Author: majbuzzcut

Democrats’ Border Separation Bill Would Let Nearly All Parents Who Commit Federal Crimes Get Off Scot-Free

Democrats’ proposed legislation to prohibit so-called border separations would actually prevent federal law enforcement agencies almost anywhere inside the United States from arresting and detaining criminals who are parents having nothing to do with unlawfully crossing the border and seeking asylum. Every Senate Democrat has now signed on to cosponsor a bill written so carelessly that it does not distinguish between migrant children at the border and U.S. citizen children already within the United States. The bill further does not distinguish between federal officers handling the border crisis and federal law enforcement pursuing the ordinary course of their duties. Let’s break down Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s proposed “Keep Families Together Act” to see where Democrats went wrong. The bill provides that “[a]n 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” (with three exceptions to be discussed later). Four immediate warning signs in this provision should put the reader on notice that this bill is not what Democrats claim. First, “designated agency” here is defined as the entirety of the federal departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and Health and Human Services. The scope of the bill is not limited to those portions of these departments involved with the border crisis, and there is no other limiting factor in the bill that would cabin the prohibition on family separation to immigration-related matters. In other words, this bill is going to regulate conduct across a great many federal offices that have nothing to do with separating children from families arriving unlawfully in the United States. Second, “agent or officer” is not defined by the legislation, except to say that it includes contractors. Federal law, however, already defines “officer” to include (with exceptions not relevant here) every federal employee appointed to the civil service by the head of an executive agency and ultimately overseen by the head of an executive agency. Here again, this bill is not limited to controlling the behavior of the DHS, DOJ, or HHS officers involved in the border crisis. The proposed law would apply with equal force to, say, FBI agents (part of DOJ), Secret Service agents (part of DHS), and Centers for Disease Control officers (part of HHS) in the exercise of their everyday duties. Third, “at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the border” does not meaningfully limit the geographic scope of this bill. That area includes almost the entirety of the geographical territory of the United States and the vast majority of people living in it. Two hundred million people live within 100 miles of the border. That’s roughly two-thirds of the U.S. population. Even more live near ports of entry, including in places far from the border crisis, like Salt Lake City, Utah (nearly 700 miles from the nearest border crossing), Tulsa, Oklahoma (more than 600 miles from the nearest border crossing), and Nashville, Tennessee (nearly 600 miles from the nearest border crossing). All major U.S. metropolitan areas fall within either 100 miles of the border or are near a port of entry or both. Finally, “child” is defined in this legislation as any individual who has not reached 18 years old who has no permanent immigration status. This astonishing definition includes U.S. citizens under the age of 18. Citizen children by definition have no immigration status, permanent or otherwise. (Even if the Democrats belatedly amended this provision to restrict the definition to alien children without a permanent immigration status, that amended definition would still include non-migrant aliens, like tourist children, Deferred Action for Child Arrivals recipients under the age of 18, and children whose parents have had their immigration status revoked.)

For more of this article from attorney Gabriel Malor, click on the text above.

Steve Bannon defends Trump administration separating families at border: ‘Morality is the law’

Steve Bannon, President Trump’s former White House senior adviser, said Sunday a wall at the southern border would solve the problem of separating children from parents who illegally enter the United States. “Give me a border wall and we won’t have this problem,” Mr. Bannon told ABC’s “This Week.” The former Breitbart News executive chairman said the president is simply enforcing the law in response to critics who say it is immoral to separate families. “The morality is the law. They are criminals when they came across and that’s why they are getting separated,” Mr. Bannon said. “Children cannot stay with parents who are getting charged with a crime.”

Exactly!!  But, these sycophant reporters in the dominantly liberal mainstream media, and self-serving, self-righteous, hypocritical Dems in Congress who didn’t criticize Obama who presided over the implementation of this duly enacted law, simply don’t get that it’s smart policy to do this.  After all, if your an adult and you cross illegally, you’re committing a felony!  Kids can’t be charged as adults.  Also, just because they’re coming with a kid, doesn’t mean its THEIR kid.  Drug cartel and all sorts of criminals grab kids and cross with them.  We’ve seen many examples of this.  So, the LAW (which cannot be over-ridden by some executive action by the president, as one idiot reporter who didn’t take civics 101 in 6th grade suggested recently on MSNBC) protects many of these illegal immigrant children by separating them from criminals posing as their parents who may also be involved in human trafficking.  Oh, didn’t think of that did ya, MSNBC and Jim Acosta over at CNN?  Tools..  The message that needs to be broadcast south of our southern border is that if you cross illegally with your kids, you will lose them.  Period!  Couple that with an actual wall on the border, and imagine how effective that would be in stopping the flood of illegal aliens invading our country on a daily bases.  Yeah..  Imagine that happy thought.  You’re welcome.    🙂

Nearly 220 Texas School Districts Allow School Staff to be Armed

Nearly 220 Texas school districts allow school staff to be armed for defense of themselves and their students. The Corpus Christi Caller-Times reports that the exact number of school districts allowing armed staff sits at 217. At the beginning of February there were just over 170 Texas districts allowing armed staff, but that number grew as district after district responded to Parkland and other school shootings by changing policies to allow staff to defend their students. The 217 school districts that allow armed staff represent 21 percent of Texas’s 1,023 independent school districts. That is 21 percent or just over one in five. Texas implemented their armed staff policy in the months after the heinous December 14, 2012, Sandy Hook Elementary School attack. In that attack a man entered the school with stolen guns and spent over nine minutes shooting innocents without any armed response. The policy adopted by Texas “allows school districts to arm school employees and created an additional category of a certified peace officer known as a ‘school marshal’ who can conceal carry a handgun.” It is intended to ensure a Sandy Hook-style attacker will not find a school full of defenseless innocents if he dares to attack.

And that’s smart.  Again, we see Texas on the cutting edge of common sense.  Kudos to these over 200 school district in the great state of Texas for taking this proactive, common sense action.  We need to put a nationwide end to the failed so-called “gun free zones” enacted by anti-gun, liberal Democrats..which are basically advertisements to thugs and criminals that they can go into such schools and nobody will shoot back at them.  It’s time we put a stop to that failed, ridiculous insanity…and allow school districts and teachers to conceal carry, if they want to, so that they can protect their charges from lunatics who would should shoot up schoolrooms to get their 15 mins of fame on tv.  Gun-free zones are a failed idea.

House Dem torches Pelosi as ‘aloof, frenetic and misguided’ as he calls for her replacement

A Democratic congressman from New York state torched Nancy Pelosi this week, calling her “aloof, frenetic and misguided,” as he joined a growing group of rebel Democrats who say they won’t back the Californian for another term as the party’s leader in the House. U.S. Rep. Brian Higgins, from the Buffalo area, told the Buffalo News that Pelosi has shown a lack of leadership and failed to produce an alternative to President Trump’s agenda, such as pursuing a Medicare expansion or an investment in infrastructure. “I will not support her,” Higgins said in the interview. “She’s listening, but this is my conclusion: She’s aloof, frenetic and misguided. “I’m giving voice to a frustration that I hear every single day,” he added, referring to other House Democrats. “I don’t want to call anybody out. But this is the conversation that is taking place.” Pelosi responded to Higgins’ criticism, saying his concerns were largely based on their disagreement regarding his bill that would expand Medicare to people aged 50 to 64. The New Yorker’s comments about Pelosi came as multiple prospective candidates and sitting members of Congress expressed concerns about their 78-year-old leader, who was House speaker for four years before becoming minority leader in 2011. Clarke Tucker, a Democrat running for a congressional seat held by Republicans in Arkansas, released a new ad this week in which he distanced himself from Pelosi, saying he won’t back her if elected. The video follows relentless GOP attacks trying to link him with Pelosi. “[Republican Congressman French Hill] opened his campaign by attacking me, knowing full well that I’ve said from day one that I won’t vote for Nancy Pelosi. We’re better than that,” Tucker says in the ad. U.S. House Rep. Conor Lamb from Pennsylvania, who won a special election in March in a historically GOP district that Trump had won by nearly 20 points, also said he won’t vote for Pelosi and campaigned as a moderate Democrat. Higgins remains particularly concerned about the party’s ability to come up with policies that could persuade the traditional Democratic voters, who supported Trump in 2016, to come back to the Democratic Party. “Our leadership is out of touch with what is going on, not only in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan but in Cheektowaga, West Seneca, Hamburg, Orchard Park and Lancaster,” he told the newspaper, mentioning the states and municipalities Trump won in the presidential election. He adds that the party needs a clearer vision, a stronger leader and offer more than just opposition to the White House if the party wants to retake the control after the midterm elections. “The only thing I have is a voice and a vote, and I have to use that to try to get my conference to recognize that resistance to Trump at best is only half of it,” he said. “We have to offer something affirmative.” Speaking of 2020, the Democrat remained skeptical. “We are not ready for 2020. We’re lacking a clear, coherent and compelling narrative,” he said. One reason why the party isn’t yet ready to challenge Trump, according to Higgins, is the leader of the House. “When she’s on the floor, she’s all over the place; she’s frenetic,” he said of Pelosi. “I think she lacks gravitas.”

That’s being nice..  Definitely something to keep an eye on.  Congressman Higgins isn’t the only Dem in the House who has had enough of ol’ Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who has been a total disaster for her party.

Editorial: Yes, There Was FBI Bias

There is much to admire in Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz’s highly anticipated report on the FBI’s Clinton-emails investigation. Horowitz’s 568-page analysis is comprehensive, fact-intensive, and cautious to a fault. It is also, nonetheless, an incomplete exercise — it omits half the story, the Russia investigation — and it flinches from following the facts to their logical conclusion. The media and the Left are spinning the report as a vindication of the FBI from the charge of bias, when the opposite is the truth. The IG extensively takes on numerous issues related to the decision not to charge former secretary of state Hillary Clinton for, primarily, causing the retention and transmission of classified information on the non-secure “homebrew” server system through which she improperly and systematically conducted government business. If there is a single theme that ties the sprawling report together, however, it is bias. Or, as the report put it, “the question of bias.” It should not really be a question, because the evidence of anti-Trump bias on the part of the agents who steered the Clinton probe — which was run out of headquarters, highly unusual for a criminal investigation — is immense. In fact, the most hair-raising section of the report, an entire chapter, is devoted to communications among several FBI officials (not just the infamous duo of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page), which overflow with abhorrence for Trump (“loathsome,” “an idiot,” “awful,” “an enormous d**che,” “f**k Trump”) and his core supporters (“retarded,” “the crazies,” one could “smell” them). More alarmingly, the agents express a determination to stop Trump from becoming president (e.g., Strzok, on being asked if Trump would become president, says “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it”; and on being assured that his election is highly unlikely, opines that “we can’t take that risk” and that the bureau needs “an insurance policy” against him). Yet despite marshaling this damning proof of bias, Horowitz spends much of his report discounting it with respect to individual investigative decisions. His approach obscures more than it illuminates. The IG says it is not his burden to second-guess “discretionary” investigative decisions unless they were irrational. Thus, even if agents exhibited bias, he presumes that such decisions as granting immunity, declining to seek relevant evidence, or forgoing subpoenas are defensible as long as some government policy arguably supports them — even if other, better options were available. FBI director Christopher Wray has pounced on this, disingenuously arguing that the IG “did not find any evidence of political bias or improper considerations impacting the investigation.” It is a misleading comment: The IG found overwhelming evidence of bias and merely withheld judgment on whether it affected the investigation at key points. Of course, what principally drove decisions in the Clinton-emails investigation (or “matter,” as Obama attorney general Loretta Lynch, like the Clinton campaign, insisted it be called) was the certainty that President Obama and his Justice Department were never going to permit Secretary Clinton to be charged with a crime, notwithstanding the abundant evidence. (Without a hint of irony, the report’s executive summary speaks of the supposed difficulty of proving Clinton’s knowledge of the hundreds of classified emails inevitably on her system, and then explains that the FBI abjured use of the grand jury because it would have required exposing prodigious amounts of classified information.) That is, regardless of whether individual decisions were driven by pro-Clinton bias, the predetermined outcome surely was. That’s why then-director James Comey was drafting his exoneration remarks months before critical evidence was obtained, and before Clinton and other key witnesses were interviewed. A comparison between the handling of the Clinton emails and that of the Trump-Russia probes would almost certainly illustrate the influence of this bias, but that is exactly what the IG report lacks. The report’s fans will say this is strictly a matter of timing: The IG’s Clinton-emails report has been 18 months in the making; it may take the IG even longer to complete the Trump-Russia review, and it would be unreasonable to delay any reckoning that long. But the fact that the IG’s inquiries into the two probes are on different tracks does not alter the more essential fact that the two are inextricably linked. They were conducted at the same time, by the same sets of top FBI agents and Justice Department officials, in the operating environment of the same event — the 2016 election. They were, moreover, perceived as interrelated by the agents themselves. Strzok’s first reaction, upon hearing that Ted Cruz had withdrawn from the GOP race, leaving Trump as the de facto nominee, was that this meant the Clinton-emails probe had to be wrapped up (i.e., formally closed without charges). When the Trump-Russia investigation got rolling, Strzok commented that, compared to the Clinton-emails probe, this was the investigation that really “MATTERS” (emphasis in original). And here is Strzok the day after Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel, on the opportunity to join his investigation of now-president Trump: ” For me, and this case, I personally have a sense of unfinished business. I unleashed it with MYE [Mid Year Exam — the FBI’s codeword for the Clinton Emails investigation]. Now I need to fix it and finish it.” Later in the same exchange he adds that this is a choice of whether he wants to be just another FBI assistant director or participate in an “investigation leading to impeachment.” It’s only Horowitz’s extremely forgiving standard for judging investigative decisions that allows him to say that the impact of bias on the Clinton investigation is inconclusive. This is not to dismiss the usefulness of the IG’s report. It reaffirms that the president had ample legitimate grounds to dismiss Director Comey, who is shown to be insubordinate and deceptive, a self-absorbed law unto himself. Furthermore, the IG’s equivocation about the role of bias does not detract from his powerful condemnation of the disrepute rogue agents have brought on the bureau. Still, there is important work left to be done in fully accounting for the decisions of an FBI whose reputation won’t soon recover from its performance in 2016.

Indeed..  Thanks to the editors of National Review for this excellent analysis.  It’s important to note that National Review is NOT part of the “Trump Train.”  In fact, they are just the opposite and even went so far as to put out a special edition critical of the very idea of a Trump presidency after the election had already been decided, but before he took office.  So, what you just read was from a bunch of inside-the-beltway, swamp, “never Trumpers.”

Ted Cruz beats Jimmy Kimmel in much-hyped charity basketball game

HOUSTON — Sen. Ted Cruz has triumphed over late night TV comedian Jimmy Kimmel in their much-hyped charity basketball game Kimmel dubbed the Blobfish Basketball Classic. With each basket worth a single point, the Texas Republican topped Kimmel 11-9 in a two-hour one-on-one match they agreed to abbreviate Saturday at Texas Southern University because neither appeared capable of reaching 15 points and winning by two. Speaking for both, Kimmel apologized “to the game of basketball.” The Houston Chronicle described it as “a slow-motion car-crash of half-court basketball.” The game was born of a joke from Kimmel, who said Cruz resembled the ocean bottom-dwelling blobfish. Cruz responded by challenging Kimmel to a basketball game. Two Houston charities are the beneficiaries. Game highlight videos are planned for Kimmel’s ABC program Monday night.

But, that would mean actually having to watch Jimmy’s show, or tape it..  Save yourself from watching that idiot, and just Google a YouTube video instead..   Congrats to Sen. Cruz from the great state of Texas in this most excellent victory.     🙂

GOP will hit FBI, DOJ with ‘full arsenal of constitutional weapons’ if they don’t comply with subpoena, Gowdy warns

House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy told “Fox News Sunday” that House Speaker Paul Ryan led a meeting Friday night with senior members of the DOJ and FBI, and made it clear that “there’s going to be action on the floor of the House this week if FBI and DOJ do not comply with our subpoena request.” The House Judiciary Committee has requested more than a million documents from the FBI and DOJ relating to the Hillary Clinton email probe, the firing of former top FBI official Andrew McCabe, and reported surveillance of a Trump aide during the 2016 presidential election. But Republicans have accused the DOJ and FBI of stonewalling and intentionally impeding their investigation, despite the agencies’ claims that fulfilling the request requires a careful review of the sensitive documents. Gowdy, R-S.C., said the GOP’s action could involve “the full panoply of constitutional weapons available to the people’s house.” “Under the heading of minor miracles, you had members of the House working on a Friday night,” Gowdy said. “Paul Ryan led this meeting. You had [House Intelligence Committee Chair] Devin Nunes, [House Judiciary Committee Chair] Bob Goodlatte, myself and everyone you can think of from the FBI and the DOJ, and we went item by item on both of those outstanding subpoenas. And Paul made it very clear; there’s going to be action on the floor of the House this week if the FBI and DOJ do not comply with our subpoena request,” he continued. “So [Deputy Attorney General] Rod Rosenstein, [FBI Director] Chris Wray you were in the meeting, you understood him just as clearly as I did. We’re going to get compliance or the House of Representatives is going to use its full arsenal of constitutional weapons to gain compliance.” Last week, emails reviewed by Fox News showed that Rosenstein himself threatened to “subpoena” emails, phone records and other documents from lawmakers and staff on a Republican-led House committee during a tense meeting earlier this year, in what aides described as a “personal attack.” Gowdy told “Fox News Sunday” that “the full panoply of constitutional weapons available to the people’s house” are on the table, including contempt of Congress. “I don’t want the drama; I want the documents,” Gowdy added. In a statement last week, Gowdy said he was “alarmed, angered, and deeply disappointed” at the revelations in the DOJ IG report released Thursday that analyzed federal investigators’ conduct during the Hillary Clinton email probe. The watchdog’s report unearthed new texts from senior FBI officials who investigated both Clinton and the Trump campaign, including one in which the No. 2 investigator on the Clinton probe, Peter Strzok, vowed to “stop” Trump from becoming president. Gowdy reiterated on “Fox News Sunday” that the IG report was deeply concerning. “I don’t know what [Special Counsel Robert] Mueller has,” he said. “I do know this: that bias is so pervasive and everyone who has ever stood in front of a jury and had to explain it in a way will tell you it is the most miserable feeling in the world and I’ve never seen this level of bias.”

Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) is far and away my fav member of the People’s House.  He is a thoughtful, intelligent, and well-spoken southern gentleman representing his district in the great state of South Carolina.  As usual, Trey is spot-on here.  You can see his interview with Chris Wallace replayed on the Fox News channel this evening if ya missed earlier today.     🙂