As the nation goes into day whatever of the government shutdown there can be no arguing away the fact that this disruption of government services, paychecks, etc. is owned - exclusively - by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and the hyper-partisan political animals of the Progressive Left. And own it they will come election time.
Many are trying to equate this government shutdown - which is really not a paralyzing of government, but a disruption in many government services and federal outlays to employees and those receiving benefits - is akin to the last government services disruption cause by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) when he filibustered for the repeal of Obamacare. It is not.
Sen. Cruz was using the filibuster to the benefit of the American people in that he was pressing for the repeal of a wholly unconstitutional law that affected every citizen of the United States. Sen. Schumer is filibustering to the benefit of non-citizens of the United States in his totalitarian insistence that the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program be passed without deviation from the whims of Progressives and Democrats in Congress. Cruz advocated for American citizens. Schumer is not.
The sad thing is that Republicans and President Trump are willing to negotiate a compromise on DACA and, in fact, are actually doing so, much to the chagrin of many. What Schumer is doing is a political show; politically opportune grandstanding. It is all for political and partisan purposes. It is politics over government; Leftist, open-borders ideology over good government for the citizens of our country.
Retired Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas once said, "The most dangerous place in Washington is between Chuck Schumer and a TV camera.” It's very hard to argue with Mr. Dole on that.
Democrats on Capitol Hill are now saber-rattling about "shutting down" government over what they would accept on making DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). As they couch this th digging in of the President's heels on the subject, it is they who are digging in their heels.
President Trump, the deal maker, is set to negotiate a passage of DACA into law. But, like any good wheeler-dealer, he wants something in return. He sees this as a perfect opportunity to do what other Republican presidents have failed to do in the past: affect stronger physical border security.
Of course, Democrats, who are completely focused on politics and delinquent on doing what is correct for the safety and well-being of the country, want DACA passed as a stand-alone measure, even as they continue to marry comprehensive immigration reform with any move on toughening border security.
Do you see the blatant and bald-faced hypocrisy here? They want stand-alone legislation when it benifits their ideological agenda, but couple issues to water-down results whenever something might advance that is not within their core Progressive bucket list.
Here's a thought. Let them shutdown government. Let the President and non-establishment Republicans run with the message that Democrats shut down government to keep Social Security checks, Federal services and tax refunds from citizens in deference to Dreamers and see how long the government stays "shut down."
A prankster has made a huge political statement at several locations in California by placing an unofficial sign designating California - and a few specific cities - as sanctuary locations.
The signs are in the form of the nationally recognized blue informational signage, but they do pack a message.
One sign says, "Felons, Illegals and MS13 [gang members] welcome." Another reads, "Official Sanctuary City 'Cheap Nannies and Gardeners Make Malibu Great!' (Boyle Heights Not So Much.)" Others include "Democrats Need the Votes."
Authorities in California have already removed the signs, but one can only assume that many more will now begin to pop up, which brings me to my point. While the placement of these signs may skirt the law, they are a form of redress to government, which is guaranteed in the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
While California's elected cabal may have found a way to maintain power through the manipulation of the ballot box, some California residents are making their disdain for anti-sovereignty actions clearly understood.
Depending on who wins an given election, one party or the other wails about voter fraud. Given the reality of Motor Voter laws and many Blue States' policies of granting drivers licenses to non-citizens, the protestations coming out of the political Right have far more merit than those of the Left.
To argue the above point is to engage in an age-old "conversation." But there is no good reason -- none whatsoever -- for anyone, be they federally or locally elected officials, to obstruct an effort to make our voter rolls completely transparent.
The right to vote in the United States is reserved, by law, to citizens. People here on visas of any kind, and those here illegally, have no right to vote. Therefore, any attempt to systematically obstruct any effort to guard the election process really should be viewed as an attempt to overthrow the US Government.
Think about it. If a political party is knowingly moving policy, regulations and legislation that would necessarily create loopholes for non-citizens to vote, then they are purposely subverting the process in an attempt to create a corrupted election result for political gain. How is that not robbing the American people of a legitimately elected representative government? How is that not an act of overthrowing our legitimate government; of treason?
Just as with Voter ID laws, political hacks always talk about the sanctity of the ballot, one man one vote, etc. But they never -- ever -- do anything to protect those things. That's because their protestations are insincere; they are full of it.
I have my issues with the sitting President on some things, but ballot integrity and crushing voter fraud is not one of them. Perhaps legislation that would refuse to certify their electoral college electors would send a message. When no Blue States could seat their electors, well...
There is an age disparity between the newly elected French President, Emanuel Macron, and his wife Brigitte. He is 39 years of age and she is 64. Today, that's not much of a big deal, it makes her a super cougar, but it's no big deal.
The point that does make it a big deal is how and where they met. Macron was a 15 year-old student in a high school drama class. Brigitte was his teacher. If that sounds quite a bit like the Mary Kay Letourneau story you wouldn't be incorrect.
What landed Letourneau in jail here in the United States served as, perhaps, a political asset for Macron in France; a testimony to just how different our cultures really are despite the Progressive-Left's desire to model our society after Europe's.
Interesting, too, is that this leader (who no doubt will tout the standard Progressive-Left line of "we must do it for the children") - as well as a great many leaders in Europe, including Germany's Angela Merkel, Britain's Theresa May; Italy's Paolo Gentiloni, Holland’s Mark Rutte, Sweden’s Stefan Löfven, Luxembour’s Xavier Bettel, Scotland’s Nicola Sturgeon, and the EU's Jean-Claude Juncker - all have no children. Interesting in that they literally have no "skin in the game" when it comes to how they leave their nations for the next generation.
As a good friend of mine wrote in a personal Facebook post of mine, the EU's reproduction rate stands at 1.6, a full 0.1 below what is needed to simply maintain a sovereign population. Meanwhile, many "immigrant groups" that have inundated Europe have reproduction rates well over 2.0.
If you do the math it is plain to see that Europe will cease to exist as a continent of unique and necessary cultures in a little under one generation.
Viva la France!
The US Supreme Court is hearing the case of an ethnic Bosnian-Serbian who lied on her refugee and citizenship applications. The ruling could result in her US citizenship's revocation.
Divna and Ratko Maslenjak obtained refugee status in 1999 and moved to Ohio. They said they feared persecution back in Bosnia because the husband had refused to serve in the Bosnian Serb military. But Ratko had in fact served as commander of a unit of the military linked to war crimes; a unit that killed thousands of Bosnians resulting in the exodus from the city of Srebrenica of about 30,000 women, children and senior citizens.
Without doubt, this man should never have been given refugee status and, through him, his wife should have been rejected as well. Whether he should be tried on charges of war crimes - her as an accessory to those crimes - is another question entirely.
When US citizens complete and submit documents (like IRS and Social Security forms) and submit them to the Federal Government, it is always with the caveat that there is a penalty for submitting false information. Some of these penalties are monetary while others invoke jail time.
Revocation of US citizenship is absolutely the appropriate penalty for the Maslenjaks. Just as with other foreign nationals who piss on our laws to exist here illegally, the benefits of US citizenship - the honor of being a US citizen - should be denied those who break the law to exist on our soil. Citizenship, for those not born here, is a privilege, not a right.
And as John Adams made quite clear, the United States is a nation of laws, not of men. Democrats should bone up on their history on that point.
US District Judge William Orrick III, an Obama appointee, issued a ruling that blocked Pres. Trump’s executive order that sought to withhold federal funds from “sanctuary cities.” The ruling said the order targeted broad categories of federal funding for sanctuary governments, and that plaintiffs challenging the order were likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional.
This, of course, is a political ruling, not a legal ruling. If, in fact, it was a legal ruling Judge Orrick would have had to recognize that the grant monies the "sanctuary cities" receive are predicated on their compliance with federal immigration laws. The nine sanctuary cities affected by the DoJ effort literally violated the terms of the grants and, therefore, should be considered a terminating factor for the grant monies.
Two things are troubling about this issue at this exact point in time. First, the Federal Government, rather than continuing the issuance of the grant monies pending litigation, should deny the funding immediately. While the California locales would end up suing the Federal government for the funds, it would be they who feel the financial hurt pending the multiple appeals and not the taxpayers. How could the "sanctuary cities" force the Federal Government to remit?
But the bigger point is the second one. Judge Orrick issued a political ruling, not a legal ruling and that means he is executing judicial duties through bad conduct; political conduct. He exists on the bench during "bad behavior."
The US Constitution states, in Article III, Section 1:
"...The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour..."
Orrick is executing "bad behavior" and, therefore, is vulnerable to impeachment from the federal bench. To that end, even SCOTUS justices are vulnerable to impeachment if they execute "bad behavior."
It would seem that there is a remedy to judicial activism in the federal judiciary: Impeachment. So, why isn't the Republican-controlled Legislative Branch pursuing removal of this activist?
Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions fired a broadside at so-called "sanctuary cities" Monday, saying local policies of noncooperation with immigration authorities are "dangerous" and will cost communities federal funding. He said federal law allows withholding of federal funding to sanctuary cities, and signaled that such measures will soon be taken.
This shines a light on one of the most irresponsible actions of our times: selective enforcement of the law. It is a double-edged sword and one that cuts both ways.
In order for the Federal Government to expect State, county and local law enforcement and governmental entities to execute and uphold the law, the Federal Government must do the same. Under Barack Obama we saw a blatant disregard of the law in a plethora of selective enforcement instances. From the non-enforcement of immigration laws to the Justice Department says that the Civil Rights Act doesn't apply to White people, the selective enforcement of the law set a precedent for State, County and local authorities.
If we are to be a nation of laws and not of men, as John Adams said we must be for all to be equal under the law, then our laws must be enforced and honored. It would go a long way if lawmakers would stop creating more "atta boy" legislation and started being good stewards of the law, that includes repealing laws that are out-dated and ridiculous.
Congressional Democrats signaled they’re ready to block spending bills over Pres. Trump’s planned border wall, raising the risk of a government shutdown early in the new administration. Senate Democrats, in a letter to GOP leaders, said adding more immigration agents, defunding Planned Parenthood, and changing former Pres. Obama’s policies on the environment, labor, veterans and consumer protections would also invite a shutdown.
As is the norm, Democrats are confident Republicans would shoulder the blame for a shutdown because the mainstream media would craft a narrative to lay the blame at the GOP regardless of the fact that it would be the Democrats inaction and unwillingness to follow the democratic process of government that would stall government.
This is yet another issue on which Republicans and Conservatives suck on messaging. Time after time they cannot get out in front of the issue to capture the narrative from a disingenuous and deceitful Democrat congressional leadership. Whether they haven't the foresight to achieve the narrative or are stunningly inept at doing so is a quandary.
While I fear not a "government shutdown," as the Democrats always call it (when the Federal Government doesn't get to abuse the taxpayers it is a god thing), I fear the Democrat tactic of foot-dragging and smearing may begin to take a tole on the political opportunists of the Republican establishment. Spines are not in great supply in that corner of the GOP...Just look at John McCain and Lindsay Graham...
Democrat Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, both from the State of New York - and more accurately, New York City, helped a snowshoe racer from India gain entry into the US to compete. This "athlete" is now being held in a New York jail charged with pedophile sex crimes.
Tanveer Hussain was charged with the felony of first-degree sexual abuse and the misdemeanor of endangering the welfare of a child after Saranac Lake Village police received a report Hussain was "engaging in a passionate kiss" with a 12-year-old girl. Other reports say he was also touching her in an intimate area over her clothes.
So, this is the kind of person that Democrats want to allow into the United States? If so, the Democrat mindset on immigration is so far over the edge of the most extreme Left that they cannot be taken seriously on the subject.
It is not a foreigner's right to be able to set foot in the United States, it is a privilege and subject to refusal. While that refusal should always be based on accurate and thorough vetting processes, we in the US do not have to - in any way shape or form - err on the side of allowing pedophiles into the country. And to that group any persons who would violate even the most lesser of laws.
In this case, Pres. Trump is exactly correct. We should be very picky about who we let into the country. We want the best the world has to offer, not the dregs of the Earth. Evidently, Schumer and Gillibrand don't see it that way.
The University of Southern California's Graduate Student Government is seeking an "emergency fund" for a host of populations affected by President Trump's executive orders. "Trojan" members of GSG passed a resolution last week demanding USC's Price School of Public Policy provide financial resources for more than 250 students allegedly affected by Mr. Trump's executive orders on immigration and LGBT issues.
If there was ever a reason for USC alumni to withhold financial support from the university this one should be right up at the top. This "demand" is a quintessential example of the definition of "snowflake."
First, why should the college be responsible for a perceived wrong executed at an outside source? And second, why should taxpayers be made to flip this dill? If the activists of the USC GSG believe that charity is due these people then they should dig into their own pockets and take care of them. To "demand" - as if I care what they "demand" - that I pay for their ideological activism is the very essence of tyranny.
As the esteemed Thomas Sowell once said: "I wish that some way could be found to add up all the staggering costs imposed on millions of ordinary people, just so a relative handful of self-righteous can go around feeling puffed up with themselves."
Much to the contrary of what the mainstream media Leftists contend, there is an immigrant issue with Middle Easterners in Sweden. Riots erupted in a heavily immigrant Stockholm suburb Monday night, with masked looters setting cars ablaze and throwing rocks at police, injuring one police officer.
The violence began around 8pm when officers arrested a suspect at an underground station on drug charges. A group of Middle Easterners soon gathered, hurling rocks and other objects at officers and prompting one cop to fire his gun, something rare in Sweden.
So, even though there is a plethora of evidence that proves Middle Eastern immigrants to Europe and Scandinavia are creating chaos in those cultures; are bringing indigence and violence to those cultures, the social justice Progressive warriors of the Euro-trash and American Leftist elite continue to jam their heads into the sand on the obvious.
When European and Scandinavian countries have to grapple with the reality of "no-go zones" because it isn't safe for even the police to enter them - all at the threat of violent Islamofascism - then it is time for the politically correct to grow-up and face the facts...before it is thoroughly too late.
The San Francisco Police Department has ended its cooperation with FBI counter-terrorism efforts, disengaging from the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force as part of the city’s larger rejection of Pres. Trump’s executive order on immigration. The SFPD rationalizes this cut saying the cooperative would couple SFPD officers with federal agents in carrying out the requirements of the immigration order.
This is stupidity on steroids. The FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force is one of the premier domestic counter-terrorism organizations on American soil. Its sole purpose is to combat terrorism - acts of terrorism and terror groups - on our shores. By shunning the JTTF, San Francisco now takes on the role of sanctuary city for terrorists and their organizations.
So, because of the Progressive mindset in San Francisco, the United States is on the verge of having a safe-haven for terrorists; a place where local law enforcement engages in acts that shield terrorists and terror organizations from the very federal law enforcement organizations tasked with keeping the country - and her citizens - safe from future September 11ths.
This could be the over-zealous move that backfires on San Francisco. Combating this lunacy could provide the avenue for federal intervention in sanctuary cities that even the most intellectually challenged Leftist can understand...we'll see.
Non-citizen Hispanics, as many as 2 million, are illegally registered to vote in the United States, according to a National Hispanic Survey nationwide poll. This bolsters analysis by professors at Old Dominion University.
The little-noticed survey was conducted in 2013 by McLaughlin & Associates to gauge the opinions of US resident Latinos. The poll's page devoted to voter profiles, revealed that of the randomly selected sample of 800 Hispanics, 56 percent, or 448, said they were non-citizens, and of those, 13 percent said they were registered to vote.
This is, again, proof positive for the absolute need for voter identification, no matter how you want to institute it. It is our right as citizens to have secure ballots for our elections. Voting is a right reserved for US citizens and no one else.
Obviously, with as many as 2 million verified to be illegally registered (one does not register unless one intends to vote, especially if they are breaking the law to register), there was a skewing of the vote in th 2014 and 2016 elections. That the Hispanic vote leans demonstrably to the Left, some closer races, it can be said with confidence, were stolen.
So, while the Progressives stoke the dying embers of the "Russian's stole the election from Hillary" false-flag argument, we have a very real threat to free and fair elections - voter registration and vote fraud - that Democrats and Progressives are adamantly refusing to deal with...all for political purposes.
Parisian officials have resorted to using strategically placed boulders in the streets to stop refugees from making camps in the city's streets. Scores of the limestone rocks have been left under a shelter near the Gare du Nord, the Eurostar station from where trains depart for London, making it impossible for vagrants to set-up camp.
French officials, under the weight of an explosion of refugees from the Islamofascist dominated Middle East, have had to break-up rag-tag, impromptu refugee camps like the one in Calais, called "The Jungle", because of crime, sexual assaults and Islamofascist recruitment.
Stunningly, most of the refugees who have transformed the gentle countrysides and bustling urban areas of France into Muslim enclaves, are Muslim men. One has to wonder why these "brave" and "proud" men didn't stay in their own homelands to fight for a government and culture in which they believe instead of flocking to Europe and then demanding the different European cultures acquiesce to their Islamic sensibilities.
While the actions of Parisian officials are unique, they only serve to push the impromptu camps elsewhere; to place where the self-displaced refugee community will, no doubt, foment hatred toward their host countries and their people.
Illegal immigrants only have to acquire an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) and they can access billions of dollars in free taxpayer cash. The ITIN unlocks monies meant for working, low-income Americans allowing non-citizens access to federal cash through the Child Tax Credit. This entitles them to $1,000 per child. Unlike the Earned Income Tax Credit, which requires a Social Security Number to qualify. The nine-digit ITIN code was created by non-thinking bureaucrats in 1996 for foreigners who had to deal with the IRS.
So, since 1996 we have been either delinquent in rectifying this loophole or knowingly looking the other way, even as our national debt and unfunded federal mandate has skyrocketed. Our national debt is almost $20 trillion and our unfunded federal mandate is over $100 trillion.
We have veterans and homeless citizens that go without each and every day yet the bleeding hearts of the Progressive Left - hellbent on an open borders policy that would indenture whole demographics to the government dole for generations to come - continue to insist that we allocate hundreds of billions of dollars to foreigners and those here who broke our laws to exist on our soil.
We should really be questioning the priorities and the motives of those who ignore our own only to champion non-citizens and criminals who wipe their backsides on our laws and culture. Yes, we are a nation of immigrants, but going back to the beginning of time and considering the future millennium down the line, all nations and regions are transient.
So, today, we should honor our citizenship and our borders...there is time enough for global panacea.
According to a new report published by the UK-based counter-extremism think tank Quilliam International, Islamofascist groups like ISIL, al Qaeda, and Boko Haram are using child recruits to infiltrate the refugee wave currently overtaking Europe, paying smugglers to bring child recruits across to Europe and offering up to $2,000 for each child recruited inside the refugees camps in Lebanon and Jordan.
To believe that this exact same operation isn't being undertaken where refugees to the United States and Canada are concerned is to be naive to the extreme. Sadly, many in the West are that naive.
On the other hand we then have those who are so politically jaded and partisan that they refuse to accept these realities as fact. It is so important to those elected to office on the Left to oppose measures meant to secure our country against Islamofascism that they would purposely ignore that ISIL, al Qaeda and Boko Haram are doing this.
Then there are the ideologically partisan who - even in the face of the truth - refuse to accept reality because of the way they want it to be. Islam is a "religion of peace" even though the literal translation of the word Islam means "submission."
It is not unreasonable to want to vet those coming to our country. It is not a mandate that we in the United States have to accept anyone into our nation. Those who are taking a stand against knowing who is coming to our shores are inviting an embedded danger they either don't understand or are too self-important to contemplate.
Maybe we should only allow women and children from lands rife with Islamofascist terrorism into the United States until they sort it out over there. That would show humanitarianism and exclude the major terrorist demographic. Just a thought...
On Monday the DoJ petitioned the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to restore Pres. Trump's temporary moratorium on travelers from seven majority-Muslim nations that are rife with Islamofascist terrorism. The filing came three days after a federal judge in Washington state halted Trump's order and granted a nationwide stay.
This is a bit obnoxious because federal statute (8 U.S.C. §1182(f)) makes it clear - crystal clear - that the purview of immigration, with regard to national security, rests exclusively with the Executive Branch:
"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate..."
Now, the 9th Circuit is about as liberal as it gets so there is a good possibility that this will end up before the US Supreme Court. The question, then, is this. Will SCOTUS Nominee Gorsuch be seated on the court in order to affect a decision from the body? If the court comes to a 4-4 tie the appeals court decision stands and that would be a technical defeat for the Trump Administration.
It is stunning that judicial activists have been allowed to issue ipso facto legislation from the bench for so long. All federal judges - including US Supreme Court Justices - are seated in lifetime appointments. But, those lifetime appointment are only intact during "good behavior."
Perhaps it is time to start impeaching some judicial activists...