Category Archives: US Constitution

‘Hillary Stole the Democratic Nomination from Bernie’ – Donna Brazile | Nov 4 2017

“It Sure Looked Unethical”: Brazile Discloses Deal That Gave Hillary Clinton Control Over DNC Before Primary

|| JonathanTurley.org

 

“The DNC and Clinton emails released by Wikileaks ultimately exposed a pattern of false statements by Democratic leaders particularly Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  Schultz insisted that they were completely neutral in the primary despite every indication to the contrary.  It was later revealed that Donna Brazile, who replaced Schultz, had first leaked questions for the debate with Sanders to Clinton and then lied about the incriminating emails later to the media (she suggested that they were fake).  Now Brazile is making a come back and has been put back into a position of power at the DNC and ironically on the Rules Committee.  She is also shopping a book. In the book, Brazile confirms that Hillary Clinton essentially bought the DNC by assuming responsibility for its crippling debt in exchange for control over the organization before the primary.  In other words, as shown by the earlier emails and now by Brazile’s own account, the primary was indeed rigged against Bernie Sanders and anyone running against Clinton.

Brazile says that she discovered an August 2015 agreement between the national committee and Clinton’s campaign that gave Clinton “control (of) the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised.” She in return agreed to take care of the massive debt leftover from President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign.  Even Brazile (who was fired from CNN for unethical conduct) said that the deal was legal  “but it sure looked unethical.”  She further states that the deal gave one campaign (Clinton) “control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead.” She now agrees that the Clinton deal “compromised the party’s integrity.”

What is obvious from this latest disclosure is the utter mismanagement of the DNC during the Obama Administration as well as misleading statements from a host of Democratic figures .  That failure played into the hands of the Clintons who proceeded to take over control over the DNC to guarantee that no one but Hillary would be nominated. It was not just a dubious arrangement from an ethical standpoint but ultimately rigged the primary for what many view as the worst possible candidate for that election.  From the earliest polling, it was widely understood that the election would an anti-establishment election.  It was also clear that Clinton continue to carry extremely negative polls on her trustworthiness and honesty with many voters.  Nevertheless, virtually every Democratic member of Congress and the DNC would work tirelessly to guarantee the most establishment figure in Democratic ranks would run in the most anti-establishment election in history.  Indeed, many have commented that Clinton may have been the only leading candidate that could lose against Trump.  They were both the most unpopular candidates to run respectively for their parties.  In the end, Clinton was largely campaigning on not being Trump. That was enough to great more votes but many experts believe that other candidates would likely have swept both the popular and electoral voters.  Ironically, what many voters did not like about Clinton was her perceived dishonesty and inauthenticity.  This allegation from Brazile only reinforces that image.  When Clinton and Wasserman Schultz were denying any special arrangements, they both knew that Clinton was effectively handed the keys to the DNC before Sanders ever hit the campaign trail.

The deal was struck before Joe Biden was essentially pushed out of the race by Clinton allies.  (Many experts believe that, even though himself an establishment figure, Biden would have won handily in both popular and electoral votes against Trump since he had fewer polling negatives on issues like trustworthiness).  We discussed earlier the email sources suggesing that one of Biden’s closest aides, Ron Klain, reportedly admitted to working for Clinton behind the scenes to scuttle Biden’s chances.

If true, Clinton and her people left nothing to chance in first gaining control of critical parts of the DNC and working within the camps of potential challengers to undermine them.  Sanders was all that remained in the end and he came close to dislodging Clinton (even with the concerted work of people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz and allies at the DNC).

In the end, the most damaged figure beyond Clinton herself is Schultz. She was previously booted for her biased and dishonest work as DNC head.  This disclosure further shreds her reputation and her veracity.

Then there is the DNC itself.  The DNC just kicked out Sanders supporters and brought back Clinton supporters in a controversial shakeup. It also never disclosed this deal to the public.

Moreover, some if not all of those powerful Democrats on the board presumably knew of the arrangement. Yet, they continued to express disbelief at the suggestion of any special arrangements with Clinton.

In other words, the public view of the election and the duplicity of key leaders was largely accurate.”

…Continue reading more @ JonathanTurley.org

‘Hillary Won Fair and Square’ – Real Lies with Bill Maher | June 2016

HBO and John Oliver Need to Explain Why They were Working with Clinton Campaign Since 2015 | Oct 2016

 

California’s Devin Nunes shifts dossier probe from Trump to Dems | Oct 31 2017

Devin Nunes (CA-R) shifts dossier probe from Trump to Dems

|| Washington Times

“Congressman exposed ‘unmasking’ by Obama aides, flushed out source of payments for report

On two fronts, Rep. Devin Nunes has shifted the Russia debate in Washington further away from President Trump and closer to Democrats.

He exposed the practice of “unmasking” by Obama aides and flushed out the source of payments for the scandalous anti-Trump dossier that drove the Russia collusion narrative.

The California Republican’s first tactic: He traveled to the Executive Office Building and viewed evidence that the Obama administration had “unmasked” the concealed names of Trump associates in highly classified intelligence reports during the election campaign.

On two fronts, Rep. Devin Nunes has shifted the Russia debate in Washington further away from President Trump and closer to Democrats.

He exposed the practice of “unmasking” by Obama aides and flushed out the source of payments for the scandalous anti-Trump dossier that drove the Russia collusion narrative.

The California Republican’s first tactic: He traveled to the Executive Office Building and viewed evidence that the Obama administration had “unmasked” the concealed names of Trump associates in highly classified intelligence reports during the election campaign.

The chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence talked publicly about his discovery to much derision from Democrats and Washington’s press corps. The unmasking suggested that the Obama White House was spying on a political foe through its legal right to unmask the identities of people unintentionally swept up in surveillance operations.

An advocacy group filed a complaint about his disclosure with the Office of Congressional Ethics. Mr. Nunes responded by removing himself as the overseer of the committee’s Russia probe.

But his legacy lives on. Both the Senate and House intelligence committees have summoned former Obama aides as witnesses. It turns out that Samantha Power, as ambassador to the United Nations, made hundreds of unmasking requests, Fox News reported.

Adding intrigue to her research, she told the committee that other people did some of the unmaskings in her name.

The committee subpoenaed documents concerning Ms. Power, former National Security Adviser Susan E. Rice and former CIA Director John O. Brennan. All deny that they were spying on Mr. Trump.

Mr. Nunes‘ second tactic brought the most immediate result: He flushed out the identities — long kept secret — of some of the financial backers for the notorious Trump dossier that has fed the Democrats’ Russia collusion charges for months.

He did it by signing a subpoena for the bank records of Fusion GPS, the liberal opposition research firm that hired the dossier writer, former British spy Christopher Steele.

The Nunes subpoena touched off a chain of events.

Fusion GPS went to U.S. District Court on Oct. 20 and asked a judge to block the subpoena. That move triggered the first unmasking of the dossier’s financier.

On Tuesday, the law firm Perkins Coie decided it was time to fess up. It filed a letter, written to Fusion’s attorneys, acknowledging that Perkins had hired Fusion with money from the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Perkins, whose attorney Marc E. Elias is the Clinton campaign’s general counsel, urged Fusion to lift the confidentiality of other clients who funded the dossier.

The letter said the flow of money to Fusion started in April 2016 and ended before the Nov. 8 presidential election. Mr. Steele began writing his memos in June. He continued to write and submit dossier memos up until December, meaning there are other moneymen for whom Mr. Nunes would like names.

Because Fusion also has Russian clients, some Republicans have wondered whether anyone in Moscow also paid Mr. Steele’s bills. There has been no proof, to date.

Washington learned of another funder. For months, news reports said the first entity to hire Fusion to conduct Trump opposition research was a Republican.

The Washington Free Beacon on Friday acknowledged that it had hired Fusion to collect information from publicly available sources. It said the arrangement stopped well before Fusion went to Democrats and received money to pay Mr. Steele.

The Free Beacon, a snappy conservative news website filled with investigative and humorous postings, is funded by Paul Singer, a Republican and big campaign donor. He is also anti-Trump. He backed Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida in the Republican presidential primary race.

Mr. Nunes‘ moves have clearly irked Democrats, who want the investigation confined to suspected Republican coordination with Russian election interference. The Senate and House intelligence committees so far have found no confirmed evidence of Trump collusion.

Fusion’s attorneys, the Washington firm Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, filed court arguments attacking the congressman’s “fishing expedition.”

They said he had no power to act because he recused himself from the Russia investigation. They called his subpoena signature “not part of legitimate legislative activity” and an exercise of “coercive power.”

“The Trump dossier appears to have deeply upset President Trump and some of his allies, including Mr. Nunes, who served on President Trump’s campaign,” the Fusion attorneys said.

Posted in full by BuzzFeed, the dossier accuses Mr. Trump of salacious conduct with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel, a long quid pro quo relationship with Russian intelligence and bribe-paying in Asia. None of those charges has been confirmed publicly.

Mr. Nunes‘ chief congressional critic is Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, the House intelligence committee’s top Democrat. Mr. Schiff is a big fan of Mr. Steele’s and has repeated his charges in Congress and on TV.

Interviewed last week by CNN’s Chris Cuomo, Mr. Schiff said Mr. Nunes is just trying to change the subject.

“I think, Chris, at the end of the day, what this is about is a technique you see often in criminal cases where the facts are really bad for the defendant, there’s an effort to put the government on trial,” Mr. Schiff said. “So I think Mr. Nunes and the president want to put the government on trial because they don’t want to look at the facts implicating the White House.”

Mr. Cuomo: “That’s problematic when the man that you’re defining that way is in charge of the investigation, is the head of your committee. And it raises the question of when are we going to see what you guys have.”

Mr. Schiff: “It is problematic, Chris, because he had committed to stepping aside and recusing himself from the investigation but has not done that. And so that is a real problem that we have to grapple with every day.”

Mr. Nunes picked up an unlikely supporter in Leon E. Panetta, a Democrat who has served as a congressional representative from California, director of the CIA and secretary of defense.

Mr. Panetta told CNN that Congress needs to find out who funded the dossier.

“Well, it’s obviously something that the intelligence committee is going to have to look at,” Mr. Panetta said. “You know, knowing presidential campaigns, they’re big operations and somehow the left hand may not know what the right hand is doing. And that could be the case here, but I really do think that the committee is going to have to get into this, determine just exactly what happened. Who knew what and when.”

On Saturday, the House intelligence committee said it had reached a deal to inspect Fusion’s banking records.”

….Continue reading more @ Washington Times

 

Sedition! California Passes Sanctuary Law Refusing to Cooperate with Feds | Oct 06 2017

California Becomes ‘Sanctuary State’ with Gov. Brown’s Signature

|| Breitbart

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.”

…Continue reading more @ Breitbart

 

UC Berkeley Students Protest Exam, Accuse Peers And Professor Of Supporting White Supremacy

|| DailyCaller

“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.”

….Continue reading more @ Daily Caller

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

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

|| Daily Caller

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

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

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

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

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

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

…Continue reading more @ Daily Caller

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

Trump Vindicated: Report Says Obama Government Illegally Wiretapped Trump Campaign

|| Breitbart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

….Continue reading more @ Breitbart

 

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

|| Mediaite

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

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

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

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

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

CLAPPER:  Yes.

TODD:  You would be told this?

CLAPPER:  I would know that.

TODD:  If there was a FISA court order–

CLAPPER:  Yes.

TODD:  –on something like this.

CLAPPER:  Something like this, absolutely.

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

CLAPPER:  I can deny it.

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

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

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

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

….Continue reading more @ Mediaite

 

LA TIMES COMPLAINS: DEPORTED ILLEGALS OVERLOADING MEXICAN GOVT

|| Infowars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

….Continue reading more @ Infowars

 

Nancy Pelosi’s Illegal-Alien Invaders Want Open Borders

|| Breitbart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

….Continue reading more @ Breitbart

California Passes ‘State Sanctuary’ Bill | Sep 16 2017

California Goes Full Sanctuary State With Sweeping Immigration Bill

|| Daily Caller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

….Continue reading more @ Daily Caller

 

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE DEFINED

|| Laws.com

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

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

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

DACA Projected Obamacare Health Costs a Nightmare | Sep 16 2017

Nightmare: DACA Amnesty DREAM Act Will Cost $115 Billion Thanks to Obamacare

|| Breitbart

“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.”

…Continue reading more @ Breitbart