Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Senior White House official Jared Kushner is currently a business partner of Goldman Sachs Group and George Soros | May 03, 2017

Report: Jared Kushner Didn’t Disclose $1 Billion in Loans, Investment Ties to Goldman Sachs, George Soros and Chinese Co. Alibaba

|| Breitbart

President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner didn’t disclose his part ownership of a real-estate finance startup known as Cadre, according to a Wall Street Journal review of Kushner’s securities and other filings.

The Journal notes that Kushner’s Cadre stake “means the senior White House official is currently a business partner of Goldman Sachs Group and billionaires including George Soros and Peter Thiel.” The Journal also reports that Kushner didn’t disclose a number of loans “totaling at least $1 billion, from more than 20 lenders,” on properties and companies he co-owns; and Kushner “has also provided personal guarantees on more than $300 million of the debt.” An analysis of the debt on these assets “found ties to a broad swath of U.S. and foreign banks, private-equity firms, real-estate companies and government-owned lenders.”

From Jean Eaglesham, Juliet Chung, and Lisa Schwartz reporting in the Wall Street Journal:

[Kushner’s lawyer Jamie] Gorelick said the Cadre stake is described in a revised version of [Kushner’s] financial-disclosure form that will be made public after it has been certified by ethics officials. She said Mr. Kushner has previously discussed his Cadre ownership with the Office of Government Ethics and that Mr. Kushner has “resigned from Cadre’s board, assigned his voting rights, and reduced his ownership share.” A spokesman for the Office of Government Ethics didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Kushner co-founded Cadre in 2014 with his brother Joshua and Ryan Williams, a 29-year-old friend and former employee of Kushner Cos., the family-controlled business that Mr. Kushner ran until recently. Cadre markets properties to prospective investors, who can put their money into specific buildings or into an investment fund run by Cadre, which collects fees on each deal.

To get off the ground, Cadre turned to a Goldman Sachs fund and a number of high-profile investors. Among them were the venture-capital firms of Mr. Thiel, Silicon Valley’s most prominent supporter of Mr. Trump, and Vinod Khosla, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems Inc., according to Cadre’s website. Other backers include Chinese entrepreneur David Yu, co-founder with Alibaba Group Holding Ltd.’s Jack Ma of a Shanghai-based private-equity firm, hedge-fund manager Daniel Och and real-estate magnate Barry Sternlicht, people close to Cadre said.

Cadre also secured a $250 million line of credit from the family office of George Soros, a top Democratic donor whom Mr. Trump criticized during his presidential campaign, the people close to the company said. Mr. Soros’s family office is also an investor in Cadre.”

…Continure reading more @ Breitbart

 

Comey: Why no, we won’t be charging Huma Abedin for forwarding classified emails to Anthony Weiner

|| HotAir

“Say this for the guy: He may be misapplying federal statutes but he’s misapplying them consistently, at least as far as Team Clinton goes. Ed noted earlier that Comey revealed this morning that Huma was forwarding emails to Weiner to print out for Hillary’s perusal. Did Huma realize that was illegal? Nope, says Comey, and that was the key. Somehow the thought didn’t occur to Hillary’s top aide that transmitting sensitive correspondence involving the world’s most powerful diplomat to unauthorized recipients might tickle the boundaries of what federal law permits.

Is Comey right, though, that there’s no crime here so long as Abedin didn’t intend to mishandle classified information? Nope. The statute is clear:

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Sending classified info to the private laptop of someone who isn’t authorized to receive it because you can’t be bothered to print it out yourself does sound suspiciously like gross negligence, especially given Weiner’s other computer pastimes and the opportunities they created for foreign blackmail. (Weiner’s participation here makes the negligence “gross” in every sense of the word.) But then, so does setting up your own private “homebrew” email server to conduct official state business. Comey decided last summer that it doesn’t matter what the federal statute actually says; Congress can write whatever laws it wants but when it comes to applying them, prior DOJ practice will guide the FBI in recommending charges, not the text of the law. And DOJ practice requires proof of knowledge or intent, not mere gross negligence, to justify filing charges, never mind that no one as high up as a Secretary of State had ever been credibly accused of violating this particular statute before. If Hillary’s gross negligence wasn’t enough to get her charged, then Huma’s gross negligence isn’t enough either.”

….Continue reading more @ HotAir

 

Paul Ryan’s Spending Bill Forbids Funding for Trump Wall – But Allows Funding for Border Security in Middle East

|| theGatewayPundit

“House Republicans released its $1.1 trillion 1,665 page spending bill that includes an average of approximately 210 words per page — —or about twice as long as the stimulus law (the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act”) that President Barack Obama signed less than a month after his inauguration in 2009.

Speaker Paul Ryan and GOP leaders inserted language that specifically restricts any and all funding of the Trump border wall.

However Paul Ryan’s bill will provide funding for border security in Jordan and Lebanon.”

…..Continue reading more @ TGP

Obama DOJ Official who fought Arizona AB 1070 law on immigration now tries to block Trump Sanctuary City EO | Apr 27, 2017

Judge Blocking Sanctuary City Order Apparently Still Thinks He’s Part of Obama Admin

|| LawNewz

“A judge just declared taxpayers must give money to a city that refuses to enforce federal immigration law while at the same time refusing to give any redress for the family of dead Kate Steinle due to that same sanctuary city policy. Judge William Orrick, a legacy of the liberal gentry whose grandfather founded one of the big corporate law firms in San Francisco, whose father also sat on the federal bench (and the left complains of nepotism?), and who, according to Public Citizen, bundled nearly a quarter of a million for Obama’s campaigns, blocked Trump’s executive order defunding sanctuary cities by claiming sanctuary cities’ refusal to actually enforce immigration law is an act of “immigration enforcement strategy.”

This, in the city that freed the killer of Kate Steinle just before he killed her. Oh, and by the way, liberal judges in the city also said that Kate’s family can’t sue the city for the sanctuary city policy that killed her.

Already infamous for intervening on behalf of abortion advocates to prevent the public from seeing exposes of their misdeeds and his prior litigation under Obama’s DOJ of Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch fame where Orrick spent years trying to prevent Arizona and Alabama from enforcing their immigration laws, Orrick now extended sanctuary city status as a right of local governments to choose their own “immigration enforcement strategy.” That’s right — a federal judge called a city’s refusal to enforce federal immigration law a “strategy” of “immigration enforcement.”

Welcome to liberal legalese: refusing to enforce the law is now an act of “enforcement” of the law.

This should come as no surprise as Orrick had an implicit conflict with Trump’s efforts. It was Orrick, at Obama’s Department of Justice, who supervised the office of immigration litigation, and fought state-level immigration enforcement efforts in Arizona and Alabama and elsewhere.

In other words, the same judge who said Trump cannot dispute a local government’s immigration actions filed suit to stop Arizona and Alabama from enforcing their own local immigration actions. Welcome to results-oriented legal jurisprudence of Obama judicial appointee liberalism where legal precepts, logical consistency and historical precedent have no role, just as the life of foreign criminals now enjoy more legal protection than the citizens safety of the Kate Steinles of America.

The irony is the Supreme Court appeared to invalidate Orrick’s judicial basis for his order when it validated Orrick’s own prior litigation theory while working for Obama, as reflected in the Supreme Court’s Arizona v. United States decision. Justice Kennedy declared the federal government’s authority to govern immigration as so “broad” and “undoubted” that it “preempted” many of Arizona’s attempts to have its own local immigration enforcement strategy.

The Supreme Court did not allow Arizona to pursue any “immigration enforcement strategy” as an “impermissible” intrusion on the exclusive power of the federal government, even to the degree that “even complementary state regulation is impermissible.”

Anything that could be an “obstacle to the full purposes and objectives of Congress” was considered “preempted” and prohibited.  It is Congress that mandates no “state or local law” nor “state or local government entity or official” may “prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”

Yet, Orrick just ruled San Francisco can overrule both Congress and President Trump, and further that President Trump cannot interfere with San Francisco’s “sanctuary city” choice because the Judge claimed a right of San Francisco to its own “immigration enforcement strategy,” after the Supreme Court said no such right exists.  Then how can Orrick rule consistent with the Supreme Court? He can’t. So, no surprise, Orrick mutilates the precedent on that issue.

How can Alabama and Arizona be prohibited from actually enforcing immigration law but San Francisco, the city that freed the killer of Kate Steinle, be given federal funds for its ignoring federal immigration law? When the federal judge still thinks he’s part of the Obama administration.”

….From the article by Robert Barnes @ LawNewz

 

Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Part of Trump’s Immigration Order on Sanctuary Cities

|| Legal Insurrection

“A federal judge in California blocked a portion of President Trump’s January Immigration Executive Order Tuesday.

Jude William H. Orrick of United States District Court for the Northern District of California targeted the Trump administration’s promise to cut federal funding from “sanctuary cities” or cities who refused to cooperate with federal law enforcement concerning immigration matters.

From the New York Times:

The judge, William H. Orrick of United States District Court for the Northern District of California, issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the administration, directing it to stop trying to cut off aid to sanctuary jurisdictions.

That said, the decision is pretty weak (NYT continued):

But the order does not prevent the federal government from moving forward on designating certain places as “sanctuaries,” nor does it keep the administration from enforcing conditions for doling out federal money if they already exist, as the Justice Department has already begun to do with some law enforcement grants.

San Francisco and Santa Clara County, which had asked the judge for an injunction, “have a strong interest in avoiding unconstitutional federal enforcement and the significant budget uncertainty that has resulted from the Order’s broad and threatening language,” the judge wrote, referring to Mr. Trump’s January executive order on immigration.

..

In March, AG Sessions announced the DOJ’s commitment to enforce 8 U.S.C. 1373, which allows the federal government to strip grant money from cities who willfully refuse compliance with federal communications guidelines as they pertain to local law enforcement and federal immigration officials:

“This guidance requires local jurisdictions to comply and certify compliance with Section 1373 in order to be eligible for OJP grants,” said Sessions. “It also made clear that failure to remedy violations could result in withholding grants, termination of grants, and disbarment or ineligibility for future grants. The Department of Justice will also take all lawful steps to claw back any funds awarded to a jurisdiction that wilfully violates 1373.”

All of this smells far more politically motivated than anything derived from sound legal doctrine. As I blogged in March:

If there is a legal mechanism to penalize sanctuary cities, we haven’t found it. It’s likely none exists because, despite threats, no administration has carried out a threat to withhold federal monies from disobedient rogue local governments.

There’s speculation aplenty as to how the Supreme Court might interpret a legal challenge to anti-sanctuary city guidance. Printz v. United States (highly cited in relation to this particular part of immigration discussion) held, “Congress may not compel a state or local government to implement federal regulatory programs, even if they are temporary functions.” Enforcing federal law is the responsibility of the federal government, thus immigration enforcement cannot and should not be delegated to local law enforcement. However, as 1373 indicates, local law enforcement are expected and required to communicate certain information to federal authorities.

Trump’s administration doesn’t seem afraid of legal tests, given his first immigration executive order, but it’s clear that sanctuary cities are in the crosshairs.”

….Continue reading more @ Legal Insurrection

 

Recent History | Arizona’s AB 1070 |  Jun 2012

Supreme Court Overturns Three Sections of Arizona Immigration Law, Upholds Papers Check

|| ABA Journal

“The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down three contested sections of an Arizona law designed to crack down on illegal immigrants.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion (PDF) upholding just one contested section of the law—at least for now. The provision requires state and local police to check the immigration status of people who are stopped, detained or arrested on legitimate grounds, if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the United States illegally.

“At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume [the status-check provision] will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law,” Kennedy said. “This opinion does not foreclose other pre-emption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.”

The court overturned three other provisions on pre-emption grounds. “Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law,” Kennedy said.

The provisions struck down by the court:

• Make it a crime for immigrants to fail to obtain and carry federal registration documents. “Permitting the state to impose its own penalties for the federal offenses here would conflict with the careful framework Congress adopted,” Kennedy wrote.

• Make it a crime for illegal immigrants to work or apply for work. Federal law imposes civil rather than criminal penalties for illegal immigrants who engage in unauthorized work, Kennedy said. Although the Arizona law “attempts to achieve one of the same goals as federal law—the deterrence of unlawful employment—it involves a conflict in the method of enforcement,” Kennedy said.

• Authorize warrantless arrests when there is probable cause to believe a person has committed a public offense warranting deportation. Under federal law, an administrative document is issued when an alien is subject to deportation; the attorney general has discretion to authorize an arrest pending a removal decision. The state law authorizes arrests without federal input. “The result could be unnecessary harassment of some aliens (for instance, a veteran, college student, or someone assisting with a criminal investigation) whom federal officials determine should not be removed,” Kennedy said.

Kennedy was joined in his opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the case.

“It is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety, and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign, not the 50 separate states,” Kennedy wrote.

Justice Antonin Scalia would have upheld all four provisions, he wrote in a concurring and dissenting opinion. States had a long-time role in regulating immigration, and the Constitution did not eliminate their power to do so, he said. “Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it,” he wrote. “The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state.”

Justices Clarence Thomas wrote that he would have upheld all four provisions, though he differed with Scalia on the reason. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. would have upheld three provisions.

The case is Arizona v. United States.

In a press release, ABA President Wm. T. (Bill) Robinson III applauded the holding striking down three provisions of the Arizona law. “As the ABA argued in the amicus brief it filed in the case, immigration law and policy are and must remain uniquely federal, with states having no role in immigration enforcement except pursuant to federal authorization and oversight,” Robinson said.”

….Continue reading more @ ABA Journal

Facebook Founder Gives $35 Million to Defeat Donald Trump | Oct 2016

Facebook Co-Founder Drops $35M to Defeat Trump

– PJ Media

facebookunlike2-sized-770x415xcx

 

“Dustin Moskovitz, one of the co-founders of Facebook, has donated tens of millions of dollars to defeat Donald Trump. Moskovitz is not one of the usual Democrat deep-pocketed suspects. Politico reports that his donations came “suddenly and without any advance warning to the top rung of Democratic party megadonors with two unheralded tears through his checkbook in the past six weeks. ”

The party is excited about adding their own Sheldon Adelson-esque donor into the political mix. Democrats don’t need as much money as Republicans do because Republicans don’t get billions of free media advocacy from the networks and cable stations, and they don’t get free promotion from the Hollywood crowd, from ESPN, from the NFL, and from “volunteers” from the labor unions.

“This is a unicorn-type campaign gift — you just don’t see someone basically walk into a campaign without a significant track record of activity and contribute at this level,” said veteran Democratic strategist Chris Lehane, a Clinton White House alum who works closely with top party donors in Silicon Valley.

Moskovitz is worth an astonishing $12.5B, money he made by profiting off of conservative and Republican use of the Facebook social media platform. Maybe it’s time to stop giving these folks the rope to hang us with?”

…..Continue reading @ PJ Media

The Left Wing Echo Chamber: Facebook | Oct 2016

Media Gatekeepers Closing Comments Part of Closing off the Internet? | Sep 2016

 

Diamond & Silk on the First Debate | Sep 2016

Diamond and Silks’ Take After the 1st Presidential Debate

– theGatewayPundit.com  |  Youtube

““Now Hillary started lying right off the bat . . . Overall, Donald Trump won that debate. But Lester? He got under my skin… We don’t give a damn about that birther issue!

Why wasn’t you asking Hillary about her pay for play schemes? About her email scandal? About the fact that she don’t even understand a ‘C’ stands for “Classified?” About the fact that she don’t know how to remember anything? Oh, you didn’t ask her that!

Well, listen up, Lester! Don’t make us fester! Or you gonna feel the wrath of Diamond and Silk. I just want you to know one thing: In the end, Donald J. Trump is going to win!

….See more @ theGatewayPundit.com

 

…More @ Youtube

Tech Companies Collude to Shape Public Political Opinion | Aug 2016

Tech Companies Apple, Twitter, Google, and Instagram Collude to Defeat Trump

– Observer

636060331203683596-trump-nws-sears-10

There is no such thing as Pro-Trump free speech as Clinton corporate allies serve up a carefully curated view of the campaign

“My dad always told me that conservative candidates have to work twice as hard as their liberal opponents to win elections because they’re fighting two opponents: the Democratic Party and the media.

The usual suspects from left-leaning major media outlets like The New York Times, MSNBC, CNN and even entertainment networks are doing everything in their power to ensure a Clinton victory. Look no further than to Wolf Blitzer mincing around and drinking wine at the Democratic convention, celebrating Hillary’s nomination. But the propaganda skewing this election runs much deeper than just the media: our iPhones, iPads, social media networks, Google and even video games are all in the tank for Hillary Clinton—and it’s chilling.

I began looking into how strong the bias and censorship runs in these forums after I did an interview on the pro-Trump podcast, MAGAPod. The show’s host, Mark Hammond, was disappointed Apple wouldn’t run his show without an “explicit” warning. Hammond’s podcast didn’t contain content that would be deemed explicit under Apple’s policy, and most other shows in the News & Politics category aren’t labeled as such.

On June 18, Hammond talked to Sandra, a representative from Apple. She explained that, since the description of his show is pro-Trump, his show is explicit in nature—because the subject matter is Donald Trump. So, an Apple employee concluded the Republican presidential candidate is explicit.

iTunes has dozens of podcasts discussing Osama Bin Laden and Adolf Hitler—none of which is marked explicit. I encouraged Hammond to contact Apple again, via email to their podcast support team. Within 48 hours he received a response from “Tim,” who informed Hammond that his podcast would be updated to “clean” within 24 hours.

Further digging on Apple revealed more evidence that the computer giant is feeding users pro-Hillary and anti-Trump propaganda.

Over the past year, Apple twice refused to publish a satirical Clinton Emailgate game, “Capitol HillAwry,” claiming it was “offensive” and “mean spirited” even though the game’s developer, John Matze, cited in communications with Apple that the game fits the standards of Apple’s own satire policy. Apple has, however, approved dozens of games poking fun at Donald Trump—including a game called “Dump Trump,” which depicts the GOP nominee as a giant turd.

On July 25, Breitbart exposed this blatant double standard and favoritism toward Clinton. A few days after the article was released, Apple caved and published Capitol HillAwry, 15 months after Matze’s first attempt to go live.

While it’s commendable that Apple resolved both situations, Trump supporters and conservative users should never have faced such biased treatment in the first place.

Apple isn’t the only corporation doing Clinton’s bidding. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said Clinton made a deal with Google and that the tech giant is “directly engaged” in her campaign. It’s been widely reported Clinton hired Eric Schmidt—chairman of Alphabet, the parent company of Google—to set up a tech company called The Groundwork. Assange claims this was to ensure Clinton had the “engineering talent to win the election.” He also pointed out that many members of Clinton’s staff have worked for Google, and some of her former employees now work at Google.

So it should come as no surprise that there have been multiple reports accusing Google of manipulating searches to bury negative stories about Clinton. SourceFed details how Google alters its auto-complete functions to paint Clinton in a positive light.

For example, when you type “Hillary Clinton cri” into other engines like Yahoo! or Bing, the most popular autofills are “Hillary Clinton criminal charges” but in Google it’s “Hillary Clinton crime reform.” Google denies they changed their algorithm to help Clinton, and insists the company does not favor any candidate. They also claim their algorithms don’t show predicted queries that are offensive or disparaging.

Facebook has a long history of shutting down pages and blocking conservative users while promoting progressive voices like Black Lives Matter activists. The problem became so transparent that Sen. John Thune sent a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg asking him to explain their practices.

Facebook denies it discriminates against “any sources of ideological origin” and Zuckerberg did meet with conservatives in an attempt to resolve this issue. While some walked away from the meeting encouraged that Zuckerberg wants to repair their relationship, other prominent conservatives rejected the invitation as a publicity stunt. It should be noted that Facebook employees have donated more to Clinton than to any other candidate.

Many conservatives have come to expect this kind of thing from the mainstream media. CNN, which paints itself as the centrist antidote to right-leaning Fox News and left-leaning MSNBC, has actually been among the most disingenuous offenders during this cycle, fully earning its derisive nickname “Clinton News Network.” For example, as NewsBusters pointed out for just one day, “CNN set aside nearly half of its air time on Wednesday’s New Day to various recent controversies involving the Trump campaign — 1 hour, 24 minutes, and 18 seconds over three hours. By contrast, the program clearly didn’t think much of the Wall Street Journal‘s revelation that the Obama administration secretly airlifted $400 million in cash to Iran. John Berman gave a 27-second news brief to the report, but didn’t mention that the payment was sent on “an unmarked cargo plane.” New Day, therefore, devoted over 187 times more coverage to Trump than to the millions to Iran.”

Another favored CNN trick is to present a “balanced” panel comprised of two Republicans, two Democrats and a host, as they did on the afternoon of July 29, just to name one instance of a hundred. However, the Republican side always features one Trump supporter and one “Never Trump” Republican, with the host grilling the Trump Supporter—often a beleaguered Jeffrey Lord—in what amounts to a 4-on-1. So much for balance.

Right now, CNN has a story on its site called “Which Republicans oppose Trump and why?” There’s no corresponding story about Democrats who oppose Clinton, even though her underdog challenger in the primary lasted far longer and received far more votes than any of Trump’s Republican challengers.

No Republican willing to criticize Trump is too insignificant to merit coverage on CNN. When a minor Christie staffer announced on her personal Facebook that she’d be backing Hillary, she somehow merited a 1200 word story on CNN’s website and euphoric coverage on the air by Brooke Baldwin for “splitting with her party.”

So that’s the traditional media. But this new strand, where one cannot even search for alternative viewpoints amid technology companies who stand to benefit from the free-trade policies and eased immigration regulations of a Clinton presidence, represents a dangerous sea change. There’s absolutely no question the digital forums we use every day are censoring conservatives and favoring Clinton. You can’t simply scroll through photos on Instagram, look for a video game in the App Store or do a quick Google search without being fed anti-Trump and pro-Clinton propaganda.”

…Continue reading @ Observer.com

– Regardless of who wins, the merging of political activism with corporate high tech collusion is a new development in the American polity and a serious cause for concern./CJ

 

Tim Cook, Larry Page, Elon Musk And Other Tech CEOs Attend Secret Anti-Trump Meeting: Report

– Tech Times

56ddbe631e0000b3007036b9

A report by The Huffington Post claims that Apple CEO Tim Cook, Google co-founder Larry Page, and Tesla Motors and SpaceX chief Elon Musk were among the high-profile personalities that attended a secret meeting last weekend.

The agenda of the meeting, which also had other tech CEOs, billionaires, and top Republicans attending, focused on a plan to stop the political ascension of front-runner Republican presidential aspirant Donald Trump.

Other attendees included Facebook investor and Napster creator Sean Parker, The New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, billionaire GOP donor Philip Anschutz, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton, Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price and Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling.

The secret meeting took place in a private island resort off the Georgia coast for the annual World Forum of the American Enterprise Institute.”

…Continue reading @ Tech Times from the Mar 2016 article.

Justice Ginsburg Regrets Unethical Attack on Donald Trump | July 2016

GINSBURG ISSUES STATEMENT OF “REGRET” FOR TRUMP ATTACK

– JonathanTurley.org

rbg2

“Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has issued an apology over her tirade against GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump.  A statement was issued today stating

“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them. Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.”

The statements of course were a bit more than “ill-advised.” They were unethical.  Moreover, some have noted that expressing regret is not an apology.  I do believe an apology is in order.  However, the statement makes no excuses and promises to avoid such transgressions in the future.  It should defuse much of the current controversy, even though Ginsburg’s conduct was quite shocking.  With three separate interviews and a well-established ethical rule against such statements, the violation was frankly breathtaking.  I have great respect for Justice Ginsburg but this incident will tarnish an otherwise inspiring legacy on the Court.

Moreover, if this election produces another court challenge like the one in Bush v. Gore, I believe that Ginsburg would have to seriously consider recusing herself.  It would be highly inappropriate for her to sit on such a case after saying that she might move to New Zealand rather than live in a country headed by Trump.

I still hope that the incident will refocus attention on the need for the reform of the Supreme Court. I have long advocated an enforceable system of judicial ethics.  The apology today should not detract from the need to have such a system.  The Supreme Court is the only part of our federal government that has no enforceable ethical code.  This is not the first such violation by a member of the Court. Indeed, a majority of justices have been accused of ethical violations.

I also hope that the incident will force greater circumspection on the part of Ginsburg and her colleagues over their growing public appearances and speeches.  I have been a long critic of what I have called the “celebrity justice” model of the modern Court.  The corrosive effect of such public engagements is evident in the unethical statements made by Justice Ginsburg.”

…Continue reading @ https://jonathanturley.org with comments.

Trump on Supreme Court Decision On Immigration – ‘An Amazing Day for the Constitution’ | June 2016

Trump:  SCOTUS decision a Great victory for the Constitution

– Youtube

…More @ Youtube

– Even with only four votes, the Supreme Court sent President Barack Obama a strong message that his unconstitutional power grab around Congress and the Constitution was a bridge too far.

In affirming the federal injunction against implementing DAPA and expanding DACA, the Court upheld the principle that only Congress can make the laws. Expanding benefits and citizenship rights to parents who brought their children to the USA illegally, was in fact the Court decided, making law.

What is frightening is that four justices tried to uphold the notion that the president can unilaterally by executive order, expand rights and benefits to individuals that Congress has made no express law or appropriation for.

Moreover, what was not ruled on but required if you don’t get Congress’ expressed permission, is the moving around of budget appropriations from designated accounts to undesignated accounts by the Executive. How else do you pay for unapproved expenses? This Obama Administration policy is clearly unconstitutional and needs correction./CJ

 

 

President Obama just gave $500 million of Your Money to the UN Green Fund

– Youtube

Senate Foreign Relations Committee March 8, 2016

According to The Guardian;

Obama administration pays out $500m to climate change project The first chunk of a $3bn commitment made at the Paris climate talks ‘shows the US stands squarely behind climate commitments’, the State Department said Administration officials said the initial $500m payment to the Green Climate Fund demonstrated that Obama would follow through on the promises of last December’s Paris climate agreement – despite February’s setback at the supreme court and threats by Republican presidential candidates to dismantle Obama’s agenda.

“Today, the United States provided a $500m grant to the Green Climate Fund,” a state department official said. “This grant is the first step toward meeting the president’s commitment of $3bn to the GCF, and shows that the United States stands squarely behind our international climate commitments.”

Read more @ the Guardian

 – So, instead of government by legal custom, rules, hearings, Congressional appropriations, transparency and executive approval, we now have government by ‘legal counsel’ telling clueless political appointees, what they can and can’t do, but don’t tell Congress.

Note that at 2:19 of the video, the DC bureaucrat, Heather Higginbottom, who has been pretty arrogant with the senator up to then,  actually shouts him down./CJ

 

A Blast from the Past…… Dec 2015

 

Paul Ryan Betrays America: $1.1 Trillion, 2,000-Plus Page Omnibus Bill Funds ‘Fundamental Transformation of America’

– Breitbart

AP_48283316-640x480

“Paul Ryan’s first major legislative achievement is a total and complete sell-out of the American people masquerading as an appropriations bill.

Too harsh, you say? Let the programs, the spending, and the implications speak for themselves.

(1) Ryan’s Omnibus Fully Funds DACA

Though much of the public attention has surrounded the President’s 2014 executive amnesty, the President’s 2012 amnesty quietly continues to churn out work permits and federal benefits for hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens. Paul Ryan’s bill funds entirely this 2012 executive amnesty for “DREAMers”—or illegal immigrants who came to the country as minors.

Specifically, Division F of Ryan’s omnibus bill contains no language that would prohibit the use of funds to continue the President’s unconstitutional program. Obama’s executive action, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), has granted around 700,000 illegal aliens with work permits, as well as the ability to receive tax credits and federal entitlement programs. A recent GAO report documented how this illegal amnesty program for alien youth is, in large part, responsible for the illegal alien minor surge on our southern border.

In 2013, Paul Ryan said that it is his job as a U.S. lawmaker to put himself in the shoes of “the DREAMer who is waiting” and work to find legislative solutions to his or her problems.

(2) Ryan’s Omnibus Funds Sanctuary Cities

Five months ago, 32-year-old Kate Steinle was bleeding to death in her father’s arms. She was gunned down in broad daylight by a five-time deported criminal alien whose presence in the country was the direct result of San Francisco’s refusal to comply with U.S. immigration law—yet Paul Ryan’s omnibus rewards these lawless Sanctuary Cities with federal grants. Division B Title II of Ryan’s omnibus funds various grant programs for the Department of Justice (pages 167, 168, and 169) and contains no language that would restrict the provision of such grants to sanctuary jurisdictions.

In a Congressional hearing, Steinle’s father demanded Congressional action and recalled his daughter’s dying words: “Help me, Dad.”

(3) Ryan’s Omnibus Funds All Refugee Programs

Despite broad support amongst Republican lawmakers for a proposal introduced by Brian Babin to halt all refugee resettlement, Ryan’s appropriations bill will fund President Obama’s refugee resettlement operation and will allow for the admission of tens of thousands of refugees with access to federal benefits. Division H Title II of Ryan’s bill contains appropriations of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and contains no language that would restrict the program. Nor are there any restrictions for the program in Division K of Ryan’s bill, which provides funding for the Department of State, which oversees refugee admissions.

Ryan is not one of the 84 cosponsors of Babin’s bill to halt the refugee operation, and he recently told Sean Hannity that he does not support halting resettlement because, “We’re a compassionate country. The refugees laws are important laws.” Similarly, this outcome represents a legislative win for Marco Rubio, who told Sean Hannity he’d “hate to use” Congress’s power of the purse to deny funding for Obama’s resettlement operation. 

(4) Ryan’s Omnibus Funds All of the Mideast Immigration Programs That Have Been Exploited by Terrorists in Recent Years 

Although multiple immigrant and visa programs in recent years have been exploited by terrorists (such as the F-1 “student” visa, the K-1 “fiancée” visa, and our green card and refugee programs), Ryan’s proposal does nothing to limit admissions from jihadist-prone regions. As Senators Shelby and Sessions of Alabama noted in a joint statement: “The omnibus would put the U.S. on a path to approve admission for hundreds of thousands of migrants from a broad range of countries with jihadists movements over the next 12 months, on top of all the other autopilot annual immigration.”

(5) Ryan’s Omnibus Funds Illegal Alien Resettlement

On page 917 of Ryan’s omnibus a section titled “Refugee and Entrant Assistance” funds the President’s resettlement of illegal immigrant border crossers.

(6) Ryan’s Omnibus Funds the Release of Criminal Aliens

Senior legislative aides tell Breitbart News that Ryan’s bill does not do anything to change the enforcement priorities that Jeh Johnson established a little over a year ago that would shield entire categories of criminal aliens from immigration law, nor does it include language recommended by Sessions and Shelby to “deny the expenditure of funds to issue visas to countries that refuse to repatriate criminal aliens.”

(7) Ryan’s Omnibus Quadruples H-2B Foreign Worker Visas 

Despite Ryan’s pledge not to move an immigration compromise with President Obama, tucked 700 pages into Ryan’s spending bill is language that would resuscitate and expand a controversial provision of the Schumer-Rubio Gang of Eight plan to increase the H-2B visa program.

The provision “would quadruple the number of H-2B visas for unskilled guest workers, for a total of more than 250,000,” writes immigration attorney Ian Smith. The Americans who fill these jobs are typically “society’s most vulnerable — including single women, the disabled, the elderly, minorities, teenagers, students, and first-generation immigrants,”  Smith explains.

A recent BuzzFeed exposé revealed how this program allows businesses to discriminate against American workers and “deliberately den[y] jobs to American workers so they can hire foreign workers on H-2 visas instead.” As one GOP aide told Breitbart News, “This provision is a knife in the heart of the working class, and African Americans.”

(8) Ryan’s Omnibus Funds Tax Credits for Illegal Aliens

Ryan’s bill preserves the expansion of the President’s expiring child tax credits without any accompanying language to prevent illegal aliens from receiving those tax credits. While Sen. Sessions attempted to include language in the bill that would prevent illegal immigrants from receiving tax credits, his recommendation was rejected.”

…More @ Breitbart Dec 2015