Where Does the Constitution Say That California Judges Control Our Border Policy?

/0 Comments/in , /by

How much longer will we allow the inmates to run the asylum?

The Supreme Court only heard 60 cases last year. Meanwhile, the lower courts heard tens of thousands of cases, and their dockets are full of every political issue under the sun. If we are going to agree as a society that the judiciary now controls every political issue, including issues fundamental to our sovereignty, foreign policy, and national security, that essentially means that foreign invaders and smugglers and cartels control our destiny, regardless of who we elect as president or to Congress. Why? Because of California judges.

Late yesterday, Richard Seeborg, an Obama-appointed federal judge in the Northern District of California, issued a nationwide injunction on the administration’s pilot program for processing credible fear claims in Mexico, known as Migration Protection Protocols.

Rather than categorically suspending immigration requests at the border, the DHS issued a regulation in December to continue such claims but to have some of the illegal aliens wait in Mexico pending the outcome of the proceedings. As I’ve noted, statute is clear that the same way the president can suspend all entry, he can place partial restrictions or conditions on such entry, a point made by Chief Justice John Roberts himself last year in Trump v. Hawaii. But lower courts are always able to write orders more liberal than recent Supreme Court precedent.

Judges cannot empower foreign nationals to sue for a right to enter

The judicial power vested in a judge allows him to grant injunctive relief to an American seeking protection from a regulatory burden or criminal prosecution. Thus a judge can say he will not agree to punish a winning plaintiff even if an executive policy or legislative statute required it. That is judicial review.

A judge, however, has no such power to “issue an injunction” to enable foreign nationals to come into our country without permission of the president. This judge’s ruling is as valid as an injunction placed by me on an administrative policy. Courts simply lack such power and have no power to enforce these political musings, exactly as Alexander Hamilton had in mind when discussing the lack of concern for judicial power grabs.

It’s amusing to watch people treat Wong Kim Ark, the birthright citizenship Supreme Court case, as sacred (even though it explicitly bars illegal aliens from birthright citizenship), yet they never heed the words of its author, Justice Horace Gray, in an opinion six years earlier:

It is not within the province of the judiciary to order that foreigners who have never been naturalized, nor acquired any domicile or residence within the United States, nor even been admitted into the country pursuant to law, shall be permitted to enter, in opposition to the constitutional and lawful measures of the legislative and executive branches of the national government. As to such persons, the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law. Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 1892.

This is not just ancient history. The high court said the same thing even in 1982, after we passed all of our current immigration statutes. “An alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application.” Landon v. Plasencia, 1982.

In his new ruling, Judge Seeborg noted, “To be clear, the issue in this case is not whether it would be permissible for Congress to authorize DHS to return aliens to Mexico pending final determinations as to their admissibility.” That, of course, is a political question “for the political branches of government to make, implement, and enforce,” concedes this confused judge. However, he then proceeds to use the time-tested trick of saying he doesn’t like how Trump did it.

Additionally, sensing the tenuous case of a district judge issuing an injunction outside of the case and outside his geographic jurisdiction, Seeborg said that “defendants have not shown the injunction in this case can be limited geographically. This is not a case implicating local concerns or values.” Thus, because he feels it’s not feasible to follow the Constitution and actually issue judgment only to plaintiffs, this wayward judge simply violates the separation of powers.

He justifies the practice particularly for immigration because courts have “consistently recognized the authority of district courts to enjoin unlawful policies on a universal basis.” But he never cites a Supreme Court opinion and only cites Ninth Circuit cases that are brand-new! Thus, judges violate rules of standing and precedent for getting involved in border matters, and then, once they do so a few times unchallenged by this administration a few times, they cite similar modern judges as precedent!

Of course, nowhere in this opinion does the judge even address the emphatic language of 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA granting the president unlimited authority to do this in the plainest language. Nowhere does the judge cite Trump v. Hawaii or Sale (1993), in which the Supreme Court said 180 degrees the opposite. In fact, the judge cites the Ninth Circuit case that the Supreme Court reversed!

California judges and drug cartels control our sovereignty

Are we resigned to a destiny where cartels can determine who comes into the country and have California judges override the law? If a single progressive judge is vested with the power to override sovereignty and law, even when the Supreme Court just said the opposite, then there is no representative republic left.

Here’s a partial list of California judges ruling over the most sensitive national and even international issues:

Dolly Gee of the Central District of California, among many other radical opinions overturned by SCOTUS over the years, said the administration must release all children after 20 days, even though the Flores settlement is outdated and statute downright requires the opposite.

Dana Sabraw of the Southern District of California said that parents must be released with children too, thereby ruling on a political argument of the media’s virtue-signaling, when laws were not only written but updated in 1996 to explicitly close this loophole.

Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California ruled that Obama’s amnesty must remain for now, in violation of every immigration law on the books.

Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern District of California, just like Seeborg, ruled that the administration can’t make a simple commonsense regulation of driving credible fear claims to points of entry, even though 215(a) of the INA states that “it shall be unlawful for any alien to depart from or enter or attempt to depart from or enter the United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe.”

Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California ruled that Temporary Protected Status, rather than being temporary and discretionary, is permanent and mandatory for Trump because he supposedly has “animus against non-white, non-European immigrants in violation of Equal Protection guaranteed by the Constitution.” This after the Supreme Court said explicitly that such political statements cannot be used and after Congress barred the courts from hearing this very case!

The president has powers over entry into the country without judicial review

Seeborg and Tigar sit on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This is the very court that said in 1996 that the “exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty” and that “the right to do so stems not alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation. (Encuentro del Canto Popular v. Christopher, N.D. Cal. 1996).

Indeed, Congress has historically granted the executive branch broad latitude to defend sovereignty, more than on any other issue. As immigration historian Peter H. Schuck wrote in his scholarly book, Citizens, Strangers, and In-Betweens:

Congress has chosen to confer exceedingly broad discretion over the most far-reaching immigration decisions not merely to the executive branch, but to a cabinet official. … In the face of broad, express congressional delegations of authority to the president in the area of external relations, judicial power is the most problematic and the President’s authority, in Justice Jackson’s words, “is at its maximum.” There, “[he may] be said to personify the federal sovereignty.

Can a judge now “strike down” the administration’s Middle East peace plan? Can a judge “strike down” our military involvement in Afghanistan? Can a judge start issuing visas? Can a judge give standing to Iranians to “strike down” Trump’s termination of the Iran deal? This is exactly why the Supreme Court said in Mathews v. Diaz (1976), that “decisions in these matters [immigration] may implicate our relations with foreign powers” and therefore, these “decisions are frequently of a character more appropriate to either the Legislature or the Executive than to the Judiciary.”

The court further punctuated this point in Kleindienst v. Mandel, (1972):

In accord with ancient principles of the international law of nation-states, … the power to exclude aliens is inherent in sovereignty, necessary for maintaining normal international relations and defending the country against foreign encroachments and dangers — a power to be exercised exclusively by the political branches of government.

But none of these California judges even recognize this foundational principle. At some point, it is the fault of the other branches of government for going along with this toothless charade.

The Freedom Caucus would be wise to begin making impeachment great again by impeaching Richard Seeborg and these other California judges. This is the same judge who recently said that administration cannot simply ask a citizenship question on the Census, which is the entire foundation of our Census and was a question that was asked from our Founding until the 1950s. It’s time to make one of these judges famous, and there’s nobody better to start with than Seeborg.

We are at a crossroads in our nation. Either we have three branches of government, or we have one branch of government, with the most liberal of the 94 district courts controlling every aspect of our country. Seeborg did put the injunction on hold until Friday. The administration should make it clear to the Supreme Court in an emergency appeal that if the high court does not police its own quite inferior branch and enforce its own long-standing precedent on the sovereignty of the nation, the separate and more powerful executive branch of government most certainly will. (For more from the author of “Where Does the Constitution Say That California Judges Control Our Border Policy?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Shocker: Liberals Make HUGE Admission About Trump Tax Cuts

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump is shaking up the Department of Homeland Security. DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen has been fired. U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Commissioner Kevin McAleenan is taking over the department. But we still have a border crisis. And even left-wing Looney Tunes, like Bernie Sanders, aren’t into the whole open borders idea. Yet, while DHS is being shaken up, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has decided to pick a fight with the Trump White House, attacking top adviser Stephen Miller, who reportedly is behind this retooling at the department, for being a “white nationalist.” Miller is Jewish, so that just doesn’t make sense. Yes, the Left can engage in linguistic gymnastics, it still doesn’t negate or minimize that this line of attack is straight trash and pure idiocy. Also, given Miller’s religious background and Omar being an alleged anti-Semite, it’s no shocker that she’s found another Jewish person to attack. . .

Concerning dispatches from the liberal bubble, liberals are now openly admitting to misinforming Americans about the Trump tax cuts, in which 80-90 percent of Americans received tax relief. Even Bernie Sanders admitted this, and this will remain for the next decade. Vox’s Matt Yglesias wrote, “Nobody likes to give themselves credit for this kind of messaging success, but progressive groups did a really good job of convincing people that Trump raised their taxes when the facts say a clear majority got a tax cut.”

Storm sees China as a threat. They have a massive army, nuclear weapons, and a monstrous economy. Yes, they’re challenging the United States. This has been going on for quite some time, though this falls by the wayside due to the amount of Russia hysteria we’ve endured for the past two years. Now, there’s a fear that they could tap into the many underwater cables that provide cross-continental Internet to spy on American data and voice traffic. He explains more in the episode. (Read more from “Shocker: Liberals Make HUGE Admission About Trump Tax Cuts” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Netanyahu Wins Nail Biter Re-Election, Supporters Wave Trump Flags

/0 Comments/in , /by

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has solidified a fifth term in a nail biter election against Benny Gantz. At 2 a.m. in Tel Aviv, Netanayhu gave a few brief remarks, thanked voters and kissed his wife.

Netanyahu will now work to form a government. He has 42 days to do so. (Read more from “Netanyahu Wins Nail Biter Re-Election, Supporters Wave Trump Flags” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

The Crisis in Christian Giving

/0 Comments/in , /by

I have been listening to Christian radio since I returned from the Army with a wife and two young daughters over 40 years ago. Some of the preachers have died off and been replaced, and one host was apparently deposed by his protege, but one thing has never changed: all the programs ask for money at some point during their half hour on air.

I don’t have a problem with that. The laborer is worthy of his hire. It’s not cheap to produce and broadcast a daily radio program, and you can’t expect the technicians or the on-air talent to work for free. They, too, have their families to support.

Several of the affiliated organizations provide important services off-air, and printed materials. These must be staffed and funded. I view it as Biblical philanthropy, money well spent.

Sometimes you can contribute out of your abundance, and sometimes it’s a sacrifice. You sure hope they’re spending it as promised. In the television niche, there have been too many scandals in which charities and ministries didn’t.

Donations to Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker’s Praise the Lord (PTL) ministry, for example, supported their extravagant lifestyle, underwrote some catastrophic business ventures, and paid hush money to at least one young woman who accused Jim of sexually imposing himself on her.

And so it was a great reassurance when Christian psychologist James Dobson invited guests onto an episode of his daily Focus on the Family radio broadcast to describe the newly created Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA).

Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability

About 150 founding Evangelical nonprofits, congregations, denominations, schools and ministries committed in 1979 to seven bedrock standards of accountability, including doctrine, transparency, board governance, fundraising, financial audits, compensation and arms-length business transactions.

Like the Better Business Bureau, however, the ECFA is powerless against non-members. It is a private voluntary association, not a government enforcement agency or regulator.

Feed the Children

Feed the Children (FTC), best known for its heart-wrenching television fundraisers depicting listless, starving African children, was not a member.

Feed the Children loaned $950,000 to its president Larry Jones’s son 20 years ago to start a business. That business went broke and defaulted on the loan. It was a public scandal, and Jones’s son left the charity.

But there’s more than one way to skin a cat. The younger Jones ended up on the payroll of Affiliated Media Group. Without a vote of the board, and without competitive bids, Larry Jones signed a television buying agreement that paid Affiliated between $35 million and $40 million per year.

According to board minutes admitted as evidence in federal court, “there has been a less than satisfactory accounting by Affiliated of the true cost of the television time.”

All this escaped public notice earlier because the charity didn’t separately identify the payments to Affiliated on the required IRS form that is subject to public inspection.

Although the son was no longer an employee, he still had a Feed the Children credit card and used the charity’s offices, equipment, vehicles and storage space, according to the American Institute of Philanthropy’s CharityWatch.

Board minutes indicated he used about 17,405 square feet to store his pontoon boat, Sea-Doo personal watercraft and other personal items. Feed the Children paid for electrical work done at young Jones’s home, and for a garage door that he had installed. He later reimbursed the charity.

For two or three years, Jones’s son oversaw a large call center in Elkhart, Indiana for him. During that time, men from a separate company systematically looted the call center of electronic components and sold them for cash in nearby towns. Feed the Children board minutes noted that the company’s only listed contact was Larry Jones.

Compromising the Watchdogs

Watchdogs were not difficult to compromise. For years, the Better Business Bureau’s Wise Giving Alliance granted Feed the Children its “Wise Giving Seal” for a $15,000 annual fee.

Marcus Owens, Wise Giving Alliance treasurer, was the former director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division. Jones hired Owens to help him attempt the ouster of the charity’s board of director, to replace them with hand-picked directors personally loyal to him.

MinistryWatch gave Feed the Children a four-star overall efficiency rating and a five-star resource allocation rating. Charity Navigator gave its highest rating to Feed the Children, and vouched that it was “one of those charities that has their financial health in order.”

Secular Journalists Expose the Plunder

The fawning monitors took Feed the Children statements at face value until the Daily Oklahoman newspaper and CBS television news broke stories of financial plunder. It was a scandal not only for Feed the Children, but for the watchdogs who should have sounded the alarm much sooner.

There were abundant indications that something was rotten at the charity. Two years earlier, it was spending less than a quarter of its cash budget on program services. Nearly two thirds of each dollar contributed to the charity went to fundraising costs instead of children.

Only CharityWatch at the American Institute of Philanthropy was critical of Jones before the media exposed the larceny. ECFA was untouched by the scandal since Feed the Children was not an ECFA member.

Even at the squeaky-clean ECFA, though, changes were brewing that would later de-emphasize vigilance and verification.

I remember the ECFA Standards Review Committee emerging from a quarterly meeting over 20 years ago to announce the suspension of Gospel Rescue Mission for using misleading stories and false statistics in its fundraising appeals. It’s difficult to imagine ECFA doing that now.

ECFA Paralyzed, Complicit

The Evangelicals’ accountability organization appears to have turned the process over to its lawyers, and that inevitably means playing defense, not offense. Priority number one becomes to avoid “buying a lawsuit,” to avoid legal liability for ECFA itself.

That dethrones the previous ambition to protect Christians who ought to be able to contribute to Evangelical nonprofits with confidence. Nowadays, ECFA does not comment on the compliance of member charities, but treats it as a private matter between the ECFA and the charity.

Nothing gets disclosed to the public unless and until the charity is suspended or expelled. And the accused charity is a dues-paying, fee-paying client. How could that policy not lead to abuses?

Mars Hill Leadership Plays Fast and Loose

Missions-minded donors are especially vulnerable to opaque accounting. ECFA member Mars Hill Church asked for and received donations to fund church-planting in Ethiopia and India, but tapped those millions for U.S. operations after domestic contributions fell off.

It was an obvious violation of ECFA standards, but ECFA took no action against the Seattle church. That church no longer exists, due in part to its lack of accountability.

Smash and Grab at Harvest Bible Church

Last month, ECFA suspended the membership of Chicago-area Harvest Bible Chapel for violating four of seven “standards of responsible stewardship.”

But once again, ECFA acted with apparent reluctance, only after the evangelical World magazine ran freelance writer Julie Roys’s account of the church’s “ongoing pattern of relational and financial abuse, lack of transparency and outright deception.”

Founding pastor James MacDonald admitted taking over $300,000 per year from a separately funded church-planting network to balance the books at his home church, where he was extravagant.

He also wrote a $50,000 check to his friend Mars Hill pastor Mark Driscoll in 2017. It was first drawn on the church-planting account, then reimbursed from the church’s account. That became public, and still ECFA took no action against Harvest Bible Chapel, and imposed no heightened reporting requirements.

Limp Auditing by Leadership’s “BFF”

Last year, the church’s leaders accused their computer technology chief of embezzling $270,000 beginning in 2017.

The church’s financials are audited annually by CapinCrouse, a certified public accountant and consulting firm described in Wondering Eagle blog as Evangelical nonprofits’ BFF (“best friends forever”). But how did somebody embezzle more than a quarter million dollars over two fiscal years without the auditor or ECFA noticing?

“The fact that ECFA didn’t discover these violations is bad enough,” Julie Roys wrote in her eponymous blog. “But the fact that the group failed to act even after I reported these glaring violations is inexcusable.”

Closing the Barn Door, Tardy Again

ECFA finally suspended Harvest Bible Church last month after Roys reported that MacDonald had used church money to fund Florida vacations, African safaris and other luxury purchases. The Elephant’s Debt blog reported the suspension in an article entitled “ECFA Closes Barn Door Years After the Horses Ran Out.”

It appears that we can’t count on the diligence and integrity of auditors and voluntary accountability organizations anymore. Financial statements may or may not reflect the true state of affairs. From Oklahoma City to Seattle to Chicago, too many of them have been compromised by their clients.

Alternatives to Corrupted Self-Regulation

We can’t just stop giving. And so the conscientious Christian benefactor will have to cast wide nets, examine multiple rating and review publications, keep an ear to the ground, and read between the lines. Be skeptical. Be very skeptical.

The good news is that Christian bloggers and journalists have stepped up to the plate, as have secular journalists.
It’s a shame when we have to rely on antagonistic government regulators or secular journalists to keep us honest. But that’s what happens when we outsource our integrity.

We’ve got to confront strong and manipulative personalities within the church and church-affiliated organizations when they resist transparency and accountability. If we don’t, then it’s our own fault when the government and the mainstream media intrude.

I hope Christian university faculties and theorists will recognize the crisis in philanthropy and accountability. They have a strong incentive, after all, to imagine, devise and advocate accountability reforms that can refresh confidence in the financial integrity of institutions that depend on the generosity of believers.

Like churches, missions and charities, they’re going to see their resources dry up if donors stop believing in their faithful stewardship.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Dem Senator Claims That Unborn Babies Can’t Feel Pain Until 24 Weeks Despite Cases Where Babies Survived Birth at 20 Weeks

/0 Comments/in , /by

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, quoted some questionable claims Tuesday about fetal pain during a hearing on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that would ban abortion after 20 weeks – the time when science increasingly suggests unborn children feel pain. . .

She went on to quote an organization called the “American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists” (ACOG) referring to them as “the premier, professional organization.”

“A human fetus does not have the capacity to experience pain until after viability,” she quoted from their statement on the matter. “Rigorous scientific studies have found that the connections necessary to transmit signals from peripheral sensory nerve to the brain as well as the brain structures necessary to process those signals do not develop until at least 24 weeks of gestation because it lacks these connections and structures, the fetus does not even have the physiological capacity to perceive pain until at least 24 weeks gestation.” . . .

Micah Pickering, a boy born at 20 weeks of pregnancy, was obviously viable since he did survive birth and was able to advocate for the legislation on Capitol Hill.

Based on Micah’s case and others, the New York Times wrote in 2015, that a “study, of thousands of premature births, found that a tiny minority of babies born at 22 weeks who were medically treated survived with few health problems, although the vast majority died or suffered serious health issues. Leading medical groups had already been discussing whether to lower the consensus on the age of viability, now cited by most medical experts as 24 weeks.” (Read more from “Dem Senator Claims That Unborn Babies Can’t Feel Pain Until 24 Weeks Despite Cases Where Babies Survived Birth at 20 Weeks” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Lone Star State Moves Closer to Increasing Armed Personnel in Schools

/0 Comments/in , /by

For months after the Santa Fe shooting, many in both Texas state electoral politics and the Texas political commentariat class debated what might be done in the Lone Star State to deter would-be school shooters. Last month, The Texas Tribune reported on numerous school safety bills that are wending their way through the state legislature in the current session. Notably missing from the lawmakers’ legislative agenda was gun control itself. . .

Now, also according to The Texas Tribune, the Texas Senate has followed through and passed a bill that “would remove a cap on the number of school personnel that can carry firearms at schools.” More from The Tribune:

In the first legislative session after a deadly shooting at Santa Fe High School that left 10 dead and 13 others wounded, the Texas Senate on Monday advanced a bill that would abolish the limit on how many trained school employees — known as school marshals — can carry guns on campus.

Under the marshal program, school personnel whose identities are kept secret from all but a few local officials, are trained to act as armed peace officers in the absence of law enforcement. Currently, schools that participate in the program can only designate one marshal per 200 student or one marshal per building.

“School districts need to be able to tailor the school marshal program for their unique needs,” State Sen. Brandon Creighton, a Conroe Republican who authored Senate Bill 244, said about the legislation last week. “SB 244 removes those limitations in statute on the school marshal program to accommodate the unique needs of districts across the state …”

(Read more from “Lone Star State Moves Closer to Increasing Armed Personnel in Schools” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Ilhan Omar Trivializes 9/11 Terrorist Attacks

/0 Comments/in , /by

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) trivialized the deadliest terrorist attack in U.S. history in a recent speech she gave at an event for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) — which the United Arab Emirates has designated as a terrorist organization.

When speaking about the 9/11 terror attacks, which killed approximately 3,000 American citizens, Omar described the attacks as “some people did something.”

“CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something, and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties,” Omar said.

Omar was met by hundreds of protesters when she attended the March event in Los Angeles who expressed strong disapproval of her use of anti-Semitic tropes and promotion of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

Omar responded to the “very interesting” pro-Israel demonstrators by saying: “I don’t think any of them realize that people like myself and many of the people in this room could care less about what they have to say.”

(Read more from “Ilhan Omar Trivializes 9/11 Terrorist Attacks” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Approval Hits High Not Reached Since Mueller Probe Began

/0 Comments/in , /by

As Attorney General William Barr works with the special counsel’s team to finalize redactions on the “Russia collusion” report — which “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities” — President Trump’s approval number in Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll has reached a high the president hasn’t enjoyed for over two years, before the Trump-Russia probe was first authorized.

Rasmussen reported Tuesday that their daily tracking poll found Trump at +8% in approval and holding a 1-point edge among those who feel “strongly” one way or the other.

“The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 53% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-five percent (45%) disapprove,” the pollster reports. “The latest figures include 37% who Strongly Approve of the job Trump is doing and 36% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of +1.”

So how does that compare to Trump’s overall performance? It’s the best approval he’s experienced in Rasmussen’s poll since March 3 of 2017, when he likewise earned 53% approval, but performed less well in disapproval (47%). At that point, the president was likewise at +1 in the poll’s Approval Index rating. . .

Since being sworn into office on January 20, 2017, Trump’s highest approval he has ever achieved in Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll is 59%, a mark he hit six days after his inauguration. With just 31% disapproving, Trump was +28% in approval and +13% in the poll’s Approval Index rating (44% strongly approving, 31% strongly disapproving). But within just a few weeks, the newly sworn-in president’s approval was hovering in the low-50s; by the end of March, Trump’s approval had sunk to the low-40s, where it remained for most of the next year. (Read more from “Trump Approval Hits High Not Reached Since Mueller Probe Began” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Goes After Rep. Omar After Her Criticism of Stephen Miller

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump on Tuesday accused Rep. Ilhan Omar of targeting Jews after she called one of the president’s top aides, Stephen Miller, a white nationalist.

“‘What’s completely unacceptable is for Congesswoman [sic] Omar to target Jews, in this case Stephen Miller.’ Jeff Ballabon, B2 Strategic, CEO. @Varneyco,” Trump tweeted, referencing a segment on Fox Business Network.

Omar on Monday afternoon labeled Miller, known for pushing hard-line immigration and border security policies, a “white nationalist.” Miller, who is Jewish, has reportedly grown increasingly influential on immigration issues in recent days, including the purge of top Department of Homeland Security officials.

The Minnesota congresswoman has come under fire for controversial remarks she made about Israel and has been publicly rebuked by members of both parties for rhetoric panned as anti-Semitic. (Read more from “Trump Goes After Rep. Omar After Her Criticism of Stephen Miller” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

New Investigation Opened on FBI for 2016 Trump Surveillance

/0 Comments/in , /by

By The Blaze. After years of complaints from Republicans and allies of the president, Attorney General William Barr revealed that the FBI is being investigated over FISA surveillance on the Trump campaign in 2016.

“The Office of the Inspector General has a pending investigation of the FISA process in the Russian investigation, and I expect that that will be complete in probably in May or June, I am told,” said Barr during congressional testimony Tuesday.

The president alleged that he had been “wire tapped” by the former Obama administration, which later admitted that some members of the campaign had been surveilled during an investigation into claims of Russian interference in the 2016 election. . .

“More generally,” Barr said, “I am reviewing the conduct of the investigation and trying to get my arms around of all the aspects of the counter-intelligence investigation that was conducted during the summer of 2016.”

(Read more from “New Investigation Opened on FBI for 2016 Trump Surveillance” HERE)

____________________________________________

Barr Redactions Could Spark More Displeasure From Mueller’s Team

By Politico. As Attorney General William Barr decides how much of Robert Mueller’s report to release publicly, recent reports about discontent within the special counsel’s team send a clear message to Barr: redactions are subject to debate.

Legal analysts and lawmakers overseeing the Russia probe — including House members who grilled Barr on Tuesday — say that even if Barr blacks out key portions of Mueller’s report — citing factors like grand jury secrecy, classification and confidentiality — before releasing it, Mueller’s associates might second-guess him via the media or Congress.

Barr “might not have quite as much discretion without some consequences here,” said Andy Wright, a former associate White House counsel to President Barack Obama. Wright said the message is that Barr “only has so much time and so much wiggle room” to delay and redact Mueller’s report before its public release without risking “further disclosures from that team.”

The reports about sentiments within the special counsel’s team started last week in The New York Times and led to follow-up coverage in other media outlets describing frustrations inside Mueller’s team over how Barr portrayed its work and declined to release detailed executive summary materials they’d prepared. (Read more from “Barr Redactions Could Spark More Displeasure From Mueller’s Team” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE