Gov Moonbeam Attacks Planet Earth and the 1st Amendment | April 01, 2017

‘FAKE NEWS BAN’ California Attacks the First Amendment

| theGatewayPundit

“A bill was introduced back on February 17 by the California State Assembly, which attempts to ban “fake news” – a difficult term to define. Wednesday, March 29, saw the bill filed to the Assembly’s Committee on Privacy and Consumer Affairs.

The bill, which would ultimately amend the California Political Cyberfraud Abatement Act, would make it illegal to spread so-called “false or deceptive” information.

The following is a portion of the proposed amendment as it stands:

It is unlawful for a person to knowingly and willingly make, publish or circulate on an Internet Web site, or cause to be made, published, or circulated in any writing posted on an Internet Web site, a false or deceptive statement designed to influence the vote on either of the following:

(a) Any issue submitted to voters at an election.

(b) Any candidate for election to public office.

As previously stated, the term “fake news” is hard to define and given this, the text that makes up the amendment is equally ambiguous and does not in explicit language define what “false or deceptive” information, or statements, are, which would allow for subjective interpretations of the law to be used to discredit or devalue narratives that are counter intuitive to the individual/entity attempting to use the law for some sort of claim.

Another major problem that will undoubtedly arise is the prospect of an individual using social media who wishes to explore political ideologies that could be in stark contrast, or contradiction to, the people who are carrying out the law.

The bill is fundamentally flawed.

A memo attempts to clarify certain aspects of the bill:

This bill will fuel a chaotic free-for-all of mudslinging with candidates and others being accused of crimes at the slightest hint of hyperbole, exaggeration, poetic license, or common error. While those accusations may not ultimately hold up, politically motivated prosecutions—or the threat of such—may harm democracy more than if the issue had just been left alone . . .

At this point in time, it is clear that this bill endangers free speech, it also can be used as a tool by the left to silence opposition in the state of California. The left has been actively attempting to undermine conservative or contradictory thought for far too long and now their efforts are moving toward totalitarian policy measures.”

….Continue reading more @ TGP

 | Let me get this straight, in a state where identity fraud is rampant, the state is considering adopting a law called ‘Cyber fraud abatement Act’ which does nothing about identity cyber fraud? /CJ  

Obama spying looks even worse than Trump claimed

|  WND

“WASHINGTON – The spying by the Obama administration on then-presidential candidate Donald Trump reportedly was even worse than what he has alleged.

And it had nothing to do with Russia but everything to do with politics.

Sources in the intelligence community claim the potentially illegal revealing of names, or unmasking, of people in the Trump camp who were under surveillance was done purely “for political purposes” to “hurt and embarrass (candidate) Trump and his team.”

The bombshell revelations come from rank and file members of the intelligence community who are fighting back against a stonewall by the leaders at the nation’s spy agencies, according to Fox News.

Reporter Adam Housley said the sources are “not Trump” people but are “frustrated with the politics that is taking place in these (intelligence) agencies.”

And what they have revealed is amazing. Here is what they told Fox:

1) Surveillance targeting the Trump team during the Obama administration began months ago, even before the president had become the GOP nominee in July.

2) The spying on the Trump team had nothing to do with the collection of foreign intelligence or an investigation into Russia election interference.

3) The spying was done purely “for political purposes” that “have nothing to do with national security and everything to do with hurting and embarrassing Trump and his team.”

4) The person who did the unmasking was someone “very well known, very high up, very senior in the intelligence world, and is not in the FBI.”

5) Congressional investigators know the name of at least one person who was unmasking names.

6) The initial surveillance on the Trump team led to “a number of names” being unmasked.

7) House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., has known about the unmasking since January.

8) Two sources in the intelligence community told Nunes who did the unmasking and told him at least one of the names of someone in the Trump team who was unmasked. The sources also gave Nunes the serial numbers of the classified reports that documented the unmasking.

9) It took Nunes a number of weeks to figure out how to see those intelligence reports because the intelligence agencies were stonewalling him, and not allowing the chairman or other people to see them.

10) There were only two places Nunes could have seen the information: where the sources work, which would have blown their cover; and the Eisenhower Executive Office building on the White House grounds, which houses the National Security Council and has computers linked to the secure system containing the reports he sought.

11) Nunes got access to that system on March 21 with the help of two Trump administration officials.

The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel reported that the documents Nunes saw confirming the Obama administration spied on the Trump team for months “aren’t easily obtainable, since they aren’t the ‘finished’ intelligence products that Congress gets to see.”

She said there were “dozens of documents with information about Trump officials.”

Strassel also reported there was a stonewall against the Intelligence committee chairman because, “for weeks Mr. Nunes has been demanding intelligence agencies turn over said documents—with no luck, so far.”

She also learned that, along with former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, one other Trump official was unmasked.”

….Continue reading more @ WND

“You need the coercive power of government to say “do this” – Jerry Brown

| Youtube

CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN: Tom, you used the phrase “policy, good policy.” But I want to unpack that term a little bit. Inside the policy, you need a law, you need a rule, you need the coercive power of government to say “do this.”

Now, you have to be wise and don’t say something stupid, or try to order something stupid. But the fact is, the regulations supported by the laws drive innovation.”

…More @ Youtube

 

California Senator Forced To Pull Bill Banning “Fake News” After Realizing It’s Idiotic

| ZeroHedge

“California is known far and wide for it’s wacky regulations.  In fact, just last fall we wrote about SB 1383, a very significant piece of legislation signed into law by Jerry Brown which requires a 40% reduction in methane gas emissions from cow flatulence by 2030 (no, really…you can take a look here: “Here Are Some Of The Ridiculous New State Laws That Will Take Effect January 1st – Happy New Year!“)

But a recent piece of legislation introduced by California Assemblyman Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park), “The California Political Cyberfraud Abatement Act or AB 1104 for short, gives the “cow fart” bill a run for its money in terms of its complete idiocy.  The bill, filed Wednesday in the Assembly’s Committee on Privacy and Consumer Affairs, would have effectively made it a crime to be wrong on the Internet.

The text of the bill implicated anyone who writes, publishes or even shares news stories that could be false, if those news stories are later found to have had an impact on an election.

As of right now it looks as if the legislation has been pulled after Chau just cancelled a hearing originally scheduled for Monday.  Presumably Chau got a little pushback from mainstream media outlets after they realized his bill would effectively ban them, and their fake “Russian hacking” narratives from California.”

….Continue reading @ ZeroHedge

 

 

Evelyn Farkas Suggests the Russians May Be Behind ‘Fake News’ About Her

| theGatewayPundit

“Former Obama official, Evelyn Farkas has come under heavy fire for her March 2nd appearance on MSNBC where she admitted to having a lot of knowledge on the surveillance of Trump and his team. She is now in damage control mode and her nervousness is causing her to make some odd statements.

Evelyn Farkas appeared on MSNBC to defend herself, claiming the recent stories about her knowledge of Trump being wiretapped is fake news and perhaps the Russians are behind it. We are officially in the twilight zone, folks.”

…Continue reading more @ theGatewayPundit

California’s Sanctuary Status in Trump Admin Crosshairs | Jan 2017

DMV Crash: California DMV Offices Off-line in Another Jerry Brown Failure | Oct 2016

California Governor Jerry Brown’s Email Problem Over San Onofre Nuke Deal | Aug 2016

Grassley Asks Why Hillary and Aides Still have Security Clearance? | Mar 31, 2017

Senator Grassley Asks Why “Extremely Careless” Hillary Still Has Access To Classified State Dept. Info

| ZeroHedge

“Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, would very much like to understand why Hillary Clinton and 6 of her closest “research aides” may still have access to classified State Department information despite FBI Director Comey’s assertion that they were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

And, after sending numerous requests to John Kerry’s State Department that ‘shockingly’ fell on deaf ears, Grassely has sent a letter to Secretary of State Tillerson asking why Hillary’s security clearance hasn’t yet been revoked given that “any other government workers who engaged in such serious offenses would, at a minimum, have their clearances suspended pending an investigation.”

….Continue reading more @ ZeroHedge

 

Nunes Did Nothing New By Viewing Raw Intel At The White House

| Daily Caller

“There is nothing new about House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes leaving the panel’s secure room beneath the Capitol Building and heading to the White House complex or a related facility nearby to view raw intelligence, The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group has learned.

For years, intelligence committee chiefs have trekked to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue or to an intelligence agency to view such super sensitive intelligence material, because the congressional secure room can’t handle such material.

Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Pete Hoekstra told TheDCNF that “if someone was going to present me with raw intelligence or unfinished intelligence or with intelligence which was designed for use by another part of the government, yeah, it’s very reasonable to expect that I would have to go somewhere else.” The Michigan Republican chaired the intelligence panel from 2004 to 2007.

Nunes has been harshly criticized by congressional Democrats for his decision to travel to the White House executive complex to view raw intelligence delivered by a whistleblower about allegations the Obama administration spied on then President-elect Donald Trump and his transition aides.

Nunes’ actions amount to collusion with the Trump White House, according to Democrats, led by California Democrat Adam Schiff, the intelligence committee’s ranking minority member.

The New York Times Thursday went further, identifying two White House National Security Council (NSC) officials who assisted Nunes. The NYT concluded the unmasking of the NSC officials “is likely to fuel criticism that the intelligence chairman has been too eager to do the bidding of the Trump administration.”

But Col. (Ret.) Jim Waurishuk, who served at the NSC, told TheDCNF such viewings are “routine,” especially at the White House complex.

“Speaking from my experience, I talked to members of both sides of the aisle,” he told TheDCNF. “I’ve done that a thousand times. I say that’s routine because that goes on all the time when you’re dealing with the intelligence committee or the armed services committees. We regularly obliged them. Cleared committee chairmen would go over the White House once or twice a week.

Members of the “Gang of Eight” — chairmen and ranking minority members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, plus top House and Senate leaders — cannot rely on getting real-time intelligence, raw intelligence or unfinished intelligence by sticking with their limited computers. They instead must travel elsewhere to access this highly sensitive information.”

….Continue reading more @ Daily Caller

 

United States National Intelligence Oversight – The “Gang of Eight”…

| TheConservativeTreehouse

One of the least understood aspects of congressional oversight is the elite group of elected politicians who are charged with congressional oversight over all intelligence activity. This highly important oversight group is called the Intelligence “Gang of Eight”.

The Gang of Eight are briefed on every covert operation that our various intelligence agencies carry out. They are directly responsible for oversight of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).

The Go8 are responsible for overseeing all executive office policy as it relates to intelligence gathering and corresponding activity.  In short these eight elected representatives are in charge of all oversight of all U.S. intelligence operations, open and covert.

A position within the Gang of Eight comes as a result of holding one of the following eight positions: 1. The Speaker of the House, 2. The Minority Leader of the House, 3. the Majority Leader of the Senate, 4. the Minority Leader of the Senate, 5. the Chairperson of the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence, 6. the minority leader from the same committee; 7. The Chairperson of the Senate Intelligence Committee and 8. the minority leader of the same committee.

It is important to understand that everything the White House, CIA, NSA, and U.S State Department does is approved by these eight members who are accountable to the U.S. electorate.  These eight representatives are the intelligence oversight “check” within the constitutionally established check and balance inside our federal government.

It is also important to understand that nothing ever happens without these eight members of congress being briefed on the occurrence.  If the United States are carrying out a covert CIA mission in Benghazi, these representative would know about and have approved.  If the United States is carrying out a covert CIA effort in Syria, these eight members would have to approve.”

…..Continue reading more @ theConservativeTreehouse.com

Congress Sells Out Online Privacy | Mar 31, 2017

How To Protect Your Online Privacy Now That Congress Sold You Out

| ZeroHedge

Authored by Eric Limer via Popular Mechanics

“All your private online data—the websites you visit, the content of your chats and emails, your health info, and your location—just became suddenly less secure. Not because of hackers, but because Congress just blocked crucial privacy regulations. This will allow your internet service provider to collect all your data and sell that info to the highest bidder without asking you first. Welcome to a brave new world.

A pair of resolutions, which passed through the Senate and House with exclusively Republican votes, roll back rules proposed by the Democratic leadership of the Federal Communications Commission during the Obama administration which, though passed in October, had not yet gone into effect.

The rules—which will be completely dead following the expected signature of President Trump—would have required ISPs to get explicit opt-in approval from customers before selling the following “sensitive data”:

This doesn’t just mean that sharing that information without your explicit permission will be fine and dandy. Since the rules were rolled back through the Congressional Review Act, the FCC is also barred from creating any “substantially similar” rules down the line.

In theory, the information collected will be stored under some sort of ID separate from your actual name. But that’s a cold comfort considering the level of detail in this sort of information would make your identity a dead giveaway, and ISPs can hardly be trusted to keep your identifying information suitably safe from prying eyes. After all, they’ll be building dossiers any hacker would love to steal.

What to do? There are a few things you can do to try and keep your data safe, and while they aren’t necessarily easy or free, they’re worth it if you value your privacy.

Opt out with your ISP

Your ISP may not need your permission to sell your data, but you can still go to them and tell them not to do it. The catch, of course, is this requires you to be proactive, and there’s no real guarantee that this will protect you completely. Still, do it. Get on the phone or visit the website of your ISP and opt out of every ad-related thing—and into every privacy-related thing—you can find. The process can be a little arduous—often requiring the use of your ISP-given email address that you probably never use—and it may not take effect immediately either. All the better reason to do it now.

Time Warner/Spectrum customers can find their privacy dashboard here. Comcast customers can opt out of some targeted programs using these instructions. Verizon customers can find opt out options here. Remember, your phone company is technically an ISP too, so look up your options on that front as well.

Opting out is an important first step, but it is not enough to actually preserve your privacy. Your ISP is not necessarily giving you the opportunity to opt out of all its ad-targeting programs. As the policy counsel at the Open Technology Institute, Eric Null, told Gizmodo, it is “highly unlikely” the new FCC will go after ISPs that aren’t offering robust opportunities to opt-out.

Keep your data out of your ISP’s hands in the first place

Your ISP is uniquely suited to snoop on your information. Anything you put online has to pass through its hands. Email you send through Gmail, chats through Facebook Messenger—they all travel through your ISP before they reach the service that actually sends them on. But while it is impossible to cut your ISP out of this exchange entirely, you can hide the data as you are sending it.

Apps with end-to-end encryption can encrypt your private information on the phone or computer you’re using, ensuring that it is coded and protected through the entire delivery process. So while your ISP can see the data go by, they can’t make sense of it.

The most seamless solution is to pay for a Virtual Private Network—a VPN—which allows you to encrypt all the data that passes through your ISP. This means that while your ISP is still doing the work of hauling your data around, it can’t understand any of it. The downside to this is that VPNs (at least any VPNs you can trust) are not free. Most good ones will require a yearly subscription. Furthermore, you aren’t hiding your personal data from everyone, you are just entrusting it to the VPN instead of your ISP, so do your research and choose a VPN you trust not to sell you out. Fortunately, since VPNs exist exclusively to keep your data private, they are pretty incentivized to keep you happy.

The only one you can really trust to protect you is you.”

….Continue reading more @ ZeroHedge

Cisco Learned of Security Vulnerabilities Because of WikiLeaks CIA Dump

| Breitbart

“When WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange disclosed earlier this month that his anti-secrecy group had obtained CIA tools for hacking into technology products made by U.S. companies, security engineers at Cisco Systems swung into action.

The Wikileaks documents described how the Central Intelligence Agency had learned more than a year ago how to exploit flaws in Cisco’s widely used Internet switches, which direct electronic traffic, to enable eavesdropping.

Senior Cisco managers immediately reassigned staff from other projects to figure out how the CIA hacking tricks worked, so they could help customers patch their systems and prevent criminal hackers or spies from using the same methods, three employees told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

The Cisco engineers worked around the clock for days to analyze the means of attack, create fixes, and craft a stopgap warning about a security risk affecting more than 300 different products, said the employees, who had direct knowledge of the effort.”

….Continue reading more @ Breitbart

 

Congress to US citizens: Want online privacy? Pay up!

| Computerworld

Worried consumers may resort to buying VPN services and paying higher fees to ISPs to protect their privacy

“A congressional vote to repeal U.S. restrictions on broadband providers doesn’t mean that online privacy is dead. Consumers will just have to pay for it.

The coming repeal, which President Donald Trump is expected to sign into law, paves a clearer path for broadband providers to sell customers’ internet browsing history and other online data, without their consent.

Privacy advocates are worried. Imagine corporate giants snooping on your internet activities, and then bombarding your PC, phone and TV with targeted ads.

However, the privacy rule rollback might have an opposite effect, too. Expect broadband providers and other internet services to emerge offering online privacy protections, but at a price.”

…..Continue  reading more @ Computerworld

 

The Ultimate Online Privacy Guide

| BestVPN

Edward Snowden’s NSA spying revelations highlighted just how much we have sacrificed to the gods of technology and convenience something we used to take for granted, and once considered a basic human right – our privacy.

It is just not just the NSA. Governments the world over are racing to introduce legislation that allows to them to monitor and store every email, phone call and Instant Message, every web page visited, and every VoIP conversation made by every single one of their citizens.

The press have bandied parallels with George Orwell’s dystopian world ruled by an all-seeing Big Brother about a great deal. They are depressingly accurate.

Encryption provides a highly effective way to protect your internet behavior, communications, and data. The main problem with using encryption is that its use flags you up to organizations such as the NSA for closer scrutiny.

Details of the NSA’s data collection rules are here. What it boils down to is that the NSA examines data from US citizens, then discards it if it’s found to be uninteresting. Encrypted data, on the other hand, is stored indefinitely until the NSA can decrypt it.

The NSA can keep all data relating to non-US citizens indefinitely, but practicality suggests that encrypted data gets special attention.

If a lot more people start to use encryption, then encrypted data will stand out less, and surveillance organizations’ job of invading everyone’s privacy will be much harder. Remember – anonymity is not a crime!”

Continue reading more @ https://bestvpn.com/

FBI’s James Comey Talks About Sony Hack and ‘Privacy’ in the USA | Mar 09, 2017

The Obama Spying Smoking Gun on MSNBC Mika & Farkas | Mar 29, 2017

Obama’s Former Asst. Defense Secretary ADMITS ON MSNBC Obama Admin Spied on Trump

| theGatewayPundit

Former Assistant Defense Secretary under the Obama administration, Evelyn Farkas admitted that the Obama administration was trying to collect as much intelligence as possible on the Trump administration.

Evelyn Farkas also served as an advisor to Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Presidential campaign and was up for a position in the Clinton administration if Hillary became President.

“Evelyn Farkas: “…Frankly speaking the people on The Hill..get as much information as you can. Get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people who left so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy…

Ummm that the Trump folks if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians that they would try to compromise the sources and methods meaning that we would no longer have access to that intelligence.”

It’s no big deal that she had access to information on the Trump campaign while advising his opponent, Hillary Clinton, right? Nothing to see here, move along…

There is a massive amount of evidence piling up that the Trump camp was spied on by the Obama administration, but Russia, right? The fake Russian narrative is to distract from Obamagate.”

….Continue reading more @ TGP

 

 

Obama Intel Changes Could Have Allowed NSA Intercepts Of Americans To Fall Victim To ‘Political Espionage’

| TownHall

“Was Donald Trump wiretapped? Was the transition team under surveillance? There are more questions than answers, especially with the latter question, but one thing is clear: our intelligence community caught the Trump transition team through incidental collection. John Solomon and Sara Carter of Circa News reported that those logs are expected to be turned over to Congress next week, as they investigate possible links between the Trump campaign and Russia. Yet, they didn’t get into the weeds concerning the allegations that have yet to unveil any solid evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign. Carter and Solomon decided to look into the regulations regarding NSA surveillance, which were changed under Obama that allowed unmasking of American caught through incidental collection to possibly become victim to political games.

Solomon and Carter also added that 16 other executive agencies, not just the FBI and CIA, can now ask for unmasked information after the Obama tweaks to NSA minimization protocols, the process in which the NSA conceals the identity of a citizen who was not subject to the FISA warrant. It’s done either through redaction or naming them generically, like American No. 1. Yet, given the rise in lone wolf attacks, those procedures aimed at protecting privacy were reduced:

The intelligence community fought hard over the last decade starting under George W. Bush and continuing under Obama to gain greater access to NSA intercepts of Americans overseas, citing the growing challenges of stopping lone wolf terrorists, state-sponsored hackers, and foreign threats. But those directly familiar with the processes acknowledged the breadth of access today could be abused for political espionage or pure prurient interests, instead of just compelling national security interests.

[…]

The ACLU, an ally of Obama on many issues, issued a statement a few months ago warning that the president’s loosened procedures governing who could request or see unmasked American intercepts by the NSA were “grossly inadequate” and lacked “appropriate safeguards.”

Nunes, the House intelligence panel chairman who was not interviewed for this story, alleged in the last week he has received evidence that Obama administration political figures gained access to unmasked American identities through foreign intercepts involving the Trump transition team between November and January.

[…]

…as the U.S. intelligence community became more worried over the last decade about its ability to locate lone wolf terrorists, foreign spies and hackers in an increasingly digital world, Bush and Obama began relaxing the rules for minimization and increasing access to NSA collected information on Americans. In short, the Obama administration created a standard set of “exceptions” to the minimization rules.

One of those relaxations came in 2011 when Attorney General Eric Holder sent a memo to the FISA court laying out the rules for sharing unmasked intercepts of Americans captured incidentally by the NSA. The court approved the approach.

In 2015, those rules were adapted to determine not only how the FBI got access to unmasked intelligence from NSA or FISA intercepts but also other agencies. One of the requirements, the NSA and FBI had to keep good records of who requested and gained access to the unredacted information.

And in his final days in office, Obama created the largest ever expansion of access to non-minimized NSA intercepts, creating a path for all U.S. intelligence to gain access to unmasked reports by changes encoded in a Reagan-era Executive Order 12333.

The government officials who could request or approve an exception to unmask a U.S. citizen’s identity has grown substantially. The NSA now has 20 executives who can approve the unmasking of American information inside intercepts, and the FBI has similar numbers.

This isn’t new concerning the game of government exploiting new technological features to maximize its power and take advantage of it before the courts can catch up.”

….Continue reading more @ Townhall.com

Yikes. More Shootings in Cabo | Mar 28, 2017

Shooting in tourist area of ​​San Jose del Cabo leaves one dead and one wounded

| BCS News

“The events occurred shortly after 17:15 hours on Sunday; the injured person is allegedly a civilian that had to do with the facts

Los Cabos, Baja California Sur (BCS). One dead and one injured person was the outcome of a shooting attack starring vehicle Toyota sedan in the tourist area of San Jose del Cabo , on Sunday around 17:15 hours.

According to early reports, the incident took place after the driver of the vehicle Toyota, white, shared shots against another unit in tourist boulevard and roundabout Mijares Street, near the Pantheon.

The driver of the white sedan lost control of the steering wheel, going off the street to end up dead in the beach area, to where the shots came.

Unofficially he learned that the injured person turned out to be a civilian, who had nothing to do with the facts and that would have been injured a leg; the scene, paramedics arrived elements who lent him first aid.

So far, the identity of the victim is unknown fatal. The other involved in the persecution shots were fled and did not know his whereabouts.

Collective information Pericú”

….Continue reading @ BCS Noticias

Sanctuary Cities: Gov Moonbeam vs. the Federal Govt | Mar 28, 2017

Robert Barnes: Can Trump Legally Stop Sanctuary Cities? Yes. Remember Brown v. Board of Education

| Breitbart

“Over 100 jurisdictions, from Manhattan to Malibu, refuse to assist federal law enforcement in their immigration law enforcement duties, especially as to criminal aliens arrested for crimes here in the United States but released before federal law enforcement can detain and deport.

These governments labeled themselves “sanctuary” cities, but a better label would be secessionist cities.

Two means of redress and remedy exist: first, the current path, of defunding sanctuary cities, a path much more legally perilous, but well-founded in the same doctrine that integrated American society; and second, an alternative, complimentary path of funding law-abiding cities with aid to enforce immigration law, an indubitably and indisputably legal remedy.

The legal argument the “sanctuary” cities rely upon bears merit, but they misuse and abuse the doctrine behind it. The “anti-commandeering” doctrine found one of its most articulate voices in Justice Scalia. The doctrine best distilled is this: “even where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts.” The feds cannot shift enforcement to local government. That same doctrine makes the current path of defunding sanctuary cities a legally rocky road, especially in the current judiciary environment.

The Supreme Court made clear in two prior precedents the federal government cannot coerce states into acting as conscripted agents of federal law enforcement. When properly used, this anti-conscription doctrine is mostly a good thing, foreclosing the federalization of local life and municipal governments. When abused, it invites secessionist thinking. That is where a seminal precedent from the Second Circuit gives direction to support Sessions and Trump against the secessionist cities.

The seminal case supporting Sessions and Trump arises from the Second Circuit in enforcing comparable provisions of federal law passed by Clinton and Gingrich. Federal law then prohibited state and local governmental entities or officials from directly restricting the voluntary exchange of immigration information between local and federal officials. The statute Sessions cited and Trump relied upon for his executive order confers the same power: it only prohibits state and local governments from precluding voluntary participation in immigration enforcement, an area uniquely vested in the federal branches of power. As the statute states: “Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”

Where did the Second Circuit look for precluding lawless, secessionist minded municipal government going rogue against appropriate federal law and respect of federal elections? Brown v. Board of Education, the most famous and celebrated case in Supreme Court history.

As the Second Circuit properly summarized: the sanctuary city argument “asks us to turn the Tenth Amendment’s shield against the federal government’s using state and local government to enact and administer federal programs into a sword allowing states and localities to engage in passive resistance that frustrate federal programs,” including those programs of unique federal provenance and priority, such as immigration. Such actions could cause federal programs to “fail or fall short of their goals,” force the federal government to “restore to legal processes in every routine or trivial matter,” and invite “a refusal by local government to cooperate until a court order to do so.

As the Second Circuit further noted: “A system of dual sovereignties cannot work without informed, extensive and cooperative interaction of a voluntary nature between sovereign systems for the mutual benefit of each system. The operation of dual sovereigns thus involves mutual dependencies” that can hardly survive as separate, antagonistic sovereigns. “Without the Constitution, each sovereign could, to a free, hold the other hostage by selectively withholding voluntary cooperations as to a particular program.” That is why the Supremacy Clause “bars states from taking actions that frustrate federal laws” in those areas of law the Constitution empowers the federal branches of government, like immigration. As the Second Circuit concluded almost two decades ago in undisturbed law: “states do not retain under the Tenth Amendment an untrammeled right to forbid all voluntary cooperation by state or local officials with particular federal programs.”

This opens the door to a complimentary, alternative option: formally funding cities, counties, and states that assist with enforcement of immigration laws against criminal and potentially dangerous aliens, a power all courts recognize Congress and the President enjoy. This parallel strategy employs the carrot rather than the stick, but avoids the traps of the deep state allies and their secessionist city friends in the federal courts, much as federal funding of integrated schools acted as a deterrent to less-funded segregated classrooms.

Let liberty ring. Let the laws be enforced to safeguard those whose liberty the law protects in the first place: the citizens of the United States.”

….Continue reading more @ Breitbart

Chelsea Clinton is in a Mental Class by herself | Mar 27, 2017

Chelsea Clinton Hopes MAGA Hat on Pic of Lincoln Is Photoshopped

| NewsBusters

“Chelsea Clinton is 37 years old — 19 years past the minimum voting age, 16 years over the legal age to drink, no longer entitled to reflexive press protection as the daughter of a Democratic President or presidential candidate, and thus eligible for ridicule when she deserves it — even if the establishment media’s gatekeepers don’t like it. I’d suggest that if you really have to ask, as Chelsea Clinton did, if a “Make America Great Again” hat seen on a rendering of Abe Lincoln on the cover of a Republican Party dinner program has been “photoshopped,” you deserve every bit of the ridicule coming your way.

This was too good for the snark brigade on Twitter to resist. Some good-natured comments, considering the circumstances (many others unfortunately not), have included the following (minor revisions made for punctuation, capitalization and spelling):

“No, this is the exact hat Lincoln was wearing when he signed the Emancipation Proclamation. People forget that.”

Nope, Lincoln was wearing that exact hat at the Theater.”

“Nope, they found a picture of Lincoln wearing a MAGA hat from the nineteenth century. No photoshop needed.”

I remember this photo was taken at the 1856 Republican National Convention and is real.”

It’s as real as those Bosnian snipers.”

To her credit, Mrs. Clinton (or Ms., or Miss, based on reader input) hasn’t deleted her tweet — yet. Though she doesn’t seem to understand photo editing, she at least grasps the idea that the websites of Twitter curators like Twitchy will have her tweet as long as they exist.

Now imagine if either of former President George W. Bush’s daughters, who are also in their mid-30s, had posted something this dumb on Twitter. Does anyone believe that the establishment press, or especially the left-leaning cadre of late-night comedians, would be able to resist engaging in intense mockery? The heavy bets here should be placed on both groups pretending not to know anything about Chelsea Clinton’s latest Twitter calamity, even though the press has gone out of its way to fawn over her supposedly aggressive and effective tweeting to this point (spare me), even though she’s especially fair game for ridicule because of her rumored political ambitions.”

…..Continue reading @ NewsBusters

ICE to Deport Illegal DUI Immigrant After Boston Vows to Fight Deportation

| Breitbart

“BOSTON, Massachusetts – An illegal immigrant accused of driving drunk is set to be deported by federal immigration officials despite the city of Boston being a ‘sanctuary city’ for illegal immigrants.

The illegal immigrant, an Irish national, is being held at the Suffolk County House of Correction after facing charges of drunk driving and other related accusations.

Now, the Irish illegal immigrant is expected to be deported out the U.S. by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, according to Irish Central.

The arrest and deportation come at a time when the Irish-based open borders lobby is funneling money to help illegal immigrants from Ireland who are living in the U.S.

Most recently, the Ireland Funds has poured $100,000 into the Coalition of Irish Immigration Centers, as Irish Central reported, with even the Irish government getting involved in the illegal immigrant’s pending deportation.

At the time, the National Coordinator of the Coalition of Irish Immigration Centers Aileen Dibra said the money to the organization “will allow much needed direct support and urgent relief to members our community, the positive human impact of which is invaluable in these uncertain times.”

Boston remains a sanctuary city for criminal illegal immigrants, with the city’s Mayor, Marty Walsh, telling the media last month he would “not waste vital police resources on misguided federal actions.”

….More @ Breitbart