AOC, Dems Attack SCOTUS Decision Against Welfare-Dependent Immigrants

Ben Sellers
-
0

‘Under the “public charge” rule, this corrupt Administration will cheat children out of health and nutrition benefits…’

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Open-borders advocates in Congress tweeted their unhinged reactions after efforts to weaponize the courts against President Donald Trump’s immigration policy were dealt another crippling blow on Monday.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an injunction imposed by activist lower-court judges to prevent the president from implementing his “public charge” policy, which would deny green cards to immigrants who are likely to create a financial burden for taxpayers to shoulder.

Left-wing magazine Newsweek compiled several of the outraged posts from Democrats in response to the high court’s decision. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio–Cortez, D-NY, let the charge, decrying the policy as a “wealth test” and a “cover charge.”

Many so-called “sanctuary states,” which refuse to cooperate with federal authorities on enforcement of immigration policy, also stand to gain in political power and federal funding by importing more dependent non-citizens.

Thus, states like California and New York are not only pledging that illegal immigrants may be eligible for existing social welfare and public benefits, but also proposing that they be covered under costly Medicare for All health plans and other socialist-influenced handouts, such as free college tuition.

Those would dramatically raise the costs for taxpaying citizens, while also diminishing the benefits for American citizens in need of them.

Predictably, the Left sought every angle of attack except for a reasoned criticism of salient points based on their merit.

Failed presidential candidate Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., wasted no time in his pivot to name-calling rhetoric invoking Nazism—a tactic so lazy that the Internet age has even given it a name: Godwin’s law.

Not to be outdone, Ocasio–Cortez’s fellow ‘Squad‘ member, Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., defaulted to her standard go-to deflection by playing the race card.

As the Democratic presidential primary recently proved by swiftly eliminating all of its candidates of color, those on the Left can also be racist, elitist and anti-Semitic.

But—their abortion views notwithstanding—few Democrats could tolerate the fact that Trump’s public-charge rule targets the most vulnerable population of all: children.

Because they have no financial means of their own, these underage youth—regardless of their origin and legal status—are therefore entitled to support from the American taxpayer, reasoned Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md.—and don’t forget the parents who brought them.

By contrast, President Barack Obama made the controversial decision to enact an executive decision not to enforce immigration law for unaccompanied minors or childhood arrivals. Leftist courts have since broadened those protections to include any family unit that contains minors, insisting that the families be held no longer than 20 days in detention before being released into the U.S.

Meanwhile, the courts have sought to impose injunctions on Trump’s efforts to retract Obama’s DACA fiat, ruling that the current president’s executive action can’t undo the previous president’s.

Trump has argued that such policies, by encouraging migrant children to make the dangerous trek, pose considerable risk to the children’s welfare—while also incentivizing criminals south of the border to kidnap women and children in order to fraudulently benefit from the “catch-and-release” loopholes.

With the Democrats’ strongest arguments against the policy having already been staked out, Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wisc., a co-chair of the far-left Congressional Progressive Caucus, fell back on synthesizing his colleagues’ statements with an ad-hominem attack on the Trump administration that distilled criticisms to their core substance:

Trump Supporters Respond After Lemon-Led CNN Panel Mocks Them

Contributing Author
-
0

‘They’re doing more to re-elect Trump than any campaign ad…’

(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) CNN’s Don Lemon and NeverTrumper Rick Wilson mocked Trump supporters in a viral clip, in which Wilson called them “the credulous boomer rube demo.”

Lemon asked Wilson and the other panelist, New York Times contributor Wajahat Ali, about Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s heated exchange with an NPR reporter, in which Pompeo challenged the reporter to find Ukraine on a map.

Wilson responded and said he’d be surprised if President Trump could “find Ukraine on a map.”

“[Pompeo] also knows deep within his heart that Donald Trump couldn’t find Ukraine on a map if you had the letter U and a picture of an actual physical crane next to it,” Wilson mocked, causing Lemon to have a laughing fit. “He knows that this is, you know, an administration defined by ignorance of the world. And so that’s partly him playing to the base and playing to their audience. You know, the credulous boomer rube demo that backs Donald Trump.”

“‘Donald Trump’s the smart one — and y’all elitists are dumb!’” Wilson said in a fake Southern accent, pretending to be a Trump supporter.

Ali then joined in and said mockingly, “‘ You elitists with your geography and your maps — and your spelling!’”

President Trump slammed the segment on Twitter, citing Lemon’s “terrible ratings.”

Ivanka Trump also slammed Wilson, Ali, and Lemon for mocking “half the country” and then complaining “that it is divided.” But instead of apologizing, Wilson doubled down:

Ali also refused to apologize, and said his friends are now worried about his “safety” due to Trump’s criticism.

Trump supporters, however, said this proves how much contempt CNN and its personalities have for them:

Dershowitz Trashes Maxine Waters, House Dems for ‘Lawless’ Impeachment Abuse

Contributing Author
-
0

‘You picked the most dangerous possible criteria to serve as a precedent for how we supervise and oversee future presidents…’

Alan Dershowitz Defends Trump, Says Democrats' Charges Don't Meet High, Constitutional Standard
Alan Dershowitz / PBS NewHour

(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) Harvard Law emeritus professor Alan Dershowitz—currently part of President Donald Trump’s impeachment defense team—trashed contemporary legal scholars and left-wing politicians—including Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.—for recklessly tossing out precedent and attempting to “place Congress above the law.”

The revered Dershowitz, who taught some of the Senators sitting in judgment of Trump, said on the Senate floor Monday that the standard of impeachment was not subject to the whims and interpretations of the House of Representatives.

Dershowitz said that then-congressman Gerald Ford, who would go on to succeed President Richard Nixon after his resignation, shared an open-ended philosophy with Waters, the current House Financial Services chair, who shamelessly boasted of campaigning on impeachment more than a year before the July 25 phone call that Democrats ultimately used as their pretense.

“Congressman Gerald Ford, whom I greatly admired, said the following: ‘In the context of an impeachment of justice an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history, etc.—you all know the quote,” Dershowitz said.

“Congresswoman Maxine Waters recently put it more succinctly in the context of a presidential impeachment,” Dershowitz continued, “and here is what she said: ‘Impeachment is whatever Congress says it is. There is no law.’”

Dershowitz soundly rejected that interpretation, saying the charges must be clearly enumerated and defined, unlike those levied against Trump.

Otherwise, “this lawless view would place Congress above the law. It would place Congress above the Constitution,” Dershowitz said.

“For Congress to ignore the specific words of the Constitution itself and substitute its own judgments would be for Congress to do what it is accusing the president of doing,” he said. “And no one is above the law—not the president and not Congress.

Dershowitz, who opposed former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment in 1999 and said he voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, said the Democrats’ charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are “dangerous” and “wrong.”

Neither offense is remotely close to an impeachable offense in the context provided by the constitutional framers, he argued.

“I’m sorry, House managers, you just picked the wrong criteria,” he said. “You picked the most dangerous possible criteria to serve as a precedent for how we supervise and oversee future presidents.”

Because of this precedent, he continued, “all future presidents who serve with opposing legislative majorities” now face the “realistic threat” of enduring “vague charges of abuse or obstruction.”

Dershowitz then cited a “long list” of presidents who had been accused of “abuse of power” without being formally impeached. The list included George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Tyler, James Polk, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.

“Abuse of power” is a “promiscuously deployed” and “vague term” without any real meaning, he said. And now, thanks to the Democrats, it is nothing more than a “political weapon” fit for “campaign rhetoric,” he continued.

Dershowitz clarified that he is nonpartisan in the way he approaches the Constitution, arguing that if Hillary Clinton were on trial, he would defend her, too.

“Purely non-criminal conduct such as abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are outside the range of impeachable offenses,” Dershowitz said.

Liberty Headlines’ Ben Sellers contributed to this report.

Pam Bondi Turns GOP Defense of Trump Back to Bidens’ Corruption

Contributing Author
-
0

‘Maybe there’s something here worth raising,’ then their case crumbles…’

(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) As impeachment works its way through the Senate, President Trump’s legal team continued its opening arguments on Monday.

Pam Bondi, one of Trump’s legal representatives and a former Florida attorney general, turned her attention to Former Vice President Joe Biden and the President’s concern about potential corruption surrounding his involvement with Ukraine and gas company Burisma, which placed his son Hunter Biden on its board of directors in exchange for compensation of at least $50,000 per month.

Bondi said every time Republicans bring up Hunter Biden and his father, the Democrats dismiss the GOP’s reasonable concerns.

“In their trial memorandum, the House managers describe this as baseless. Now, why did they say that? Why did they invoke Biden or Burisma over 400 times?” Bondi said. “The reason they needed to do that is because they’re here saying that the president must be impeached and removed from office for raising a concern.

“And that’s why we have to talk about this today. They say ‘sham.’ They say ‘baseless.’ They say this because if it’s OK for someone to say, ‘Hey, you know what? Maybe there’s something here worth raising,’ then their case crumbles.”

Bondi then dissected Hunter Biden’s involvement with Burisma, repeatedly saying Democrats must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump had no legal basis to look into the Bidens’ corruption.

She played several video clips and cited a 2014 Washington Post article that stated, “The appointment of the vice president’s son to a Ukrainian oil board looks nepotistic at best, nefarious at worst.”

Trump had every reason to look into Hunter Biden’s business dealings, Bondi concluded.

That the Democrats would argue otherwise, despite “the evidence” that “points entirely and equivocally in the other direction,” is nothing more than a “distraction,” she said.

“All we’re saying is that there was a basis to talk about this, to raise this issue. And that is enough,” she argued.

NYC Continues to Release Violent Illegal Aliens Despite ICE’s Requests

Contributing Author
-
0

‘At some point, the lives and safety of the residents of NYC has to matter over the agendas of the politicians…’

Multiple Illegal Entries, Attacks on Police, Get Alien Only a Year in Prison
Immigration and Customs Enforcement/PHOTO: ICE

(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) New York City’s sanctuary policies continue to endanger citizens, according to immigration officials.

The city’s law enforcement refuses to work with federal immigration officials. As a result, multiple violent illegal aliens have been released into New York’s streets.

Just last week, federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement picked up two illegal aliens after the city’s law enforcement had released them. The first, a Ukrainian citizen, was arrested on multiple counts of sexual and physical abuse. The second, a Mexican national, was arrested on multiple charges of physical assault.

“I don’t know what it will take for the representatives of New York City to see that keeping their sanctuary city policies are dangerous to the residents of this great city and, in some cases, deadly,” Thomas Decker, ICE’s New York field office director, said in a statement.

“Their policies continue to shield criminal aliens, allowing them to seek refuge in NYC communities and allows them to continue to break the laws of this country which threaten the lives and safety of its citizens,” Decker said. “At some point, the lives and safety of the residents of NYC has to matter over the agendas of the politicians.”

ICE said these kinds of secret releases are normal in New York City. Last October, the city’s Department of Correction released an illegal alien charged with multiple counts of child sexual abuse not just once, but twice.

“It’s frightening that the City is more concerned about the release of a convicted criminal alien, who was ordered deported, than the victims of his crimes,” Decker said at the time.

This weekend, ICE said that if New York City does not comply with federal immigration enforcement’s lawful detainers, the federal government would sue the city, along with Denver, Colorado—another self-proclaimed sanctuary city.

“If they don’t comply, we’ll be working with DOJ to go to district court to force them to comply with the requirements,” acting ICE Director Matthew Albence said during a press conference.

“The individuals that fail to comply can be held in contempt,” Albence said. “They can show up to court with a toothbrush, because they might not be going home that night.”

STARR: Partisan House Dems Offer Senate an ‘Exit Ramp’ to End the ‘Era of Impeachment’

Ben Sellers
-
0

‘Here we have a runaway House. It has run away… from the Constitution’s demand of fundamental fairness…’

Kenneth Star / IMAGE: C-SPAN via Youtube

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) In a stirring speech before the U.S. Senate that invoked America’s history past, present and future, Kenneth Starr, the former special counsel and current co-counsel on President Donald Trump’s defense team, warned that we were now in an “Era of Impeachment.”

He advised the senators sitting in judgment of the president to break the past half-century of political decline by rejecting House Democrats’ politically motivated efforts to remove Trump, reverse the 2016 election results and potentially impact the upcoming November election.

“Instead of a once-in-a-century phenomenon, which it had been, presidential impeachment has become a weapon to be wielded against a presidential opponent,” he said in his roughly hour-long presentation to kick off the sixth official day of impeachment proceedings and the second day for the defense team.

Starr invoked an array of historic figures from the country’s bygone eras, including a quote widely attributed to Union Civil War general William T. Sherman that “war is hell.”

“Like war, impeachement is hell—or at least presidential impeachment is hell,” Starr said, adding that it was “tantamount to domestic war—albeit, thankfully, protected by our First Amendment, a war of words and a war of ideas.”

Starr, whose years-long Whitewater probe spun off into a sexual-misconduct investigation that led to the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton, encouraged the Senate to regard it—the way our nation’s founders intended—as “a measure of last resort.”

Acknowledging his own role in the Clinton impeachment and other historic examples, he noted several mitigating factors in the current effort—notably, the absence of criminal charges, the lack of bipartisanship and the unconventional process with which House Democrats embarked upon the effort.

“It is not an impeachable offense for the president of the United States to defend the asserted legal and constitutional prerogatives of the presidency,” Starr said.

He condemned the partisan House majority, which, unlike the Senate, was “oathless” when they filed the articles against Trump and functioning more as a political institution than a deliberative body.

“Here we have a runaway House,” he said. “It has run away… from the Constitution’s demand of fundamental fairness.”

Notwithstanding, he acknowledged that even the justifiable charges of obstruction and perjury that he oversaw against Clinton had come at a heavy cost to the country due to their divisiveness.

And even then, with material DNA evidence proving that Clinton had committed the crimes, the Senate determined that it did not meet the high standard needed to remove the president.

In fact, Starr noted, only eight times in U.S. history had the Senate determined to remove an impeached public official from office, and all were federal judges with lifetime appointments.

“The presidency stands alone in our constitutional framework,” he said, because it is an elected office accountable to voters as well as to congressional oversight and checks.

Absent a clearly outlined offense, such as treason or bribery—as well as a “national consensus” on removal—the chief executive should be allowed to serve out the remainder of his term, Starr argued.

However, if there were a silver lining in the House Democrats’ decision to trample on the Constitution and “tear asunder” the “common law” of impeachment,  it was that their abuse of power “has inadvertently pointed this court to an exit ramp,” Starr said.

While much has been made of Democrats targeting centrist or politically vulnerable Republicans to break rank, Starr’s eloquence provided a counterbalance to the grandstanding last week of lead House manager Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and signaled the hope of Trump’s defense that they, too may be capable of reaching across the aisle for a bipartisan acquittal.

Starr quoted columnist Peggy Noonan, who warned recently that “Democrats will regret it when Republicans are handing out the pens.”

But far-left Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY, was not among those moved by his words, the Associated Press reported.

“I thought it was an absurd argument and quite rich coming from him,” Gillibrand said.

Hunter Biden Agrees to Pay Undisclosed Amount in Child Support to Ex-Stripper

Ben Sellers
-
0

‘If the evidence indicates that the defendant should have paid more in support than the amount set forth in this order, the Court may order that he pay an additional amount…’

Hunter Biden Admits 'Mistake' but Denies Wrongdoing: 'This Isn't Real Stuff'
Hunter Biden / IMAGE: ABC News via Youtube

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) After enduring a barrage of damaging disclosures in a child-support case brought by former stripper Lunden Alexis Roberts, reluctant father Hunter Biden, son of current presidential candidate Joe Biden, agreed on Monday to pay child support, Fox News reported.

Roberts—known by the stage name “Dallas” to patrons of Washington, DC’s Mpire Club—gave birth in August 2018 and later established Hunter Binden’s paternity through DNA testing, the court determined.

However, Biden, whose corrupt international business dealings are at the center of the ongoing impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, had previously sought to stonewall the Arkansas circuit court—until Judge Holly Meyer last week threatened to hold him in contempt and ordered him to appear before the court.

Although the payments will be retroactively applied, effective as of November 2018, the redacted court order said that there was still insufficient information about Biden’s income to establish a set amount. The information concerning the temporary amount was among the sections of the document that were blacked out.

“If the evidence indicates that the defendant should have paid more in support than the amount set forth in this order, the Court may order that he pay an additional amount after receiving credit for the amount he has paid,” said the document.

“If the evidence indicates that the defendant paid more in support pursuant to this order than he otherwise should have, based off his income, then the court may give him a credit toward any future support,” it said.

Biden faced growing scrutiny for his role as a board member of the Ukrainian Burisma energy company, where his firm, Rosemont Seneca, received monthly payments of more than $87,000 for consulting work over five years. He resigned under pressure in April 2019.

Biden also announced last October that he was resigning his position with a Chinese investment firm, BHR Equity, where he maintained a 20 percent controlling interest and had used his father’s access to Chinese government officials to broker a $1.5 billion business deal.

However, as of December, Chinese records still listed him as a BHR board member.

Despite the presumed loss of income, Biden and his third wife, Melissa Cohen, are presently renting a $3.8 million designer home in Hollywood for $12,000 a month, according to the Washington Examiner.

He was seen earlier in January driving around Los Angeles in a new, white Porsche Panamera, according to the New York Post.

A recovering drug addict, Biden was dishonorably discharged from the Navy in 2014 after his cigarettes tested positive for cocaine.

An IRS lien from 2018 indicated that he had $112,805 in unpaid federal taxes from 2015, according to the Daily Caller.

Buttigieg: No Room for Pro-Lifers in Democrat Party

Contributing Author
-
0

‘I support the position of my party that this kind of medical care needs to be available to everyone…’

1
Pete Buttigieg / IMAGE: CNN via Youtube

(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) Presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg was grilled at a Fox News town-hall meeting by a pro-life Democrat supporter on whether he believes those who oppose abortion have a place in the Democratic Party.

Buttigieg’s response: Only women should be able to “draw the line” when it comes to abortion.

 “I’m a proud pro-life Democrat. So, do you want the support of pro-life Democrats?” asked Kristen Day, president of the anti-abortion Democrats for Life,” according to RealClear Politics.

“And if so,” Day continued, “would you support more moderate platform language in the Democratic Party to ensure the party of diversity and inclusion really does include everybody?”

Buttigieg responded and said that he has a “difference of opinion,” but concluded that “the next best thing we can do is agree on who should draw the line. And in my view, it’s the woman who is faced with that decision in her own life.”

Buttigieg—who has declared that he is seeking to court disaffected Trump voters by positioning himself, questionably, as a “moderate” alternative, acknowledged his own biases.

“I’m not going to try to earn your vote by tricking you,” he said. “I am pro-choice, and I believe that a woman ought to be able to make that decision.”

Day then responded and said she wasn’t satisfied with Buttigieg’s answer, because he failed to answer the second part of her question.

“The Democratic platform contains language that basically says that we don’t belong, we have no part in the party because it says abortion should be legal up to nine months; the government should pay for it,” Day said. “And there’s nothing that says that people that have a diversity of views on this issue should be included in the party,” she explained.

Fox News host Chris Wallace continued to press Buttigieg on whether pro-life Democrats should be welcomed, but he continued to duck the question.

“I’ve never encountered a politician—or, frankly, another person—that I agreed with 100 percent of the time, even on very important things,” he said. “… I support the position of my party that this kind of medical care needs to be available to everyone.”

Senate Republicans Expect to Lose Collins, Romney on Impeachment Witness Vote

Contributing Author
-
0

‘There are a lot of people trying to divine tea leaves…’

(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) Senate Republicans expect to lose a few Republicans during the vote on impeachment trial witnesses.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, signaled on Monday that she would join the Democrats during the vote, citing former national security John Bolton’s willingness to testify.

“From the beginning, I’ve said that tin fairness to both parties the decision on whether or not to call witnesses should be made after both the House managers and the President’s attorneys have had the opportunity to present their cases,” she said in a statement.

“I’ve always said that I was likely to vote to call witnesses, just as I did in the 1999 Clinton trial,” she continued. “The reports about John Bolton’s book strengthen the case for witnesses and have prompted a number of conversations among my colleagues.”

Collins was citing a New York Times report that alleges Bolton’s new, unreleased memoir includes an allegation that Trump directly tied the Ukrainian military assistance freeze to a pending investigation into 2016 election meddling and Ukrainian oil company Burisma.

Bolton has not confirmed whether this report is true, but Democrats immediately ran with it.

“Senators should insist that Mr. Bolton be called as a witness, and provide his notes and other relevant documents,” the House managers said in a statement. “The Senate trial must seek the full truth and Mr. Bolton has vital information to provide.”

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, will likely join the Democrats during the vote, too. Romney said on Saturday it’s “very likely” he will vote for additional witnesses.

Even if Collins and Romney abandon Republicans, the Democrats still need two more votes to subpoena Bolton. They’ve looked to Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, but Murkowski has held her cards close.

“There are a lot of people trying to divine tea leaves,” she said Saturday, before noting that she is keeping an open mind.

“I’ve taken a lot of notes—it takes me back to law school,” Murkowski continued. “What I haven’t done is I haven’t gone through any of those, but along the way I made little asterisks and notations about what I want to see, what questions I still have. So I have lot of work to do on my own.”

REPORT: Schiff Withholding ‘Potentially Exculpatory’ Testimony

Contributing Author
-
0

‘The reason it hasn’t been released is it’s not helpful to Adam Schiff…’

NUNES: Schiff Producing Russia Hoax's 'Low-Rent, Ukrainian Sequel' 1
Adam Schiff / IMAGE: CSPAN via Youtube

(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) House Democrats may have concealed the testimony of a major witness, according to President Donald Trump’s legal team.

Led by House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, Democrats are refusing to disclose the testimony of the intelligence community’s inspector general,Michael Atkinson, who has firsthand knowledge of the anonymous Ukraine whistleblower’s complaint, according to the Washington Times.

Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, who was present during Atkinson’s secretive, closed-door testimony during the House’s impeachment inquiry, said the Democrats do not want to share the information provided by Atkinson because it could hurt Schiff’s case against the president.

“The reason it hasn’t been released is it’s not helpful to Adam Schiff. It is not helpful to the whistleblower,” Ratcliffe said. “It raises credibility issues about both of them.”

Atkinson’s testimony could be “potentially exculpatory” for the president, according to the Washington Times, but Schiff has classified the information as potentially sensitive intelligence that must remain classified.

“It addresses the issue about contacts between Schiff, his staff and the whistleblower, and what the inspector general knows about that,” Ratcliffe said of Atkinson’s testimony. “So, those are material facts that should be talked about, but Adam Schiff has prevented that.”

Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, agreed with Ratcliffe that the Senate should be allowed to weigh the evidence provided by Atkinson if the Democrats are going to push for additional witness testimony and evidence.

“We should be allowed to take a look at that, but again they have stated numerous times in their brief they had overwhelming evidence—it would be so clear to everyone—and I haven’t seen that yet,” she said.

Schiff has deliberately withheld and misconstrued information throughout the impeachment process. Just last week, Politico reported that Schiff had mischaracterized “evidence” provided by Lev Parnas, an indicted former business associate of Rudy Giuliani’s, in order to include Parnas’s testimony in the Senate’s trial.

Schiff has also lied about his past connection to the anonymous whistleblower, and has stonewalled the Republicans’ efforts to identify the whistleblower.

1...3,7403,7413,742...3,811Page 3,741 of 3,811