Open Mic

Frontrunners?

Priority should be to get someone up and running before the next session starts!

Just as we did in 2010 when John Paul Stevens retired and Elena Kagen was confirmed in August. There was no suggestion from the media or Republicans that Obama had to wait because there was a midterm election. 

Washington, D.C., appellate Judge Brett Kavanaugh

 7th Circuit Judge Amy Coney 

Shooter unsuccessfully sued newspaper for defamation

While one probably has nothing to do with the other, it becomes ironic that the very people who have been writing editorials and opinion articles about how liberals need to "fuck civility" will be the same ones who are the most "shocked" to see a crazy person open fire on employees of a local newspaper.

Meanwhile, Maxine Winters now has death threats against her, after spending the past few days promoting and encouraging the same sort of harassment that the shooter was originally arrested for.

I certainly understand that there are politicians, media members, and rank and file liberals who are very upset over a booming economy, near record low unemployment, almost no mention of terrorism, and the fact that the adults in the USSC spend the past few weeks slapping down liberal court activism. But perhaps we should all understand that public calls for incivility, high ranking elected leaders demanding that people break the law, and a general feeling that anything goes is not a healthy one for society as a whole.

This particular shooting is not a gun law deal. It's not something that can be blamed on Trump. It's very likely just a crazy person who somehow got the idea that shooting up a news room is a reasonable action to take in today's uncivil society.

Unions had a choice...

Represent their union members and work on their behalf... or represent the Democratic Party and work on their behalf. The have clearly and consistently choose that the latter is more important than the former.

Immigration Amnesty bill lose 121-301

President was right to tell Ryan to stop wasting his time... 

Liberal meltdown in full swing...

I guess they should have listened McConnell, but you reap what you sew!

Kennedy to Retire

Effective July 31st - Justice Kennedy is retiring. He sent a letter to the President and made the announcement today. Kennedy is sticking with the tradition of stepping down while the President is of the same Party who originally nominated him is in office (and in this case, where the Senate is in Republican hands).  

There is little doubt that the President and the GOP Senate will work to confirm a new Justice later this summer. It's obvious that Kennedy wants Trump to name his replacement, and there will be no incentive for the President or the GOP to wait till after the election.

Mandatory union fees unconstitutional

Supreme Court deals sharp defeat to public employee unions, banning mandatory fees

The Supreme Court dealt labor unions a sharp defeat Wednesday, ruling that teachers, police officers and other public employees cannot be forced to pay dues or fees to support their unions. By a 5 to 4 vote, the justices overturned a 41-year-old precedent and ruled that the 1st Amendment protects these employees from being required to support a private group whose views may differ from theirs.

Expected, but still another blow to liberals and forced liberalism in general.

The folly of the left in wake of a disastrous USSC session...

So I have spent much of last night and this morning combing over the various liberal "the sky is falling" reactions over the virtual legal beat down that they have received at the hands of the USSC, led by what appears to be a vastly more conservative version of Justice Kennedy.

Part of this is on display when I watched Rachel Maddow on her show provide the sort of crocodile tears that almost had me tearing as well (with laughter). Democrats have lost at the Presidential level, the national congressional level, the state levels, and all the way down to the local dog catching level. However, Maddow suggested that liberals everywhere been holding out hope that the courts would save them, and now are utterly devastated that these hopes have been dashed. According to Maddow, many of her liberal friends are feeling depressed, uninspired, and beaten down by the recent USSC session rulings, which all pretty much went against liberal judicial activism, and for the rule of law.

Another part of this can be seen as I read the article in the L.A. Times which attempted to claim that the USSC was being hypocritical in ruling against the State of Colorado in the case of the baker and the same sex wedding case, while ruling in favor of the Trump travel ban. They believe that it was wrong to cite their opinion that the State of Colorado and the lower courts were hostile to Jack Phillips religious rights and that this was relevant to the law and their decision, but that they didn't want to take into consideration that President Trump had made hostile statements regarding Muslims, in deciding the travel ban case.

In both these situations (and in plenty of others) it appears that liberals have lost their ability to distinguish between the responsibilities of politicians, versus the responsibilities of what is supposed be objective ruling commissions and judges. Politicians are the very people elected to make laws. They are expected to make those laws based on their own personal political ideology as well as the political ideology of those who voted them into office. Commission boards and Judges are not supposed to make rulings based on their own political leanings. On the contrary. They are sworn to objectively uphold the rules, regulations, and laws. They are supposed to effectively ignore their own personal feelings about these situations, and figure out whether or not something is or is not objectively legal.

In a nutshell, most of these cases being decided against liberal causes have two things in common.

• The USSC is telling the commissions, Judges, and Justices to leave their personal beliefs at home, and make their decisions objectively on the rule of law.
• The USSC is telling the lower courts that politicians are allowed to make judgement calls, because that it what they elected to do. Unless there is an obvious constitutional issue involved with the decision, it's not the court's place to second guess politicians.

This doesn't sit well with activist Judges who want to legislate from the bench, or to the liberal minority who looks to these activist Judges to save them from their election failures. But it is consistent with the constitution, the rule of law, and what should make perfect sense in our system of Government. 

How you know that you have Trump derangement syndrome

• If you refer to a travel ban that includes North Korea and Venezuela as a "Muslim ban",  then you have Trump derangement syndrome.
• If you state that a travel ban is reviling Muslims, then you have Trump derangement syndrome. 
• If you demand that a travel ban is an attack on our communities, then you have Trump derangement syndrome.
• If you bring up slavery in the discussions about this travel ban, then you have Trump derangement syndrome.
• If you attack the Supreme Court Justices as endorsing racism, then you have Trump derangement syndrome.
• If you believe that the USSC has some sort of responsibility to overturn everything Trump as a matter of basic principle, then you have Trump derangement syndrome.
• If you refer to the travel ban as violating the rights of Americans, then you have Trump derangement syndrome.
• If you argue that a travel ban is the same thing as putting people into a containment camp, then you have Trump derangement syndrome.
• If you see a comparison between a travel ban and a baker who bakes wedding cakes, then you have Trump derangement syndrome. 
• If you believe that Trump can legally ban travel, immigration, and asylum from these seven countries, but not countries from Central America, then you have Trump derangement syndrome. 
• If you make the argument that Trump should be impeached for securing our borders, then you have Trump derangement syndrome.

USSC Upholds Trump Travel Ban

Yes, the President has the authority to block people from coming into the country

Let's start with this. It was totally expected that the Administration (and Presidential authority in general) would win the day. The only real question was whether or not the ruling would somehow "temper" the travel ban in order to garner additional Justices. Obviously the ruling did not wallow into the areas of grey, but rather stuck with the black and white core of the issue. Ultimately the court upheld not only this particular ban specifically, but also the President's authority to place limits on immigration and travel in general.

This obviously is a bitter blow to those who suggested that Trump should not have the authority to make these decisions, or that he should be required to "run it by a Judge" before making these sort of executive calls. The Justices made it crystal clear (much like other cases this session) that it is not up to the courts to provide personal opinions regarding the merits of certain actions, but rather it is only up to the courts to decide the fundamental legality or constitutionality of an action.

The constitution and federal law makes it crystal clear that the President of the United States (whether that be Barack Obama or Donald Trump) has the authority to make judgement calls regarding who can and cannot enter our country. The decision today makes it even clearer that the personal opinions of any particular judge is legally irrelevant.

Trump tax policy brings $300 billion back into U.S. in Q1

The BIG picture regarding the economy 

Despite President Trump's tit-for-tat trade barbs, America’s CEOs are not wasting anytime in taking advantage of his tax reform plan. Over $300 billion was repatriated to the U.S. in the first quarter, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) -- the most on record.

But then again, what would a multi-billionaire know about economic issues like this? Wouldn't we rather have a former college instructor trying to tell us all what our business leaders "should do" while making national economic policy based on his personal political ideology.

USSC sends Florist case back to Washington state court...

Shortly after issuing their decision in the Colorado case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the justices considered the case of Barronelle Stutzman, a Washington state florist who, like the Colorado baker, declined to provide her services – this time, original flower arrangements – to a same-sex couple for their wedding. After the state courts rejected her argument that requiring her to design floral arrangements for same-sex weddings would violate her First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of her religion, Stutzman went to the Supreme Court, asking them to review that ruling. The justices put Stutzman’s appeal on hold until they ruled on the Masterpiece decision, and today they sent her case back to the lower courts so that (as in Masterpiece) they can consider Stutzman’s assertion that she too was the victim of religious hostility. 

Once again the USSC is putting the pressure on another State Court to consider both the religious rights and gay rights claims as equal under the eyes of the constitution. As pointed out, the Judges (without going into the same amount of detail the did in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case) determined that the Washington Courts were similarly hostile to the religious freedom arguments made by Stutzman.

I guess those who thought these cases were settled (because your liberal media sort of brushed aside these appeals to the USSC as irrelevant) have some rethinking to do on this subject. It would appear (and rightfully so) that it's not up to the courts to determine who's rights are important and who's rights are not.

Recent court rulings that allowed retail and hospitality businesses to discriminate against people based on political affiliation, may also eventually come into play here. It's sort of hard to continue to demand that everyone must serve everyone else, unless the person wanting service works for a Republican or is wearing a MAGA cap.

Hypocrisy may be the bedrock of liberalism, but it's not the bedrock of our judicial system.

Democrats are embracing their "party of hate" moniker

There really is no other practical way to describe the recent events by liberals across the country, other than hateful acts of intolerance. Kicking conservatives out of restaurants, harassing them at movie theaters and other public events, or simply protesting outside their place of residence. These are the sort of brown shirt inspired actions we have seen throughout history. To be clear, intolerance and hate never ages well in terms of historical perspective.

Bitter, angry, and downright mean!

The irony is that these are the same people who claim to be tolerant and inclusive. I supposed if Huckabee Sanders and party would have wanted the Red Hen to bake them a cake with the face of Donald Trump in yellow icing, it all would have been different?

Moreover, you have Democrats in congress and liberals in the media cheer-leading for this, and demanding more of the same. Sorry folks, but this doesn't end well for these extremists. There may be a dwindling percentage of liberal Americans who still don't accept the results of the last election, but the overwhelming majority of Americans want to see all Americans (even those we politically disagree with) treated with at least some dignity and respect.

When you've lost your ability to show dignity and respect, then you've lost your ability to think and see clearly (or that could be the other way around).

So what would Americans like to see?

CBS Battleground poll - bad news for Democratic immigration policy

• Release the entire family back to their home country together: 48%
• Release the entire family in the U.S. temporarily and require that they report back for a hearing later: 21%
• Arrest the parents but keep the children with them in the same detention facility: 11%
• Arrest the parents and keep the children in a separate detention facility: 4%
• Not sure: 16%

So a strong plurality (and a majority of those with an opinion) believe that the correct solution is to simply send these families back to their home countries. Ironically this is the suggestion that the President keeps making, and that Democrats keep criticizing him for. Overall, nearly two thirds wants to either deport them immediately or arrest and detain them. 

On the flip side, only 21% of Americans agree with the former policy of the Obama administration, which was to release these illegals into the country, and ask them (pretty please with sugar on top) to report back for a hearing.

The Democrats and the liberal media simply don't get it. No matter how hard they attempt to "manufacture" support for liberal policies at the border, the American public is not buying it. This faux outrage over the detention center situation is only bringing the problems at our border back into the spotlight (which is exactly where Trump and the GOP want them to be). 

Even Andrew Sullivan is throwing in the towel and admitting that it's time for the Democrats to give Trump the wall he campaigned on. According to this recent poll, the previously unpopular wall now is favored by 51% of Americans. This rise in popularity has no doubt been prompted by all of the attention being given to the problems at the border. The more these problems are exposed, the more people will want to fix them.  The large plurality believe that involves reducing the amount of people trying to cross, and sending a strong message to those who actually make it across illegally.

Democrats and their allies in the media have outfoxed themselves once again. It continues to be very fun to watch this over and over.

Mueller cutting and running from humiliating Russian cases?

Mueller signals outside prosecutors may eventually take over Russian trolls case

In a pair of court filings Friday, the special counsel added four assistant U.S. attorneys to the case against Russian entities and people accused of running an online influence operation targeting American voters.

People familiar with the staffing decision said the new prosecutors are not joining Mueller's team, but rather are being added to the case so that they could someday take responsibility for it when the special counsel ceases operation. The case those prosecutors are joining could drag on for years because the indictment charges a number of Russians who will probably never see the inside of a U.S. courtroom. Russia does not extradite its citizens.

So this makes perfect sense, huh? The special counsel assigned to take over the Russian meddling investigation is going to hand off the cases against the Russians who meddled, in order to concentrate his efforts on prosecuting old cases that have nothing to do with Russia.

Talk about a guy with his priorities?

More to the point, much of the speculation is that the Russian legal cases were little more than a public relations stunt, and that the actual court cases (that nobody expected would come to fruition) could end up with humiliating consequences for the prosecutors involved.

Sunday Open Mic !!!

IG report& McCarthy opinion follow up

While I can certainly find fault with the IG final conclusions regarding the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email, I can also respect the amount of restraint he places upon himself as an investigator. Certainly (especially in terms of investigations that have political undertones) some degree of deference is prudent. To the extent that we should desire an investigator to question the judgement of those assigned to provide it, the burden of proof should be fairly high.

In the case of an FBI investigation into a high ranking politician (especially a Presidential candidate), we are always going to have a fairly significant public opinion "split" as to whether or not an investigation is "fair". Some will argue (no matter what) that it wasn't broad enough, while others will argue (no matter what) that it went too far.

If we allow an investigator (such as an IG) the chance to "second guess" decisions on the basis of politics, that would likely open up a whole new can of worms that it obviously not needed in today's blazing hot partisan environment. In this case Horowitz was provided with a thankless task, and he knew for sure that he was going to be a pretty big goat to many Americans regardless of what he came back with.

But ultimately I think that is wise to provide the benefit of the doubt to those tasked to take on the responsibilities (sometime enormous responsibilities) of important and substantial jobs. Even as Horowitz admits that it's his "opinion" that bias resulted in some poor decision making, it is probably wise to not push for harsh penalties or criminal referrals for an opinion that (while it may seem obvious to many) lacks the sort of "smoking gun evidence" that will convince and ultimately appease everyone.

Moreover, if we get into the habit of second guessing those burdened with large responsibilities, then we could see ourselves marching closer and closer to that banana republic, where our Justice system is weighted substantial to those who have been elected into office, or otherwise supplied with the power. A system where our "politics" is placed above true justice.

The President of the United States has enormous responsibility and power. The President (like it or not) is also a politician with partisan beliefs, many of which can be argued is the reason why this particular person was elected. If we allow investigators to constantly second guess the decisions of the President, under the guise that these constitutionally granted powers can be seen as criminal, then we would truly be a banana republic.

When looking at people in positions of power, only actual criminal behavior should be punished. Legal behavior should only be questioned when the action is so obvious and so corrupt, as to be (to paraphrase I.G. Horowitz) literally indefensible. No single person (certainly not an investigator) should be given the power to "opine" whether or not a legal action is corrupt, based on his or her personal belief. They should find the smoking gun evidence, or leave their opinions about what "should have been done" to themselves.

Or perhaps they could run for office, so that they could have to power to make the decisions in a a manner that they believe is right. In a perfect world, they could do so without the threat of criminal investigations every time their decision doesn't sit well with others.

In spite of coordinated media smear. Trump approval improves!

McCarthy puts things in perspective...

The IG Report Should End Mueller’s Obstruction Investigation

While generally cautious about criticizing Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on the Clinton-emails investigation, Trump supporters have taken aim at its chief logical flaw: Although key investigators harbored anti-Trump and pro-Clinton bias, and even made statements indicating an intention to act on that bias, the IG did not find that this bias was the proximate cause of any particular investigative decision.

This conclusion is easy to rebut; I did so myself in a column last week. Yet, the Trump camp should also be embracing it. Why? Because if this is the Justice Department’s position, then Special Counsel Robert Mueller has no business investigating the president for obstruction.

So the article is worth a read. But like many McCarthy articles it gets a little wordy, so I will attempt to get to the point in a much quicker fashion. Bottom line is that Horowitz is taking the position (and by proxy it is the position of the DOJ/FBI) that:

• Proving bad intent (in this case political bias) requires either documented proof of bad intent, or a testimonial admittance of bad intent.
• That it is not the job of investigators to use their own opinion or judgement to determine whether or not there is bad intent. 
• The reasons given by the people under investigation for questionable actions must be accepted as valid, unless the reason is so unreasonable that there is no defense of it.
• There would be no consideration for an "accumulation" of questionable actions proving bad intent. Rather investigators must view each incident independently of one another when looking for specific bad intent.  

In his testimony to Congress the other day Horowitz shows that he clearly believes that there was bias and that it effected a variety of facets of the investigation. But he stood by the position that it's not his place to accuse someone in a factual investigative procedure that could lead to a criminal prosecution, without actual tangible proof. 

In other words, the case against the FBI in their handling of the Clinton email investigation was entirely "circumstantial". There is certainly enough circumstantial evidence to cause most reasonable people to believe that there was bias, and that this bias effected their decision making. The problem was that Horowitz believed that there was no "tangible evidence" that could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Because of the lack of a "smoking gun" it was not his place to make the accusation.

Clearly if that is the standard used by the DOJ (and obviously Mueller is under the umbrella of the DOJ) then Donald Trump has not committed any obstruction of justice. As long as Trump doesn't either provide documented physical or verbal admittance that he was attempting to obstruct justice with any of his actions, it's not up to Mueller to opine differently. As long as Trump had a reasonable explanation for firing James Comey or taking other actions, then it cannot be obstruction.

Now quite obviously the Trump haters out there will not take kindly to the suggestion that Mueller cannot simply "decide" that Trump committed obstruction without a smoking gun. Obviously these Trump haters are not going to like the concept Mueller must accept that unless somehow Trump admits he had bad intent, that the special prosecutor cannot make a finding of the sort of bad intent that would be required to make the accusation of obstruction. 

All that being said, we obviously live in the real world. In the real world, there are different types of justice. There will always be one set of standards surrounding people with names like Clinton and Obama, and a completely different set of standards for people with names like Trump and Manafort. 

Hypocrisy has always been the bedrock of liberalism, and today that same hypocrisy appears to be the bedrock of our law enforcement.

Sat Morning Open Mic

Time - Fake news

The media continues to lie... 

Little girl never separated from her mother

A good ruling?

Opinion analysis: Court holds that police will generally need a warrant for cellphone location information

Over 40 years ago, the Supreme Court outlined what has come to be known as the “third-party doctrine” – the idea that the Fourth Amendment does not protect records or information that someone voluntarily shares with someone or something else. Today the Supreme Court ruled that, despite this doctrine, police will generally need to get a warrant to obtain cell-site location information, a record of the cell towers (or other sites) with which a cellphone connected. In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the five-justice majority pointed to “seismic shifts in digital technology,” which have allowed wireless carriers to collect “deeply revealing” information about cellphone owners that should be protected by the Constitution. Roberts characterized the ruling as a narrow one, but it still drew criticism from the dissenting justices, who complained that it is likely to imperil, in the words of Justice Samuel Alito, “many legitimate and valuable investigative practices on which law enforcement has rightfully come to rely.”

In this case Roberts joined with the four liberals to declare that there are some limits to the "third-party doctrine". I think this is a good (but very limited ruling). With cell phone technology so absurdly robust, and the basic concept that nearly everyone carries one, you have to believe that with all of what these cell phones (and cell phone carriers) can monitor and report on, eventually becomes too much to simply demand that you are willingly and freely providing this to a "third party".

Perhaps the fine print on your cell phone contracts cover this, but I hardly believe that the choice of carrying a cell phone should mean that law enforcement and our intelligence community can legally monitor your every movement without a warrant.

A cold hard look at the facts of "family-separation-gate"

So the first thing that we have to recognize (as a simple undisputed fact) is that a significant portion of the people being detained at the border are accused of crimes other than just illegally crossing the border. Thousands of pounds of drugs (such as cocaine and heroin) are compensated along the border every year. Guns are being smuggled across the border. Human trafficking is commonplace. Gang members (such as the MS13) are streaming across the border looking to join the American gangs.

So the reality is that these border detainment camps are not a family friendly atmosphere, complete with play dates, after school activities, and Sunday afternoon barbecues. These are dangerous violent facilities. Fights, beatings, drugs, sex, and even rape was commonplace in these detention facilities. Why would we want to house children in this sort of atmosphere? Why would we subject them to drugs, beatings, and rape? Would anyone suggest that our minor aged criminal offenders be house in adult prisons? How about housing teenage girls along side the harden criminals of a federal penitentiary with limited supervision?

Of course not.

The idea of having children in these border detention centers prompted a variety of lawsuits, executive agreements, and legal decisions by the courts. The eventual legal outcome from all of this was that children could not be housed in adult detention centers except for a very short period of time. These legal decisions were once applauded by civil rights groups, child protection groups, and other advocates.

However, today, we have our nonsensical "resistance" circulating old pictures of these child detention centers, telling us all how inhuman it is that the children have been "ripped from the arms of their parents". Suddenly, according to the mindless, we are in the middle of a humanitarian crisis of the scope that we have not seen since the holocaust, and gulag camps. All because we are following the guidance of previous court and executive decisions, designed specifically to protect children.

Oh, and go figure... the horrifying humanitarian crisis is (of course) all Donald Trump's fault. 

RIP Charles Krauthammer

The Democratic plan to fix the border family separation problem...

Basically their plan is to make it impossible to arrest anyone within 100 miles of a border port. Of course it makes no consideration as to whether the people in question are citizens or illegals who crossed the border. So effectively, arresting an American citizen for a normal crime, thus removing a child from that guardian, could be effectively against this law?

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Keep Families Together Act”.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON THE SEPARATION OF FAMILIES.

(a) In General.—An agent or officer of a designated agency shall be prohibited from removing a child from his or her parent or legal guardian, at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the border of the United States, unless one of the following has occurred:

(1) A State court, authorized under State law, terminates the rights of a parent or legal guardian, determines that it is in the best interests of the child to be removed from his or her parent or legal guardian, in accordance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Public Law 105–89), or makes any similar determination that is legally authorized under State law.

(2) An official from the State or county child welfare agency with expertise in child trauma and development makes a best interests determination that it is in the best interests of the child to be removed from his or her parent or legal guardian because the child is in danger of abuse or neglect at the hands of the parent or legal guardian, or is a danger to herself or others.

(3) The Chief Patrol Agent or the Area Port Director in their official and undelegated capacity, authorizes separation upon the recommendation by an agent or officer, based on a finding that—

(A) the child is a victim of trafficking or is at significant risk of becoming a victim of trafficking;

(B) there is a strong likelihood that the adult is not the parent or legal guardian of the child; or

(C) the child is in danger of abuse or neglect at the hands of the parent or legal guardian, or is a danger to themselves or others.

(b) Prohibition On Separation.—An agency may not remove a child from a parent or legal guardian solely for the policy goal of deterring individuals from migrating to the United States or for the policy goal of promoting compliance with civil immigration laws.

(c) Documentation Required.—The Secretary shall ensure that a separation under subsection (a)(3) is documented in writing and includes, at a minimum, the reason for such separation, together with the stated evidence for such separation.

Democrats continue to lie about border issue

First they showed you pictures of children being detained from 2014, and blamed it on Trump.

Now they are claiming that the Trump executive order calls for the families to be held "indefinitely".

The relevant portion of the Executive Order:

Sec. 3. Temporary Detention Policy for Families Entering this Country Illegally. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary), shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, maintain custody of alien families during the pendency of any criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings involving their members.

(b) The Secretary shall not, however, detain an alien family together when there is a concern that detention of an alien child with the child’s alien parent would pose a risk to the child’s welfare.

(c) The Secretary of Defense shall take all legally available measures to provide to the Secretary, upon request, any existing facilities available for the housing and care of alien families, and shall construct such facilities if necessary and consistent with law. The Secretary, to the extent permitted by law, shall be responsible for reimbursement for the use of these facilities.

(d) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall, to the extent consistent with law, make available to the Secretary, for the housing and care of alien families pending court proceedings for improper entry, any facilities that are appropriate for such purposes. The Secretary, to the extent permitted by law, shall be responsible for reimbursement for the use of these facilities.

(e) The Attorney General shall promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 (“Flores settlement”), in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings.

Trump rights another Obama wrong...

Undoes previous Obama policy on family separation at the border!

Shumer and Pelosi must be soooo happy!!!

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Wednesday that he says will keep migrant families together during detention on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Trump said he will not end the administration's "zero tolerance" policy of criminally prosecuting every adult who crosses U.S. borders illegally, including those seeking asylum. The White House also will keep pressure on Congress to pass legislation that meets Trump's goals of halting the separation practice, funding his proposed border wall and limiting legal immigration.

"We're keeping families together and this will solve that problem. At the same time we are keeping a very powerful border and there continues to be a zero tolerance," Trump told reporters before he signed the order.

No more frog marching the kids, as they did back in 2014!!!

Manafort pleads guilty to manslaughter?

Is it true, or did you read it on ABC news?

Ryan will call for vote this week on bill to suspend "family separation" at the border

Any guesses who will vote against the bill!

Meanwhile back in the real world...

FBI agent Peter Strzok escorted from agency amid disciplinary proceedings

CBS News has learned that FBI agent Peter Strzok was escorted from the FBI amid disciplinary proceedings against him over anti-Trump text messages. Tuesday on Capitol Hill, Republicans hammered Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz about those messages between Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page. "March of 2016, Peter Strzok said Trump is abysmal ... Trump's an idiot, a bleeping idiot, Hillary Clinton should win 100 million to one," Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Tuesday. "Sounds to me like he hates the president." 

"His text messages would certainly leave that as the implication," Horowitz responded "I think, frankly, anybody should be concerned about any law enforcement officer expressing these kind of views ... whether it's a presidential race or a local election. It just shouldn't happen."

Where was the outrage when this was happening during the Obama administration?

Photos taken in 2014 prove that the faux outrage today is a total lie

My only question to liberals: Are you really this stupid, or do you you find your hypocrisy to be warranted because all lies are fair in love and politics?

How's this for a plan?

Why would any disagree with this? 

• Double the number of federal immigration judges, from roughly 375 to 750. 
• Authorize new temporary shelters, with accommodations to keep families together. 
• Mandate that illegal immigrant families must be kept together, absent aggravated criminal conduct or threat of harm to the children. 
• Provide for expedited processing and review of asylum cases, so that—within 14 days—those who meet the legal standards will be granted asylum, and those who do not will be immediately returned to their home countries.

To be clear, this plan is going nowhere? 

Why? 

Because it would actually legislatively solve the issue in a manner that the Trump administration would be happy to follow. It also takes away from a liberal crocodile tear issue. But most importantly, it ultimately does not require (or allow) that people who simply "apply" for asylum to be allowed in the country. For Democrats, it's open borders or bust. 

Liberal zeroes and heroes of law enforcement

The bad guys according to liberals!

The good guys according to liberals

Roger says that this member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is lying...

Because the NY Times told him so...

Dear Attorney General Sessions and Secretary Nielsen:

I write as one member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and not on behalf of the Commission as a whole. The majority of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has issued a statement condemning the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security for separating parents and children who cross the border illegally.1 The reason parents and children are separated is the law: When an adult illegal alien is prosecuted for unlawful entry, that person is taken into the custody of the U.S. Marshals and the children are taken into custody by HHS. Nonetheless, unless the adult applies for asylum, the unlawful entry is resolved relatively quickly and the separation is brief. But if the adult applies for asylum, the process–-and separation–is lengthier. That is because the 1997 Flores Consent Decree (and the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation thereof) stipulates that children may be held no more than twenty days. The asylum process is much longer.

If the U.S. were detaining the children with their parents, the Commission majority would surely issue a statement condemning the Departments for detaining children. Thus, the only way to avoid separating children from illegal alien parents that would be acceptable to the Commission majority would be to release both parents and children into the U.S., contrary to law. The bottom line is that the Commission majority is opposed to enforcing almost any immigration laws pertaining to illegal entry.

People who have potentially valid claims for asylum can present themselves at ports of entry and request asylum. They will be processed normally and will not be separated from their children because they are following the law.2

It is unwise to release detained individuals into the United States, because they are then very likely to abscond into the interior and fail to appear for their immigration hearing. “Over the past 20 years, 37 percent of all aliens free pending their trials – 918,098 out of 2,498,375 – never showed for court.”3 (Aliens who are detained are almost certain to appear at court, because they do not have the ability to abscond). And individuals who have claimed asylum also are likely to fail to appear for their court proceedings – “[o]n average, 46,000 people each year vanished from proceedings created specifically for those claiming persecution in the lands they called home.”4 This suggests that quite a few of these claims are weak, if not false, and that the individual’s goal was simply to make it into the United States and then disappear.

Separating children from their parents is regrettable. It is not, however, unique. American parents are separated from their children every day when they are arrested or incarcerated. According to HHS, during Fiscal Year 2016, 20,939 American children entered foster care because their parent is incarcerated.5 This is more than ten times the number of children who have been separated from their parents due to entering the United States illegally.6 People who cross the border illegally have committed a crime, and one of the consequences of being arrested and detained is, unfortunately, that their children cannot stay with them.

Among the principal reasons people immigrate to this country is the primacy we give to the rule of law and the benefits that flow therefrom. Despite what my colleagues seem to think, there is no super-statute that decrees that aliens must be treated better than Americans. If Congress decides to change the law, that is its prerogative. But until such time as Congress changes the law, the Department of Justice should continue enforcing existing law and prosecute every case of illegal entry.

Sincerely,

Peter Kirsanow Commissioner

So how can you "really" stop separating parents and kids at the border...

So first of all. Yes, it's absolutely true that the same laws are in place today than have been in place in the past. There is a law (that Democrats in congress are refusing to change) called the Flores Consent Decree, that legally allows the Government to only hold children for 20 days.

What happens is that the adults come into the country, get caught at the border, and then apply for asylum (in order to stay). Because the applications take longer than 20 days to process, that requires that the Government do one of two thing:

1. Simply let everyone go. Effectively allowing otherwise illegal aliens to enter the country, with pretty much no means to find them again.
2. Put the kids into foster or other types of care while the parents are held pending their applications.

Obviously the past Administration(s) have taken the approach that you simply let everyone go free in the country. Obviously this Administration is not buckling in to pressures to willingly let more illegals enter the country, so the kids end up being held in a different location than their parents, thus "separating them". 

Let's be clear. Kids are not being separated indefinitely. If the application for asylum is granted, then the families are reunited. If not, then the families are reunited when they are sent back to where they came from. 

So the solution appears obvious. Change the Flores Consent law and increase the budget for more family shelters at the border. 

The solution is not what the Democrats are advocating: that you just let them all go free into the United States simply because they "applied" for asylum.  

So once again...

we are supposed to treat illegal aliens with more respect than American citizens...

So everyone is up in arms over the fact that children of illegal aliens are being placed into foster care when their parents are otherwise arrested or held for their violations.

What do you suppose happens to an American child when their parents (or remaining parent) ends up breaking the law and going to prison? Yep, you got it. The child get "separated" from their parent(s) and placed into foster care.

Nobody argues that we shouldn't hold Americans accountable for their criminal actions, simply because doing so would place the children in foster homes. Why should we be turning a blind eye to criminal activity for non-Americans?

This is just another "emotional and irrational" argument from the left.

HUGE Breaking News!!!

Ted Cruz wins charity event over Jimmy Kimmel

Cruz takes Kimmel 11-9 in awe inspiring one v one half court game

Happy Dad Day !!

Our friends at Timbuk3

This is a recent thread from our friends over at Timbuk3. These are some our once proud "soars in the polls" participants (back when Roger was half-baked and RRB was RRB). 

Once the Yahoo "soars in the polls" thread went away the gang sort of split into two, with a handful of the far left posters moving to a closed blog (must be a member to comment). Some might even call it a circle-jerk, as there are pretty much no conservatives there. 

This is the first comment, with the same link from a mock "soars in the poll" post I put up after Trump was elected. Uniform_horror is confused by why a 2016 post is not the "lead thread".

I love this comment. Um... yeah, you have to click on the comment button. Post your comment and put in your name? If this is seen as difficult, perhaps we don't want your comments over here?

Anyway, you can read the whole thread on your own (link). You cannot comment without first registering. It explains that you must click on the registration link. But of course... there is no registration link to click on. So yeah, good luck with that. 

We, of course, have always welcomed anyone and everyone to comment over here. But I suppose after several years of having nobody ever disagree with you, one probably might developed some thin skin. So I suspect that they will remain in the comfort of their own little world. 

H/T: RRB

Open Mic

The salute?

Some people are making a big deal out of the fact that the President returned a salute to a North Korean General. Many claimed that this was exactly the sort of behavior that conservatives complained about when Obama bowed to a King. The difference of course is that the President did not offer the salute, he returned it. As a matter of protocol, the person who offers the salute (in this case the North Korean General) is acknowledging that the person he is saluting is a superior officer. Protocol suggest that the superior officer (in this case, President Trump) returns the salute. (Watch the video to see the chain of events).



This is not the same thing as bowing to a King, which does actual show a deference to the person you are bowing to. Had (as many have pointed out) the King in that case had first bowed, and then Obama had bowed, that it would have been fair to compare it to "salute-gate". And most certainly... if Trump had offered the salute, rather than had returned it, then it would have been the same thing as the Obama bow.

But as it is in reality? Just an example of TDS at it's finest!

The conclusion on the IG report?

Well your conclusion will be based on whether or not you actually take the time to read the 500 page report, or if you simply accept the increasingly embarassing conclusion that there was no sign that "bias" played a part in the Hillary email investigation.

The report clearly shows:

• Five FBI agents have been referred for some form of discipline, all having to do with anti-Trump bias.
• Key FBI investigators in the Clinton email probe had strong ties to the Clintons, but refused to recuse themselves. Others who did recuse themselves, because of Clinton ties, were still active in the investigation in spite of their recusal.  
• Absolute evidence that FBI agents were openly scheming as to how best they could resist the Trump Presidency, including slow walking or avoiding Trump directives.
• FBI attorneys were in on the act, including the increasingly viral term “Hell no. Viva le resistance” from an attorney originally assigned to, but later removed from, the Mueller probe.
• Multiple agents were transferred from particular duties based on evidence of anti-Trump bias.
• That key agents involved were openly hoping that the Russian investigation would bring down the Trump Presidency.
• Dozens of agents (including Sr Level agents) leaked sensitive anti-Trump information to the media. Many agents socialized with liberal media members against FBI policy. 

What it boils down to is that there was a widespread admittance from members of the FBI that they were open Clinton supporters, that they loathed Trump, that they hated the fact that they would be working for him, and that there was an open attempt to use their investigation powers to bring him down. They were caught red handed, making all sorts of suggestions that they wanted Hillary to win, that they took into consideration how their work would affect the election, that they would resist a Trump Presidency should he win (including using investigatory powers), but we are supposed to believe that this in no way effected their work as agents. 

Regardless of what side of the political aisle you are on... the idea that such partisanship and political gamesmanship is even being suggested (even mockingly) by so many different members of the FBI, should send a chill down your spine. The fact that agents openly suggested that they were investigating the President under the hope that they could bring him down is clearly a violation of every law enforcement norm we have. 

Anyone who would be still willing (at this point) to defend the actions of the FBI should reevaluate their ability to see things clearly. There is another IG report due out on the actual investigation into Donald Trump. Based on what we have seen in this report, it will be much more damning than what we have so far. Unfortunately, it may not come out before the end of the Mueller probe. If it comes out well after the fact, that is how it will be seen (as well after the fact). That being said, I would fully expect that the Mueller probe will want to wrap itself up "prior" to the IG report, which actually does provide a more tangible (if still artificial) deadline. No way does Mueller want an IG report coming out in the middle of his investigation, and no way will anyone accept that the IG report just has to wait till the probe is over.

Note: Horowitz is scheduled to appear before a joint congressional investigation to testify. I am sure he will face many many questions about how he can present 500 pages of factual evidence showing clear pro-Clinton anti-Trump bias, clear violations of regulations and protocol dealing specifically with this bias, many poor decisions that seems specific to this bias, but still made a determination that the admitted bias did not effect anyone's work.

Full release of the IG report

IG Report expected today

There is a great deal of speculation as to why an Inspector General report that has been completed for a couple of weeks now, has been held off from final public release. The explanations range from some giving those mentioned in the report a chance to provide a response, to FBI brass scrubbing embarrassing portions out of the final draft.

I would fully expect to see an "unredacted" version of the report, as the job of the Inspector General is not to give away company secrets. If there is heavy redaction, I might expect some real serious push back from most everyone.

Jeff Sessions has suggested that he is waiting to see the report, and won't hesitate to use the contents to clean more house in the FBI. I guess we will know (sometime today) if such action will be necessary.

UPDATE:  The report is said to be approximately 500 pages, and portions of it are being leaked to a variety of sources. So far nothing unexpected or earth shattering has been reported. That being said, it will probably take some time for all 500 pages to be parsed.

Two of the objective non-biased FBI agents working the Clinton and Trump cases

Page: “(Trump’s) not ever going to become president, right? Right?"
Strzok: “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”

Here is one portion of the report:

In undertaking our analysis, our task was made significantly more difficult because of text and instant messages exchanged on FBI devices and systems by five FBI employees involved in the Midyear investigation. These messages reflected political opinions in support of former Secretary Clinton and against her then political opponent, Donald Trump. Some of these text messages and instant messages mixed political commentary with discussions about the Midyear investigation, and raised concerns that political bias may have impacted investigative decisions.

In particular, we were concerned about text messages exchanged by FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, Special Counsel to the Deputy Director, that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations. As we describe in Chapter Twelve of our report, most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation, which was not a part of this review. Nonetheless, the suggestion in certain Russia-related text messages in August 2016 that Strzok might be willing to take official action to impact presidential candidate Trump’s electoral prospects caused us to question the earlier Midyear investigative decisions in which Strzok was involved, and whether he took specific actions in the Midyear investigation based on his political views. As we describe Chapter Five of our report, we found that Strzok was not the sole decisionmaker for any of the specific Midyear investigative decisions we examined in that chapter. We further found evidence that in some instances Strzok and Page advocated for more aggressive investigative measures in the Midyear investigation, such as the use of grand jury subpoenas and search warrants to obtain evidence.

Contrary to the reports from the left, the report clearly does not resolve everyone of political bias. It's clear that the I.G. believes politics played a part in some of the decision making, especially as it pertains to the investigation into Russian Collusion (which of course will be in a later report). What is suggested was that there was no "documentary or testimonial evidence" of such political bias directly effecting decisions (which means that nobody wrote it down or admitted to it).

It is also clear that while the actions were not "unreasonable" - this does not mean that the I.G. felt that the actions reflected the best choice available. I think people will look at the facts of the report and come to their own conclusions. It seems obvious to me that many people will come to the conclusion that two plus two does not equal three or five.

Mueller and his probe take a political hit...

The latest polling is not good news for Robert Mueller or his probe. For the first time (in this poll) Robert Mueller is seen unfavorably by a plurality of Americans. Meanwhile the same Morning Consult Politico poll shows that a plurality of Americans now believe that DOJ is behaving unfairly in investigating the 2016 Presidential election.

Spying Spying Spying...

It's become crystal clear...

The most recent USSC session has gone pretty well for conservatives, and pretty poorly for liberals. So far, the most that the left has been able to muster has been a half assed attempt to suggest that the 7-2 ruling in favor of the Colorado Baker was a limited victory for religious liberty.

But what has really struck me has been a repeated theme by the majority rulings that it is not up to the courts to decide right or wrong, or to question the judgement of lawmakers, But rather it's up to the courts to determine the correct and constitutional directive of the law.

While on the flip side, the liberal minority (especially Sotomayor) are pretty much abandoning the pretense that their dissents are based somehow on the rule of law. The arguments are becoming more and more about how they personally feel about the cases, and are offering less and less legal justification for their position.

The recent Ohio voter purge ruling was a great example.

The majority stated that the Ohio voter purge policy is legal because it specifically follows federal legal guidelines to the letter. The ruling clearly points out the required pieces of the federal guidelines, and shows how the Ohio policy follows them in every way.

The minority stated that the Ohio voter purge policy is illegal because they don't like it. They offered everything from their own opinions as to the "motivation" for passing the law, to offering misleading and meaningless statistics to justify their own personal opinions as to why the law is too evil to let stand. What they failed to include, was a legitimate legal argument that the law is unconstitutional.

Moreover, this sort or reflects a larger growing division as to the role of the judiciary in our system. Most all conservatives (and a clear majority of Americans) believe that the Judicial branch should be interpreting the law, using the constitution, and factoring in legal precedent to decide whether a law is constitutional or not. Meanwhile there is a loud and rabid minority who see the courts as the place where they can reign in the policies and laws of their political opponents, because they don't have the political control to do so through policy. This minority wants the referees to be another "player" in the whole legislative game. Players they hope to be on their side, of course.

Nearly all of these cases seem to be from the same side. Liberals suing conservative bakers to control their behavior, liberals suing conservative politicians to prevent them from implementing policies, and liberals suing conservative states to overturn laws. Liberals have no policy control, so they resort to the courts. Thankfully the constitutional majority in the USSC are standing their ground. I hate to tell them this, but liberals "may" need to win some elections to garner their policy initiatives.