Steve Bannon: “It’s a New Game in Town. We’re Going to Cut Off the Oxygen to Mitch McConnell”
“Former Trump Strategist Steve Bannon went on with Sean Hannity to discuss his plans for the next year and the Washington elites better take notice.
Steve Bannon told Sean, “We are going to cut off the oxygen to Mitch McConnell.”
Steve Bannon: By the way these guys work three days a week. The American people, now, they’re working two jobs. Their wives are working two jobs. They know the urgency out there on the economic hate crimes that have been perpetuated on the American working men and women in this country because of the trade deals… We are declaring war on the Republican establishment that does not back the agenda that Donald Trump ran on and the President of the United States and that is an agenda that we know backs the men and women of this country.
Sean Hannity: So this is basically a war because you know what McConnell did in Alabama.
Steve Bannon: Karl Rove, Steve Law, they should get the joke because their donors are coming to us because they’re tired of having their money burned up by trying to destroy people like Judge Moore. It’s a new game in town. We’re going to cut off the oxygen to Mitch McConnell… We are going to win.”
California Becomes ‘Sanctuary State’ with Gov. Brown’s Signature
Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontention (or resistance) to lawful authority.
“California officially became a sanctuary state for illegal aliens on Thursday with the stroke of Gov. Jerry Brown’s pen.
Senate Bill 54 will go into effect in January 2018. Brown signed the bill entitled the “California Values Act” and released a signing statement. Brown explained what the bill does and does not do.
The bill prohibits local law enforcement from asking about immigration status in the course of routine interactions and prohibits them from complying with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer requests.
“The bill further directs our Attorney General to promulgate model policies for local and state health, education, labor and judiciary officials to follow when they deal with immigration matters,” wrote Brown.”
UC Berkeley Students Protest Exam, Accuse Peers And Professor Of Supporting White Supremacy
“UC Berkeley students attempted to shut down their midterm exam, with claims that it would have a negative impact on their physical and mental health. The students, who were captured on video, demanded a “take-home essay with significant time to prepare” and accused their uncooperative professor of not checking his privilege.
“This is a campus that is truly related throughout Latin America to the notion of free speech, said professor Harley Shaiken to the class, eliciting laughter and derision from the protesters.
Dismissive of the professor, the activists claimed that their “well-beings are being put on the line because of the emotional, mental, and physical stress that this university is compounding with what is already going on in [their] everyday lives.”
One protester shouted: “Have you ever checked ‘unlisted’ or ‘undocumented immigrant’? I don’t think so!”
Shaiken, who has written about workers’ rights in Mexico, is an expert in labor issues and earned the Outstanding Teaching Award at the University of California, San Diego in 1991. Despite his expertise in the subject, the students called him unfit to lecture them on the subject because he is white.
“Are you trying to silence us right now? Is that what you’re trying to do?” said a protester responding to a student who jokingly asked if it was a filibuster.
The professor offered to leave the classroom and hold a discussion with the protesters outside to prevent further disruption of the exam, but they refused. Instead, they took their complaints to the Department of Ethnic Studies.
“I don’t know why you’re still, like, sitting down, y’all. I don’t understand. I really don’t understand. Y’all can take your fucking test, but people are dying out there,” complained one protester, who remained behind to accuse her peers of not participating in their protest. She accused her fellow students of supporting white supremacy.”
Trump Denies Visas to Seven Countries Which Conceal Their Citizens’ Identity
“President Donald Trump has identified the foreign governments which have failed to provide “baseline” identification about their citizens who ask for visas to travel to the United States.
The announcement clears the way for customs officials to deny visas to citizens of the countries, which are Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. In addition, citizens of Iraq and Yemen who request visas will also face extra scrutiny because of the religious and civil wars under in those two countries, says the new policy.
“Following an extensive review by the Department of Homeland Security, we are taking action today to protect the safety and security of the American people by establishing a minimum security baseline for entry into the United States,” Trump said in a statement.
The new policy will likely be described as a “Muslim Ban” by Islamic advocacy groups in the United States because seven of the nine countries in the announcement are predominantly Islamic. However, according to the Trump statement, all other countries — including roughly 60 countries with either partial or majority Muslim populations — complied with the new baseline requirements to share information about their citizens who request visas to visit the United States.
The policy will apply to foreign citizens who are seeking to visit the United States for business or tourism and will also cover people applying for visas as would-be refugees or immigrants.
To frustrate activist judges, the policy does not apply to visitors who got vises prior to September 24. Officials also released a detailed description of the new rules, which included a legal justification of the president’s policy to set entry rules. The legal explanation is needed because left-wing judges are trying to create new rules to allow foreigners into the nation despite opposition from the President and the federal government.”
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.”
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.”
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.”
Nightmare: DACA Amnesty DREAM Act Will Cost $115 Billion Thanks to Obamacare
“Taxpayers in the United States will face a steep bill if the Trump administration signs legislation to extend legal status to so-called “Dreamers,” the illegal aliens who arrived as children and are now protected under the Obama-holdover unlawful executive order known as DACA.
The cost of a legislation to legalize childhood arrivals is likely to be far higher than earlier attempts because of Obamacare’s health insurance subsidies. The Affordable Care Act subsidizes the costs of health insurance for millions of Americans and would likely foot the bill for many of those whose residency in the U.S. would be legalized by the DREAM Act.
The numbers are striking. The DREAM Act of 2017, the most likely vehicle for extending DACA protections and making them permanent, would raise federal outlays by $115 billion dollars, according to a Breitbart News analysis. Nearly all of that would be paid for by additional deficit spending.
That may come as a surprise to lawmakers. The last time the DREAM Act was seriously considered, the Congressional Budget Office said that the bill would reduce budget deficits by about $1.4 billion over the following decade. But that bill prohibited those it legalized from receiving subsidies toward health insurance until they became permanent legal residents after ten years, while the current version of the bill does not.
The DREAM Act of 2017, sponsored by Democrat Senator Dick Durbin and Republican Senator Lindsay Graham, would extend legal residency and a path to citizenship for at least 3.3 million people, according to the Migration Policy Institute. These include 1.8 million illegal aliens who would be immediately eligible, plus 1.5 billion who would become eligible in the near future by doing things such as enrolling in school.”
These Are The 9 Countries That Send The Most ‘Dreamers’
|| Daily Caller
“President Donald Trump’s order to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive amnesty has created uncertainty about the fate of the program’s beneficiaries.
Advocates for the DACA recipients, who are commonly known as Dreamers, say they could be forced to return to countries where they have no social ties. But where exactly would Dreamers go in the unlikely event that Congress doesn’t work out a deal to give them some kind of legal status?
A review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services data on the DACA population shows that the vast majority are from Latin America, especially America’s southern neighbor. Mexico has contributed more Dreamers than any other country by a wide margin. That’s not particularly surprising, given the country’s deep economic and social ties to the U.S., especially along a 2,000 mile shared border.
Still, when compared to other countries, the number of Mexican nationals in the DACA program stands out. Of the nearly 790,000 Dreamers, about 618,000 — 78 percent — are originally from Mexico. In other words, about four out of every five illegal immigrants who received deferred status under DACA are Mexican nationals.
By comparison, the immigrants from the other countries on the list represent tiny fractions of the Dreamer population. Second place El Salvador has sent about 28,000 DACA recipients, or 3.5 percent of the total. Guatemala and Honduras, which along with El Salvador compose the violent “Northern Triangle” countries of Central America, each contribute 20,000 and 18,000 Dreamers, respectively.
South American countries round out the rest of the top nine, with the notable exception of South Korea, which is the only East Asian country that has sent more than 1,000 Dreamers. About 7,200 South Korean nationals are DACA recipients — just shy of 1 percent of the total.
Here are the top nine nationalities in the Dreamer population: