Category Archives: Politics

Dems on Flawed End of Obama Wire tapping Scandal | Mar 24, 2017

Dems Claim Trump Team Not Wiretapped While Wiretapped

| PJ Media

“On January 20, the New York Times published a story on wiretapping of Trump insiders. In the print version, the headline was “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides,” although you’re going to have to squint to read the acknowledgment of the print headline at the bottom of the page.

Still, if you look through the actual article, you’ll find this paragraph:

The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.

On March 4, Trump tweeted:

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

This, of course, has been the subject of lots of Claude Rains since then, as reporters and politicians announce they’re shocked, shocked at that accusation.

I’ve written about this before here and here, and I won’t go through the whole argument again as I’m not paid by the word, but the really inescapable conclusion was that either the New York Times reporting was false, or Trump was justified. The real question was identifying who in the Obama administration (or in the upper-level civil service staff) had been responsible for leaking information that identified a “US Person” — and would they be prosecuted for what appear to be felonious violations of 18USC793 and 50USC1801.

This strikes me as silly and disingenuous: it’s the same old “well, it wasn’t really a wiretap and it wasn’t really a wiretap of Trump” defense.

Now, after a lot of talk during hearings on Monday that no one saw evidence that Trump had been wiretapped, today Devin Nunes announced (quoting from his press release):

As a commenter at Instapundit pointed out, this is starting to look like the old Washington tradition, the “modified limited hangout.”

The Creepy, Long-Standing Practice of Undersea Cable Tapping @ theAtlantic.com

 

So, this is getting even more interesting now. It appears now that a number of Trump insiders were intercepted, and no, I’m not buying the argument that Trump saying “wiretapped” was wrong, especially since that’s exactly what was reported.

And it appears now that people trying to maintain that Trump was “lying” about being wiretapped are being driven to the interesting defense that it was a lie because the U.S. wasn’t actually wiretapping Trump people when the U.S. was wiretapping Trump people.

Which is, at least, good for a laugh.

In the meantime, though, I think Colonel Mustard should lawyer up: the bobbies are closing in.”

…Continue reading @ PJ Media

  – Some of the most interesting reads on the internet are the comment sections of the sites, sometimes they are the most interesting part of the site.

We’ll make a concerted effort to include more content from comments sections to contibute to the dialogue. /CJ

| From the comments @ PJ Media

News on this topic is being updated as I write but here’s how I see it.

There were illegally obtained intercepts of Trump communications (call them wiretaps, or intercepts, or whatever). They show Trump did nothing wrong but they can be used to continue to push the narrative ‘Trump was involved with the Russians to hack the election’ and keep the Trump administration mired in a haze of innuendos and suspicion thereby damaging his administration.

But they have a problem.

They can’t reveal their information because people will ask the obvious questions, ‘Who gave you this information? Who obtained it? How was it obtained?’

The Democrats and enemies of Trump are in a bind.

If they release what they have they will have to explain who gave them the intel and give a detailed account of how it was obtained.

That’s why you have Come[d]y saying, ‘we have information but I can’t tell you what it is’.

If they release the intel their game is up because they will have to reveal the sources and methods.

But having already admitted they have the intel but they aren’t going to release it because the investigation is ongoing only makes things worse for
them.

Democrats are screaming to release the evidence and wondering why Comey isn’t releasing the intel that will take Trump down.

Which leads to this:

If they release what they have the ‘Deep State’ (Obama White House staff) players will be exposed.

It’s like witnessing a crime while you’re committing a crime.

…More @ PJ Media

Obama Trump Spying Scandal | Why Obama Must Testify | Mar 22, 2017

Mr. Comey Goes to Congress to Get Grilled by Gowdy | Mar 21, 2017

Bezos’ CIA Washington Post Connection Exposed by Trump Leak | Mar 02, 2017

 

 

Obama Trump Spying Scandal | Why Obama Must Testify | Mar 22, 2017

| Spectator.org

Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking

WASHINGTON — In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.…

Mr. President: Is this report by the New York Times accurate? Sir, did officials in your White House ever “spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government”?

As the House and Senate investigations start up, with the House Intelligence Committee hearing from FBI Director James Comey today, there is someone missing from the witness list.

That would be: Former President Barack Obama.

There is one person — and one person alone — who can begin to sort all of this out: Former President Obama. He should be called to testify post haste. Here are a sample of the questions for any interested member of Congress or the Senate.

1. Your administration surveilled the e-mails of Fox reporter James Rosen, tried to force New York Times reporter James Risen to testify on his sources  for a book on the CIA. Mr. Risen went so far as to say you were the “Greatest Enemy To Press Freedom In A Generation.” Understanding these facts, why should Americans not believe that your administration used surveillance capabilities on President Trump’s associates or even the President himself? And can you categorically deny that reporting by John Solomon and Sara Carter of circa.com of an investigation by your government into a Trump server  is false?

2. Do you read the New York Times and the Washington Post? Did your White House Communications staff read the Times and the Post and did they supply you with the news of stories as presented by those papers

3. Did you read the New York Times on January 12th of this year? January 19th of this year? January 20th? February 9th? March 1st? Did you read the Washington Post on March 2nd?

4. Were you aware at any time that the news media was reporting multiple stories that your administration had leaked surveillance of anyone connected to the Trump campaign, Trump businesses or other Trump-related activity? If not, why not?

5. The New York Times headlined and reported on March 1st:

Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking

WASHINGTON — In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.…

Mr. President: Is this report by the New York Times accurate? Sir, did officials in your White House ever “spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government”?

6. Mr. President, at any time did officials of your government seek to “leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” … intelligence that reported on anyone connected to then candidate or president-elect Donald Trump, his campaign, his businesses or any other Trump-related enterprise?

7. Mr. President, are you willing to voluntarily turn over all papers or electronic communications and phone records of your White House and the larger government then-under your supervision that this committee deems relevant to its investigation?

8. Sir, did your administration surveil in any fashion — electronic, wireless, in-person or otherwise — the activities of Attorney General Jefferson Sessions when he was a sitting United States Senator?

9. Were you or anyone in your White House ever aware that, as per the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, the “FBI, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Treasury Department” were conducting a “wide-ranging U.S. counterintelligence investigation into possible communications between members of Mr. Trump’s campaign team and Russian operatives.”

10. Mr. President, if the answer to that last question is no — can you explain why the New York Times would report on March 1st that — and I quote:

“In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.…”

Sir? Respectfully? If this report from the Times is true, does this mean you were uninformed of what went on in your own White House?”

….Continue reading more @ Spectator.org

 

Hawaii Obama Judge Rules Muslim Imam Has Special Constitutional Rights to Bring Anyone from Terror Countries into America

|  Breitbart

“In a ruling issued on Wednesday afternoon, a federal judge, and Obama appointee, prevented the President of the United States from enforcing his own executive order to protect the nation from migrants from terror-riddled countries.

The judge then prevented every other judge and every other state from following the President’s order, the judge making himself a one-man Supreme Court and substitute President.

Attorney Robert Barnes joined SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Thursday’s Breitbart News Daily to discuss his latest Breitbart News column:

“The Hawaii judge’s decision says he has a First Amendment constitutional right to do so because he’s Muslim. It was one of the most extraordinary interpretations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ever given, which is that because these are Muslim countries that were banned where the issue of terror arises from that that meant they had a special right to access the country and visit the country,” he said.

“As long as there is somebody here that wants them here, no president can ever preclude them from coming here. He basically gave First Amendment rights to everybody around the world and gave special preferences to people who are Muslim under his interpretation of the First Amendment,” Barnes summarized.

Barnes noted that the judge did not “cite any prior decision” that has ever established this astonishing new quirk of the Constitution.”

…Continue reading more @ Breitbart

 

FOUR dead – including a policeman and a woman – 20 injured as ‘two terrorists’ mow down people on Westminster Bridge before one is shot dead attacking police inside Parliament gates

| DailyMail UK

Three people and a terrorist are dead after an attacker brought carnage to central London today, mowing down pedestrians on Westminster Bridge and hacking at police with knives in the grounds of the Houses of Parliament.

Around 20 people were hit when a 4×4 drove along the pavement on the crowded bridge, knocking down and seriously injuring pedestrians before crashing into a fence below Big Ben.

The killer, described by witnesses as ‘middle-aged and Asian’, then managed to break into the grounds of Parliament, where he fatally stabbed a police officer with two knives.

The policeman died at the scene. The attacker – who was shot at least twice by armed officers guarding the building – died after he was taken to hospital.

Prime Minister Theresa May tonight vowed Britain would ‘never give in to terror’ and ‘defeat hate and evil’ after she blasted the ‘sick and depraved’ attack in Westminster.

She added the ‘forces of evil would never drive Britain apart’ and praised police and security staff who ‘ran towards danger even as they encouraged others to move away’.

It is currently believed he was the only ‘lone wolf’ attacker. Around 20 pedestrians and three other police officers were injured.

Prime Minister Theresa May was bundled into her car by a plain-clothes police officer and driven quickly from the scene as the attack unfolded. She chaired a meeting of the Government’s emergency Cobra Committee tonight.

Scotland Yard said the attack, which comes a year to the day after the atrocities in Brussels, is being treated ‘as a terrorist incident’.

….Continue reading @ Daily Mail UK

 

Critical Defense Data Theft at House Democratic Intelligence Committees By Three Pakistani Muslim Brothers

| Youtube

More here @ Youtube

 

My Hometown Fanatics: Stacey Dooley Investigates Muslim Extremists in UK

– Youtube

Stacey Dooley is an amazing filmmaker. In this documentary she goes back to her hometown of Luton, a suburb of London after just four years away.

 

 

Obama’s Enabling of Illegal Alien Rapists with Open Borders Policies | Mar 22, 2017

Exclusive—Immigration Expert: Obama’s ‘Catch And Release’ Policy Allowed Illegal Alien Rape Suspects into the U.S.

| Breitbart

“An alleged rapist was delivered from Central America to a school hallway in Maryland by former President Barack Obama’s policy of treating economic migrants as if they were victims of crime, said an expert on illegal immigration.

“The only reason the older youth, Sanchez Milian, was in the country at all was because of the Obama administration’s catch and release policies that allowed him to be resettled in Maryland (with the support of taxpayers), with few questions asked,” the Center for Immigration Studies’ Director of Policy Jessica Vaughan told Breitbart News.

“Few groups of illegal immigrants have left such a violent mark in our community as these so-called unaccompanied minors—they are almost like modern day Marielitos (the Cuban inmates released by Fidel Castro decades ago),” she said. “Dozens have been arrested for violent crimes in Maryland, New York, Massachusetts, Virginia and Texas.”

Police arrested two illegal alien suspects, 18-year-old Henry E. Sanchez Milian and 17-year-old Jose Montano, on Thursday after staff at Rockville High School in Maryland reported a sex attack on a 14-year-old freshman who had just escaped her alleged assailants. Sanchez Milian is a citizen of Guatemala.

Border patrol agents encountered him in Texas in August as he crossed from Mexico into the U.S., according to WTOP.com.

Obama administration policy required he be issued a notice to appear before an immigration judge for a hearing, and in the meantime, Sanchez Milian was free to roam around as he pleased. Despite his age, he was permitted to enroll in a public high school as a freshman.”

….Continue reading @ Breitbart

 

 

Two of President Obama’s Undocumented Alien “Children” Brutally Rape 14-Year-Old Maryland Student During School…

| TheConservativeTreeHouse

“Those of you who have followed the Undocumented Alien Children (UAC) story, which began in the summer of 2014, will note the nationality of two UAC’s who brutally raped a 14-Year-Old Rockville Maryland Student.

Henry Sanchez, 18, originally from Guatemala and Jose Montano, 17, a native of El Salvador, brutally raped a 14-year-old high school student on Thursday.   Sanchez had a pending illegal alien removal case (deportation order) pending, which was not carried out while immigration activists tried to block the deportation.

Sanchez and Montano dragged the 14-year-old victim into a school bathroom where they repeatedly gang raped her during school session.  The sickening story is partially explained in the local news coverage:

The 2014 UAC Crisis was specifically an out of control influx of “Unaccompanied Alien Children” that were not children, and were not unaccompanied.

There were entire families relocating illegally, and thousands of South American gang members including MS13 gang members, all teenage or early twenties males, who crossed the border under the auspices of being children.  They were categorized as “refugees” and settled in numerous communities throughout the U.S.”

Much more here @ TheConservativeTreeHouse

 

Rep. Waters calls for commission, says ‘Trump is a liar and FBI Director still has no credibility’

| DailyKos

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) is not the least bit satisfied with Director Comey’s appearance before the House Intelligence Committee.

My takeaways: Donald Trump is a liar & the FBI Director still has no credibility. He needs to also explain HIS interference in the election.

Waters released a scorching statement demanding answers from Director Comey about why he chose to release a letter about Hillary Clinton’s email, that contained ZERO new information about her email and did not utter one word about the FBI’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. It’s a fair question and the American people deserve answers.

In her statement below, she also blasted the conduct of House Intel Chairman Devin Nunes and Republicans in the hearing yesterday, saying they demonstrated they “cannot be trusted to investigate.”

…Continue reading more @ DailyKos

Comey on Thin Ice: Can the president fire James Comey? | Mar 21, 2017

Next Words Director Comey May Hear From President Trump? ‘You’re Fired!’

| LawNewz

“If there’s one thing we know about President Donald Trump, it’s that he’s not afraid to yell, “you’re fired!” anytime he hears something he dislikes. 45 must be practicing his termination declarations Monday, after a day of James Comey’s testimony before Congress. Comey, the Obama-appointed FBI director testified today before the House Intelligence Committee, and that testimony boiled down to this: Obama’s wiretapping is “fake news,” and the Trump-Russia connection isn’t (or at the very least they are investigating).

If you’re thinking that it’s a little weird for the FBI to be commenting on an open investigation, you’re right. The FBI is generally pretty tight-lipped about its work. But bizarre times call for bizarre measures, and Comey explained that in “unusual circumstances where it is in the public interest,” he would share what information he could about what’s been going on with our president.

Comey began his hours of testimony with this confirmation that Trump’s campaign is being investigated, and that investigation is a criminal one:

While Donald Trump is known for his pervasive inconsistency, he is consistent about one thing: getting rid of those who threaten his authority. He has been known to fire (or, if we’re talking Hillary Clinton, threaten to “lock up”) any worthy opponent. Just last week, news broke that Trump had fired U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara and dozens of other U.S. Attorneys. Although turnover of federally-appointed prosecutors is typical, Bharara’s firing was not. For starters, it opposed a public announcement last November that Bharara had been officially asked to stay on into the Trump administration. Stranger still was the timing. Right at the time he was fired, Bharara had reportedly been conducting an investigation into Tom Price, Trump’s new Health and Human Services Secretary, over some shady stock transactions.

By contrast, Comey’s calling Trump out for lying about President Obama, while simultaneously confirming that the FBI is amidst an investigation over collusion with Russia is a one-two punch that leaves the Price investigation in the dust. Trump, a compulsively reactive person when publicly embarrassed, is likely doing far more than licking his wounds right now. But could Trump really fire James Comey?

He sure can. Under federal law, the F.B.I. director is appointed to one 10-year term – a term length purposely created such that it overlaps presidential administrations. Presidents may fire the FBI director (and Congress can impeach one) – and according to a 2014 report by the Congressional Research Service, “there are no statutory conditions on the President’s authority to remove the FBI Director.” While some FBI directors have resigned prior to the end of their terms, only one – William S. Sessions (appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987) – was ever fired. Sessions was fired by President Bill Clinton in the wake of allegations of ethics violations, such as misuse of public funds for his private benefit.

It was impossible to listen to Comey’s testimony Monday without anticipating Trump’s cutting short his tenure as Director. And yet, such a reality was all but unthinkable just a few short months ago. James Comey’s unprecedented public statement made the week prior to the 2016 presidential election was largely considered the thing that sealed President Trump’s win. Just a few days before Election Day, Comey announced that the Hillary Clinton was being reopened. Although little came of the announcement relative to that investigation, the bell could not be un-rung, and Hillary Clinton was pronounced for evermore, “extremely careless” with the handling of classified information. Candidate Trump could not have asked for a better gift; many, though, like Senator Harry Reid, and ethics specialist Richard Painter, criticized Comey for having acted improperly and perhaps even illegally.”

….Continue reading more @ LawNewz

 

Recent History:

 

Defiant FBI Chief Is Fired by President Clinton: Law enforcement – Alleged ethical abuses by Sessions are cited as reason for dismissal. He refused to resign.

| LA Times – 1993

“WASHINGTON — FBI Director William S. Sessions, who stubbornly refused to resign despite Justice Department ethics findings that he abused his office, was fired Monday by President Clinton–the first time a director of the storied agency has been dismissed.

Clinton and Atty. Gen. Janet Reno, steeling the Administration against claims that the decision was politically motivated, used unmistakably blunt language to describe Sessions’ failings. Reno “has reported to me in no uncertain terms that he can no longer effectively lead the bureau and law enforcement community,” Clinton said, adding that he fully agreed with her recommendation to replace Sessions immediately.

Clinton is expected to announce today that he plans to nominate U.S. District Court Judge Louis J. Freeh of New York, a former FBI agent and federal prosecutor, to succeed Sessions. Clinton met with Freeh for 90 minutes Friday night.

“With a change in management in the FBI, we can now give the crime fighters the leadership they deserve,” Clinton said. Administration officials said Monday that they know of no other candidate under consideration for the post.

Clinton dismissed Sessions after the director rejected Administration entreaties to resign, contending that to voluntarily step down would violate the principle of an independent FBI. The FBI director is appointed to a 10-year term but serves at the pleasure of the President.

Sessions was appointed 5 1/2 years ago by former President Ronald Reagan.

“We cannot have a leadership vacuum at an agency as important to the United States as the FBI,” Clinton said at a White House press conference. “It is time that this difficult chapter in the agency’s history is brought to a close.”

With Senate confirmation of the next FBI director not likely before fall, Clinton said that Deputy Director Floyd I. Clarke would serve as acting director. Sessions’ wife, Alice, has repeatedly accused Clarke of leading an internal cabal to force her husband from office, and Sessions has publicly questioned Clarke’s loyalty.

At his press conference, Clinton rejected the suggestion that Sessions fell victim to an internal vendetta and responded “absolutely not” when asked if the removal of Sessions would create the impression that the FBI is being subjected to political pressures.

Clinton cited the six-month-old highly critical report on Sessions’ conduct by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, which investigated the director in the final year of the George Bush Administration.

Clinton noted that the attorney general had studied the findings and thoroughly reviewed Sessions’ leadership.

Reno said that, when she took office last March, then acting Atty. Gen. Stuart Gerson, a Republican holdover, advised her that Sessions “had exhibited flawed judgment which had an adverse effect within the FBI.”

But Reno said she wanted to make her own independent assessment of Sessions’ ability to lead the FBI, noting that she felt very strongly that the FBI director “should be above politics and not automatically subject to replacement with a change of administrations.”

The Justice Department report found, among other things, that Sessions had engaged in a sham transaction to avoid paying taxes on his use of an FBI limousine to take him to and from work, that he had billed the government for a security fence around his home that provided no security and that he had arranged business trips to places where he could meet with relatives.

Sessions dismissed the findings as biased and said that they resulted from “animus” toward him by former Atty. Gen. William P. Barr, who–on his last day in office last January–presented the report to Sessions with orders to take remedial actions.

In addition to the sections of the report that have been released, the investigation looked into whether Sessions had accepted a “sweetheart” deal on his home loan from a Washington bank and into other matters that have not been made public, sources familiar with it said.”

…From the archives @the LA Times

 

What is the true cost of immigration? | Mar 20, 2017

Sorry, But Illegal Aliens Cost The U.S. Plenty

| Investor’s Business Daily

“Immigration: A center-left think tank has hailed new findings showing that illegal immigrants contribute $11.6 billion in state and local taxes nationwide. But that report really shows how little they pay compared to the rest of us.

If there’s any doubt America is importing poverty, take a look at a new study this week from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, which touts the $11.6 billion illegals pay in taxes to state and local coffers. This isn’t federal or payroll taxes, just cash paid through sales taxes, property taxes and city and state fees.

“Data show undocumented immigrants greatly contribute to our nation’s economy, not just in labor but also with tax dollars,” ITEP state tax policy director Meg Wiehe said in a statement. “With immigration policy playing a key role in state and national debates, accurate information about the tax contributions of undocumented immigrants is needed now more than ever.”

We couldn’t agree more. So let’s take a look at some actual accurate information:

With an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., that $11.6 billion comes to about $1,050 per person, which The Latin Post hails as “lots of taxes.” In fact, it’s less than the average paid by citizens in even the lowest-tax states, such as Tennessee, where the average per capita state and local tax burden is $2,805, not to mention high tax areas, like Washington, D.C., where the figure is $7,540, according to data from the Tax Foundation. Media reports point out that illegals pay about 8% of their incomes in state and local taxes, compared with 5.4% for “the 1%,” but ignore that average taxpayers, based on the Tax Foundation data, pay an average of 9.48%.

Well, sure, you might say, but once illegals get amnesty, they will contribute similar amounts as the rest of us, right? Actually, no.

Illegals have far less education than average Americans and correspondingly lower base incomes. Based on another study reported this week from two other center-left think tanks, if the U.S. handed out work permits, through a program such as Deferred Action For Parents Of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), it would add only 10% to illegals’ incomes — meaning, an additional $3,000 per capita, which would then see a small slice taken as state and local taxes, for a grand total of just $805 million to the government. It still wouldn’t approach the average Tennessee local tax rates, cited above.

Illegal immigrants in fact absorb far more in benefits than they contribute. The Heritage Foundation in 2013 found that illegals contribute an average of $10,000 in total taxes (federal and payroll as well as local taxes) but use almost $24,000 in welfare and services, creating a net $14,000 per capita gain per illegal worker.

With benefits like that — and a president determined to shower even more on them — it’s little wonder the world’s impoverished feel the red carpet is out for them to come here illegally.

Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, said Heritage understates actual welfare use by illegals by its use of the federal government’s Current Population Survey. “In a more recent study where I looked at welfare use only (not taxes or other expense) using the much more accurate Survey of Income and Program Participation, I found that 62% of households headed by illegal immigrants used at least one major welfare program,” Camarota told IBD via email.

“Bottom line, illegal immigrants have a 10th grade education on average,” he said. “In the modern American economy people with that level of education tend to make modest wages and as result pay relatively little in taxes, at the same time they tend to use a lot in public services, regardless of legal status. In the case of illegals, they often receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children. If you had to put it in a bumper sticker it would be: ‘there is a high cost to cheap labor.'”

….Continue reading @ Investor’s Business Daily

 

Coulter: Evidence Shows Immigrants Commit More Crimes

| Youtube

More @ Youtube

Federal Judge in Hawaii Backing Imam with Muslim Brotherhood Ties | Mar 17, 2017

Imam With Muslim Brotherhood Ties is Main Plaintiff in Hawaii Case Blocking Trump Travel Ban

| theGatewayPundit

It appears that the Muslim Brotherhood is essentially running our foreign policy

“The main plaintiff in the Hawaii case blocking President Trump’s revised temporary travel ban is an Imam with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Imam Ismail Elshikh, 39, leads the largest mosque in Hawaii and claims he is suffering “irreparable harm” from the president’s executive order, which places a 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from six countries according to research by WND.

Via WND:

Imam Ismail Elshikh, 39, leads the largest mosque in Hawaii and claims he is suffering “irreparable harm” from the president’s executive order, which places a 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from six countries.

One of those six countries is Syria. Elshikh’s mother in law is Syrian and would not be able to visit her family in Hawaii for 90 days if Trump’s ban were allowed to go into effect.

Hawaii’s Obama-appointed federal judge, Derrick Watson, made sure the ban did not go into effect, striking it down Wednesday while buying Hawaii’s claim that it amounts to a “Muslim ban.” The state’s attorney general, along with co-plaintiff Elshikh, claims the ban would irreparably harm the state’s tourism industry and its Muslim families.

 

….Continue reading more @ theGatewayPundit

 

Super. Our digital vetting system gave citizenship or green cards to thousands who were ordered deported

| HotAir

“That plan for “extreme vetting” may turn out to be extremely problematic, but don’t blame it on Donald Trump. The US Citizenship and Immigration Service began working on a program in 2006 designed to bring the vetting of immigrants into the digital era.

Unfortunately, as this new report from NextGov shows, it ran into problems almost immediately and even after implementation began it wound up being fraught with glitches and running “extremely” over budget.

Shutdowns, delays and budget overruns in the information technology system the government’s immigration service uses could allow terrorists or criminals to mistakenly receive citizenship or green cards, lawmakers fretted Thursday.

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ tech troubles date back to 2006 when the agency began a massive program to create an Electronic Immigration System, or ELIS.

That project, spearheaded by IBM, had stumbled miserably by 2012 when USCIS cut the project up into shorter time frames with smaller deliverables. Since then, the project has continued to suffer bugs and delays, the agency and its auditors testified before a House Homeland Security Committee panel.

Forget about inefficiency and cost overruns. This next bit is the part that really caught everyone’s attention. We’ve been handing out green cards and citizenship papers to people who were supposed to have been loaded on a bus headed for the border. And we’re not just talking about a few here. (Emphasis added)

Because of system bugs, shifts between manual and digital processing and other issues, USCIS erroneously issued about 20,000 green cards and granted citizenship to more than 800 people who had previously been ordered deported during the past six months, an auditor found.

This project is years behind schedule, and while we’re used seeing Uncle Sam frittering away large amounts of the taxpayer’s money, being $1 billion in the hole is nothing to sneeze at. But that’s really not the alarming part here. It’s one thing to be concerned over whether or not tough immigration policies are depriving qualified applicants of good intent a chance to become citizens. It’s quite another to find out that the system is failing in the opposite direction and that nearly a thousand people who had previously been scheduled for deportation were mistakenly granted citizenship with another 20,000 getting green cards. And that was just in a six month period. How many have we done this for in total since 2012?”

…..Continue reading more @ HotAir

‘Holy Wars Will Soon Begin in Europe’ | Mar 17, 2017

Turkish Foreign Minister Çavuşoğlu: ‘Holy Wars Will Soon Begin in Europe’

|  theGatewayPundit

“In one of the first reactions from Ankara to the Dutch election result, Turkish Foreign Minister, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, warned that Europe was heading towards the abyss and that ‘holy wars’ would soon begin on the continent – this coming despite the fact that nationalist Geert Wilders, a vocal critic of Islam, was pushed into second place by the center right Prime Minister, Mark Rutte.

 

Çavuşoğlu, who has been addressing Turkish crowds across Europe ahead of a constitutional referendum in Turkey next month, was refused permission to land in Holland for a campaign rally on Saturday, sparking a heated diplomatic row and street protests which dominated the final days of the Dutch election campaign.

The dramatic war of words, which saw Ankara accuse the Dutch government of ‘fascism’ and of being a ‘Nazi remnant’, has grown in recent days to include other Western European nations which have restricted Turkish political rallies on their soil, most notably Austria and Germany, but also Denmark and Switzerland.

Recent months have seen mass demonstrations and rallies, with seas of red ‘star and crescent’ flags greeting Turkish ministers campaigning in Europe on behalf of their government’s referendum proposal. The sheer size of some rallies has caused unease, highlighting the scale of Europe’s burgeoning foreign populations and offering a glimpse of the continent’s demographic future.

Of the millions of Turks living in Europe, some five million – many of them dual citizens – are eligible to vote in the referendum, set for April 16th, which seeks to significantly increase the powers of authoritarian Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

Speaking at a rally east of Istanbul just hours after his foreign minister’s controversial comments, Erdoğan accused the EU of launching an anti-Islamic ‘crusade’ between the Christian cross and the Muslim crescent, referring to Tuesday’s ruling by the EU Court of Justice which would allow employers to prohibit political and religious symbols in the workplace, including the wearing of the Islamic veil.

‘They have commenced a struggle between the cross and crescent. There is no other explanation than this. I am saying this clearly – Europe is heading toward the days just before World War II,’ Erdoğan stated in combative tone.

Following on from comments by his foreign minister earlier this week, Erdoğan again threatened to end the year-old migrant deal signed between the EU and Turkey, which could see millions of migrants flood into Europe from Turkey via Greece and Bulgaria.

Of some six million migrants seeking to enter Europe from countries surrounding the Mediterranean, an estimated three million are currently waiting in Turkey, according to a leaked German intelligence report published last month, a figure Erdoğan is fond of raising in negotiations with the EU.”

….Continue reading @ theGatewayPundit

 

Law |

Campaign Pledges Haunt Trump in Court

| New York Times

Outside the context of Mr. Trump’s two travel bans, few judicial rulings have addressed how much weight courts may put on statements from political candidates. Even informal remarks from sitting government officials are often ignored by courts, which can be reluctant to conduct what the Supreme Court has called “judicial psychoanalysis.”

“In quick succession on Wednesday night, federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland blocked President Trump’s revised travel ban. They said statements Mr. Trump had made as a presidential candidate, including his call for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” helped doom the executive order.

The judges said Mr. Trump’s promises to impose a “Muslim ban” were too telling and categorical to be ignored. “Simply because a decision maker made the statements during a campaign does not wipe them” from judicial memory, wrote Judge Theodore D. Chuang of Federal District Court in Maryland.

Outside the context of Mr. Trump’s two travel bans, few judicial rulings have addressed how much weight courts may put on statements from political candidates. Even informal remarks from sitting government officials are often ignored by courts, which can be reluctant to conduct what the Supreme Court has called “judicial psychoanalysis.”

But decisions about religious discrimination allow courts to consider government officials’ real purposes, even if their stated ones are neutral.

The Supreme Court has said judges may not turn a blind eye to the context in which government policies on religion arose. “Reasonable observers have reasonable memories,” Justice David H. Souter wrote in a leading religion case.

Justice Department lawyers had urged the judges to ignore Mr. Trump’s speeches on the campaign trail. “Candidates are not government actors, and statements of what they might attempt to achieve if elected, which are often simplified and imprecise, are not official acts,” the government said in a brief in the Maryland case. “They generally are made without the benefit of advice from an as-yet-unformed administration, and cannot bind elected officials who later conclude that a different course is warranted.”

The courts had to navigate two bodies of precedents, pointing in different directions. In cases concerning immigration and national security, most decisions suggest that courts should not look behind the stated government rationale.

Courts have only rarely used statements from candidates to judge the constitutionality of government actions. In 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, took account of campaign materials from Chief Justice Roy S. Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court to judge his actions concerning a Ten Commandments monument in his courthouse.

In the context of immigration and efforts to combat terror, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to look behind official actions to root out authentic motives. In 2006, in a case concerning detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Justice John Paul Stevens criticized a dissenting justice for relying on “press statements” from sitting Defense Department officials. “We have not heretofore, in evaluating the legality of executive action, deferred to comments made by such officials to the media,” Justice Stevens wrote. If even statements from government officials are out of bounds, it would follow that statement from political candidates should carry no weight.

In a 1972 immigration case concerning a Marxist scholar denied a visa, the Supreme Court similarly said it would not “look behind” the government’s “facially legitimate and bona fide reason.”

….Continue reading more @ NY Times