over what appears to be someone hammering in the background, leading to this unforgettable rant:

STOP THE HAMMERING UP THERE. WHO’S GOT A HAMMER? WHERE IS IT? WHERE’S THE HAMMER? GO UP ON THE OTHER FLOOR. SOMEBODY GO UP THERE AND STOP THE HAMMERING. STOP THE HAMMERING. I’LL GO DOWN TO THE GODDAMNED FLOOR MYSELF AND STOP IT, KEEP THE GODDAMNED COMMERCIAL BREAK GOING. CALL FUCKING PHIL GRIFFIN, I DON’T CARE WHO THE FUCK YOU HAVE TO CALL. STOP THE HAMMERING. EMPTY OUT THE GODDAMNED CONTROL ROOM AND FIND OUT WHERE THIS IS GOING ON.”

After the post went live, it didn’t take long for the internet to stand up and take notice. And folks on Twitter sure had a lot of fun with it.”

….Continue reading more @ Mediaite

|| Has to remind one of the Caine Mutiny. /CJ

 

Trump Was Tapped by the Feds During the Campaign The Real Threat to Our Country | Sep 20 2017

Tucker ON FIRE Over Trump Wiretap: ‘We Live In A Country With Deeply Corrupt Institutions’

|| Daily Caller

“Tucker Carlson unloaded on U.S. intelligence and the mainstream media Tuesday on Fox News, alleging that American institutions are “deeply corrupt.”

Carlson mocked critics in a sarcastic voice saying, “Wiretapping? Come on. That’s tin foil hat stuff, it’s nuts!”

The Daily Caller co-founder continued, “Now, in another time with more trustworthy institutions that would have been the end of the story. But we live in a country with deeply corrupt institutions…”

Carlson recapped recent reports, stating, “According to a now report from CNN, Paul Manafort who for a time last year was Trump’s campaign chairman was wiretapped by the federal government both before and after the election.”

“Manafort, it ought to be noted, had an apartment inside Trump Tower during that time so it’s virtually certain that surveillance of him would have included other members of the Trump campaign staff, maybe Trump himself,” he said.

Carlson is referring to a recent report from CNN that shows that Manafort was wiretapped before the election by the federal government.”

…Continue reading more @ Daily Caller

Obama Used the Deep State to illegally Spy on Trump Campaign | Sep 19 2017

Trump Vindicated: Report Says Obama Government Illegally Wiretapped Trump Campaign

|| Breitbart

“U.S. investigators wiretapped President Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort, according to a report by CNN that vindicates the president’s earlier claims, which were mocked as a conspiracy theory.

President Trump had tweeted on March 4: “Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!”

Breitbart News editor Joel Pollak had reported the day before Trump’s tweet that the Obama administration “sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign: continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found.”

Trump’s claim, and Breitbart News’s report, were mocked as a conspiracy theory, and other news outlets reported that there was no basis to the claims.

CNN itself at the time called the idea that Trump was wiretapped “incendiary.”

But a report Monday evening said U.S. investigators obtained a surveillance warrant on Manafort from a secret court and had monitored him before and after the election, including a “period when Manafort was known to talk to President Donald Trump.”

The report said the secret court that handles the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act had authorized a surveillance warrant against Manafort for an investigation that began in 2014, looking into his firm, the Podesta Group, and another firm’s lobbying work for Ukraine’s pro-Russian former ruling party.

“The surveillance was discontinued at some point last year for lack of evidence,” a source told CNN.

However, the FBI then restarted the surveillance after obtaining a new FISA warrant that extended early into this year. The report notably does not say when the new warrant was obtained. Manafort joined the Trump campaign as its chairman in May 2016.

The new warrant was “part of the FBI’s efforts to investigate ties between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian operatives,” according to the report.

The report notes, “such warrants require the approval of top Justice Department and FBI officials” — but doesn’t specify which top Justice Department and FBI officials had approved it.

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former FBI Director James Comey were leading the agencies, respectively, at the time.

The report said the first warrant had already expired when Manafort had become the chairman in May. Before he left in August, FBI investigators “noticed what counterintelligence agents thought was a series of odd connections between Trump associates in Russia.”

A some point, the FBI obtained the new FISA warrant and began monitoring Manafort again — who has a residence in Trump Tower. The story said it’s “unclear” whether the FBI surveillance took place there.

The Justice Department and the FBI denied that Trump was being wiretapped.

Comey later in March disputed Trump’s claims — in testimony that lawmakers could now find misleading.

He told the House intelligence committee, “With respect to the president’s tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, I have no information that supports those tweets, and we have looked carefully inside the FBI.”

The New York Times also reported that Comey had said Trump’s claim was false, and that he had asked the Justice Department to publicly reject it, according to the BBC.

James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, also told Congress that intelligence agencies did not wiretap Trump, nor did the FBI obtain a court order to monitor Trump’s phones, according to the BBC report.”

….Continue reading more @ Breitbart

 

Remember When James Clapper Categorically Denied Any Wiretap Against Trump Campaign?

|| Mediaite

“Why in the world would the mainstream media continue to take James Clapper seriously?

In March the former Director of National Intelligence under President Barack Obama appeared on Meet the Press to respond to President Donald Trump‘s now-infamous tweets regarding a “wiretap” related to his campaign during the Obama Administration. Host Chuck Todd asked Clapper point-blank whether any wiretap had occurred:

But I will say that, for the part of the national security apparatus that I oversaw as DNI, there was no such wiretap activity mounted against– the president elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign. I can’t speak for other Title Three authorized entities in the government or a state or local entity.

Clapper’s answer appeared unequivocal, but there was still a little wiggle room.  So Todd, to his credit, drilled down and asked a very specific question about a very specific scenario:

TODD: Yeah, I was just going to say, if the F.B.I., for instance, had a FISA court order of some sort for a surveillance, would that be information you would know or not know?

CLAPPER:  Yes.

TODD:  You would be told this?

CLAPPER:  I would know that.

TODD:  If there was a FISA court order–

CLAPPER:  Yes.

TODD:  –on something like this.

CLAPPER:  Something like this, absolutely.

TODD:  And at this point, you can’t confirm or deny whether that exists?

CLAPPER:  I can deny it.

Now we learn that there was, in fact, a FISA court order and it came from the FBI and Clapper, in his own words, claimed he would have known about that. And he denied it, unequivocally.  Maybe he forgot all about the FISA order wiretapping Paul Manafort while he was in direct contact with Trump in his campaign and after the election.

Clapper also “forgot” that the NSA had a data collection program of every single American citizen when he testified before the Senate Intelligence committee and denied its existence.

James Clapper, former DNI chief and now, favorite guest of media outlets looking to attack President Trump, either has a terrible, terrible memory, or he was kept in the dark about a FISA order that occurred on his watch, or he’s just a liar.  Can’t think of any other options here, can you?

I ask again, why in the world would the mainstream media continue to take James Clapper seriously?  Or, for that matter, book him as a guest?”

….Continue reading more @ Mediaite

 

LA TIMES COMPLAINS: DEPORTED ILLEGALS OVERLOADING MEXICAN GOVT

|| Infowars

Recently deported illegals are overloading the school systems in Mexico, the LA Times is reporting after ignoring the fact illegals were doing that in the US for years.

Additionally, the LA Times is complaining that the students are “struggling to integrate” in Mexico because many of them don’t speak Spanish.

“Mexico has not had the long history of immigration like the US and so has not had to grapple with how to accommodate non-Spanish-speaking students in their schools,” the LA Times’ Brittny Mejia claimed.

Well, that’s because Mexico always expected the US to take in the mass flow of illegals, many of whom are not from Central America but are rather from the Middle East and Asia.

Mexico, where illegal immigration is a felony punishable with years in prison, has always protected its borders better than the US and only welcomes immigrants “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.”

“The guards’ use of violence, rape, and extortion against those seeking to cross into Mexico has, in fact, managed the border so well that the country has only a minimal illegal-immigration problem,” reported DiscoverTheNetworks.org.

As a result, illegals transit through Mexico as quickly as possible to reach the States where they’re pampered like royalty in comparison.

But that treatment comes at a cost to American taxpayers who are burdened with the overflowing public schools, roads, emergency rooms and gang violence.

Of course, anyone who complained was ostracized by the LA Times and the rest of the mainstream media, and now they only seem to care when the same problem happens to MEXICO.

It’s ironic, yet expected: the mainstream media pushes a globalist agenda that runs contrary to America’s standing as an independent nation-state, and America was supposed to collapse from illegal immigration by design.

Mexico, in contrast, is already a failed state due to the cartel war with a death toll second only to war-torn Syria, so it’s easier to bring it under the control of unelected globalists who want to rule all the habitable regions of the world.

“To rule the world, you must first destroy national sovereignty,” wrote Joseph Plummer in his book Tragedy and Hope 101. “You must consolidate and control the real levers of power, regardless of the different forms of government that appear in each country.”

….Continue reading more @ Infowars

 

Nancy Pelosi’s Illegal-Alien Invaders Want Open Borders

|| Breitbart

“The little-known group which invaded a press conference by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is an alliance of four amnesty and open-borders organizations which are based in and near San Francisco.

The roughly 30 protestors broke up Pelosi’s press event, shouting amnesty for “All of us — or none of us.”

The left-wingers said they were protesting Pelosi’s claimed September 13 deal with President Donald Trump for a quick amnesty and citizenship for at least 3.3 million illegals. Nationwide, the population of illegal immigrants is at least 11 million,

The 30-minute invasion wrecked Pelosi’s orchestrated media event where she and several illegal immigrants were intended to present a reassuring and hopeful message on the claimed amnesty. Instead of a calm image of several middle-class ‘dreamer’ migrants, viewers saw a riotous demand for more uncontrolled mass immigration into the United States.

The “Immigration Liberation Movement” was formed by Faith in Action Bay Area, the California Immigrant Youth Justice Alliance, the East Bay Immigrant Youth Coalition, and a law firm which calls itself Pangea.

The groups try to combine peripheral factions of the left — socialists, illegal immigrants, gays, people trying to live as members of the opposite sex, children of illegal immigrants, Silicon Valley millionaires — to push for open borders, regardless of the huge damage it would cause to the core of the United States.

“We envision a world where the fundamental right to move is respected and appreciated by all,” according to Pangea’s website. “Our view is that all human beings are entitled to respect, documents, and a process through which to move, settle and resettle in the world.”

….Continue reading more @ Breitbart

Nancy Pelosi Loses It as She Gets Shouted Down by DACA ‘children’ | Sep 18 2017

Pelosi Battles Pro-Amnesty Demonstrators At DREAM Act Event

|| Daily Caller

This is What Democracy Looks Like?

“A group of undocumented protesters shouted down House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi at a community event on Monday for working with President Trump to pass the DREAM Act.

Pelosi responded to the outburst in impolitic fashion, yelling for the protesters to “Stop it!”

Pelosi was attending an event in San Jose with California Reps. Barbara Lee and Jared Huffman when a group of around 40 protesters interrupted with shouts of “Let us speak,” and “No lip service.”

San Francisco’s CBS affiliate reported that some of the demonstrators carried signs reading “Democrats are Deporters.”

They appeared upset that Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have been negotiating with Trump in order to pass a law that will grant amnesty to people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

“We undocumented youth demand a clean bill…We undocumented youth demand that you do not sell out our community and our values…We undocumented youth will not be a bargaining chip for Trump,” the agitators shouted, according to CBS San Francisco.

After the initial outburst from protesters, Pelosi tried to regain control of the event.

“Let me say this, because you’ve had your say, and it’s beautiful to our ears to hear you protecting your self dignity,” Pelosi began.

“No lip service!” the demonstrators chanted.

“Stop it. Just stop it now,” Pelosi repeated over and over.

“Yes or no!” the protesters screamed.

“To what?” Pelosi asked in response.

“We do not owe you nothing,” the protesters shouted, adding: “This is what democracy looks like!”

….Continue reading more @ Daily Caller

Interestingly, the illegal aliens protestors called Pelosi a liar. Pelosi shot right back, that they ‘don’t know what you’re talking about.’

Ok, so is Pelosi correct in stating the DACA supporters don’t know the facts, or are the protestors correct that Pelosi is a liar?

Or are they both correct? / CJ 

 

Will ‘Dreamers’ Return to Mexico? | Sep 17 2017

U.S. Dreamers on returning to Mexico: ‘What would that look like?’

|| Seattle Times

Dreamers may feel unwanted in the U.S., but Mexico is welcoming them to come back “with open arms.” Some in Washington and elsewhere are cautiously exploring that possibility and wonder: “What would that look like?”

 

“Stripped of protections offered by a just-ended federal program for young, undocumented immigrants, about a dozen of them sat in the Mexican consulate in downtown Seattle waiting to hear what their country of birth could offer them.

A week before, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, acting at the behest of President Donald Trump, had cast the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program as an impediment to the rule of law. By authorizing immigrants brought here illegally as children to live and work in the U.S., the program had also “denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans,” he said.

Now, Mexican Undersecretary for North America Carlos Sada was in Seattle with a very different message, one he had just delivered in Los Angeles as well. “We receive the DACA people with open arms,” he said in an interview shortly before meeting with young immigrants invited to the consulate Wednesday.

Mexican businesses are interested in hiring them, he elaborated. “They are talented, most of them have university degrees and most of them, they do speak English fluently.”

Just one day after Sessions’ speech, a chamber-of-commerce-like group in Mexico’s western state of Jalisco announced that 89 percent of its 1,500 affiliated companies were hiring and could use Dreamers.

Offer to return

The overtures offer a prospect to approximately 800,000 DACA recipients around the country that some are cautiously exploring: going back to Mexico.

“I want to consider it realistically,” said Faride Cuevas, in the consulate’s upstairs lobby. “What would that look like?”

The 24-year-old legislative assistant to King County Councilmember Jeanne Kohl-Welles, who studied business at the University of Washington, wondered whether she might work for an international company with ties to both Mexico and the U.S.

But she and others had questions, lots of them.

“I want to see what the concrete plan is,” said Paúl Quiñonez Figueroa, a legislative assistant to state Rep. Shelley Kloba and an organizer with the Washington Dream Coalition.

“We didn’t migrate by choice,” he said. A lack of economic opportunities had driven his parents to bring him and his brother to the U.S. when he was 7.

“What have they done to the change the country?” he asked. And how will they help reintegrate people like him?

Studying in Mexico last year, he had heard of onetime immigrants to the U.S. who had returned and were having a hard time adjusting.

A news release issued this month by Otros Dreams en Acción, which advocates for returnees, made the point more bleakly. “As undocumented immigrants who have experienced deportation personally or within our families over the last 10 years, we know firsthand that Mexico is not prepared to receive a new wave of young people and their families.”

The release referred to violence and lack of educational opportunities, among other concerns — also detailed in a recent book, “Los Otros Dreamers,” and film project.

When he arrived in the consulate’s lobby, Sada, accompanied by Consul Roberto Dondisch, offered reassurance. In Spanish, he said Mexico, despite abundant criticism, was a rich country. It had transformed.

And it is taking steps to help Dreamers return, Sada said. Their American degrees will be validated automatically. The government is compiling a list of jobs for which they might apply.

A dad of two Dreamers, there along with the younger immigrants, questioned how welcoming most Mexicans would really be. He had gone back for a time and found he was discriminated against by his own people, he told Sada.

Yes, Sada admitted, he has heard of resentment against returnees. “They were the ones who left Mexico,” he said people complain.

Miguel Duncan-Galvez Bravo, who came to the U.S. when he was 2, made a point by speaking up in English — the language, he said, in which he feels most comfortable expressing his thoughts.

Returning to Mexico, he said, “I would be struggling.”

Why doesn’t Mexico create jobs within its own government for DACA recipients? he asked.

Sada, answering in Spanish, sidestepped the question of government jobs, but said the government intended to set up language classes for Dreamers.

“I know they’re trying to help,” Duncan-Galvez Bravo said after the meeting.

Yet the 29-year-old remained skeptical that Mexico was a viable option. He said he has seen job openings aimed at returnees and they were all in the retail and tourist industries, which would make no use of his education and experience.

He has a master’s degree in diplomacy and military studies from California State University, Northridge. Since graduating, he has worked at nonprofits, most recently as a fundraiser and development manager for Entre Hermanos, an organization supporting LGBTQ Latinos.”

…Continue reading more @ Seattle Times

California Passes ‘State Sanctuary’ Bill | Sep 16 2017

California Goes Full Sanctuary State With Sweeping Immigration Bill

|| Daily Caller

“California lawmakers punctuated the end of the 2017 legislative season by passing a comprehensive immigration bill that makes the state one of the nation’s most hostile to federal immigration authorities.

In a party line vote early Saturday morning, the state senate passed SB 54, a long-debated measure to shield illegal immigrants from the Trump administration’s strict immigration enforcement.

The bill sharply limits state and local law enforcement communication with federal immigration authorities, and prevents police officers from questioning or detaining people on civil immigration violations.

Entitled the “California Values Act,” the final version passed the Democratic-controlled Senate by a vote of 27-11. The bill, now headed to Gov. Jerry Brown, is a scaled-back revision of an earlier proposal that would have cut off communication and resource-sharing with federal immigration authorities except in cases backed by a criminal warrant.

Democratic lawmakers amended SB 54 after negotiations with Brown last week to allow immigration agents to keep working with state corrections officials. Legislators also agreed to allow state and local police to hand over criminal aliens to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if the subject has been convicted of one or more of 800 crimes enumerated in a previous law, the California Trust Act.

California senate leader Kevin De Leon said the changes wouldn’t alter the fundamental objective of the law: preventing law enforcement from aiding the Trump administration’s deportation crackdown against supposedly non-violent illegal immigrants.

“These amendments do not mean to erode the core mission of this measure, which is to protect hardworking families that have contributed greatly to our culture and the economy,” he said according to the Los Angles Times. “This is a measure that reflects the values of who we are as a great state.”

De Leon introduced SB 54 in December in response to Trump’s victory in the 2016 election. The measure was one of several introduced by Democratic lawmakers to benefit California’s 2.3 million illegal immigrant residents. Other proposals included using public funds for immigrants’ legal defense and expanding employer protections against ICE operations at work sites.

The original draft of SB 54 drew protest from many of California’s law enforcement officials and some Democratic lawmakers, who worried its severe restrictions on cooperation with ICE would allow dangerous criminal aliens to avoid detention. De Leon’s compromise with Brown made the bill palatable for California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and moved the California Police Chiefs Association from opposed to neutral, reports the Los Angeles Times.

The amended version of SB 54 still has significant opposition in California’s law enforcement community. In a statement released in advance of Saturday’s vote, the California Sheriffs Association said the bill “goes too far in cutting off communications” with the federal government and prevents notification about the pending release of public safety threats such as repeat drunk drivers and hit-and-run suspects.

The passage of SB 54, which Brown is expected to sign in the coming weeks, will likely worsen tension between California and federal law enforcement officials. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has threatened to withhold certain federal grants from jurisdictions that refuse to honor immigration detention requests or give ICE agents access to local jails. He has singled out San Francisco and Los Angeles as cities whose sanctuary policies run afoul of new Department of Justice eligibility rules for criminal justice grants.

On Friday, a federal judge in Chicago gave California, and every other state, a temporary reprieve from Sessions’ crackdown. U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber issued a nationwide injunction that blocks the Department of Justice from implementing the new guidelines while Chicago’s lawsuit against the order is is evaluated by the courts.”

….Continue reading more @ Daily Caller

 

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE DEFINED

|| Laws.com

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

“The Supremacy Clause is that which derives from Constitutional law and sets forth that three distinct areas of legislation be at the forefront. It states that the Constitution, Federal statutes, and United States treaties encompass the “supreme law of the land”, therefore making them the highest areas of law possible within the legal system of America. The Supremacy Clause may be found in Article VI, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.

A landmark case representing one of the earliest examples of the use of the Supremacy Clause is that of McCulloch v. Maryland. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the State of Maryland had no legal right to tax the Second Bank of the United States as a Federal entity. This exhibited how the Supremacy Clause called into question the actions of the State, and therefore, made it so that the State could not legally tax the Federal Government.
Another case that made use of the Supremacy Clause in connection with Constitutional law was that of Missouri v. Holland. This Supreme Court case was conducted over the cause of international treaties. The Court ruled that the power of the Federal Government to enforce treaties overrode that of the State’s authority to voice concerns as to the violation of their local rights as prescribed from the 10th Amendment.
This Amendment was used by the Supreme Court following the Civil War and stated that states assumed the rights to powers not already set forth for the Federal Government. This did not last long, however, as everything was shifted to the Government to have vast national power, which meant that the Federal Government could not be subject to State law aside from by its own volition.
In addition, the Supremacy Clause also maintains that State legislatures assume, in one way or another, the guidelines and procedures set forth by the Federal Government. This is due to the presentation of two issues that stem from State and Federal conflict. These include Congress’ surpassing of its original authority as well as its overall intent in going over that of State policy. In both cases, Congress may be acting with the express authority of creating uniformity of legislature. In such a way it may be attempting to enable the coexistence of Federal and State government.
A case that highlighted such issues of Federal law presuming power over State action is that of Pennsylvania v. Nelson. In this case, the Supreme Court instituted qualifications for when the Government does encroach upon the rule of states, even when absent of apparent intent. These include that the Federal law is so extensive that states may not be able to adequately supplement it, the fact of the “Federal interest’s dominance,” and whether “State law” is in so much of a contrast to the Federal administration that it may only do harm to it. Such cases represent the ways in which the Supremacy Clause has been employed.”