Rush Limbaugh dismantles a lie from the Left expressed by Jimmy Kimmel’s monologue regarding Trump’s first few days in office and his rescinding an Obama era bill that was an Executive Order.
If the Left do not like this legal snafu of one President rescinding another’s E.O., pass laws through Congress dammit! U-n-l-e-s-s they just want to u-s-e the controversy to support their wild positions that have no reality in the real world. Here are the organizations who supported Trump’s action (via the WASHINGTON FREE BEACON):
…Officials at the American Civil Liberties Union opposed the rule and called for its repeal because the process did not include sufficient due process protections.
“The rule includes no meaningful due process protections prior to the SSA’s transmittal of names to the NICS database,” the group said in their letter. “The determination by SSA line staff that a beneficiary needs a representative payee to manage their money benefit is simply not an ‘adjudication’ in any ordinary meaning of the word. Nor is it a determination that the person ‘[l]acks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs’ as required by the NICS. Indeed, the law and the SSA clearly state that representative payees are appointed for many individuals who are legally competent.”
On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), we urge members of the House of Representatives to support the resolution disapproving the final rule of the Social Security Administration which implements the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvement Amendment Acts of 2007….
…In December 2016, the SSA promulgated a final rule that would require the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients – who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits – be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is used during gun purchases.
We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence. The rule further demonstrates the damaging phenomenon of “spread,” or the perception that a disabled individual with one area of impairment automatically has additional, negative and unrelated attributes. Here, the rule automatically conflates one disability-related characteristic, that is, difficulty managing money, with the inability to safely possess a firearm.
The rule includes no meaningful due process protections prior to the SSA’s transmittal of names to the NICS database. The determination by SSA line staff that a beneficiary needs a representative payee to manage their money benefit is simply not an “adjudication” in any ordinary meaning of the word. Nor is it a determination that the person “[l]acks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs” as required by the NICS. Indeed, the law and the SSA clearly state that representative payees are appointed for many individuals who are legally competent…
…[R]egulation of firearms and individual gun ownership or use must be consistent with civil liberties principles, such as due process, equal protection, freedom from unlawful searches, and privacy. All individuals have the right to be judged on the basis of their individual capabilities, not the characteristics and capabilities that are sometimes attributed (often mistakenly) to any group or class to which they belong. A disability should not constitute grounds for the automatic per se denial of any right or privilege, including gun ownership.
So, if you donated the ACLU after President Trump’s executive travel ban, congratulations. Yesterday’s vote was your victory, too…..
GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina dismissed Democrats’ criticisms of the recently released Republican memo detailing surveillance abuse within the FBI and Department of Justice, during an interview Sunday on “Face The Nation.”
“I get that Adam Schiff and others are worried about what’s not in my memo,” Gowdy said on “Face The Nation.” “I wish that they were equally concerned about what’s not in the FISA application”
HOT AIR pulls out an excellent point/quote by Jonathan Turley:
….However, he points out another problem which isn’t getting nearly as much attention. What happened to the dire threats to national security we were told were contained in this memo?
My greatest concern is what is not in the [memo]: classified information “jeopardizing national security.” Leaders like Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) declared that the committee had moved beyond “dangerous irresponsibility and disregard for our national security” and “disregarded the warnings of the Justice Department and the FBI.”
Now we can read the memo. There is a sharp and alarming disconnect between the descriptions of Pelosi and the House Intelligence Committee’s Ranking Minority Member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and the actual document. It clearly does not contain information that would reveal sources or methods.
The memo reaffirms concerns over the lower standards that apply to FISA applications as well as the misuse of classification authority. Most of this memo references what was already known about the use of the dossier. What was added was testimonial evidence and details to the publicly known information. Yet, the FBI vehemently objected to the release of the memo as threatening “grave” consequences to national security…
The FBI opposition to declassification of this memo should be a focus of both Congress and the public. The memo is clearly designed to avoid revealing classified information. For civil libertarians, this is a rare opportunity to show how classified rules are misused for strategic purposes by these agencies. The same concern can be directed toward members who read this memo and represented to the public that the release would clearly damage national security.
In that first paragraph above, Turley is quoting the statement Pelosi put out about the memo on Tuesday. However, she made a similar claim on CNN during that contentious interview with Chris Cuomo. “Putting this aside in terms of tit for tat, which you seem to—well, with all due respect to you—trying to make it look like Democrats vs. [Republicans]. It isn’t about that,” Pelosi said. She added, “It’s about our national security.” In the same interview, she said, “We’re not talking about some issue that we’re having a fight about, we’re talking about our national security.”
The point is, this was raised many times this week by Democrats eager to prevent the release of the memo. In retrospect, it’s difficult to see how anyone could have thought it represented a grave threat to national security. Maybe the subsequent release of the Democrats’ own memo will shed some additional light on whatever threat they see in it, but at the moment it looks as if those warnings were overblown. As Turley puts it, “it proved to be an empty ‘grave’ after weeks of overheated hyperbole.”
Larry Elder goes through an interview where CNN’s Brooke Baldwin presses Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) about what the Democrats got in return for shutting down the government. Even Brooke Baldwin is taken back by the spin. Other clips from CNN show that the onus lays at Schumer’s feet… what I mean by that is when you have lost CNN, you know you are in deep doo-doo.
I came across this post on Facebook a friend was involved in. My friend and others were responding to this post (as well as others)… but it got me thinking…
… we should really be thanking people like Jon M. Why? Well, because of the growth in minorities who say they are going to vote for Trump or feel they are better off now than a year ago… despite the ad-hominem attack. People like Jon M. are making more people sick of the lies and labels and more likely to vote GOP. Let me explain with my Facebook response to Jon
(CAUTION, reading required… I know this is a stretch beyond simple bumper sticker mantras I see above… but facts have been scarce, so I thought I would bring some to the party. You do not have to follow the links… they are meant for people who care to check their positions at the door and do critical thinking.)
This is why blacks and Hispanic/Latino people will vote for Trump more in 2020 (or the GOP) than they already did in 2016. People who have a common sense understanding about border security, jobs, taxes, and want to fix properly what was promised to Reagan and was essentially double crossed on…
… they are now called white supremacists. They are sick of the violent bumper sticker labels.
There isn’t a single thing Trump has done that has endeared him to white supremacy (WS). I have spent some time in jail and know intimately the viewpoints of white-power individuals… not to mention having studied the views of four racist cults in-depth (Christian Identity [defunct for the most part], the KKK [5,000 members], the Nation of Islam [NOI], and the Five-Percenters). Unannounced to the bumper sticker mantras above, almost all KKK’ers are socialist, and vote almost entirely Democrat.
QUESTION:So, if the majority of KKK’ers who did vote voted for Obama… does that make Obama a white supremacist???
QUESTION:Are the thirteen percent of Muslims voted for Trump, triple the amount that voted Romney, are they are Islamophobic, white supremacists???
QUESTION:Eight percent of blacks voted for Trump, seven percent more than Romney — not to mention the black men and women who didn’t vote for the president at all in a higher percentage. These same men and women previously voted twice for Obama. These persons of color… if I understand my detractors correctly, are white supremacists???
Mind you, I noted months before the election of Obama his racist tendencies in this video: “Obamacon – Twenty Years In A Racist Church” (Mind you, I look like a white supremacist… but that is why I spend the first 6-minutes giving my bio):
…but even Obama’s bigotry wouldn’t fall towards supporting white supremacists.
I also wish to commend my discussion with an older Democrat on my vacation:
BUT, AGAIN, this is why Trump will win again, that is, because people are sick of being called racist for believing the same thing all politicians did a generation ago, what Cesar Chavez (UFW founder) fought for.
QUESTION: Is the co-founder of the United Food Workers Union, Cesar Chavez, a white supremacist???
And the worst name calling has been against black persons who are Republicans and/or are starting to support the GOP via Trump. (You should see the stuff said of Larry Elder that I censor on my YouTube — the nicer ones are “coon” and “Uncle-Tom.” — agains, people don’t actually read so they don’t know that character in Harriet Beecher Stowe telling was the hero.)
HERE is a poll to further my point that people like Jon M. are helping Trump, not hurting him (via BLACKSPHERE):
Not one, but TWO new polls show President Donald Trump’s rising support among black voters. And this news has Leftists panicked.
After all the genned up nonsense about Trump being racist, the president has doubled his support from blacks.
According to the Atlanticamong black men, Trump’s “2017 average approval rating significantly exceeds his 2016 vote share,” The article points out that now “23 percent of black men approved of Trump’s performance versus 11 percent of black women.”
On average, Trump’s support among blacks is around 17 percent, versus 8 percent score reported in 2016 exit polls.
At that time, Trump received 13 percent support among black men and 4 percent support among black women.
The poll was based on “a cumulative analysis of 605,172 interviews Survey Monkey conducted with Americans in 2017.”
A second poll by CBS showed a similar level of black support for Trump, reporting 18 percent of blacks now support President Trump.
Interestingly, only 41 percent were firmly against the president. Thus, 59 percent of blacks are willing to give him a chance.
I honestly can’t imagine how Democrats must feel after evaluating the information in this report. Talk about taking a swift kick to the nether region. Check out Question 2:
That HAD to hurt!
35 percent of blacks believe they are better off under President Trump, while 21 percent say the same. The 43 percent are “hold outs”, stuck in the Afro/Daishiki/Platform Shoes Era.
Could Trump garner 35 percent of the vote in future elections? As Sarah Palin would say, “You betcha!”
A Report was released in April of 2017 that received no publicity until recently.
The report was a ruling on the results of an investigation or audit into FISA searches made by Obama’s FBI and DOJ during Obama’s time in office.
The report shows Obama’s FBI and DOJ participated in widespread criminal searches and criminal sharing of data with non authorized entities outside of government.
On April 26, 2017, an unsealed FISA Court Ruling unveiled a number of criminal activities that Barack Obama’s FBI and DOJ participated in during his time in office. The report to date received little attention. Now interest is brewing due to the recent actions of Congress and the report that is expected to be released in the upcoming weeks….
Here is the report referenced in GP’s post:
FISA searches can be conducted on any foreign person without issue. All non-U.S. citizens on the entire planet can be searched 24/7/365 no issues. FISA searches on foreign people have no restrictions at all.
However, when the FISA search returns data identifying a U.S. citizen, everything changes. Those changes are under the identifying term “702”. A “702” is an American person.
All U.S. citizens are protected by the fourth amendment against unlawful search and seizure. All searches of U.S. people must have a valid reason. Title III says any search for a potential criminal investigation must have a judicial warrant. Additionally, any criminal search of the FISA database must also have a warrant (technically, ‘approval’).
Any FISA searches of foreign subjects, might need FISA Court approval if the returned data includes a U.S. subject (“702”).
A non-compliance rate of 85% raises substantial questions about the propriety of using of [Redacted – likely “About”] query FISA data.
To wit, Democrat Representative Adam Schiff — leading on the “Russia Collusion” and impeachment thingies — says the public should not view the memo because the American public would not understand its talking points without the accompaniment reports to which the memo refers (GP h-t):
CABRERA: “Why not allow peel to look at it and let Americans make the decision for themselves about whether it’s useful information or not?”
SCHIFF: “Well, because the American people unfortunately don’t have the underlying materials and therefore they can’t see how distorted and misleading this document is. The Republicans are not saying make the underlying materials available to the public. They just want to make this spin available to the public. I think that spin, which is a attack on the FBI, is just designed to attack the FBI and Bob Mueller to circle the wagons for the White House. And that’s a terrible disservice to the people, hard working people at the bureau, but more than that, it’s a disservice to the country.”
Lo-and-behold… Schiff’s wish is gonna be granted — although I doubt that is what he wanted. Ooops.
According to the Washington Examiner‘s Byron York, Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) huddled together Saturday to discuss a “never-before-used procedure” for releasing the “shocking” FISA abuse memo.
Washington Examiner reports:
There’s no doubt Republicans want the public to see the classified memo. To get it out, they are studying a never-before-used procedure whereby House Intelligence Committee members would vote to make the memo public, after which the president would have five days to object.
If the president had no objection, the memo would become public after those five days. If the president did object, the matter would go to the full House, which could vote to overrule the president’s objections and release the memo anyway.
In addition to the procedure, the three lawmakers are plotting how to go about releasing additional intelligence in support of the FISA memo. In a statement to CNN, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) said he is in favor of the move.
Republicans appear to be charging ahead with their plan to publicly release the document and potentially some of the underlying intelligence so long as sources and methods are not disclosed. “If we’re going to go through the process anyway of declassifying the memo, are there some of the supporting documents that might not reveal sources and methods but might answer key questions that the memo does raise?” said Rep. Matt Gaetz […] “Chairman Goodlate and Chairman Gowdy and Chairman Nunes each sort of have jurisdiction over elements, and they are meeting and discussing a process now that I think will lead to greater transparency.”
While one may not think these are related…. they are. We are uncovering a massive cover up of illegal activity meant to sway an election:
The dumbest thing about all this is Trump made the Norway comments basically just after meeting with the Prime Minister of that country. So “Norway” was merely in the forefront of his mind. Obviously Norway is not a country who’s socialist tendencies and welfare from the West would be appreciated. Listen to:
Larry Elder deals firstly with Chuck Schumers blatant racism, then he notes how the Democrat press views Trump’s statement about Norway, and he then reads from an ATLANTIC article regarding similar “racist” statements by Obama. Obama’s comments were much worse however, as, they were saying the CULTURE of countries like Norway are superior to that of Middle-East and Northern African nations. HYPOCRISY is the word of the day.
(Via DAILY CALLER) President Trump’s re-election campaign released a new ad on Saturday slamming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Democrats as “complicit” in future murders committed by illegal immigrants.
The ad featured Luis Bracamontes, an illegal immigrant on trial for killing two police officers who told a judge he only wished he “had killed more of the mother******s.”….. (See more via CBS)