That time Bill Maher wished economic misery on Americans for political gain || Trish Regan
That time Bill Maher wished economic misery on Americans for political gain || Trish Regan
“President Donald Trump’s riveting spectacle of televised bipartisanship exposed the Democrats’ political weakness in the amnesty debate — and also revealed remarkable GOP unity on the goal of ending the nation’s chain-migration system.
Time after time, Democrats pleaded for a quick passage of unpopular ‘dreamer’ amnesty while also promising a later-meaning-never debate over popular immigration reforms, such as the elimination of the visa-lottery and the chain-migration system, which doubles the annual inflow of legal immigrants.
Time after time, in contrast, GOP leaders wrapped themselves in sympathy for the 670,000 DACA illegals while insisting that Congress must implement Trump’s popular policies by ending the huge visa-lottery and chain-migration programs which are slowly but steadily freezing Americans’ wages while turning Republican states blue.
A key moment came when Trump invited GOP Majority leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy to shut down the Democrats’ demand for a quick amnesty by touting the president’s immigration priorities as a must-do item:
[Democrat] SENATOR FEINSTEIN: … What about a clean DACA bill now, with a commitment that we go into a comprehensive immigration reform procedure? Like we did back — oh, I remember when [Sen. Ted] Kennedy was here and it was really a major, major effort, and it was a great disappointment that it went nowhere … Would you be agreeable to that?
THE PRESIDENT: I think a lot of people would like to see that, but I think we have to do DACA first.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTHY: Mr. President, you need to be clear though. I think what Senator [Diane] Feinstein is asking here: When we talk about just DACA, we don’t want to be back here two years later. We have to have security, as the Secretary would tell you … But, let’s be honest. Security was voted on just a few years ago [in 2013], and, no disrespect, there’s people in the room on the other side of the aisle who voted for it. If I recall, Senator [Hillary] Clinton voted for it. So I don’t think that’s comprehensive; I think that’s dealing with DACA at the same time. I think that’s really what the President is making.
It’s kind of like three pillars: DACA, because we’re all in the room want to do it; border security, so we’re not back out here; and chain migration. It’s just three items, and then everything else that’s comprehensive is kind of moved to the side…
THE PRESIDENT: And the lottery.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTHY: And the lottery.
The GOP’s new agreement with Trump’s pro-American goals allows him to ostentatiously delegate the task of negotiating the legislation to a bipartisan group of legislators, knowing that he is only going to get back a bill that he likes. He said:
I will say, when this group comes back — hopefully with an agreement — this group and others from the Senate, from the House, comes back with an agreement, I’m signing it. I mean, I will be signing it. I’m not going to say, “Oh, gee, I want this or I want that.” I’ll be signing it, because I have a lot of confidence in the people in this room that they’re going to come up with something really good.”
Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin quickly argued that Trump’s priorities were too time-consuming to debate, so Congress should just rubber-stamp a quick amnesty — with a few token provisions on the border, chain-migration and the visa lottery. For example, Durbin’s allies have suggested a meaningless tweak of chain-migration laws for green card-holders, and for conversion of the visa-lottery into green-cards for migrants with “Temporary Protected Status.”
But he was contradicted by McCarthy’s ally, GOP Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the chairman of the House judiciary committee, who is expected to unveil a Trump-approved and McCarthy-backed immigration bill on Tuesday.
SENATOR DURBIN: You said at the outset that we need to phase this … We have a deadline looming and a lot of lives hanging. We can agree on some very fundamental and important things together on border security, on chain, on the future of diversity visas. Comprehensive, though, I worked on it for six months [in 2013] … and it took us six months to put it together. We don’t have six months for the DACA bill.
[Goodlatte]: We’re not talking about comprehensive immigration. Take a look at our bill and let’s talk some …
SENATOR DURBIN: You’ve mentioned a number of factors that are going to be controversial, as [Democratcic Rep.] Steny [Hoyer] has mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: But you’re going to negotiate. Dick, you’re going to negotiate. Maybe we will agree and maybe we won’t. I mean, it’s possible we’re not going to agree with you and it’s possible we will, but there should be no reason for us not to get this done.
Democrats at the event were defensive because many polls show why they cannot defend their cheap-labor goals in public, nor can they make a direct threat to shut down the government if they do not get their amnesty.
Throughout the televised event, Trump played the role of even-handed moderator, even as he repeatedly invited Republicans to show unity behind his popular immigration principles, including the border wall. For example, he declared that Democrats do not disagree with his goal of ending chain-migration — which is actually a foundation of the Democrats’ political strategy because it delivered a huge flow of government-dependent voters to the polling booths.”
…Continue reading more @ Breitbart
|| NY Times
“WASHINGTON — President Trump has decided to release a final batch of thousands of classified government documents related to the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Mr. Trump announced in a tweet on Saturday morning.
“Subject to the receipt of further information, I will be allowing, as President, the long blocked and classified JFK FILES to be opened,” Mr. Trump said on Twitter.
The release of the information being held in secret at the National Archives — including several thousand never-before-seen documents — was mandated to occur by Oct. 26 under a 1992 law that sought to quell conspiracy theories about the assassination.
Mr. Trump has the power to block the release of the documents, and intelligence agencies have pressured him to do so for at least some of them. The agencies are concerned that information contained in some of the documents could damage national security interests.
“The president believes that these documents should be made available in the interests of full transparency unless agencies provide a compelling and clear national security or law enforcement justification otherwise,” the statement said.
It is not known what revelations might be contained in the unreleased documents, though researchers and authors of books about Kennedy say they do not expect any bombshells that significantly alter the official narrative of the assassination — that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in Dallas — delivered in 1964 by the Warren Commission.
But the documents are likely to “help fuel a new generation of conspiracy theories,” according to Philip Shenon, a former New York Times reporter and the author of a book about the commission, and Larry J. Sabato, a University of Virginia professor and author of a book about Kennedy, who wrote a recent article about the documents in Politico.”
….Continue reading more @ NY Times
|| Wall Street Journal
“By Michael Wursthorn / WSJ
Shares of cable providers and entertainment companies in the U.S. are suffering their worst stretch in nearly two years, as traditional players struggle to adapt to a shift toward streaming services.
Americans are ditching television subscriptions in favor of viewing movies and TV shows through online services. The move disrupts a delicate ecosystem of media companies sustaining themselves on subscription fees from pay-TV providers, and echoes Amazon.com Inc.’s upending of the brick-and-mortar retail landscape.
This development, along with disruptions related to major summer storms, has been pushing down stocks of major cable and broadcast companies.
In a sign of the diverging fortunes, Roku Inc., an early player in streaming television, priced its initial public offering late Wednesday. The IPO price valued the company at about $1.3 billion, according to a person familiar with the deal.
A group of 13 media companies in the S&P 500 have fallen 3.5% so far in September, on track for its steepest monthly decline since December 2015, while the S&P 500 has gained 1.4%.
Media shares got a bit of a reprieve Wednesday, rising 1% in their biggest gain since late July as the group joined an upswing in the broader market. Doug Mitchelson, a media analyst with UBS Group AG, attributed the gains to the Republican tax overhaul, which was unveiled Wednesday and proposed sharply reduced tax rates on businesses and many individuals.
“One of the top reasons for cord-cutting is affordability,” said Mr. Mitchelson. “A healthier consumer is a better spender for media companies.”
A selloff in the sector gathered pace on Sept. 7, when two industry giants gave updates that disappointed investors. Comcast Corp. said it expects to lose as many as 150,000 video subscribers in the third quarter.
“There’s a general level of concern around the major media companies having to do with cord-cutting and audience trends,” said Bryan Kraft, a media analyst with Deutsche Bank. “Those concerns aren’t new, but when there’s data to support they’re getting worse, you tend to see the stocks react accordingly.”
Even as the media sector over all holds on to gains for the year, up 3.9%, analysts say shares could slide further as companies cope with greater competition from rivals who are stepping up spending on content creation, such as Netflix Inc. and Apple Inc., as well as a challenging ratings environment.
National Football League games, usually considered a reliable draw for TV viewers and ad dollars, have been another headache for media companies. Ratings for this season’s NFL games have been mostly flat or down, compared with the year-earlier period, said analysts, who added that disruptions wrought by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma could be partly to blame.
NFL ratings could also be affected by players’ national anthem protests after President Donald Trump blasted players who participated. DirecTV is letting at least some customers cancel subscriptions to its Sunday ticket package of NFL games and obtain refunds if they cite the protests as the reason.
“These extraordinary hurricanes have had a pretty severe impact on viewership, but it’s difficult to quantify” the impact from those storms alone, said Mr. Mitchelson. “Investors are nervous NFL ratings could end up down for the season.”
Besides that, new online “skinny bundles”—slimmed-down packages of channels from the likes of Hulu and YouTube TV—have left out many cable channels that are part of the traditional bundle. That will put pressure on some channel owners as more consumers sign up for those services, said Mr. Kraft, the media analyst at Deutsche Bank.
“Those services are seeing a lot of subscriber growth,” Mr. Kraft said, although he added the exact size of that population is hard to peg since some companies don’t release specific numbers.
Still, analysts pointed to Charter Communications Inc. as a bright spot among the media landscape. The company last year bought Time Warner Cable Inc. and Bright House Networks, making it one of the largest cable operators in the U.S.
|| 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
“Below is my column in USA Today on the role that statements from both President Barack Obama and Donald Trump could feature greatly in the unfolding litigation over the rescinding of the DACA order. Ironically, it will be the opposing sides relying on the respective statements from these presidents.
Here is the column.
For Justice Department lawyers, this week must have a maddening familiarity.
The lawyers are in court defending President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. They are also looking at a challenge by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and others to President Trump’s rescission of DACA.
Key to both cases is the doctrine of the separation of powers. Tuesday, the administration staked out the position that DACA was constitutionally flawed as a circumvention of the legislative branch. However, that position was less than 10 hours old when Trump posted a tweet that directly contradicted the legal position of his own administration. Trump suggested that he might reissue DACA or a similar program if Congress does not act — effectively same position as Obama.
It was an all-too-familiar position for the Justice Department. Earlier this year, presidential tweets and comments directly contradicted arguments being used to defend Trump’s immigration ban in court. Those tweets were then used by various courts in rulings against the administration.
However, there is a twist this time. The expected litigation over DACA’s rescission could feature not one but two presidents as witnesses against their own positions: Trump and Obama.
After Attorney General Jeff Sessions quoted from my prior work on the separation of powers in his announcement rescinding DACA, I have certainly heard from many angry people who were aghast that my work would support such a result. It does. As a Madisonian scholar, I believe strongly in clear lines of separation of powers and the need to restore legislative authority after years of unilateral presidential actions. I also happen to support protections for “dreamers,” whose parents brought them here illegally when they were young children. In the end, it was not the merits but the means behind Obama’s program that ran afoul of the Constitution. Regardless of how one feels about amnesty programs, Trump returned DACA to the place it should have remained: in Congress.
Sessions laid out that principled position in favor of the legislative process mandated by the Framers. Yet no sooner had the attorney general explained that position when the president tweeted, “Congress now has six months to legalize DACA (something the Obama administration was unable to do). If they can’t, I will revisit this issue!”
The tweet was widely interpreted to mean that Trump is prepared to do exactly what Sessions said was unconstitutionally done by the Obama administration: Issue an executive action to protect DACA immigrants.
It is hard to see how “revisit” does not mean “reissue.” If so, the tweet undermines the position of the administration in court over DACA and takes away constitutional high ground claimed by Sessions. In the pending litigation, plaintiffs can now argue that DACA is not really dead, and that the president was not serious about leaving it entirely to Congress.
Likewise, any challenge by Schneiderman and others can now cite the tweet as evidence that the separation of powers concerns were not the motivation for the president. Rather, they will argue that Trump, like Obama, has suggested that he could order the same relief if Congress does not yield to his demands.
The tweet also undermined the legislative strategy of the administration. The pressure to get Congress to act seemed to be working after Sessions’ announcement. Many Republicans saw the political costs of the termination of DACA as worse than the costs for passing some protection for these individuals. As soon as that pressure seemed to be motivating members toward action, the tweet reduced that pressure by suggesting that Trump would not allow the program to truly die.
Conversely, Schneiderman and the challengers have their own inconvenient presidential statements to contend with. Some expect challengers to bring a case under the Administrative Procedure Act as a “substantive” (or “legislative”) rule requiring a notice-and-comment period. Putting aside that the rule does not require such a process for “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice,” Schneiderman and his other challengers never went to court to challenge DACA itself on the same grounds. DACA notably did not go through notice or comment.
Finally, not only can the Justice Department argue that the procedural rule does not apply to a president as a non-agency, the memo creating DACA stated, “This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship.”
Likewise, where Trump’s tweets and comments are likely, again, to feature prominently in litigation, Obama’s statements are likely to be equally problematic for challengers. Some challengers are suggesting that DACA may be permanent because of the “estoppel doctrine” — arguing that dreamers relied on the government promise that they could remain.
However, in his issuing of the DACA order, Obama expressly stated that it is “not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure.” Obama also said he could not change federal immigration law through his executive orders.
Thus, Obama and his administration are on record undermining claims under both the procedural rule and estoppel. Ultimately, the challengers will be in the unenviable position of arguing that Trump’s rescinding DACA requires notice and comment when Obama’s implementation of DACA did not.
Moreover, challengers are suggesting that Obama had inherent presidential authority to bar the enforcement of federal law, but that Trump cannot use the same authority to enforce it. Finally, they will have to argue that people already in this country unlawfully have an enforceable promise despite Obama saying that he could not change the law or make any permanent promises.
The deepening uncertainty over presidential statements and the status of DACA only reinforces the wisdom of the Framers in forcing such major decisions into the legislative process. What we need is additional legislation, not proclamations. Otherwise, the upcoming litigation is going to get awfully confusing.
Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.”
…Continue reading more @ JonathanTurley.org
|| Daily Caller
“The University of California became the first college Friday to sue the Trump administration over its decision to rollback the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
UC president Janet Napolitano, who helped form the DACA program in 2012, filed the lawsuit in a federal court, alleging that the Trump administration’s decision violated the rights of the students who participate in the program, reports KTVU.
“Neither I, nor the University of California, take the step of suing the federal government lightly, especially not the very agency that I led,” Napolitano said. “It is imperative, however, that we stand up for these vital members of the UC community. To arbitrarily and capriciously end the DACA program, which benefits our country as a whole, is not only unlawful, it is contrary to our national values and bad policy.”
Napolitano was serving as the secretary of the Department of Homeland during the Obama administration when she helped form DACA, which gives children brought to the United States illegally two year work permits to stay in the country. The Trump administration announced Tuesday that they would be rescinding the program with a six month delay in order to allow Congress time to act if they want.
Napolitano’s lawsuit argues that rolling back DACA will harm the University of California by taking away productive students and that the Trump administration did not take the proper steps when deciding to cancel the program.
“The University has constitutionally-protected interests in the multiple educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. If these students leave the University before completing their education, UC will lose the benefits it derives from their contributions, as well as the value of the time and money it invested in these students,” the lawsuit says.
There are currently 800,000 illegal immigrants who receive DACA in the United States. Approximately 4,000 illegal immigrant students attend the UC campus, a good portion of which are students who are on DACA.”
…Continue reading more @ Daily Caller
|| Hot Air
“The point I’m trying to illustrate here is that fairness in immigration policy has to be understood in the context of scarcity. The demand for U.S. residency, given how wealthy the country is, vastly outstrips the supply of immigration spots that America offers or can realistically offer. Moreover, no country on earth has a fully open-borders policy as a matter of law.
The question of justice that arises, then, is this: Is it fair to all those people who want to come to the U.S. but cannot (owing to oceans and immigration laws) that people in violation of U.S. immigration law are allowed to stay? You might say that the fact that DACA-eligible individuals were brought as children defeats these considerations of fairness. But what of the millions of Bangladeshi children, many of whom have nothing but a sweatshop to look forward to? They would have loved to grow up in the U.S.
And what of the children who were brought into the U.S. legally? DACA offers no protections to such individuals. Many of the visas the U.S. offers, including the F-1 student visa and the H1-B, are temporary, and many children are brought to the U.S. as dependents by parents who have such visas. Such a child can be in the same situation as a DACA recipient: She grew up mostly in the U.S., but would have to leave once her parents’ visa runs out.”
….Continue reading more @ Hot Air
“A video posted to YouTube on Wednesday shows a mysterious white car speeding out of the woods just as President Trump’s limo was passing by in Springfield, MO. The car makes hard contact with the concrete drain and quickly pulls over to the shoulder.
“Oh my gosh! Look at that car that just came out of the woods,” said one of the men watching as President Trump’s limo passed by.
“That car right there just drove out of the woods!”, the man repeated.
What appear to be Secret Service agents then did a U-turn and exited their truck to engage the people inside the white car.”
….Continue reading more @ TGP