It escapes me why Planned Parenthood should be getting tax dollars to operate as it is not in the best interests of women and more importantly, it is a moral question as to why it can't operate at all without federal funds.
And yet here it is at a convention for women that excludes some women because they are seen as not equal in stature and motivation. Progressive liberals are all about inclusion and diversity, right?
Apparently not. All smoke and mirrors? But who knew.
Women’s Convention Attendees Criticize Leadership for Excluding Conservatives Kelsey Harkness / @kelseyjharkness /
DETROIT—At the first-ever Women’s Convention, organized by leaders of the Women’s March, the topic of abortion was front and center. The Daily Signal interviewed attendees of the event, held Friday through Sunday, who shared their thoughts on pro-life women and whether they think Women’s March leaders should make an effort to include the voices of conservative women.
Oh my gosh - the progressive socialist liberals have concluded that the electoral college is biased but not racist? Whoa! Have things changed that much since yesterday when everything spoken by a Republicans or Conservatives was a 'dog whistle' for racism? But take a minute and give this some serious thought, how could the electoral college is biased with it being a tool of the people themselves from all over the country that levels the playing field? Everyone is evolved in the outcome of the electoral college. Isn't about leveling the playing field for the democrats? Isn't about fairness? What the progressives are so angry about it that the socialist democrats control the big cities with the large voting populations that are invested mostly in one single factor for voting democrat, promised social serves for the disadvantaged and power brokers accessibility to government law makers. With the progressive liberals winning the popular vote because of the huge population in the large cites that always vote democrat, but losing the election to the unwashed heartland because of the electoral college is unacceptable.
Progressives believe it is their right to rule the lower classes, the ignorant and uninformed must be directed as to how they must think and live.There can be no other way. Liberals Claim Electoral College Is Biased. Here Are the Facts. Tara Ross /@TaraRoss/
In 1824, Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams were both members of the same political party. But in every other election with a discrepancy between the electoral and popular votes, the losing candidate has been the Democrat.
Odd coincidence? Or is the Electoral College biased against the Democratic Party? Democratic President Barack Obama seemed to imply just that in a December 2016 press conference: “The Electoral College is a vestige,” he told reporters. “It’s a carry-over. … [T]here are some structures in our political system, as envisioned by the Founders, that sometimes are going to disadvantage Democrats.”
It’s a funny thing to say, of course. Republicans have spent years bemoaning the huge lead that Democrats have enjoyed in the Electoral College.
The so-called “blue wall” was thought to be impenetrable, apparently giving Democrats an advantage before voting even started. Pundits claimed that Democrats would begin 2016 with a head start of at least 217 electoral votes—and perhaps as many as 249.
“No matter whom Republicans nominate to face Hillary Rodham Clinton in November 2016,” one columnist at The Washington Post wrote, “that candidate will start at a disadvantage. It’s not polling, Clinton’s deep résumé, or the improving state of the economy. It’s the Electoral College.”
Another political scientist made a similar prediction in 2014. Benjamin Highton, a professor at the University of California, Davis claimed that the Democratic tilt in the Electoral College was so heavy that a Republican would be unlikely to win the 2016 election unless that Republican first won the national popular vote by at least 1 or 2 percentage points.
Such results naturally resurrect the question: Is the Electoral College biased against Democrats? Or did Democrats simply blow their lead by taking voters for granted? If Democrats did indeed blow their lead, then they were merely repeating a mistake that the Republican Party made in the 1990s.
After the Reagan years, it was said that Republicans had a “lock” on the Electoral College. At least 21 states, including California, were consistently voting Republican. How could Democrats hope to compete?
Bill Clinton soon found a way, of course. He turned California and eight other states blue for the first time since 1964. Other presidents have accomplished similar feats. In 1952, Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower won 16 states that hadn’t voted Republican since 1928 and two others that hadn’t voted Republican since 1924. Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, of course, demolished a North-South divide that had persisted, for the most part, since the Civil War. In 1936, he won every state except Maine and Vermont.
The reality is that any “bias” in the Electoral College does not consistently favor or disfavor either of the political parties. To the degree that there are biases, they are short-lived.
States change their allegiances fairly consistently. Party allegiance is like a pendulum, slowly swinging back and forth, first appearing to favor the one party, and then appearing to favor the other.
The tension in the system reflects the constant, healthy competition between the two parties: Each is always trying to outperform the other by capturing the large bloc of voters in the middle of American politics.
A careful study of history reveals that the Electoral College is neither pro-Democrat nor pro-Republican. It simply rewards the candidate who appears to be listening to the greatest cross-section of people at any given time.
Obama complained that the system put Democrats at a disadvantage, but he came closer to the truth when he concluded, “[I]f we have a strong message, if we’re speaking to what the American people care about, typically the popular vote and the Electoral College vote will align.” This excerpt was taken with permission from Tara Ross’ book, “The Indispensable Electoral College: How the Founders’ Plan Saves Our Country from Mob Rule” (Regnery Gateway, 2017).
And speaking of what is immoral and outrageous to the senses of those of us down here in the trenches, this is a gut wrenching acknowledgement of the absolute ignorance of our history and worse, a willing compliance to the demands of a criminal ideology, progressive socialist liberalism that seeks to destroy our way of life as founded more then 240 years ago. And now we are expected to just roll over and accept this maliciously tortured and depraved 'new wave' insanity that's trotted out as 'all inclusive and diverse' is in fact a sinister movement to subject, force the country into bending the knee to totalitarian powers of the few. How is it that this is what we told the English back in 1776 that we would no long bend the knee to the powers of ignorance and authoritarian indifference. And yet here they are, demonstrating an immoral weakness as they willingly bend the knee to the unscrupulous and unethical bastards of the socialist left disciples of pathological hate for individual freedom and liberty. Is there no end to this?? Who are these people? Where do they come from? They surely can't be from around here. George Washington’s Church Is Going to Rip Out His Memorial Will Racke /@hwillracke/
The Virginia church that George Washington attended for two decades plans to tear out a memorial to the nation’s first president because the plaque could make some worshipers feel “unsafe or unwelcome.”
Christ Church in Alexandria, Virginia, where Washington became a founding member in 1773, will remove his memorial and a similar one to Robert E. Lee, The Washington Times reported. Church leaders say the memorials, which sit to the left and right of the altar, have become too divisive and might be discouraging parishioners from attending services.
“The plaques in our sanctuary make some in our presence feel unsafe or unwelcome,” the church leaders said, according to The Washington Times. “Some visitors and guests who worship with us choose not to return because they receive an unintended message from the prominent presence of the plaques.”
The church’s decision to remove the plaques puts it at the center of a nationwide debate over the display of memorials to important American historical figures whose acts or statements didn’t comport with today’s social norms. Many groups have protested against public memorials to Confederate generals, such as Lee, and also to transformative presidents, such as Washington, Andrew Jackson, and even Abraham Lincoln.
The memorials at Christ Church in Alexandria were placed at the same time in 1870, months after Lee’s death. City residents chipped in for the plaques for both leaders, whose families had for many years been generous donors to the church’s endowment.
The Rev. Noelle York-Simmons, rector of the church, told The Washington Times the decision to take down the memorials was made by “unanimous vote” of the vestry, or church leadership committee. Church leaders say the plaques will come down by next summer, but no decision has been made as to how they will be displayed in another part of the church grounds.
“The new display location will be determined by a parish committee,” York-Simmons said. “That location will provide a place for our parish to offer a fuller narrative of our rich history, including the influence of these two powerful men on our church and our country.” Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
The obstruction that has taken over for ''loyal opposition'' from the progressive socialist liberal democrats is not only contemptuous for the rights of the nominees, but dangerously subservient to the darkness of hate and ignorance that is so prevalent among democrats for the rule of law and specifically our Constitution. The grilling of a nominee for her religious believes is so telling from the likes of Diane Feinstein and Al Franken, both totally capitulating to the agenda and ideology of progressive socialist liberalism that touts religious belief as a weakness of character.
This is outrageously unethical, shameless and immoral behavior at best, and the support for a malfeasance criminal ideology at it's worst!Little wonder then why our government is spiraling our country into decline when the only god worth serving is the god of an all powerful authoritarian government.
I love this one as a sign post from the break in the clouds of ignorance and pestilence we are witnessing in our society, "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." ~ George Orwell McConnell Readies Senate Confirmation Votes for 4 Appeals Judges Kevin Daley / @kevindaleydc /
Senate Republicans are heading into four votes this week to confirm appeals court judges.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell served notice late last week that the Senate will consider four of President Donald Trump’s nominees to federal circuit courts, the powerful appeals panels that give the final word on the overwhelming majority of cases in U.S. courts.
The nominees are:
—Michigan Supreme Court Justice Joan Larsen for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Cincinnati-based appeals court.
—Colorado Supreme Court Justice Allison Eid for the 10th Circuit, the Denver-based appeals court.
—Notre Dame Law School professor Amy Coney Barrett for the 7th Circuit, the Chicago-based appeals court.
—University of Pennsylvania Law School professor Stephanos Bibas for the 3rd Circuit, the Philadelphia-based appeals court.
Larsen was among 21 candidates included on Trump’s list of possible Supreme Court nominees during the 2016 presidential election. She is widely seen as a front-runner for the president’s next appointment to the high court.
Speaking Thursday on the Senate floor, McConnell, R-Ky., lavished praise on the nominees and vowed swift confirmations. “President Trump has done a terrific job of nominating judges who are already helping to restore the courts to their intended function in our system of government,” McConnell said. “The nominees we will consider next week are sure to do the same.”
Two of the nominees, Barrett and Bibas, were subjected to intense criticism by Senate Democrats.
During Barrett’s confirmation hearing Sept. 6, several Democrats on the Judiciary Committee suggested that her orthodox religious views would preclude her from effectively discharging her judicial duties. Barrett, a Roman Catholic, has produced scholarship concerning the ethical obligations of Catholic judges.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, argued that Barrett’s writings betray a rigid religious ideologue ill-suited for a judicial post.
“When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said. “And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.” Two other Democrats, Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, reiterated her concerns.
Feinstein’s remarks, first reported by The Daily Caller News Foundation, were roundly condemned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, while something of a pro-Barrett cottage industry has promoted novelty items supporting her confirmation. McConnell accused Democrats of applying a religious litmus test against the Notre Dame professor. “Amy Barrett happens to be a nominee who is a Catholic, and who speaks freely and openly about her faith and its importance to her,” McConnell said. “For some on the left, that seems to be a disqualifying factor for her nomination.”
The Senate majority leader added that he expects Barrett will be confirmed as soon as Monday.
Barrett and Larsen cleared the Judiciary Committee on party line votes Oct. 5. Bibas received similarly coarse treatment from committee Democrats, particularly Durbin.
The Illinois Democrat savaged the professor for exploring the merits of corporal punishment in the penal system— including electric shock therapy—in an unpublished 2009 journal article. Bibas has disavowed what he characterizes as an ill-advised thought experiment, and is widely seen as a thoughtful scholar by criminal justice experts across the political spectrum. Still, Durbin vehemently denounced his nomination. “Please, before you vote to give this professor a lifetime appointment to the second-highest court in the land, read what he has written and ask yourself the honest question, Democrat or Republican,” he said. “Seriously? Are we going to vote this man into this position?”
The confirmation votes may go some distance in soothing conservative anxieties about the sluggish pace of judicial confirmations in the early months of the Trump administration. Commentary: Why Trump’s Appeals Court Nominees Are Backed Up in the Senate
Though the president has named some 50 judicial nominees since taking office Jan. 20, the Senate has confirmed just seven thus far, including Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Currently, 150 vacancies exist across the federal courts, according to the Judicial Conference of the United States.
Elizabeth Slattery, a legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation who writes frequently about judicial confirmations and the Supreme Court, called McConnell’s actions encouraging. But Slattery cautioned that Senate Republicans should move at a faster clip, given the scale of the vacancies.
“It’s encouraging to see Majority Leader McConnell follow through on his promise to make judicial nominations a top priority,” she said, adding:
These four individuals will be excellent additions to the federal bench. But other nominees, like [Minnesota Supreme Court Justice] David Stras [for the 8th Circuit], are still waiting for a hearing. There’s a lot of work to be done to fill the more than 150 vacancies on our federal courts.
Trump nominated Barrett, Bibas, Eid, and Larsen for vacancies in states with at least one Democratic senator. Though those Democrats allowed their nominations to proceed by returning “blue slips” to the Judiciary Committee, it isn’t clear whether any of the candidates will win significant support from Democrats. All four nominees are expected to win confirmation. Commentary: McConnell Correct in Seeking to Ditch Blue Slip for Judicial Nominees
It's just mind boggling, disturbing and scary (fearful) just how corrupt Barak and his criminal friends in the progressive socialist liberal democrat collective (Formerly called A political party) were and are to this day, which includes the IRS, the DOJ and the FBI in the past, and now the FBI again with the collusion of the democrats and Russia.
And don't forget Barack's EPA and how they laundered money from tax payers with the scam of supposed finding illegal operations in liberal corporations and businesses, but were then found not to be illegal, who knew? and then settled out of court with the EPA sending tax dollars to their progressive friends. Criminal!
Never vote democrat, ever! They want to do us harm.
Senate Eyes Permanent Ban on Justice Department ‘Slush Fund’ for Political Friends Kevin Mooney / @KevinMooneyDC /
Legislation to codify the U.S. attorney general’s recent ban on diverting millions in legal settlements to outside groups is now in the Senate’s court, following last week’s House action.
The Justice Department practice, widely criticized as a $1 billion “slush fund” benefiting liberal advocacy groups in the last 30 months of the Obama administration alone, would be outlawed under the House bill.
Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., is the sponsor of the Senate version of legislation to prohibit U.S. government officials from creating and enforcing settlement agreements with corporations and other entities that steer funds in the form of donations to third-party, special-interest groups.
Lankford, who introduced his bill in February, co-sponsored similar legislation last year.
Financial institutions that entered into settlements with the Obama Justice Department included Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., and JPMorgan Chase. A joint investigation by the House Judiciary and Financial Services committees pried loose internal documents on the Justice Department practice during the administrations of Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush.
In a June 5 memorandum to every U.S. attorney and each major component of the Justice Department, Attorney General Jeff Sessions revised settlement policy to bar the practice of making payments to third parties that aren’t directly victimized in a particular case. The House bill, sponsored by Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and passed Oct. 24 by a vote of 238-183, would make clear that settlement funds go to the U.S. Treasury, as would the Senate bill.
“An investigation by the House Judiciary Committee last Congress revealed the Department of Justice’s abuse of power: using settlement agreements to direct money away from victims toward organizations of their choosing and away from those they disliked,” Goodlatte said, adding:
DOJ’s actions contradict the spending power given explicitly to the legislative branch and undermine Congress’ most effective tool to hold the executive branch accountable. Regardless of which party is in the White House, subverting Congress to funnel money to outside organizations is unacceptable and unconstitutional.
As Heritage Foundation expert Paul Larkin, one of several government watchdogs to expose the practice, wrote in June of Sessions’ move to end the practice:
It might seem strange to see a headline stating that the U.S. attorney general has stopped the Justice Department from robbing the public, but that is exactly what [Sessions] just did. … Federal law [already] requires Justice Department lawyers to deposit funds they receive from a settlement into the U.S. Treasury so that Congress, not the president or the Justice Department, can decide how those funds should be spent.
The internal documents obtained by the House committees included email records showing Justice Department staff working under then-Associate Attorney General Tony West went to great lengths not only to direct settlement funds to favored special-interest groups, but to deliberately exclude conservative groups from receiving funds.
West is now executive vice president for government affairs, general counsel, and corporate secretary of PepsiCo Inc. He has not responded to The Daily Signal’s request for comment. “The responsibility of the power of the purse falls solely on Congress, and we should have authority to direct the funding of settlement agreements, not the executive branch’s special interest,” Lankford said in introducing the Senate bill.
“This bill will provide more transparency to the American people and stop the Department of Justice from circumventing the transparent appropriations process in Congress,” the Oklahoma Republican added.
Public records of settlement agreements with the Justice Department show that when cash donations to liberal groups are combined with other donations in the form of loans and a separate settlement with Volkswagen of America Inc., the “slush fund” may have topped $3 billion.
Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit public interest law firm headquartered in Sacramento, California, was among conservative groups that the Obama Justice Department deliberately exclude from receiving settlement funds. In an email dated July 9, 2014, a senior Justice official on West’s team explains how the draft of a mandatory donation provision was rephrased for the purpose of “not allowing Citi to pick a statewide intermediary like the Pacific Legal Foundation [PLF].”
The official identified the foundation as a group that “does conservative property-rights free legal services.”
“We are flattered that the previous administration would be concerned enough about our success vindicating individual liberty and property rights to prevent settlement funds from making their way to Pacific Legal Foundation,” Steven D. Anderson, the foundation’s CEO, said in an Oct. 24 statement.
In a press release on the House action last week, Pacific Legal Foundation also said:
No administration should be able to circumvent the constitutional appropriation power [of Congress] and steer settlement funds to favored nonprofit groups. It not only raises serious constitutional concerns, it’s too tempting to those who would abuse power for ideological or other personal ends. Permanent reforms to prevent such abuse are needed.
In the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis, all of the funds from the $2.5 billion [Citigroup] settlement should have gone to identifiable victims or taxpayers, via the Treasury. That same principle of law should apply to all settlements with the federal government.
The legislation in the House and Senate would end the practice permanently so that it could not be reinstituted under a future administration. Original co-sponsors of the Senate bill, all Republicans, include John Cornyn and Ted Cruz of Texas, Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee of Utah, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Mike Crapo of Idaho, and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. Ken McIntyre contributed to this report.
It is about enforcing the law and those the break the law must suffer the consequences. But as we have witnessed the marches in our streets by legal and illegal immigrants that demand citizens give the what they want or they will disrupt civil society. And how can they demand anything, they are illegally in this country. They're breaking the law. They are criminals.
They have been told by progressive socialist liberal democrats in the media, congress as well as the criminal organization that is the ACLU, illegal immigrants have rights that outweigh the rights of citizens. And know this, progressive democrats are registering them to vote.
The interim director of ICE has laid out the need for enforcement and the power of congress to support the those on the front lines that tasked to enforce the law of the land. And, at the same time I have a question as well that can't seem to be answered very easily, how many and why illegals that have been here for at least 15 years are not citizens of this great country, America?
Acting ICE Director Talks Top Enforcement Priorities Kelsey Harkness / @kelseyjharkness /
The acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Thomas Homan, spoke to The Daily Signal earlier this month about how the Trump administration is cracking down on illegal immigration.An edited transcript of the interview is below. Kelsey Harkness: Hello, I’m Kelsey Harkness with The Daily Signal, coming to you live from The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. Today, we’re joined by a man who has perhaps the most thankless job in the entire federal government. His name is Thomas Homan and he is the acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, more commonly known as ICE. Homan’s job, put simply, is to deport people. But before anyone goes writing him off, allow us to note that Homan also served under the Obama administration, which also deported people. Under the Obama administration, in fact, Homan received a Presidential Rank Award as a distinguished executive, which is one of the highest honors awarded to all civil servants. So, Director Homan, thank you so much joining us today to talk about the work that your agency does. Acting ICE Director Thomas Homan: Thank you for having me.
Video : https://youtu.be/FXhL1krQE4s
Harkness: So to kick us off … immigration is a big issue for President Trump, who recently … for ICE agents to carry out. Can you explain those to our viewers right now? Homan: Well, first I’d like to say that, ya know, read some media content, ya know, these policies or priorities were authored by people at the White House. Actually, that’s not correct. Each law enforcement agency, whether it was [Customs and Border Protection], Border Patrol, myself—the components, the career law enforcement officers came up with these priorities and policies based on our user experience. I’ve been doing this 33 years, so when I was asked, ‘What more do you need to be successful and to enforce the laws in a meaningful way?’ We came up with a list, Border Patrol came up with the same list … different list but overlapped at many of them. [The Central Index System] came up with their policies. So these policies come from career law enforcement officers, career employees that know the immigration, or illegal immigration game. Harkness: And what are some of those priorities for those who … ? Homan: Well, when it comes to interior enforcement, my No. 1 priority is sanctuary cities, we need to hold them accountable. Sanctuary cities, no matter how you spin it, and I see a lot of talking points out there from politicians and the media; bottom line is releasing a public safety threat back out into the public is not smart. It’s an officer safety issue, it’s a community safety issue. When ICE can not arrest a significant public safety threat in the safety, privacy, and security of a jail, that means we have to go knock on a door, which is a significant officer safety issue. It’s a community safety issue also, if you look, anyone can Google the recitizen rights in this country. These criminals are being released back into the communities, over half of them will reoffend the first year, 75 percent of them will reoffend in five years. So, sanctuary cities, was my first, out of the gate policy ask. We have other asks as far as decisions that are made in certain courts about who we can detain, how long we can contain them, detain them. Zadvydas is a Supreme Court ruling on Zadvydas, which means we can’t hold somebody past six months, unless there is a significant likelihood of removal. So when you have a recalcitrant country, someone who won’t take their nationals back, and they’re a significant public safety threat, I’m under a Supreme Court decision, I have to release them in six months if we can’t get a travel document. So things like that, that will give us some more meat on the bone of immigration enforcement to keep our communities safer, that’s what I ask for. Harkness: Well, I do want to get to the issue of the choke point in that immigration courts later on in this interview. But on the issue you were just speaking to, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, 124 criminal aliens have been implicated and 135 deaths after ICE declined to remove them since 2010. Why did this happen and can you give us any insight into what it’s like when your agents hear about some of these deaths? Homan: Well, part of that statement is inaccurate. ICE didn’t decline to remove anybody, ICE couldn’t remove them. If we have a criminal alien, our main focus, our first attempt is to remove them. But we need two things, we need a final order from immigration court to remove somebody and we need a travel document, a country has to accept that person back into their country. Unfortunate as that is, that’s the two things we need. So the cases you reference, these are people that were released because we couldn’t get a travel document, and as I said earlier, we’re under a Supreme Court ruling that we can’t detain them past six months, or an immigration judge released them on a bond or on OR. I mean, these illegal aliens have a right to see a judge and sometimes the judge will order their release. ICE does release some, after careful scrutiny on these cases. We look at public safety threat, and likelihood of scanning. But on average about 400,000 aliens come through our system. During that time we had 34,000 beds, that’s what Congress funded me for. So you can see, if you do the math, 1 in every 10 or 1 in every 12 aliens actually get detained. So it’s tough, and no one can foresee if someone is going to go out and commit a horrendous act. Again, at least 75 percent of these were not ICE’s decision. But to say that ICE declined to deport them is inaccurate. We want to deport every criminal we can, but we got laws we must work within too. Harkness: Well, the immigration courts are one issue that I find really interesting when you read into how the immigration system works in our country, where you are taking direction of the president, and you’ve now worked under a Democrat and a Republican. But then your hands are sort of tied because you don’t necessarily have … or the immigration courts don’t have enforcement powers to enforce their decisions, that comes through your agency. So how do these dueling … I don’t know what you would call them, but it kind of seems like you have two bosses in a way. Answering to two different systems. Homan: Well, no, I only got one boss but, you know, illegal aliens have a right to have a hearing in front of an immigration judge. There’s a huge backlog in immigration court, over 600,000, so there’s, if someone wants to play the system, they could play the system for several years, which just holds up the whole immigration court proceedings and getting a final order removal. I get that, but I think the Department of Justice’s president has ordered EOAR to hire more judges, they are hiring very fast. So the more immigration judges we hire, the faster these cases will go through. You know … over the past several years, and I’ve been doing this for 33 years, going on 34, a lot of aliens used to take a voluntary return. They get caught at the border and they say, ‘Okay, I got caught, I want to go home.” But more and more and more of them want to either claim asylum when they don’t really qualify so that holds up the system, or they want their day in immigration court, ‘cause they know if they play the game right, you know, they claim fear, they can hold up the courts for years. And … the dynamics have changed in the last decade. But Attorney General [Jeff] Sessions has taken it seriously and he’s ramping up judges and immigration courts. In some of our fixes we’re asking for some of these court rulings to be challenged, as far as what we can and can’t do, as far as detention removal. So we’re asking for help through Congress and I hope Congress gives us that help. Harkness: So you do have a limited amount of resources to handle the number of deportation requests. Another way to, I guess, address the number of illegal aliens in our country is the idea of self-deportation. Encouraging, using other means other than your own agents, to get some of these people out of the country. What do you think of those efforts, what can be done on that front? Homan: Well, we got to get rid of the pull factors. We got to get rid of the enticements, why they come to this country. ICE is stepping up our worksite enforcement operations. So we want to deny them employment, illegal employment. We’re gonna investigate employers that knowingly hire them. So, if they can’t get a job, I mean one more reason why they won’t enter the country illegally and put themselves at great harm. I mean, people are dying entering this country because, you know, they think they can get a job, or they think they can get by the Border Patrol hiding in the shadows and some amnesty is going to come in the future. I’m often asked the question, ‘Why do you remove somebody who’s been here for 10 years and has two United States citizen children. Well, they put themselves in that position. If the message we send is ‘You can violate the laws of this country, not respect the laws of this country, and either ignore judge’s order to go home or sneak by Border Patrol and have a U.S. citizen child, by the very fact they are born in this country, and you’re off the hook. Everything’s okay.’ Because that’s the message a lot of people want to send: Don’t arrest that person who’s been here for 10 years and has a U.S. citizen child. What if I don’t? Then we’re sending a message to come to this country illegally, have a U.S. citizen child, and you’re off the hook. You are immune to enforcement. ‘Cause that’s the message we’re going to send and have been sending for a decade now, you’re never going to solve the border crisis. So we got to remove the enticement, we got to remove the talk that it’s okay to enter this country illegally, it’s okay to have a U.S. citizen child and you won’t be removed. You can get a job. We got to end sanctuary cities. Sanctuary cities are enticements for people to enter this country illegally, go to sanctuary cities, where those cities are going to help you, and shield you from immigration enforcement. These are the things we got to address. Harkness: And I know in a lot of the work your agents carry out you’re actually working to prevent humanitarian crises, which is ironic because in the news you often hear about the humanitarian stories and the sympathetic stories of families getting split apart. But really, correct me if I’m wrong, what your agents are out there doing every day is trying to prevent more illegal immigrants from taking these very dangerous journeys over the border and also preventing more crimes in our cities and states. Homan: Well, that touches on something that I get very emotional about. I mean, I pick up the newspaper every morning, we get press releases every day. First thing I do when I come to my office is read the press releases, and I’m sick and tired of the vilification of the men and women of ICE, these are law enforcement officers that took a sworn duty to enforce laws. They’re enforcing the laws that Congress enacted. So, you know, if you want to vilify law enforcement officers for doing their sworn duty, you need to look at Congress and ask Congress to do a fix, right? These are fine men and women who leave their homes, the safety and security of their homes and their families every day, strap a gun to their hip to go enforce the laws of this country, and protect those in their communities that they’ll never have a chance to even met. These are American patriots by the very sense. They chose this profession, they’ve put themselves in harm’s way every day. Shame on those that want to vilify them for simply doing their job. You know, I noticed a press release this morning from ACLU, ‘the ruthless ICE officers.’ It’s just unfair. I mean, there’s not another law enforcement agency in this country that we ask them not to enforce the laws. There’s not another law enforcement agency in this country that is told to ignore judge’s order from the bench. If you and I received a judge’s order to do something and we refused to do it, what would happen to us? So we’re simply enforcing the law. So we need to support the men and women of ICE, they’re true American patriots. If people don’t like what we do then change the law. If you repeal the law then we’ll stop enforcing it, if you enact a law we’ll enforce it, it’s as simple as that. Harkness: Well, I guess that’s a perfect wrap to my intro in saying you all have very thankless jobs, yourself and the agents who really do put their lives out on the line for Americans every day trying to enforce the laws that do exist. So, director, thank you so much for joining us, and breaking some of these issues down to our viewers.
The story here is one of the true faces of the progressive socialist liberal democrats and their allies in the media and ACLU, and that is the face of death and destruction to the human spirit of freedom and liberty. Democrats are dedicated to keeping their collectives feet on the neck of the American citizens and the defenseless. And just where is the famous America Justice system? With more then 75% of federal judges voting democrat, it's clear how this debauchery of justice occurred. Goodness, given all of the information available on the progressive socialists in this country, why would anyone willingly vote for enslavement, death and destruction?Where is the common sense? Intellectual logic? Media Smears Official Who Tried to Protect Immigrant Minor, Prevent Abortion Billy Valentine / @valentinebilly / Chuck Donovan /
The radical pro-abortion lobby and its allies in the media are out to vilify and destroy Scott Lloyd.
The New York Times calls him an “anti-abortion crusader.” A Washington Post columnist calls him an “anti-abortion zealot.”
Meanwhile, in its news section, the Post underscores that Lloyd, who serves in the Trump administration as director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, has six children. The National Abortion Rights Action League calls him “misogynistic.” So, who is Lloyd and why is he so rotten?
Prior to serving in the Trump administration, Lloyd worked as an attorney for the Knights of Columbus, where he helped lead the fight for ethnic and religious minorities victimized by ISIS.
Lloyd also did pro-life public policy work, as the Knights are deeply committed to protecting the unborn and their mothers.
Given this background, Lloyd was an excellent pick to head up the Office of Refugee Resettlement, where he recently tried to protect two vulnerable people: “Jane Doe,” an underage immigrant who was caught crossing the border illegally, and her unborn child, whom even an American Civil Liberties Union legal motion referred to as a “baby.” Doe was immediately apprehended crossing the border, and placed at a shelter in Texas operated by the Office of Refugee Resettlement.
In these cases, the government tries to find a sponsor, usually a family member, who can care for mother and child while their immigration cases are pending. Until a sponsor is found, it is the government’s job to protect and provide for them. In the case of Doe, she had no family and friends in the U.S., complicating efforts to find her a sponsor. Meanwhile, she said she wanted an abortion.
Recognizing that she is a pregnant minor, far away from friends and family, the Office of Refugee Resettlement sought to provide Jane and baby Doe with compassionate care—not abortion.
In doing so, Lloyd and his team were carrying out administration policy while simultaneously giving the teenage girl and the unborn child excellent care.
The ACLU took the matter to court, and eventually the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the government to allow Doe to get an abortion. Baby Doe was aborted at over 15 weeks. At this point in pregnancy, the website BabyCenter tells us that the unborn child can move all her joints and limbs, and that although her eyelids are still fused shut, she can sense light. She is also forming taste buds, and now ultrasound can discern the baby’s sex.
Now, only the abortionist will know the baby’s sex, if he even bothered to look. Baby Doe’s eyelids will never open—either on American soil or in her mother’s homeland (which is not named in court filings, but is clearly a country where elective abortions are illegal). And the life of this young girl will never be the same.
Lloyd should be applauded for his work, and instead he’s being demonized and personally attacked. He cared for this young girl and her child, carrying out the policies of a pro-life administration.
The ugliness is obvious, the pro-abortion lobby and its allies in the media are warning personnel across the administration: Carry out pro-life policies and we will assail you, your family, and your religious heritage. We’ll print the name of your wife, the number of children you have, and your religion.
How easily these forces ignore recent history. Under the Obama administration, Health and Human Services officials tried to force nuns to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization.
They bullied states into funding Planned Parenthood. They welcomed illegal immigrants but routinely helped to abort their children. Yet we cannot recall a single instance where major media demonized any political appointee carrying out administration policy.
The early end of the life of baby Doe is a blot on our nation and a mark against the claims of certain groups that they “welcome the stranger.” That is sad enough, but to turn this profound debate about the width of America’s golden door into a smear of someone like Lloyd is worse than a blot—it is a disgrace.
This is not the face of opposition - This is the face of anger and hate.
What is really ironic here where it seems the liberals democrats are singing a different tune on economics now they are out of power isn't true. They never believed in tax reform from the beginning.
For democrats to actually allow citizens more of the funds that rightly belong to the democrats is nonsense. No body believes democrats actually care what happens to the people. To believe otherwise is insane.
What this is, the progressive socialist liberal democrats call themselves the 'loyal opposition' to their colleagues on the right side of the aisle, but in truth, when out of power, they are truly loyal only to the progressive ideology and it's never been anything like opposition, it is hate for the opposition and they only want to destroy anything that opposes their agenda.
The democrats are all about seeking out the agenda of the Republicans and attack it and destroy it if they can. A Republican successful agenda is death to democrats.
That they are turning against the president on tax reform is no surprise. Just as the Republicans when out of power they become whipping boys for the progressive democrats like Schumer, the socialist democrats when out of power attack the Republicans with destructive tactics of misinformation and out right lies to destroy any success that the Republicans might have.
Democrats Have Done a 180 on Corporate Taxes. Here’s What They Said Last Year. Emily Miller / @EmilyMiller /
The president proposed cutting the corporate tax rate in his budget. He wrote that cutting the rate to 28 percent was necessary for “putting the United States in line with major competitor countries and encouraging greater investment here at home.”
Which president am I referring to? You’re probably assuming Donald Trump. Nope. Barack Obama.
As a lame duck sending his final budget to Congress for fiscal year 2016, Obama finally told the truth about how our economy suffers because the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. But now that Trump and the Republican Congress are about to actually act to cut the top federal corporate tax rate from 35 to 20 percent, Democrats are suddenly railing against it.
The highest-ranking Democrat, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the floor Tuesday that “[the] cut in the corporate rate would hardly help the everyday American worker. This is trickle-down. Our Republican colleagues don’t really talk about trickle-down, because they know most of America doesn’t believe in it.”
That was a whopper of a flip-flop.
Just last year, Schumer said in a committee hearing on cutting corporate taxes: “I’m game to do it because I think it’s really important for American competitiveness.” He also told CNBC that “it would be a permanent lower rate, not a holiday rate,” meaning not a one-time cut for the so-called repatriation of trillions in U.S. companies’ profits, which are sitting offshore to avoid getting whacked by U.S. taxes.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the House minority leader, said at a press conference earlier this month that Republicans are “deceptively, misleadingly say[ing] to the American people” that “cutting the taxes of corporate America is going to produce such growth that it will eliminate that increase in the debt.” Hold on a second. Pelosi put out a press release in 2016 that called for congressional action, saying, “It is long past time for tax reform that would lower the corporate rate.” Nothing has changed in the last year, except that Pelosi realized this good policy would now be credited to Trump instead of Hillary Clinton.
The U.S. has a top federal tax rate of 35 percent, plus state and local taxes, which brings the total to about 39 percent. To put that in context, the global average among developed nations is just 22.5 percent. Trump, a businessman, understands that when you tell businesses that they will get taxed a minimum 35 percent in America, those companies will just move overseas or keep their profits offshore, out of Uncle Sam’s reach.
The White House originally tried to get Congress to go along with a cut to a 15 percent rate—which would have really undercut all our competing countries—but with negotiations, congressional Republicans got the proposed tax cut down to 20 percent, which would still be a huge victory for the American worker.
If the tax cut gets signed into law, the average American household income could increase between $4,000 and $9,000 a year in wages and salary alone, according to an analysis by the Council of Economic Advisers. In addition, the Republican tax reform plan would shift from a worldwide tax system to a territorial tax system, which simply means you pay taxes where you make the money, not where your company is based. Under the territorial system, companies would be able to bring profits abroad back to the U.S., tax-free.
As a result, companies will stop leaving their profits overseas, which accounted for an estimated $300 billion in U.S. corporate profits last year alone. Imagine the positive impact on our economy when billions—and perhaps trillions—go into hiring and building and buying and growing.
While Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress supported cutting and reforming corporate taxes, they never actually tried, even when they were in control. Instead, they left in place a system that hurts American businesses. Now that Republicans have taken power in Washington, these same Democrats are suddenly using crass, class warfare tactics to say they oppose cutting the high corporate taxes.
They are pretending that all tax cuts hurt the lower and middle classes, even when they know that’s not true. It’s pure politics—Democrats are faking opposition in an effort to win back control of Capitol Hill.
When Trump said he would “drain the swamp,” part of that meant calling out these career politicians who would rather win a political campaign than do what’s best for the country. Cutting corporate taxes will help Americans across the board.
Oh no. Here comes a new reality show from the democrats. It's a remake of Fantasy Island character are welcome to act out their inner fantasy of being someone that actually has credibility.
It will be a sure winner as there are hundreds of progressive socialist democrats like the ones pictured here that have auditioned for a part in the future. Several of the more promising candidates that will thrill audiences are Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters.
Don't worry about running of qualified contestants, they are lining up at the studio door as we speak. The producers are confident that they will never run out of participants to fill the schedule for decades to come.
Acting out roles of responsible people is a sure winner for fall TV.
What's next for the media? What exactly is the responsibility of the media? To report the news or make the news?
At what point in time does the voting public finally say 'we don't believe anything you say any more' and turn them off? The Republicans already understand but what about the rest of those people that are uncommitted.
They voted for Trump, but what about the media's extreme reliance on managed news to protect the progressive liberal democrats like the Clintons?
The media is silent on this issue but still vocal on Trump collusion? How Come?
Just when they thought they hit jackpot with the winning number in the lottery of political criminal activity, they find out they are on the wrong street. They are standing in front of their own house. Not good for the Clintons.
But not to worry, it's the same movie where the Clintons always escape the monster in the room, justice, only to return later to rob and steal another day. And this time won't be any different. Hey, even the FBI are helping the Clintons, along with the rest of the progressive democrats and media. How can they lose?
The congress will hold inquiry hearings showing outrage that's treason for anyone else, but not the Clintons and the results will always be the same. After several weeks of congressional smart talk and questions, it all goes away.
What happened with Hillary's private server? What about the Benghazi murders? What about the Clinton Crime Family Foundation in Haiti? And there's so much more to see. Lots of smoke but no action.
Understand, the progressives socialists never turn on their own like the Republicans.
And who cares anyway. It's the Clintons. They're heroes and democrats.
Yeah it looks bad but it's Hillary and everyone love Hillary.
And the Clintons escape again with the loot? Is there any justice?
If it isn't too graphic, violent, scary or Conservative based, the progressive media will not report on it or show it. The main stream media is dedicated to protecting the population from anything that might be 'dog whistle' racist from Republicans and Conservatives, which of late is everything no matter the subject.
The 'new media' born from ideologies from centuries past, is dedicated to bringing the country out of the dark ages where the first 10 amendments to the Constitution must be rewritten to better represent our new diversity of life that is all inclusive and all rewarding. It's clear to me with the on going destruction of our history from the very beginning of our nation, Barack's religious jihad he promised back in 2008 to 'transform' America is well on it way. Even George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are coming under attack as slave owners. Thanks Barack! Luckily for us most of the real citizens in this great country are no longer fooled by those that wish to destroy our civil society, guaranteed under our Constitution, with the 'new wave' democrat progressive socialism or worse, that see our Constitution as outdated and useless in our brave new world. Must-See Moments: Why Isn’t the Mainstream Media Covering Uranium One? Video Team / The Daily Signal’s Facebook Live show “Top 10” features the top news stories of the week, many of which often go underreported or misreported by the mainstream media. This week, Facebook censored conservative Phil Robertson’s video that shows him field dressing a duck because it was too “graphic” and “violent.” The left just doesn’t want kids to dress up for Halloween this year. Cosmopolitan has a message for parents, apparently kids can’t dress up as anything for Halloween this year without being offensive. And we address another story that went widely ignored by the mainstream media. The Obama-era Uranium One deal, which allows Russia to own 20 percent of U.S. uranium, has come under investigation—which the mainstream media seems to be ignoring. We covered all of this and much more on this week’s top 10 must-see moments. Check out the video below.
For the progressive socialist democrats at all levels of media and government, it has never been about facts or seeking out the truth, it has always been about the seriousness of the charge that makes headlines.
And little wonder why. It's just easier to make news from one's suppositions on situations rather then doing the heavy lifting to find out what actually happened.
For progressive media experts, finding facts that might be in contrast with personal agendas and ideology is not in their best interests of an organization that is dedicated to making the news rather the reporting it..
When considering what has gone before with the unbridled hate for George W Bush, and know it wasn't just unrest, but true hate for the guy and now all is well because it is reported that he said something that have been interpreted to be anti-Trump?
I find it impossible to believe that the progressive socialist liberal democrats are any different now then they were when Bush was president. It was visceral raging hate. It's who they are!
Now we see the unabridged face of the 'new wave' progressive socialist liberalism that has come out of the dark and fevered swamp proclaiming, not just hate for Trump but adding violence against civil society to explain how they see a Republican like Trump, how he mocks them which forces them into in controlled raging fits of violence and destruction.
This rot of mentally disturbed criminals we see ever day in the media talking heads and among the progressives socialist liberal democrats in our government, is not just disturbing to common sense for those of us in the trenches, but a real frightening threat to our nation as it was founded and therefore our freedom to chose.
A majority of the nation is truly frightened by what we are witnessing now as a result of progressive socialist efforts to bring Barack's religious jihad for transformation of our country on college campuses, our secondary public schools and our local community governments.
Know this, never ever again vote for a democrat! If you do it will be like Jim Jones back in Africa where he told his followers they must drink the Kool-Aid and more then 900 died willingly committed suicide all at the same time. Voting democrat is the same only this time it is an entire population of our country committing national suicide.
This is how the progressive socialist liberal democrats see George W Bush back then but now all is forgotten???
The ignorance of so many among us is depressing. And if that not enough to just have open boarders to all that wish to come here is catastrophic for our well being, but these disciples of progressive socialism have no clue who will have to pay to have them cared for. Oh wait, it's going to you, the moron carrying the sign.
And just where have Muslims been attacked by the way for their religion even when 99% of attacks on our country resulting in a huge loss of life are by Muslims.
And know this, if there were attacks on America on Muslims for their religion alone, the progressive socialist liberal media would be on it like a free lunch. Who Knew?
I Went to a #NoMuslimBanEver March. Here’s What I Saw. Genevieve Wood / @genevievewood / About 500 protesters gathered in Washington, D.C., for the #NoMuslimBanEver March, protesting the Trump administration’s travel ban. The Daily Signal went to the #NoMuslimBanEver March to find out why they were protesting.
“I’m so upset to see many, many things this president is doing … to see him discriminate against a group of people, which creates hatred and prejudices in the country,” one protester said. “And when he makes statements like banning Muslims, then that makes people in the country suspicious of their Muslim neighbors, it makes them treat people badly, and creates this whole climate of hatred.” The rally was in protest of the third iteration of the Trump administration’s travel ban—which was supposed to go into effect on Oct. 18, but was blocked by federal judges in Maryland and Hawaii. Check out the video below to see what the protesters had to say.
If you have a love of country and want a personal identity with the idea of being part of that identity, a feeling that you are special, exceptional and rewarded by it, American Exceptionalism, you are seen as a Conservative. While the progressive socialist liberal is in total opposition to the country as an identity, a reverence for the flag, in opposition to individual freedom, independence and liberty to pursue happiness as a reward for individual hard work. The progressives oppose the individual receiving pride and success as a reward, a "profit" from work. But the progressive socialist liberal favors a centralized authority that makes all decisions for everyone and it's made easy, all that is required is obedience to the central authority. It is by their law no one can be seen as special or exceptional. Everyone is equal to everyone else. Again, and yet again, Karl Marx : "To each according to ones needs and from each according to ones ability'. We are all one. It takes a village to raise a child according to Hillary Clinton. No one can raise above anyone else without permission, and then it will have to be in a position of government authority. Why the Left and Right Clash Over National Identity Dennis Prager / @DennisPrager /
In 2011, after 899 issues and 73 years of publication, Superman, the most famous American comic book character, announced that he was renouncing his American citizenship. “I intend to speak before the United Nations tomorrow and inform them that I am renouncing my U.S. citizenship,” Superman announces. He then adds, in reference to his famous motto: “Truth, justice, and the American way—it’s not enough anymore.”
After a national uproar, the comic publisher announced that this theme would not be revisited in any future edition of the comic. But an important point was made. To the liberal publishers of Superman, the hero’s American identity just didn’t feel right. Maybe that was what people wanted from 1938 to the late 20th century. But this national identity stuff has got to go. We should all be world citizens.
This example illustrates a primary difference between left and right: their respective views of nationalism and national identity.
The rejection of national identities began with the founder of leftism, Karl Marx. He ends his major work, “Das Kapital,” with the famous left-wing motto, “Proletariat of the world, unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.”
Marx regarded national identities as backward and useless. In his view, the only identities that mattered were class identities—the working class and the ruling class. If a worker thought of himself first as a German or Englishman, rather than as a worker, communism would never be achieved.
The rejection of nationalism in Europe became mainstream after World War I. Many Europeans, especially among the intellectuals, concluded that the unprecedented loss of life caused by the Great War was a result, first and foremost, of nationalism. They concluded that Europeans slaughtered each other for nothing more than a flag and a national identity. Therefore, the argument went, by abolishing nationalism, war could be abolished.
That is the belief that led to the creation of the European Union: The more Europeans identified with Europe rather than with a particular country, the less likely were the chances of war between European countries. In the United States, however, a national American identity has always been a major part of what it means to be an American.
The three pillars of Americanism, constituting what I have called the “American Trinity,” are found on every American coin and banknote: “Liberty,” “In God We Trust,” and “e pluribus unum.” The latter is Latin for “out of many, one.”
Because America has always been a nation of immigrants, it has no ethnic identity. Therefore, unlike almost all other nations, America could not depend on an ethnic identity to keep its people together.
In fact, if all Americans retained their ethnic identities, America would simply splinter. So a nonethnic American national identity had to be forged and preserved. To this day, foreigners in the United States are struck by how patriotic Americans are in comparison to whatever country they come from.
They marvel, for example, at the fact that before almost every sporting event—from professional down to high school—the American national anthem is played and/or sung. Conservatives wish to conserve all these manifestations of American patriotism and nationalism because they believe a sense of national unity is essential to the political and social health of the country.
On the other hand, the American left, like the left in Europe, is opposed to nationalism, and it generally finds patriotic expressions corny at best and dangerous at worst.
This is easily seen. Just visit conservative and liberal areas on July Fourth, America’s Independence Day. You will see American flags displayed throughout conservative areas and virtually none displayed in liberal areas such as Manhattan, or Santa Monica or Berkeley, California.
Left-wing opposition to American nationalism is exemplified by the left’s embrace of “multiculturalism”—the cultivation of all ethnic and racial identities except American. It has even reached the point wherein some American colleges no longer display the American flag.
In lieu of an American national identity, the left prefers an international identity. Thus, ideally, United Nations authority would supersede American authority, and the World Court would supersede American courts.
To conservatives, such ideas are anathema because, in addition to subverting American sovereignty, the United Nations has not done nearly the amount of good in the world that the United States has.
That’s why the liberals at DC Comics had Superman renounce his American citizenship (at the United Nations, no less). In their view, Superman is now even more super. In conservatives’ view, the renunciation is kryptonite.
We live in an age of impatience. We all want things to happen right now as all we have to do to get what we want is to punch in a demand on our smart phones and things happen. Right?
It the 'new wave' mentality, the lotto mentality where one can bet rich over night, all it takes is a two dollar ticket. It's the young and middle aged seek answers to complex problems without first having to do the heavy lifting that was required by the greatest generation to make things happen without a cell phone.
Jeff Sessions has a lot on his plate for sure and he seems to be tasking the right jobs to solves some pressing problems that have been a plaque on society. He states several here but didn't mention MS 13 gang members that are a scourge on civil communities. But I believe he is missing the most important issue here, or maybe not as he might be doing something we don't hear about, concerning how most department and agencies, including the Department of Justice that are infested with progressives liberals left over from Barack's religious jihad for transformation. This is known as the ''Deep State'' or ''The Shadow Government'' that is in total opposition to the Republican and Conservative agenda that is defined as individual freedom and a small government where power is placed back in the hands of the people. A government that is actually based on the Constitution and not an all powerful political collective. I believe it is an imperative for the Attorney General, and other heads of department and agencies, to thin out these bad actors, laid off or fired. If they fail in this, getting our country back to legitimacy and prosperity will at task to far and our efforts to right the ship of state from the last 8 years progressive socialist ideology will bring generations of society decline and economic failure. Sessions Highlights 2 Most Vital Liberties Justice Department Will Aim to Protect Jarrett Stepman /@JarrettStepman/
Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke about the accomplishments of the Justice Department and its new direction in a speech at The Heritage Foundation on Thursday.
Sessions discussed the long tradition of the rule of law in America and how it has been so critical to our success as a nation. He called this tradition “unique and blessed,” and said if people don’t understand it, they are really missing something.
But there are challenges to the rule of law and our freedoms today that must be addressed, according to Sessions. In particular, Sessions focused on two fundamental liberties—“religious liberty and the freedom of speech”—that need to be protected. He called these the “very first freedoms the Founders put in the Bill of Rights, not by accident.” “They are first because our freedom to worship and speak our minds [is] at the core of what it means to be free,” Sessions said.
In quoting Founding Father James Madison, Sessions said, “the freedom of speech is the only effectual guardian of every other right.” And though some people say that “certain speech is not deserving of protection,” according to Sessions, this idea is misguided.
Citing historic public debates, such as the famous debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas over slavery before the Civil War, Sessions said protecting speech ultimately makes us better as a country. “Speech led to better decisions in a more just society,” Sessions said. “Under President [Donald] Trump’s leadership, this department is doing its part to protect that right.”
Sessions pointed out that the Justice Department is working on a couple of cases involving free speech on college campuses and that more will come in upcoming months. “One of those cases rose when a college student was prevented from proclaiming his Christian faith,” Sessions said. “This is doubly important because this impacts speech and free exercise of religion.”
The Justice Department recently filed a brief on behalf of a student at Georgia Gwinnett College who says the school won’t let him evangelize on campus. The student is being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious liberty advocacy group, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education.
In another lawsuit, the Justice Department filed a statement of interest in a case where a Los Angeles Pierce College student was not allowed to distribute copies of the Constitution outside a “free speech area” on campus.
In addition to explaining the top priorities of the Justice Department, Sessions pointed to what he sees as the major accomplishments of the department so far. First, it ended the practice of third-party settlements that had become a “bankroll to third-party, special-interest groups, or the political friends of whoever is in power.” Obama Justice Department’s $1 Billion ‘Slush Fund’ Boosted Liberal Groups
The second big issue was ending what Sessions called illegal subsidies to insurance companies under the Obamacare program that had not been appropriated by Congress.
Finally, Sessions mentioned that the Trump administration put an end to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which Sessions said regardless of its policy merit was a violation of our constitutional order. DACA was designed to give legal status to those who came to the country illegally as children. “A Cabinet secretary is not allowed to effectively wipe off the books whole sections of immigration law duly passed by Congress, especially when Congress considered it and refused to change the law,” Sessions said.
Sessions also spoke about a settlement with tea party groups that were allegedly targeted by the IRS, which was announced on Thursday. “It should also be without question that our First Amendment prohibits the federal government from treating taxpayers differently based solely on their viewpoint or ideology,” Sessions said. “There is no excuse for this conduct.” He said the hundreds of organizations affected by these policies “deserve an apology” from the IRS.
Here is a video from a guy that explains a theory of a ''second shooter'' in Vegas. It's called Forensic Audio (Acoustic) Analysis. This is interesting but at the same time I have no idea if what he is saying is factual. Still, he makes sense here at least as a theory.
There are conspiracy theories everywhere on everything these days as no one seems to have legitimacy. Yet what we are getting for information from all sources on the Vegas shooting has us all wondering why this is a mystery.
My first thought is, given what has transpired over the last 8 years in our government, the FBI, state and locale law enforcement, as well as most politicians, have an agenda that is not conducive to telling the truth. There always seems to be something that is more important then allowing the public to have what ever information that officials know for sure so the public can make their decisions and then form their own opinions.
We in the trenches will form opinions anyway so why not stem the conspiracy by coming clean on what officials actually know? If they don't know anything after a month, something is wrong.
And to make things even worse, I firmly believe all department and agencies in our government are infested with progressive socialist liberals which makes these agencies untrustworthy and corrupt.
I also don't have any real way to tell if his guy is actually telling the truth as well, and given my position in the mix as just an on-looker, my first thought here is to doubt this video as a conspiracy theory.
Still, he makes a lot of sense and linked to my distrust of the FBI now, it seems something stinks. And the stink is more then mistrust, it's frightening to think our best law enforcement agency might be now tasked against the population.
Watch the video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxmEFeKy8aI
And why the delay? Where the hell have the Republican been hiding all these months?
They are going to review what the progressives did for the last 8 years? What is required is 'special council' and a grand jury into the outrageous and criminals actions of Barack and his fellow travelers in the progressive socialist liberal democrat collective.
Cut the crap Gowdy and go after these monsters like they would be going after Republicans if they had done the same thing. Remember how the progressive democrats went after the CIA on water boarding during the Bush administration? The socialist wanted everyone in jail! They didn't hide under their collective desks, trembling in fear of Republican push back.
House Panels to Reopen Investigations Into Justice Department’s 2016 Decisions Rachel del Guidice / @LRacheldG / Lawmakers are reopening an investigation into decisions made by the Justice Department in 2016, including those relating to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information. “Decisions made by the Department of Justice in 2016 have led to a host of outstanding questions that must be answered,” Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in a joint statement released Tuesday. The items under review, according to the House oversight panel, include:
The move by the FBI to announce the investigation into Clinton’s use of classified information, “but not to publicly announce the investigation into campaign associates of then-candidate Donald Trump.”
The FBI’s move to notify Congress by formal letter of the status of the [Clinton] investigation in October 2016 and again in November 2016.
The FBI’s call to “appropriate full decision making in respect to charging or not charging Secretary Clinton to the FBI, rather than the [Justice Department].”
During Clinton’s tenure at the State Department from 2009 to 2013, she used a private email account and server while conducting State Department business.
Gowdy, who took over as chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee when then-Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, resigned from Congress in June, is continuing the investigation Chaffetz presided over. “The impartiality of our justice system is the bedrock of our republic, and our fellow citizens must have confidence in its objectivity, independence, and evenhandedness,” Gowdy and Goodlatte said in their statement. “The law is the most equalizing force in this country. No entity or individual is exempt from oversight.” It is in the best interest of the American people to review the decisions, the lawmakers wrote. “The committees will review these decisions and others to better understand the reasoning behind how certain conclusions were drawn,” Gowdy and Goodlatte said. “Congress has a constitutional duty to preserve the integrity of our justice system by ensuring transparency and accountability of actions taken.”
I'm an American citizen and I love this country that has given me everything. I believe that America is the last hope in this world for Democracy and Freedom. She must be defended at all costs!
