Goldman Sachs Is in the Eye of the Campaign Storm

It’s not the biggest player on Wall Street in terms of political money. But Goldman Sachs is financial public enemy No. 1 in this year’s election campaign.

The giant investment bank has become the symbol of the excesses of Wall Street, cited both by liberals leery of deregulated banking and conservatives opposed to big banks and “crony capitalism.” And it’s being singled out for its ties to the political establishment because of two top contenders for the presidency.

Hillary Clinton, the front-running Democratic candidate, received $675,000 in speaking fees from the firm. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a top challenger for the GOP nomination, borrowed $500,000 from the firm to help finance his Senate campaign and then failed to reveal it on one of his legally mandated disclosure forms. Also, his wife, Heidi, is a managing director at the firm in Houston, although she is on leave.

Their rivals drive home the connections to angry, anti-establishment voters.

“I don’t take money from big banks. I don’t get personal speaking fees from Goldman Sachs,” Sen. Bernie Sanders said in a recent debate with Clinton. (Read more from “Goldman Sachs Is in the Eye of the Campaign Storm” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

SCOTUS Upholds Abortion, Strikes Down Juvenile Sentencing

The Courts are at it again. And with Republicans planning to confirm another Obama judge as their first vote of the week, it’s time for conservatives to pay attention to the judiciary.

If you thought the last term at the Supreme Court was just an anomaly, think again. The court system is irremediably broken, and that includes the majority of lower courts as well as the majority of judges on the Supreme Court.

Over the past few weeks, we’ve been observing a pattern of cases in which the high court refuses to overturn lower court decisions that struck down state laws that were clearly constitutional, all the while refusing to reverse lower court decisions that upheld lawlessness.

For example, while the courts had no problem overturning state marriage laws, they have upheld state gun laws that are clearly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has refused to take up any of these appeals, even though the lower courts are violating the McDonald decision. The court agreed to take Obama’s appeal to possibly overturn the lower court decision placing an injunction on the DAPA amnesty. At the same time, the court denied the appeal from Sheriff Arpaio to reverse the lower court decision upholding the DACA amnesty. Last week, the court refused to grant cert to those representing power plants languishing from Obama’s carbon rules that clearly violate congressional statutes.

The general theme is that what is in the Constitution is regarded as unconstitutional and what’s not in it is enshrined into the document by judicial action.

Yesterday’s announcements from the court were no different. On the same day the court struck down state sentencing laws regarding juveniles convicted of murder, it refused to hear an appeal from North Dakota after a lower court struck down its abortion law.

First, the sentencing decision. In Montgomery v. Louisiana, the court retroactively applied the Miller v. Alabama decision, which struck down most state laws sentencing juveniles to life in prison without parole. In 2012, Justice Kagan, writing for the majority opinion in Miller, found that the Eighth Amendment precludes states from issuing such sentences to juvenile murderers under most circumstances. Today’s decision in Montgomery, authored by Justice Kennedy, applied this decision retroactively to as many as 2,500 murderers serving life in prison without parole for murders committed as juveniles. Chief Justice Roberts joined with the five liberals, while Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented.

As Justice Thomas has said before, “the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause was originally understood as prohibiting torturous methods of punishment—specifically methods akin to those that had been considered cruel and unusual at the time the Bill of Rights.” Yet, once again, the court rules that the Constitution as adopted is unconstitutional. Now the federal courts can engage in retroactive jail break and foray into an area of law over which they clearly have no authority. And again, I will note that this same court stands by idly as states violate the plain meaning of the Second Amendment with prohibitions on concealed and open carry.

As Scalia concluded in his dissent:

[I]n Godfather fashion, the majority makes state legislatures an offer they can’t refuse: Avoid all the utterly impossible nonsense we have prescribed by simply ‘permitting juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole.’

Both Thomas and Scalia noted that the court created an entirely new constitutional right to retroactively overturn convictions that were completely constitutional at the time they were passed. Hence, with the ever-evolving standards of the legal profession’s “Constitution,” they can order judicial jailbreak at any time for any reason.

Meanwhile, as the high court overturned the Louisiana State Supreme Court and the state legislature on a retroactive creation of a newly concocted constitutional right, the court refused to hear a petition from North Dakota after a federal district court blocked the state’s six-week ban on abortion. Sadly, this is not surprising because SCOTUS refused to grant cert to Arizona after the Ninth Circuit struck down its 20-week abortion ban in 2014.

Here we are in the year 2016 and the courts have the final say on all important societal questions—from marriage and abortion to immigration and basic criminal justice laws. Many Republicans are excited by the degree of GOP control of state governments, but unless we rein in the courts and strip them of jurisdiction over political questions, they will void out the most basic laws, even those put in place at the founding of our union and the ratification of the 14th Amendment. At the same time, the courts will carelessly uphold blatantly unconstitutional laws passed by blue state governments.

If conservatives are fortunate enough to win back the White House in 2016, the most important looming question is what to do with the courts; for, if the courts are allowed to rewrite our Constitution and impel societal transformation without representation, elections will be rendered moot. (For more from the author of “SCOTUS Upholds Abortion, Strikes Down Juvenile Sentencing” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Just Landed Another Huge Endorsement

By Maggie Haberman. Joe Arpaio, the hard-line anti-immigration sheriff from Maricopa County, Ariz., will appear with Donald J. Trump in Iowa on Tuesday and endorse his candidacy, according to Mr. Trump’s campaign.

Mr. Arpaio, who espouses some of the Republican Party’s most conservative views about undocumented immigrants, will appear with Mr. Trump in Marshalltown, a month after appearing with Mr. Trump in Arizona. Mr. Trump has made combating illegal immigration a staple of his candidacy, including a proposal to build a wall at the southern border.

“I have great respect for Sheriff Arpaio,” Mr. Trump said in a statement. “We must restore law and order and respect the men and women of our police forces. I thank him for his support of my policies and candidacy for president.”

In a statement released by the campaign, Mr. Arapaio said: “Donald Trump is a leader. He produces results and is ready to get tough in order to protect American jobs and families. I have fought on the front lines to prevent illegal immigration. and I know Donald Trump will stand with me and countless Americans to secure our border. I am proud to support him as the best candidate for president of the United States of America.” (Read more from “Trump Just Landed Another Huge Endorsement” HERE)

__________________________

Republican Rivals Attack Trump in Attempt to Villainize Him

By Jonathan Swan. Republicans are testing out new lines of attack on Donald Trump meant to portray him as a ruthless dealmaker who sought to make money at any cost — even if he hurt working people in the process.

The attacks are meant to go after one of Trump’s greatest strengths: that he is a consummate business dealmaker who can bring those skills to the White House and better America’s position with the rest of the world.

Ted Cruz’s campaign has launched an ad that accused Trump of colluding with “Atlantic City insiders to bulldoze the home of an elderly widow for a limousine parking lot at his casino.” The elderly woman is shown on screen saying of Trump, “He doesn’t have no heart, that man.”

Team Cruz, which is fighting for supremacy with Trump in the Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses, makes no apologies for the hit.

“The idea is that eminent domain is for the public good and he attempted to use it for personal gain,” said Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler, in a telephone interview with The Hill. “It gives people the sense that, when [Trump] talks about the art of the deal … somebody’s going to get screwed. (Read more from “Republican Rivals Attack Trump in Attempt to Villainize Him” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

FBI Declares Arbitrary Halt to Background Check Appeals

The FBI “temporarily” halted efforts to process denial appeals on background checks, thereby leaving up to “7,100” Americans in limbo as to whether the federal government will allow them to buy a gun.

According to USA Today, FBI Assistant Director Stephen Morris said the halt in processing appeals, which went into effect on January 20, became necessary because the number of Americans buying guns has overwhelmed FBI background check examiners.

But the NRA-ILA says halting appeals on background checks is equivalent to halting 7,100 Americans’ rights to due process. They suggest the halt itself proves how little gun control groups really understand what actually goes into a background check for a gun purchase . . .

It is demonstrable that delays for gun purchases resulting from this halt are the inevitable fruit of trading freedom for false security in 1998, which is when the Clinton administration inserted government between the American people and the exercise of Second Amendment rights via background checks. (Read more from “FBI Declares Arbitrary Halt to Background Check Appeals” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Homeowner Fatally Shoots Robber… What’s Happening Next Will Outrage You

Photo Credit: Twitter By Tammy Vigil. The victim of an armed robbery in his home could face criminal charges.

The homeowner shot and killed a man Sunday morning who came into his home in the 5400 block of South Taft Court after responding to a Craigslist ad.

The Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office and the Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office are weighing the evidence in deciding whether charges are appropriate.

But the homeowner’s neighbors and others question whether he’s protected by the state’s “Make My Day” or self-defense laws.

The man went from being the victim of an armed robbery inside his home to being a possible suspect for killing one of the men who tied him up at gunpoint and robbed him. (Read more from “Homeowner Fatally Shoots Robber… What’s Happening Next Will Outrage You” HERE)


_____________________________

Homeowner Fatally Shoots Robber Who Answered Craigslist Ad: Cops

By Shamar Walters and Alastair Jamieson. A homeowner fatally shot one of two men who tried to rob him after responding to a Craigslist “for sale” ad, police in Colorado said . . .

The drama unfolded early Sunday when the two Hispanic men arrived at the house, in the southwestern suburbs of Denver, to see collectibles and household items advertised for sale online.

“At some point during the interaction, the males produced a gun, restrained the homeowner, and robbed him,” the sheriff’s department said in a news release.

The homeowner was able to free himself, and ran outside to find one of the suspects in the process of stealing his SUV. He fired several shots, and the stolen vehicle stopped in a neighbor’s yard, the statement said. (Read more from “Homeowner Fatally Shoots Robber Who Answered Craigslist Ad: Cops” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Asked to Define ‘Conservative’ – His Answer Has Some Supporters Worried

Donald Trump, when asked to define a conservative, responded first by saying it is someone who is risk averse, then adding it is someone who wants to conserve.

While a guest on CBS’ Face the Nation on Sunday, the candidate went on to liken his evolution to being more conservative politically on many issues to the journey former President Ronald Reagan took.

Face the Nation host John Dickerson asked Trump how he responds to the charge GOP rival Sen. Ted Cruz and others level that the businessman has not been a consistent conservative. “Usually, I just invoke the name Ronald Reagan,” Trump replied.

“I mean, Ronald Reagan was a fairly liberal Democrat, and he evolved over years and he became more and more conservative. And he was not a very conservative person, but he was pretty conservative. And he ended up being a great president,” the candidate added.

Cruz does not believe Trump’s comparison to Reagan is accurate. “I would note that Ronald Reagan spent decades as a principled conservative, spent decades traveling the country sharing his conservative, free-market views [and] defending the Constitution,” Cruz said.

“Ronald Reagan did not spend the first 60 years of his life supporting Democratic politicians, advocating for big government politics, supporting things like the big bank bailouts, supporting things like expanding Obamacare to turn it into socialized medicine,” the Texas senator added. (Read more from “Trump Asked to Define ‘Conservative’ – His Answer Has Some Supporters Worried” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Sources: Bloomberg Willing to Spend $1B on Possible Presidential Bid

Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is taking a look at the 2016 presidential landscape, and putting the pieces in place for a possible presidential run, sources close to Bloomberg said.

“What he said is if I didn’t get the nomination he might consider it,” Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said. “Well I’m gonna relieve him of that and get the nomination so he doesn’t have to.”

But Clinton may have it wrong, CBS2’s Marcia Kramer reported. Sources close to Bloomberg told Kramer the former mayor is ramping up a possible presidential run regardless of who gets the Democratic nomination, eyeing an Independent third-party bid.

“I would love to have Michael get in the race — I don’t know if he’s going to do it — but I hope he does,” GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump said. “I’d love to compete against Michael.”

Mayor Bill de Blasio doesn’t think Bloomberg is the right man for the White House, 1010 WINS’ Juliet Papa reported, saying that the people of this country want to be in a better place. (Read more from “Sources: Bloomberg Willing to Spend $1B on Possible Presidential Bid” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Grand Jury in Texas Indicts Activists Behind Planned Parenthood Videos

A Houston grand jury investigating criminal allegations against Planned Parenthood stemming from a series of undercover videos on Monday instead indicted two of the [pro-life] activists who shot the footage.

In a stunning turn of events, the grand jury declined to indict officials from the abortion provider, and instead handed up a felony charges of tampering with a government record against Center for Medical Progress founder David Daleiden and center employee Sandra Merritt. Daleidon was also charged with a misdemeanor count related to purchasing human organs.

“We were called upon to investigate allegations of criminal conduct by Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast,” Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson said. “As I stated at the outset of this investigation, we must go where the evidence leads us. All the evidence uncovered in the course of this investigation was presented to the grand jury. I respect their decision on this difficult case.”

The case sprang from a series of dramatic undercover videos in which Center for Medical Progress employees posed as prospective buyers of fetal tissue, and captured several employees of Planned Parenthood and its contractors appearing to discuss practices banned by law. However, when the videos were released online last year, Planned Parenthood claimed selective editing had created a misperception.

Anderson didn’t provide details on the charges, including what record or records were allegedly tampered with and why Daleiden faces a charge related to buying human organs. Anderson’s office said it could not provide details until the documents charging Daleiden and Merritt were formally made public. (Read more from “Grand Jury in Texas Indicts Activists Behind Planned Parenthood Videos” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Attacks Megyn Kelly, Says He’s Not Certain He’ll Attend Debate — See How Fox Just Responded

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump continued his verbal assault on Megyn Kelly Monday, telling CNN that he was not 100 percent certain he would attend Thursday’s debate over concerns the Fox New host would treat him unfairly.

“I don’t like her. She doesn’t treat me fairly. I’m not a big fan of hers at all,” Trump told “Situation Room” host Wolf Blitzer . . .

“If I think I’m going to be treated unfairly, I’ll do something else,” Trump said. “But I don’t think she can treat me fairly actually. I think she’s very biased and I don’t think she can treat me fairly.”

Fox News was swift to respond.

“Sooner or later Donald Trump, even if he’s president, is going to have to learn that he doesn’t get to pick the journalists—we’re very surprised he’s willing to show that much fear about being questioned by Megyn Kelly,” a network spokesperson said in a statement provided to TheBlaze. (Read more from “Trump Attacks Megyn Kelly, Says He’s Not Certain He’ll Attend Debate — See How Fox Just Responded” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

JFK Allowed Passengers to Exit Without Going Through Customs

Passengers arriving at Kennedy Airport on an international flight were allowed to exit the busy hub without going through Customs — for at least the second time in recent months, the Daily News has learned.

Bumbling airline and security officials let travelers on American Airlines Flight 1223 from Cancun, Mexico, out of the airport on Monday morning without having their passports or bags checked, sources told The News . . .

A 34-year-old man who had been in Cancun to attend three Phish concerts told The News he was able to glide from the plane to the baggage claim area without having to endure the usual maze of Customs and Border Protection security checks.

“It’s absolutely absurd,” the business adviser said. “To think that anyone could be walking off of that plane and just get right into the city. It could be terrorists, El Chapo’s henchmen, anyone.”

The jam band fan said he even approached a Transportation Security Administration agent near the exit, but was told he was free to go. (Read more from “JFK Allowed Passengers to Exit Without Going Through Customs” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.