Sunday, March 12, 2017

Former Hillary Clinton Staffers Are Driving the Anti-Trump Resistance Movement!

Heat Street ^ | March 7, 2017 | Emily Zanotti 

Despite an embarrassing loss, it turns out Hillary Clinton campaign staffers didn’t have to wait very long to find new work.
A handful of high-powered campaign operatives are behind the organization leading the anti-Trump “resistance” movement, including the Women’s March on Washington and Wednesday’s Day Without a Woman protest.
According to the Daily Caller, three of the five top strategists behind the March are key Clinton staffers: De’Ara Balenger, Meredith Shepard and Sarah Sophia Flicker. And three lower-level Women’s March staffers (Mariam Ehrari, Hannah Rosenzweig and Caitlyn Ryan) were essential members of Clinton’s extended campaign staff.
Balenger was Huma Abedin’s right-hand woman, reporting directly to Clinton’s top deputy and closest friend. Before joining Clinton’s campaign, she worked directly with disgraced State Department aide Cheryl Mills, who was at the center of Clinton’s private email server controversy, and was accused of wielding the power of the State Department to benefit the Clinton Foundation’s top donors.
Balenger was, officially, Team Clinton’s director of engagement, charged with getting Hillary’s best friends in line with the campaign’s central message.
Meredith Shepard seems to be a seasoned political events planner—likely a boon to a national grassroots political effort. Team Clinton seems to have relied on Shepard as an aide to Balenger to conduct outreach to major donors and Clinton’s most dedicated activists (including Clinton’s friends and family).
Flicker, Ehrari, Ryan and Rosenzweig are all listed in various publications as affiliates of the Clinton campaign, mostly handling activist operations.
It’s no surprise that Clinton supporters would be part of the “resistance.” But it is odd that people who worked very closely with Clinton’s inner circle, including Huma, would end up at the heart of the single largest group organizing anti-Trump events, particularly as “strategic advisers.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

While Democrats Fume, Trump Becomes the Jobs President!

American Greatness ^ | Chris Buskirk 

Against the new administration’s ambitious goals, Democrats are stuck with increasingly transparent attempts to undermine the president with phony narratives endlessly repeated by their media surrogates. The stranglehold the mainstream media had on American opinion was broken long ago and Americans understand the game played by the Progressive Left-Democrat-Media opinion complex. And they either look for other sources of news and opinion or they discount for the expected collusion when they hear Democrat talking points repeated as objective fact.
Forget the nakedly partisan attempts to create a media narrative about Russian hacking and so undermine the legitimacy and effectiveness of President Trump and his administration. Forget too “the Resistance” which exists more as a social media meme than a real life phenomena—progressive street violence notwithstanding. What matters is jobs, not phony outrage cooked up by professional agitators.
The complaints of D.C. Democrats and their Millennial storm troopers don’t have much purchase with middle America when the economy is growing and people are working. As Loretta Lynn sang in her 1971 classic “One’s On The Way”: “The White House social season should be glitterin’ an’ gay but here in Topeka the rainis a fallin’, the faucet is a drippin’ and the kids are a bawlin’.” In other words, no matter what the powerful and connected think, ordinary people have bills to pay and families to raise and they can only do it with a job. And the fact that there are a lot more jobs than there were a few months ago has significant implications for Democrats who think they can win elections based on stoking resentments based on niche grievances and so-called microaggressions.
This week’s economic reports were so uniformly positive that even financial news titan Bloomberg, a reliable defender of Davos class perquisites, was forced to admit that “America’s labor market is getting better by almost any measure.”

Now it's new Democratic Party vs. American worker!

WND ^ 

The Democratic Party once produced presidents such as Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy. Major party leaders were fierce opponents of mass immigration because they recognized the negative impact it had on wages.
And America’s center-left party presented itself as a friend to American workers, fighting for their interests against corporate bosses.
But the Democratic Party of the past is not the Democratic Party of today. Indeed, one author and researcher suggests the current Democratic Party is more concerned with defending “international socialism” than American workers.
Trevor Loudon, who has researched communism and leftist movements for decades, exposes the change within the Democrats in his documentary “The Enemies Within.” He argues the current Democrat leadership team of chairman Tom Perez and vice-chairman Keith Ellison represents a fundamental departure for the party from its patriotic past.
“It is a socialist party,” he told WND. “Today’s Democratic Party has completely abandoned the ‘middle ground.’ It is now a full-on ‘progressive party’ with an agenda and platform almost indistinguishable from that of the Communist Party, or Democratic Socialists of America – which incidentally openly backed Ellison in his race against Perez.
“The Democrats of today would be marching in the streets against traditional Democrats such as Harry Truman or JFK.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The same federal judge who shot down Trump’s last travel ban doesn’t do it this time!

Hotair ^ | 03/11/2017 | Jazz Shaw 

The travel ban wars continue, but there’s an old saying about if at first you don’t succeed
Travel Ban 2.0 was launched this week to immediate protests from the usual list of suspects, but something seems to be different. The media was thrilled to announce fairly quickly that the revised order had been “dealt its first court setback,” but once you dug past the headline you found out that it really only applied to one specific family. (Reuters)
A federal judge in Wisconsin dealt the first legal blow to President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban on Friday, barring enforcement of the policy to deny U.S. entry to the wife and child of a Syrian refugee already granted asylum in the United States.
The temporary restraining order, granted by U.S. District Judge William Conley in Madison, applies only to the family of the Syrian refugee, who brought the case anonymously to protect the identities of his wife and daughter, still living in the war-torn Syrian city of Aleppo.
The real goal for Trump’s detractors was to relive their glory days from the first ban and have the entire thing brought to a screeching halt. For that they went back to their go-to man on the scene, Seattle U.S. District Court Judge James Robart. As you will recall, he was a favorite media figure in the last fight because he was a Bush appointee, so obviously this couldn’t be any sort of partisan chicanery, right? Unfortunately for the complainants, history didn’t repeat itself last night and the judge went the other way. (The Hill)
A U.S. federal court on on Friday refused to apply the emergency stay that halted President Trump’s first travel ban to his revised executive order, Reuters reported.
Seattle U.S. District Court Judge James Robart, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush in 2003, said lawyers from the states that opposed the measure needed to file more extensive court papers.
A group of states, led by Washington and Minnesota, successfully challenged Trump’s January executive order on immigration, and Robart issued a temporary restraining order to halt the policy nationwide as lawsuits proceed. Robart’s decision was upheld by a federal appeals court.
This is turning out to be a twisted road which is following a path eerily similar to the one Ed Morrissey seemed to predict yesterday morning. The people who managed to get the ban revoked the first time, specifically Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson in this case, were doing victory laps when the new order was released, saying that Trump had been forced to back down and revamp it. But in asking to have the same temporary restraining order applied to this version he would have to convince Judge Robart that it hadn’t been revamped at all. This proved too great of a feat for Ferguson in this case.
We’re also left to break out the popcorn and wait to see what the 9th Circuit will do with it this time. They also now have a bit of precedent hanging over their heads. The first time around they were quite happy to agree that Robart had gotten it right and identified the flaws in the order, confirming his decision to issue the restraining order. Now, during the inevitable appeal, they will be forced to deal with the same judge’s decision indicating that the weaknesses in the first order have been addressed. It will definitely smack of hypocrisy to a certain degree if they turn around and overrule him on precisely the same arguments they upheld him on only a few weeks earlier.
If that effort fails, Trump’s opponents have other shots waiting to be fired but they don’t look as strong. Opponents in Hawaii have filed their own lawsuit claiming the ban would hurt tourism industry, and businesses interests in the Aloha State. We’re venturing into some less well trod territory there. Rather than a constitutional argument about the rights of certain individual travelers, this one sounds like some sort of protest seeking to protect free commerce. But when those interests (specifically the tourism dollars of non-citizens) are stacked against the President’s prerogative regarding national security, the argument seems to be weak tea by comparison. As usual, it will all depend on the appeals process so you’d best keep your hands inside the ride and your seat-belts fastened for a while longer yet. This ride is far from over.

Trump's Wall Is Already Paid For!

American Thinker ^ | March 11, 2017 | Daniel John Sobieski 

Critics of the border wall proposed by President Trump have said the cost is prohibitive under current budget and economic conditions, that no way is Mexico going to pay for it, and shifting funds away from the TSA, Coast Guard, and FEMA are counterproductive in terms of national security.

These criticisms ignore the costs to the U.S. in terms other than money -- increased crime, overtaxed law enforcement, the drain on public resources such as education, medical care, etc., and the driving down of real wages through an endless supply of cheap labor.

In fact, thanks in large part to the mere threat of the wall, the sudden enforcement of existing law, and the stripping of funding from sanctuary cities by President Trump, illegal immigration has plummeted by 40 percent in February, a trend that if continued will reduce the costs and burdens of illegal immigration to the point that the benefits of enhanced border security, including the wall, will be more than paid for. As the New York Post noted:
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

A look at Mexico’s Immigration Laws - Who Knew?

redice tv ^ | 2014 

A look at Mexico’s Immigration Laws - Who Knew? 1Aug 10, 2014 Source: What the west could learn from Mexico’s Immigration law:
Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests….”
This only applies one way ..naturally! From here to there ... but not from there to here.
Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven’t been sharing that idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.
That’s too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.
At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
* in the country legally;
* have the means to sustain themselves economically;
* not destined to be burdens on society;
* of economic and social benefit to society;
* of good character and have no criminal records; and
* contributors to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:
* immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
* foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
* foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
* foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
* foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
* those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.
Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens — and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Población, or General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country’s immigration policy.
It is an interesting law — and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.
If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.
We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. [1] Now let’s look at Mexico’s main immigration law.
Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
* Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)
* Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)
* Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)
* The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)
Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
* Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
* A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
* A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).
* Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
* Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
* Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
* Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
* Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
* Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.
Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
* “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)
* Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
* Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)
Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
* A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
* Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)
All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico’s immigration practices versus its American immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government’s agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.
Let’s call Mexico’s bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let’s propose, just to make a point, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico’s own law as a model.

Top vote-counter on ObamaCare bill: 'We're gonna get this done'!

The Hill ^ | 3-10-17 | Scott Wong and Bob Cusack 

The top vote-counter in the House says there is no doubt that the Republican ObamaCare repeal and replace bill will pass. "We're gonna get this done," House Majority Whip Steve Scalise said with a smile on Thursday. Scalise had a good reason to be in a good mood, despite being awake for 33 straight hours, fueled by adrenaline and several cups of chicory coffee from New Orleans. He was elated the GOP healthcare bill just cleared his Energy and Commerce Committee after what may be the longest legislative markup in history. The gregarious 51-year-old Louisiana Republican believes Thursday’s marathon hearing and party-line vote in his committee had given the American Health Care Act enormous momentum as it heads into the next round of legislative hurdles.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Trump gets urgent warning: 'Clean house at IRS as quickly as possible'!

WND ^ | 3/9/2017 | ALICIA POWE 

A Washington-based government watchdog is warning President Trump to “clean house at the IRS as quickly as possible” – or, better yet, eliminate the “corrupt” agency altogether.
The Internal Revenue Service admitted to a federal court Wednesday that it has identified nearly 7,000 documents that contain information concerning how the agency targeted tax-exempt applications of conservative political organizations.
IRS commissioner John Koskinen has insisted since the scandal broke in 2013 that the agency had cooperated completely in the investigation of its targeting of conservative groups. Now, in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the IRS revealed it has 6,924 documents related to its targeting of tea-party conservatives during the Obama administration.
Washington-based government watchdog Judicial Watch filed the suit against the IRS in 2015 to determine how the agency selected individuals and organizations for audits after they requested nonprofit tax status.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The GOP’s ObamaCare replacement will boost jobs and cut taxes!

New York Post ^ | March 10, 2017 | By Betsy McCaughey 

Ignore the grandstanding on Capitol Hill and the noise coming from town-hall protests around the nation. The Republican bill to repeal and replace ObamaCare will boost your chances of getting a job and cut your tax bill, not to mention your insurance costs.
The repeal bill — called the American Health Care Act — also will stave off a tidal wave of future Medicaid spending that threatens to drown the states and Uncle Sam in red ink. Here’s how.
No more penalties. If you’re among the 8 million people getting whacked with a tax penalty for not enrolling in an overpriced ObamaCare plan, the repeal bill is good news. The federal government will no longer compel you to buy insurance.
The repeal bill also cancels penalties on employers. ObamaCare forced all but the smallest employers to provide a benefits package far costlier than what they had been offering prior to the reform. Employers then passed these costs onto workers, raising deductibles by 50 percent on about 155 million people. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at ...