Tag: Congress

Supreme Court Lets Trump Build the Wall; Lifts Injunction

by nootkabear, posted in 10-15 million people, American-Mexico border, Banksters, Central America, Constiution, Judicial Rulings, law, Lawyers, Legal, president, Renew America, Trump

trump-el-paso-rally-build-wall-getty-640x480
(EL PASO, TEXAS – FEBRUARY 11: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a rally at the El Paso County Coliseum on February 11, 2019 in El Paso, Texas. U.S. Trump continues his campaign for a wall to be built along the border as the Democrats in Congress are asking for …Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Supreme Court Lets Trump Build the Wall; Lifts Injunction
https://www.breitbart.com/border/2019/07/26/supreme-court-lets-trump-build-the-wall-lifts-injunction/
JOEL B. POLLAK26 Jul 201911,830

The U.S. Supreme Court allowed President Donald Trump to begin building the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border using emergency funds, lifting an injunction Friday that had been imposed by a district court in California and upheld by the Ninth Circuit.
After Congress refused to appropriate enough funding to build a barrier along the border earlier this year, President Trump declared a national emergency to allow the administration to access more money. In total, he ordered $8 billion spent — though, as Breitbart News pointed out, only $3.6 billion needed an emergency declaration.

The president was exultant on Twitter:

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed. Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!

126K
6:37 PM – Jul 26, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
56.7K people are talking about this

The decision was largely along partisan lines, with all five Republican-appointed justices voting to lift the injunction, while all three liberal justices were opposed. Justice Stephen Breyer sought to have it both ways, allowing the process to go forward but not the construction: “There is a straightforward way to avoid harm to both the Government and respondents while allowing the litigation to proceed. Allowing the Government to finalize the contracts at issue, but not to begin construction, would al- leviate the most pressing harm claimed by the Government without risking irreparable harm to respondents.”

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Is This Man a Demon, or Just Possessed By One?

by nootkabear, posted in above the law, access to injustice, Banksters, big brother, borders, California, Censorship, Congress, Judicial Corruption

 

Yall have to be honest, this man looks just like a demon to me. And what did he say about Americans? Something like the people in Virginia or West Virginia are still nothing more than a bunch of hillbillies? He said something to that effect and I tried to find it on the internet, but you know how the internet is nowadays, can’t find shit on here anymore.

So read below
From: Reclaim Our Republic:
https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2018/07/16/video-trump-disgrace-to-our-country-fbi-strzok-fbi-bias-cannot-allow-strzokians-back-into-power-judge-jeanne/

VIDEO Trump: Disgrace to Our Country, FBI – Strzok, FBI, Bias – Cannot Allow Strzokians Back into Power – Judge Jeanne
Posted on July 16, 2018 by ror1774

Strzok, the FBI, and Bias
July 14, 2018 By Henry Scanlon
Peter Strzok asks us to give him a pass based on the contention that everyone has political beliefs, everyone has biases, and he’s no different, except, okay, as an FBI agent his obligation is to be scrupulous, even fanatical, about not acting on those biases, which he did not, he claims. Therefore, he met every obligation to his sworn duty. However implausible that might be, considering the brutal intensity of his anti-Trump feelings as well as the almost obsessive frequency with which he gave vent to them (on FBI computers, no less), let’s take him at his word: Yes, he had biases, but, no, he didn’t act on them, at least not in a way detectable by the Inspector General, apparently, and, hence, where’s the problem?

But there’s another element to this bias-business. It’s not just about having them and acting on them, yes or no — it’s also about forming them, and that’s being lost in the shuffle, it seems.

Take the issue of Trump’s disrespecting of gold-star father, Khizr Khan, an episode which Strzok pointedly hauled out at the hearing. Nothing Strzok said in his testimony was offered without extreme consideration and, no doubt, lawyerly advice, so why bring up Khan, in particular? Clearly, it’s because the rendition of that event as framed by the anti-Trump left and swallowed whole by Strzok paints a picture so egregious, so utterly without justification, and, they believe, so revelatory of Trump’s deficient, repellant character that no one could possible argue otherwise or fail to see it in the same way. Since we all agree on its awfulness, Strzok is convinced, surely we can empathize with his inability to temper his late night missive, exhausted as he was from fighting the good fight for the American people all day, weighed down with the burden of having to diligently maintain his objectivity in the face of this kind of repulsive behavior by one of the candidates. Surely, in light of that, we can forgive him an intemperate outburst, especially because, again, again, again, he didn’t act on it.

But wait — there isanother side to that story that doesn’t have to do with disrespecting Khan, delegitimizing his heartrending grief, or exploiting his son’s tragic death, but which does, instead, endeavor to point out that the locus of who’s really doing the exploiting should perhaps be up for discussion, which was precisely the point of Trump’s remark. Now, you don’t have to agree or disagree with either side of that, but you can choose to do so — unless you’re an FBI agent likely to be in a position to influence the lives of people touched by it, one way or the other. Doesn’t an FBI agent have a greater duty to work hard to “keep an open mind”? Was it really okay for Strzok to immediately embrace the politicized version of that event, fly off the handle and fulminate with righteous indignation — and then set about investigating one of the parties involved? Is Strzok unaware that all kinds of people say all kinds of things in the political rough-and-tumble and that sorting it out not only takes a lot of work — but is a job best left to the American people at large?

With all the power granted to the FBI, all the trust in their fairness, the spirit of objectivity, not just the letter of it, must surely include a requirement that they make a good faith effort to stand back from the punchbowl, truly so and emotionally so, in order to maintain as clear a head and as clear a heart as possible. Grant the benefit of the doubt, reserve judgment, refuse to be enveloped by the noise and the jostling — and only then wield that enormous power to affect peoples’ lives, either positively or, quite possibly, ruinously. If you don’t have the bias, you don’t have to work so hard not to act on it. Why did Strzrok and the rest seem to feel absolutely no obligation to avoid forming the opinions that they now have to tortuously (and, frankly, ridiculously) claim didn’t influence them?

Think about this insightful tweet from Kimberley Strassel (WSJ):

On the question of Strzok’s bias and whether we should believe he didn’t act on it. The question every American should ask is this: How would you feel if he’d expressed such disgust toward you, and was also investigating you?

Here’s how you would feel: You would feel screwed, in major danger and very much in the presence of an enemy out to get you — even if for no other reason than to validate the opinions they went in with (and which, in the case of Strzok, he spent endless emails posturing for his girlfriend about). You would have grave doubts about your chances of being treated fairly. And guess what? Human nature being what it is, you would be right.

The question of whether Strzok, Page, Comey, McCabe and the rest were able to “put their biases aside” is actually secondary, because no one with any common sense at all, or any experience with the way people actually operate, believes they did, including all the Democrats doing everything they can to disrupt the hearing, throw a blockade around Strzok, and prevent the truth from coming out. The real question is: What is the FBI going to do to make sure that in the future, agents understand their obligation to fairness begins way before the point when they have allowed themselves to become so overburdened with opinions, prejudgements, and biases that they have to figure out how to conduct themselves honorably despite the looming influence of entrenched and emotionally significant baggage.

Real fealty to their oath begins with the application of serious, honorable due-diligence to prevent those things from forming in the first place. It’s not that hard. You just have to remember Momma’s admonition that “There are two sides to every story” and avoid the temptation to indulge in the kind of delicious, holier-than-thou finger pointing, grandstanding and virtue-signaling (looking at you, Peter Strzok) — all those things that can lead to bias — that those of us who don’t have other peoples’ lives in our hands are allowed to engage in, but which FBI agents surely should not. Wouldn’t it be nice if FBI Director Christopher Wray made that point to his troops?

Henry Scanlon is a writer and photographer from Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. See more at http://www.henryscanlon.com. Twitter: hscanlon33

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/07/strzok_the_fbi_and_bias.html

We Cannot Allow Strzokians Back into Power
July 14, 2018 By Lloyd Marcus
Peter Strzok’s arrogance displayed at the Congressional Oversight Committee hearing on TV was infuriating. With their superior noses high in the air, Strzok and the Democrats behaviorally said f*** you to the Republicans, the law, and We the People. It was disgraceful watching Strzok and his Democratic posse insult our intelligence by claiming, despite overwhelming evidence, FBI agent Strzok had no bias against Trump.
Strzok and the Democrats’ insistence that Strzok had no bias against Trump reminded me of a comedy skit with the late Don Adams. In the skit, Adams’ wife came home, catching him in bed with a woman. Adams’ wife ranted expressing her shock and outrage. Adams and his lover calmly got out of bed, got dressed and made the bed. The woman left. Adams behaved like nothing happened and left the bedroom. The skit ends with his wife standing there, questioning her sanity – pondering whether or not she saw what she thinks she saw. Strzok and the Democrats are attempting to pull the same trick on America. They are telling us Strzok expressed no bias against Trump while clear evidence of Strzok’s biasis right before our eyes.

The thing that got my blood boiling was Strzok’s snooty attitude. His facial expressions and body language said, “How dare you question me. I don’t have to answer any of your questions. F*** you Republicans and fly-over-country Trump-supportive Americans.” Strzok and his fellow FBI agent Lisa Pageimpugned Trump supporters as smelly hillbilly Walmart shoppers. Strzok epitomizes the American left’s disdain for everyday Americans — We the People.

I’m in Montana with the Conservative Campaign Committee campaigning for conservative Republican Matt Rosendale for U.S. Senate. We produced a video ad in which I explained how crucial it is that we folks who love the direction Trump is taking our country stay politically engaged. We must get out the vote for the swiftly approaching midterm elections. If the Democrats take control of Congress, first on their agenda will be impeaching Trump and blocking and reversing Trump’s progress towards rolling back Obama’s punish-America legacy. The last thing we need is people who share Strzok’s mindset back in power.

The Democrats’ behavior during the oversight committee hearing was off-the-chain rude, crude, and arrogant — emitting a repulsive stench of superiority. It truly was infuriating watching Democrats, in essence, give the law, Republicans, and We the People their middle fingers.

Democrats and the American left truly do believe they are our betters. And when we disagree with their attempts to control every aspect of our lives “for our own good”, they gang assault us in the media, seek to criminalize our opposition, andencourage their minions to physically beat us up. Meanwhile, the leftist media constantly lectures us everyday Americans to be more tolerant of attacks on our traditional values, principles and institutions. Leftists tell us to be more civil, less hateful and mean-spirited.

This week, leftists have recently declared “cowboys” to be racist and sexist.

Michael Landon’s beautiful classic TV series, “Little House on the Prairie” has been declared racist and homophobic. Awhile back, leftists declared the peanut butter and jelly sandwich racist.

Do we really want people with this insidious wacko kind of thinking back in power — calling the shots, mandating how we must live our lives? If the Democrats take back Congress in November, rest assured, they will continue leftists’ transformation of America.

Our Conservative Campaign Committee team figuratively rode into Montana on white horses and wearing white cowboy hats because we are excited to provide boots-on-the-ground support for a true rock-solid conservative — Matt Rosendale.

When Montana voted to give their politicians a pay raise, Rosendale turned it down. Who does that, folks? As state auditor, Rosendale cut his operating budget 23%.

Rosendale is boldly 100% supportive of Trump’s Make America Great Again agenda. Do we need this guy in Washington or what?

Life has taught me to always look for the blessing in every situation. The Congressional Oversight Committee hearing on TV has exposed the Democrats and Strzok as spoiled-brat anti-American obstructionists. We cannot and will not allow these Strzokian villains back into power.

Please help elect Matt Rosendale.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American

Help Lloyd spread the Truth

http://LloydMarcus.com

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/07/we_cannot_allow_strzokians_back_into_power.html

American Patriot Daily: Trey Gowdy Made A Move That May Send Hillary To Jail After All

by nootkabear, posted in 10-15 million people, Clinton, Congress, email

trye-1024x682
free image upload

Trey Gowdy Made A Move That May Send Hillary To Jail After All

Trey Gowdy Made A Move That May Send Hillary To Jail After All

Did Trey Gowdy set a trap for Hillary Clinton?

When the former Secretary of State testified before the Benghazi Select Committee last fall, she claimed she never sent nor received any classified intelligence on her private email server.

We now know that is a lie, and it may have serious consequences for Hillary Clinton.

When FBI Director James Comey testified before Congress regarding his decision to not recommend charges against Hillary, he ran straight into Trey Gowdy’s buzz saw.

By using his cynical – and often hysterical – questioning tactics he’s known for, Gowdy was able to force the FBI Director to admit Clinton should have known she was sending and receiving classified intelligence.

McClatchy D.C. reports:

“Comey acknowledged, however, that several of Clinton’s statements about the arrangement weren’t accurate. She testified for 11 hours in October on Capitol Hill about the 2012 fatal attacks in Benghazi, Libya, during which she said she’d turned over all her emails, she had not sent or received classified information with markings, she had used only one device and that neither she nor her aides had deleted work-related emails.

Comey said her statement that she had neither sent nor received any items marked classified was not accurate.

“That is not true,” Comey said in a rapid-fire exchange with Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina. “There were a small number of portion markings.”

Three emails were marked with a “(C),” which indicates material is confidential, the lowest level of classification, he testified.”

Director Comey tried to slither out of the corner Gowdy backed him into and said he had no evidence Clinton lied to the FBI.

But that wasn’t Gowdy’s point.

Clinton was under oath when she testified to Congress.

Lying to Congress carries the penalty of perjury.

And Trey Gowdy has laid the groundwork for yet another criminal investigation into Hillary if, in fact, she did commit perjury.

Shortly after Director Comey’s appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Congress formally requested an FBI investigation to determine if Clinton lied to Congress.

CNN reports:

“Two House Republican committee chairmen formally requested that the Justice Department investigate whether Hillary Clinton lied to Congress.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, sent a letter to Channing Phillips, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, on Monday, asking for a new probe to determine with Clinton “committed perjury and made false statements during her testimony under oath before congressional committees.”

Will this be the investigation that finally trips up Hillary Clinton?

Director Comey did tell Congress they had found emails marked as classified on her server.

And he also stated that any other reasonable person in Clinton’s position would have known an unsecure server was no place to transmit classified intelligence.

Does anyone really believe Clinton simply didn’t notice the classified markings on those emails?

Do you think Hillary Clinton perjured herself when she said she never sent nor received classified intelligence on her homebrew email server?

Let us know what you think in the comment section.

The FresnoBee: “Congress cannot simply rewrite history and strip the Confederate flag from existence,” Rep. Steven Palazzo, R-Miss.

by nootkabear, posted in Confederate Flag, Congress, National Park Service

What really happened in flag debate in Congress

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/politics-government/article27002098.html

National Park Service, House Dems say GOP change meshed with Obama policy

Several Democrats wanted tougher stance on flag than White House’s

House majority leader, Rep. John Lewis talk behind closed doors


In this photo combination, the Confederate battle flag is raised in front of the South Carolina State House in Columbia, S.C., on July 1, 2000, left, and the same flag is taken down on July 10, 2015, right, ending its presence on the Capitol grounds. The flag’s removal seemed unthinkable before the June 17 massacre of nine black parishioners at a Charleston church during a Bible study. Dylann Roof, a white man who was photographed with the Confederate flag, is charged in the shooting deaths, and authorities have called the killings a hate crime.
PAULA ILLINGWORTH, JOHN BAZEMORE AP
BY WILLIAM DOUGLAS
wdouglas@mcclatchydc.com

WASHINGTON
The head of the Democratic Party said they were among the darkest hours in the history of the House of Representatives. The White House said Republicans were strikingly eager to defend the Confederate flag.

Republicans said they were merely proposing to enforce existing policies about the sale and display of the flag in national cemeteries set by the Obama administration itself in the wake of the massacre at a Charleston, S.C., church.

The bottom line: The Republicans were correct that they were moving to maintain Obama policies.

But that’s only part of the story. Also true: House Democrats wanted to go farther than Obama and ban most Confederate flags from national cemeteries. And in the furor, they failed to note that Obama could have already done what the House Democrats want.

Here’s what happened.

On Tuesday, Democrats proposed three amendments to a bill financing the Interior Department. They would ban the sale of Confederate flags at vendors or the display or Confederate flags at gravesites in national cemeteries.

The House approved them by voice vote.

“The language of the amendments were clear,” said Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., one of the authors. “Everybody knew what we were doing.”

He added that Democrats didn’t seek roll call votes on the amendments because it would have put some Republicans uncomfortably on the record and “we did expect that a few of them would probably vote against these amendments if there was a roll call.”

Less than 24 hours after the Democratic amendments passed, several Republican House members from Southern states complained to their party’s leadership about the recently passed amendments, according to several lawmakers.

“Congress cannot simply rewrite history and strip the Confederate flag from existence,” Rep. Steven Palazzo, R-Miss., said in a statement. “Members of Congress from New York and California cannot wipe away 150 years of Southern history with sleight-of-hand tactics. I will fight to ensure that this language is not included in any bill signed into law.”

Late Wednesday night, Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Calif., chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee for Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, introduced a one-paragraph amendment that didn’t specifically mention Confederate flags.

Instead, it stated that “none of the funds made available by this Act may be used to prohibit the display of the flag of the United States or the POW/MIA flag or the decoration of graves with flags in the National Park Service national cemeteries as provided in the National Park Service Director’s Order No. 61 or to contravene the National Park Service memorandum dates June 24, 2015 . . . with respect to sale items.”

That affirmed the Obama administration policies set in 2010 and updated last month after the Charleston shootings.

But in so doing, it also reversed Huffman’s amendments, which had been agreed to Tuesday.

The White House slammed the GOP amendment.

“When you hear me say that congressional Republicans have an agenda that is out of step with the vast majority of Americans, this record at least in part is what I’m referring to,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Thursday.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, chair of the Democratic National Committee, said, “The last 24 hours in the House of Representatives are some of the darkest I have witnessed as a member of Congress.”

But Calvert said all his amendment would do is codify current National Park Service policy regarding Confederate flags set by the Obama administration.

That policy prohibits the sale of items with Confederate flag imagery but allows the Confederate flags to be flown in “specific circumstances where the flags provide historical context, for instance to signify troop location or movement or as part of a historical re-enactment or living history program.”

Current policy allows visitors to place small Confederate flags at the graves of rebel soldiers buried in federal cemeteries on Confederate Memorial Days in Southern states that mark the day. The flags must be removed by the end of that day.

“The intent of the leadership amendment was to clear up any confusion and maintain the Obama administration’s policies with respect to those historical and educational exceptions,” Calvert said in a statement.

National Park Service officials and House Democrats involved in the flag debate agreed Friday that the Republican amendment would have continued the exemptions allowed by the administration.

“It would revert to the status quo,” said Huffman.

A Park Service official concurred that the amendment would have meant “a continuation” of current administration policy.

The White House declined to say why the administration, which changed the policy on its own in 2010 and again on June 24, is not changing it again to accommodate the requests from House Democrats.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, pulled the Interior appropriations bill Thursday to avoid the flag vote and called for an “adult conversation” among members about what to do about issues involving Confederate flags and symbols.

On Friday, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a civil rights-era icon, walked off the House floor together to a nearby room. A Republican aide shuttered the blinds to the room’s glass doors.

“We had a friendly conversation,” is all Lewis would say afterward.　　

William Douglas: 202-383-6026, @williamgdouglas

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/news/politics-government/article27002098.html#storylink=cpy