Not yet. Targeted settlement of imported illegal aliens to effect maximum disruption is an Obama policy. Trump is being blocked by Obama appointed judges and bureaucrats.
If politicians thought the could get away with it, they would call their enemies Satan.
I bet the only reason they don't is they have spent centuries pimping the mantra that God and Satan don't exist. Or maybe their Satanic Master doesn't want his Brand discounted like Hitler's.
Yes I admit this may be unfair to Satan, who's church has distanced themselves from Democrat excess and sin.
Any word if the plan was approved or put into action yet? . . Trump is being blocked by Obama appointed judges and bureaucrats.
quote:
President Trump Is Looking To Give Sanctuary Cities Just What They Asked For By Betsy McCaughey - April 16, 2019
President Trump scored a win on Friday, when a federal appeals court gave a temporary green light to his Remain-in-Mexico program. The idea is to keep asylum seekers south of the border until they get their day in court. It’s urgently needed to help border towns like McAllen, Texas, in the Rio Grande Valley region, and Las Cruces, New Mexico, which are being overwhelmed.
The same critics pouncing on Trump’s call to transport these asylum seekers to sanctuary cities are also opposing his Remain-in-Mexico program. For these Trump-haters, nothing matters but politics. They have no real interest in providing relief to the border towns, American taxpayers or migrants caught in the chaos.
More than 100,000 migrants, including a record number of families with children, were apprehended sneaking across the border in March, many claiming asylum. The border towns are dumping grounds for them once they’re released from detention facilities.
They lack food, shelter and the ability to speak English. Las Cruces city officials put out a call on Saturday for donated blankets, clothing, food and diapers. Shelters and churches are full, bus stations chaotic, charities tapped out. McAllen Mayor James Darling begged for a “solution that does not involve simply dropping them off onto the streets of our city.”
But like every option Trump has tried, including detaining migrant families in shelters until their claims are heard, the Remain-in-Mexico program is being challenged by a cadre of open-borders lawyers. The program’s future hinges on a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later this week and perhaps a final decision by the US Supreme Court down the road.
In the meantime, migrants scrape together bus fare to escape the mess. If they don’t have family already here, they pick a destination they’ve heard is immigrant-friendly. Word spreads fast about which communities will welcome asylum seekers, house them and shield them from immigration enforcement. These tend to be liberal localities.
For example, Portland, Maine, offers migrants cash welfare, housing and job training. The city is also considering letting illegal migrants vote in local elections. That information has traveled all the way to McAllen’s shelters. Migrants hear Portland is the place to go.
Now that Portland’s shelters are overflowing, the same city politicians who boast about welcoming migrants whine that Portland shouldn’t bear the cost. Portland wants all of Maine to pay. Lesson: It’s easy to be big-hearted using somebody else’s money.
Cost is behind a lot of the opposition to Trump’s sanctuary-city proposal. San Francisco Mayor London Breed denounced Trump’s proposal as “just another scare tactic,” implying that anyone opposed to busloads of migrants must be a racist.
But race isn’t the issue. What’s actually scary is the cost of sheltering busloads of needy people.
As left-wing icon Cher tweeted Monday, “I Understand Helping struggling Immigrants, but MY CITY (Los Angeles) ISNT TAKING CARE OF ITS OWN.”
And why should taxpayers foot the bill, when only about 10 percent of migrants from Central America actually qualify for asylum? The rest are scammers, economic migrants trying to take advantage of refugee protections.
They sneak across the border, tell a border agent they’re afraid to return and get released inside the US. Half never even complete an asylum application. They’ve gotten what they want, jumping ahead of those who wait years to enter legally.
Word about how to game the system has spread, and now migrants are coming through the southern border from as far as Angola and the Congo.
One Texas resident asked why “non-border states” can’t “help support” the immigrants with free emergency-room services, schooling and other costly benefits.
Truth is, towns across the US already doing that are strained by the costs. Trump’s Remain-in-Mexico program is designed to alleviate that problem. The more asylum-seekers Mexico shelters, the more money stays in taxpayers’ pockets.
So far only a few hundred have been returned to Mexico. Litigation stalled the effort.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court has twice recognized a president’s authority to limit who enters the country, including under the guise of asylum. Trust the high court to uphold Remain-in-Mexico, bringing relief to border towns and US taxpayers everywhere.
-- Betsy McCaughey is former Lieutenant Governor of New York.
And why should taxpayers foot the bill, when only about 10 percent of migrants from Central America actually qualify for asylum? The rest are scammers, economic migrants trying to take advantage of refugee protections.
These continuing waves of "scammers," as Ms. McCaughey describes them above, are NOT organic - these hordes are well organized, well funded, AND are being aided and abetted by many US politicians, most of the US media (in all its various iterations, including Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, Hollywood, etc.), and by enough of the US judiciary to, so far, prevent President Trump from truly securing our border, one of ANY US president's PRIMARY responsibilities.
There are a lot of truth-bombs in Ms. McCaughey's article.
The Enemies of the Administration declare that Barr giving a report to the public on his promised release of the Mueller report, is Spin. And he should be forbidden to give such a report.
I expect that none of the Congresscritters will read the Mueller report. The first question asked of everyone who comments on it should be, "did you read the report or are you still relying an rumors about it? If you have not read the report, why should you have any credibility?"
I do plan to read it, later today, I have a copy saved. At over 400 pages, and written in what I have so far seen, in the language of deliberate footnote overload, as most legal butt cover documents are, it might take all night.
It's a different language than engineering speak, that seeks clarity and communication of facts and concepts. I've read NACA reports since High School.
And it's related closely to academic textbook speak, which isolates the author's prose from dreary reality by use of footnotes and appendices. VDH's A War Like No Other, A History Of The Peloponnesian War. Is such a book. It's well written, well organized, but if you just read the text for the poetry of his language, you miss the background information. And jumping back & forth between text & footnotes is disruptive to the flow. You're actually better off with academic speak to first read the author's references, then the book. There's an irony there, eh?
Legal speak, however, combines the worst of academic speak, with spin, by using the disruptive nature of footnotes to obscure lazy and biased viewpoints with boring, semi-useless text. I'm sure there are Law School classes on how to extract the information you want, and ONLY what you want, from such documents.
And lawyers who enjoy good writing, write some great novels.
So for me, reading this foreign language is tedious. Probably take 2-3 hours. I'll let you know.
AG Barr at his press conference this morning prior to the release of the Mueller report:
quote:
As you know, one of the primary purposes of the Special Counsel’s investigation was to determine whether members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, or any individuals associated with that campaign, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.
Volume I of the Special Counsel’s report describes the results of that investigation. As you will see, the Special Counsel’s report states that his “investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
I am sure that all Americans share my concerns about the efforts of the Russian government to interfere in our presidential election. As the Special Counsel’s report makes clear, the Russian government sought to interfere in our election. But thanks to the Special Counsel’s thorough investigation, we now know that the Russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of President Trump or the Trump campaign – or the knowing assistance of any other Americans for that matter. That is something that all Americans can and should be grateful to have confirmed.
The report is in this link. Odd how the Republicans are all just fine with someone running for President while secretly planning on offering Russia's President a free condo. They are our enemy, you know. KGB, destroy America without firing a single shot, that kind of thing.
When did Obama offer Medvedev or Putin a Condo? He hadn't become rich enough until his Campaign laundered all that Arab Oil money. That's not until late '07, or even mid '08.
Odd how the Republicans are all just fine with someone running for President while secretly planning on offering Russia's President a free condo.
Source?
The Democrats will attempt to waste as much time as possible trying to keep focus on the Mueller report in and effort to prevent the AG from investigating the crimes of Hillary and others.
After finding no underlying collusion with Russia, the Special Counsel’s report goes on to consider whether certain actions of the President could amount to obstruction of the Special Counsel’s investigation. As I addressed in my March 24th letter, the Special Counsel did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment regarding this allegation. Instead, the report recounts ten episodes involving the President and discusses potential legal theories for connecting these actions to elements of an obstruction offense.
After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney General and I concluded that the evidence developed by the Special Counsel is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.
Although the Deputy Attorney General and I disagreed with some of the Special Counsel’s legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law, we did not rely solely on that in making our decision. Instead, we accepted the Special Counsel’s legal framework for purposes of our analysis and evaluated the evidence as presented by the Special Counsel in reaching our conclusion.
In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability.
Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.
Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.
[snip]
Consistent with long-standing Executive Branch practice, the decision whether to assert Executive privilege over any portion of the report rested with the President of the United States. Because the White House voluntarily cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, significant portions of the report contain material over which the President could have asserted privilege. And he would have been well within his rights to do so.
Following my March 29th letter, the Office of the White House Counsel requested the opportunity to review the redacted version of the report in order to advise the President on the potential invocation of privilege, which is consistent with long-standing practice. Following that review, the President confirmed that, in the interests of transparency and full disclosure to the American people, he would not assert privilege over the Special Counsel’s report. Accordingly, the public report I am releasing today contains redactions only for the four categories that I previously outlined, and no material has been redacted based on executive privilege.
In addition, earlier this week, the President’s personal counsel requested and were given the opportunity to read a final version of the redacted report before it was publicly released. That request was consistent with the practice followed under the Ethics in Government Act, which permitted individuals named in a report prepared by an Independent Counsel the opportunity to read the report before publication. The President’s personal lawyers were not permitted to make, and did not request, any redactions.
After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney General and I concluded that the evidence developed by the Special Counsel is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.
I watched the presser. DAG RR was standing right there on stage, and I did NOT see him argue with AG Barr's above statement. (In fact, if anything, DAG RR looked like he'd rather been at his dentist's office getting multiple root canals.)
Question for the CNN/MSNBC/PBS/Media Matters/Yahoo "News" folks: How can there be obstruction of justice (there wasn't) when there was no crime committed?
How can there be obstruction of justice (there wasn't) when the premise of the investigation (i.e, the "predicate") was false and corrupt?
Another question for you: When did the spying (yes, spying) on Trump actually begin?
[T]he American people have a right to know whether the initial investigation was in keeping with long-standing Justice Department standards -- or even lawful at all.
Mueller’s Report Ends ‘WitchHunt’ But What’s About To Unfold Is The Real Story By Sara Carter - April 18, 2019
Attorney General William Barr stressed Thursday during his press conference that although Special counsel Robert Mueller detailed 10 “episodes” involving actions by President Trump that might have constituted obstruction of justice, neither the DOJ, nor Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein believed those actions violated the law.
Barr said based on the evidence that Trump’s action had “non-corrupt motives.” The redacted version of Mueller’s report was released late Thursday. The very few redactions in the behemoth report show the reasons for the decisions, which were based on recommendations made by the intelligence community, DOJ and Mueller prosecutors to protect classified information, sources and methods and information pertaining to ongoing litigation.
The roughly 400 page report is what it is and now it is available for the public. After more than two years and national media consumption of every rumor possible the investigation has concluded that neither President Trump, anyone on his campaign and no American colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election.
Thank goodness. We should be celebrating. Instead, many media outlets who carried the Trump conspiracy water to thirsty ‘anti-Trumpers’ and angry Democrats are scouring the pages looking for anything to salvage their failed attempts at removing a duly elected president.
The reality, however, is that it’s over for those pushing the now debunked Trump Russia collusion. It is a chapter closed.
What is left, however, are multiple chapters still left to be written. What will unfold is investigation into what historians will consider one of the greatest political ‘witch-hunts’ in U.S. history. If justice is served, those responsible will be outed and prosecuted.
Those officials who weaponized the intelligence community, approved unauthorized surveillance on American citizens based on unvalidated information and targeted a sitting president should fear the wrath of ‘lady justice.’
Call it what you will but numerous sources within the intelligence community are describing the actions of the officials who launched and perpetuated the investigation into Trump a failed ‘soft coup.’
[snip]
Think about it. Trump was being accused of being a spy for Russia. It was a daily compounded disinformation campaign by senior members of a former administration leaking lies, half-truths and malicious rumors about Trump. Those who aided the lies were MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times, McClatchy News, The Washington Post, and many more, who all had stories that the U.S. president was compromised by Russia and worked with the Russians against the American people.
I can’t imagine not being frustrated. The list of allegations that Mueller references in his report were nothing more than an extremely frustrated president who was being accused of the worst crime in U.S. history.
Some of it is embarrassing. However, none of Trump’s actions constituted breaking the law, as Barr noted.
How can you be accused of obstruction of a crime you never committed? However, how can you not be appalled at the lies being directed at you, your family, your coworkers and those who support you when you know for a fact that is all they are – lies.
America needs to heal first and foremost.
But in order to heal the American justice system, that is revered around the world, must act swiftly and with strength to hold those accountable for these actions and bring those who broke the law to justice.
>>>Odd how the Republicans are all just fine with someone running for President while secretly planning on offering Russia's President a free condo.
Source?
Amazing how much of this stuff is contrived from thin air . . right smack dab in the middle of the best economy in years and Blacks and Hispanics experienced record high employment and wages.
Amazing how much of this stuff is contrived from thin air . . right smack dab in the middle of the best economy in years and Blacks and Hispanics experienced record high employment and wages.
Can you imagine where we'd be as a country if our President hadn't been so obstructed for the past two years?
Tucker Carlson: Two Years of Russia Hysteria is Over:
BTW, I've read several well-articulated hunches that Mueller's report was actually completed sometime last year, but the release was deliberately held until 2019 in order to allow the media lapdogs to inflict maximum influence on the 2018 mid-term elections.
Victor Davis Hanson: Mueller Probe Could Backfire on Those Who Fabricated Russia-Collusion Narrative American Thought Leaders - The Epoch Times Published April 17, 2019
In this episode of American Thought Leaders we sit down with Hoover Institution and National Review Institute fellow, historian Dr. Victor Davis Hanson, who recently published the book “The Case for Trump.”
At 5:06 VDH specifically calls out Yahoo News and Mother Jones for their involvement in initially "permeating the press" with the Muh Russia collusion narrative back in late 2016.
Odd how the Republicans are all just fine with someone running for President while secretly planning on offering Russia's President a free condo.
Even if this were true, which I'm not clear if there has been any actual evidence of this, what are we really talking about. He was a private citizen at the time. Doing his job as a real estate developer. OK, he was trying to do a deal in a socialist country. Is that bad in the eyes of the left? I'd love to see them make that case. As a socialist country, the government controls things like this very heavily. So if Putin wants a condo in the new high rise that he has control over, what's the big deal. That's kind of like me wanting a bedroom in the house I'm building. The builder shouldn't be demonized because I want a bedroom in my house. Even if I want a BIG bedroom. This is what builders do. They build what the customer wants. The corruption, if it exists in this deal, is the standard socialist corruption where the leaders get extravagant lifestyles, while their people suffer. This is what the left is leading us toward. WHY? (Here's a hint... They are the leaders who expect to have extravagant lifestyles at the expense of the working class.)
I'm pretty sure it takes a special kind of stupid to support those leaders.
"It must answer, in balanced terms, whether the FBI was warranted in using the most awesome powers in the U.S. intelligence arsenal to spy on Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s campaign at the end of the 2016 election.
Investigators must determine, with neutrality, whether the bureau improperly colluded with paid agents of Democratic rival Hillary Clinton’s campaign — Fusion GPS and its British operative, Christopher Steele — and then tried to hide those political ties and other evidence from the nation’s secret intelligence court."
I have read several editorials this afternoon on the socialist cult not being proper marxism, Bernie and his four revolutions, and Mediacrat insanity.
Sheeesh!
In response, I have synthesized the Trump 2020 winning strategy.
Part one is declarative. Simply announce by speech, or twit, the basic principles that Will Not Happen. Trump states X, and follows with, when Republicans take back Congress from the deranged, I will insist on rational legislation to ensure X, but until then, I will sue or issue executive orders to make X so.
And the short, but simple X list will ensure core votes.
List of X. America shall not become a Sharia country, or a Dogmatic Christian, Wiccan, Buddhist, or any other theocratic state. Ever. It's Our First Law.
American shall not suppress Freedom Of Speech for fad, cult, mob, or partisan political thugs. No college, institution, or even Department, shall suppress free speech & receive a single penny in Federal funding if they violate free speech & freedom of the press. It's in Our First Law, too. National security secrecy aside. And lawsuits against lies/slander will be encouraged. That's Free Speech too. No one should ever fear telling the truth. No one who lies should consider themselves immune from Justice.
America shall not disarm it's citizens. We have a fundamental right to self defense, and freedom from fear. No made up fear mongering or irrational restrictions. Arms means deadly weapons. Parity of capability is essential for parity of safety. Bad guys have slingshots, good guys may too. Or shotguns or rifles, etc. No incremental theft of rights. The technology available today has been available for over a century, it wasn't a threat from citizens for over a century, and anyone who claims it is now is lying.
Then Trump must steal his enemies promises away, by acting first, proactively, to give what his enemies promise, but will never deliver. Because they don't want to solve a crisis, but to make it perpetual and exploit it forever. Screw them royal by taking away just a few of them. And not "free stuff" or "equal pay for those unwilling to work". Publicly kick and explain the insanity on those.
But, there are a few items.
1. Announce "pre existing conditions" are a relic, never to return. Remind the Public that the Republicans keep writing that law, but Democrats won't allow it. ( true )
2. Since Student Loans were nationalized by Obama, and the Colleges exploited the program to raise costs, the program is over, null, and void. It is a failure in many ways. Not one cent for bad policy. Yes, it's a Trillion dollar debt, but it's on American citizens, and ruthlessly run. It's not real money anymore, it's indentured servitude. Fake wealth on crooked books. If we don't stop it now, it will be bigger than the planetary economy. Best to bite the bullet. End the program, save the costs, and free a Generation from financial ruin, now.
3. Using the power to fight unjust laws, I will direct Congress to remove Marijuana from the Drug laws, and order federal law enforcement to cease all prosecution and pursuit of marijuana possession. No new taxes, no new bureaucracy. Since a majority of the people have violated Federal laws, and those laws were a hangover from Prohibition, another bad idea, it's only rational to stop unjust persecution for a plant that grows wild.
Finally, Trump should declare there are many aspects of modern life that he has no power over, and since he is not a dictator, shouldn't! But the People should have an open, honest, and respectful debate on the new sexual revolution, privacy, and acceptable behavior. He doesn't expect instant answers, and neither should you.
****************
That's just my first draft. But I can hear the future screaming at the sky.
