It’s unlikely that Evan McMullin, the former CIA staffer who just announced his bid for the presidency, can swipe votes from Republican nominee Donald Trump in any state — except one.
Utah is a state that has voted Republican in every presidential election since 1964, and yet it has taken on a distinct dislike for the GOP nominee: June polls showed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump tied with 35 percent each, with Libertarian Gary Johnson drawing in 13 percent. According to The Salt Lake Tribune, this unique aversion to Trump is due to his “brash swagger” and “outlandish behavior” in a state full of Mormons.
“It’s interesting that Libertarian Gary Johnson is polling in double digits,” Jason Perry, director of the Hinckley Institute, told the Tribune. “Clearly, there is a segment of the Utah population that is still willing to consider a third-party candidate.”
That third-party candidate may very well be Evan McMullin come November.
A Mormon himself, McMullin was born in Provo, Utah and studied at Brigham Young University, a private university owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It would not be so surprising if McMullin gained the support of fellow Mormons Mitt Romney and Mike Lee, two of the most outspoken anti-Trump politicians in the GOP. (Read more from “How Evan McMullin Could Cost Trump the Presidency” HERE)
By Steve Weatherbe. An Irish High Court judge has ruled that unborn children have all the rights of “born” children under the Irish constitution and law.
Justice Richard Humphries made the ruling during a tangled deportation case made more complex by the unborn child fathered by the Nigerian man whom the Irish government is seeking to expel.
“The ruling is vitally important at a time when the status of unborn babies in Ireland is once again under grave threat from pro-abortion organizations and the media,” Patrick Buckley of the Dublin office of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children said.
The state secured a deportation order in 2008, but the Nigerian, who was claiming refugee status, delayed implementation with various appeals and then sought a judicial review of the original order on the basis of having fathered the child, unborn at the time of his application, by an Irish woman with whom he is still partnered. (Read more from “Irish High Court Judge Rules: ‘Unborn’ Is ‘Clearly a Child’ With ‘Significant’ Rights” HERE)
__________________________________________
GOP Governor Sued for Forcing Doctors to Promote Abortion
By Bob Unruh. The governor of Illinois on Friday got sued for signing into law a plan that includes provisions to force doctors to promote abortion – even if they have religious objections to the procedure.
The lawsuit was filed by officials with the Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of the Pregnancy Care Center of Rockford, Area Pregnancy Care Center, Dr. Anthony Caruso and others.
It names Gov. Bruce Rauner and the state’s secretary of its Department of Financial & Professional Regulation, Bryan Schneider.
“No state should attempt to rob women of the right to choose a pro-life doctor by forcing pro-life physicians and entities to make or arrange abortion referrals. What’s even worse is that Illinois did this by amending a law designed specifically to protect freedom of conscience,” ADF Senior Counsel Matt Bowman said in a prepared statement.
“The governor should have vetoed this bill for many reasons, including its incompatibility with Illinois law and the state constitution, which specifically protects freedom of conscience and free speech,” he said. (Read more from “GOP Governor Sued for Forcing Doctors to Promote Abortion” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Human_fetus_10_weeks_with_amniotic_sac_-_therapeutic_abortion.jpg16592205Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-08-09 03:23:322016-08-14 02:26:31Irish High Court Judge Rules: ‘Unborn’ Is ‘Clearly a Child’ With ‘Significant’ Rights
I was listening to a Lisa Murkowski campaign ad and I heard this: “Her word is her bond.” I suspected this wasn’t true so I did some digging. I found that she can really tell some whoppers.
Like the one in 2010 she told to the Penninsula Clarion: When asked if she would support the winner of the Republican primary (she was running against Joe Miller for the senate seat her dad, Frank, gave her.) “Murkowski said she respects the electorate and would support whoever wins.” Well, we soon found out that wasn’t really going to happen. In fact, after losing that primary to Miller she decided to run a write-in campaign and eventually defeated him in the general election with the help of…well… a lot of Liberals. No surprise there of course since she is quite the Liberal herself. But that whopper is kinda right in your face, isn’t it?
And then there’s the whole issue about how her thoughts on things… really important things… evolve. I’m not talking about someone who in mid-life decides that Jiff is better than Skippy. I’m not even talking about someone who as a lifelong Green Bay Packer fan “evolves” into a Minnesota Vikings fan. (This is not possible of course, but I think you get the point.) No, I’m talking about marriage. You know, that institution that is the very foundation of civilized society. Well, in October of 2010, she told a newspaper from the Anchorage Archdiocese, The Catholic Anchor:
“I believe marriages should be legally defined as between one man and one woman. I have voted in support of efforts in the Senate to enact a Constitutional amendment that would have limited marriage to one man and one woman only.”
But just three years later she wrote this in an op-ed:
Like the majority of Alaskans, I supported a constitutional amendment in 1998 defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, but my thinking has evolved as America has witnessed a clear cultural shift. Fifteen years after that vote, I find that when one looks closer at the issue, you quickly realize that same sex unions or civil marriages are consistent with the independent mindset of our state – and they deserve a hands-off approach from our federal policies.
Are you starting to get the picture that when Lisa Murkowski tells us something we probably should wait at least a couple of years to see if she really means it. I mean, what is she going to “evolve” on next. Is she going to support some tax scheme on the energy sector that suggests that global climate change is caused by your SUV? Or, say the federal government under President Hillary decides that your AR-15 in the closet is a threat to national security so you had just better turn it over to your local Federales… will Senator Lisa “evolve” on the Second Amendment? We really don’t know, do we? In fact we don’t know where she will stand on anything because she is prone to telling whoppers as she “evolves.” And we all know what the Good Book says about that, and I quote; “Never trust a Whopper Teller.”
Finally, in another ad Senator Murkowski makes the claim she is the “Conservative Voice for Alaska.” The reality is that by any standard the good senator is the second most liberal Republican in the Senate. We have a name for these kind of Republicans, RINO (Republican In Name Only). She’s so liberal Mark Begich wanted to use her in his campaign ads the last time he ran in 2014. She didn’t like that one bit because she knew she had to run…in Alaska…in 2016…right now.
You see, the Republican Party has always stood for those principles which have made America what it is. It was created to fight slavery. It stood against the Progressivism early in the last century that Woodrow Wilson sought to impose on America. And it supported the Civil Rights Movement when nearly all Democrats held fast to Jim Crow.
Senator Murkowski doesn’t agree with most of those principles articulated in the GOP platform. Indeed, she scorns them. She fights for taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood even after we learned it was selling the body parts of aborted children. What kind of seared conscience can make that argument?
I guess she believes she is a Republican and a Conservative because she fights to have more ice-breakers built, or strives to have our natural resources developed, or advocates for a strong national defense or even because she wants the pipeline filled. Well just remember, Senator Mark Begich, the flaming Liberal that he is, fought for those very same things. At least he was always honest with us when he claimed to be a Liberal.
The problem I have here is that far too many politicians have the nasty little habit of telling us one thing when they want our vote, but then doing something completely different after we elect them. But the even greater problem is that we don’t do our job as citizens. That is, we don’t hold the Whopper Tellers to their word. We just let them tell us whoppers and then we put them back right back in office, over and over. We let them tell us they are with us…that they are somehow conservative…when they are not. We let them “evolve” when really they are just telling whoppers.
We do have a choice of course. On August 16th there is a Republican primary where we can vote for someone else who might actually be a Conservative, and who just might tell us a few less whoppers.
If that doesn’t work for you try voting for a Libertarian. Either way, it’s time to end the whoppers, and the Whopper Tellers who tell them.
“The best ever.” “The perfect 10.” “The best gymnast in history.” “Unbeatable.” “Stunning.” “Breathtaking.” “A Legend in the making.”
These are some of the ways Simone Biles has been described by her competition, even before her Olympic debut. Biles, a 19-year-old gymnast for Team USA, is already the most decorated gold medalist in gymnastics world championship history. In Rio, she is on the fast track to becoming the best in the world, again, being an odds-on favorite to bring home as many as five gold medals . . .
[Simone] Biles and her siblings were born into a fatherless, drug-abusing home and eventually were placed in foster care. According to Texas Monthly:
Biles was born in Columbus, Ohio, in 1997 to drug-addicted parents who struggled to care for their children. Biles and her three siblings were shuffled back and forth between their mother’s house and a foster home. (Biles’s father had abandoned her mother and was never present in his daughter’s life.) . . .
Her upbringing was chaotic. Biles bounced back and forth between state and foster care until she was six years old. In 2001, her grandparents, Ron and Nellie Biles, officially adopted Simone and her sister and moved them to Spring, Texas. (Read more from “Little Girl Abandoned by Father and Drug-Addict Mother Is Adopted by Christian Texas Family, Becomes Best Athlete in the World” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Simone_Biles_-_Rio_2016_01.jpg533800Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-08-09 01:18:092016-08-14 02:43:20Little Girl Abandoned by Father and Drug-Addict Mother Is Adopted by Christian Texas Family, Becomes Best Athlete in the World
Presidential polling this year is like Texas weather. Wait 15 minutes and it’s likely to change.
Yesterday, a McClatchy/Marist poll had Hillary Clinton jumping to a 15-point lead against Donald Trump. A Fox News poll had the Democratic candidate up by 10.
That was yesterday. A new Reuters/Ipsos poll out Friday afternoon indicates Clinton’s lead over Trump has narrowed to less than three points among likely voters, 42% to 39%. This is within the margin of error, suggesting, says Reuters “the race is roughly even.” It also marks a five-point drop for Clinton since Monday.
The Trump staffers who CNBC claimed earlier this week were “suicidal” over the campaign’s sudden collapse can take at least a couple steps back from the edge.
Reuters says “the reasons behind the shift were unclear.” However, in recent days Hillary Clinton was awarded “four Pinocchios” by the Washington Post for her increasingly-reported lie over how FBI Director James Comey characterized her public statements about her private email server. There was also the news of the Obama administration, of which she had been a part, sending $400 million to Iran in the dead of night as an apparent ransom for four American prisoners.
Though the Reuters numbers — and an LA Times/USC poll that shows the race a statistical tie — come as a relief to the Trump campaign, the news is not all sunny. As Robert Eno at Conservative Review noted Friday, Trump is down 6.8 points in the RealClear Politics average (though it does not include the new Reuters poll.) Eno also indicates how the GOP nominee is even running weak in states that have been solidly Republican since the 1980s. For example, Trump is down four in Georgia head-to-head with Hillary, and down six in Florida.
By way of comparison, Eno says that on this date in 2012 Barack Obama had a 2.8 percent lead in the RealClear Politics average over Mitt Romney.
On the other hand, on July 28th, a mere eight days ago, Donald Trump was beating Hillary Clinton in the RCP average. Meaning, applauding or getting agitated over the polls at this point is pointless. We’re better off popping the popcorn, putting up our feet and cheering TeamUSA because this particular race is far from finished. (For more from the author of “Trump Collapsing? Not So Fast.” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/25475874370_82f4151df4_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-08-06 03:37:002016-08-07 00:40:09Trump Collapsing? Not So Fast.
One month after a Bernie Sanders supporter served the Democratic National Committee and its then-chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, with a civil complaint alleging fraud on behalf of Hillary Clinton, he was found dead in his Florida home.
In a video recorded by independent filmmaker Ricardo O. Villalba, the deceased, Shawn Lucas, appeared to be excited to serve papers on the DNC on July 3 — the day before Independence Day . . .
An unconfirmed report indicates that on Tuesday Lucas was found dead by his girlfriend in the bathroom of his home . . .
Given Lucas’ young age, news of his sudden death set social media ablaze with speculations of conspiracy — especially coming close on the heels of the July 10 murder of young DNC staffer Seth Rich.
Rich’s killer reportedly took nothing of value from the 27-year-old — with the exception of his life. His wallet, watch and cell phone were still on his person.
This follows death of 27 year-old Democratic staffer Seth Conrad Rich who was murdered-now Shawn Lucas found dead https://t.co/LgauyMtnaP
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/21581179719_571bb5a7ab_b.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-08-06 03:35:582016-08-07 00:28:10Lead Attorney in DNC Fraud Case Found Dead
Rumor-disproving website Snopes has proven itself especially unreliable on all matters political, and it did so again this week when it tried to “bust” the myth that President Obama had paid Iran $400 million in exchange for American citizens being held in Iranian jails . . .
Both Snopes and the Obama administration insist that the payment was part of the Iran nuclear deal and completely unconnected to the release of the men.
““[T]he money transfer was the result of a settlement of a long-standing claim at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal in The Hague around the same time that the prisoners were released,” the Snopes article reads. “The Tribunal was created specifically to deal with diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States.”
The article largely sources a statement from State Department spokesman Jack Kirby.
“The negotiations over the (arms deal) settlement … were completely separate from the discussions about returning our American citizens home,” Kirby said in the statement. “Not only were the two negotiations separate, they were conducted by different teams on each side.” (Read more from “Website Gets Busted Trying to Cover Obama’s Lies” HERE)
Count the Department of Justice among those who thought it was a boneheaded idea to drop $400 million cash in the Iranian ayatollah’s hands the same day four American prisoners were released.
According to The Wall Street Journal, which broke the story of the secret cargo plane of cash Tuesday, the timing and manner of the flight raised alarms with senior Justice Department officials. As one told the WSJ, “People knew what it was going to look like, and there was concern the Iranians probably did consider it a ransom payment.”
The State Department rejected DOJ’s concern and carried out the payment. On Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry flatly denied any connection between the pallet of cash and the prisoner swap and implementation of the nuclear deal. “The United States does not pay ransom and does not negotiate ransoms,” Kerry told reporters while in Buenos Aires. “It is not our policy.”
President Obama himself scoffed at the notion he’d paid a ransom to Iran, telling reporters Thursday, “This wasn’t some nefarious deal.” But an interview of one of the prisoners conducted after his release challenges that assertion.
Timing Is Everything
A quick timeline may help explain DOJ’s alarm and the growing suspicion.
Way back in 1979, when Jimmy Carter was still in the White House, the Shah of Iran dropped $400 million into a Pentagon account to purchase U.S. fighter jets. Soon after, the Shah was overthrown by the Iranian Revolution and Carter canceled the deal, understanding that arming America-hating Islamists is never a good idea. The $400 million was frozen after those Islamists stormed our embassy, taking 56 Americans hostage.
In the decades since, Iran has wanted its money back with billions in interest, with the two sides endlessly haggling over the matter at an international court at The Hague.
Meanwhile, in recent years, Iran has been arresting Iranian-Americans, holding four in captivity like aces in a poker game as the Obama urged the terrorist nation to accept a deal over its nuclear program.
But what about the four hostages? John Kerry declared they are not part of the nuclear negotiations.
Obama got his Iran nuke deal last summer, with the agreement scheduled to formally go into effect January 2016.
The hostages remained rotting in prison. The public pressure mounted.
Suddenly, after 36 years — and entirely coincidentally, claims the White House — Obama decides it’s time to settle the matter of the $400 million. He’s going to give Iran back its $400 million, plus $1.3 billion in taxpayer money. And — entirely coincidentally — the hostages were being freed. Said Obama on January 17, “With the nuclear deal done, prisoners released, the time was right to resolve this dispute as well.”
The time was right, indeed, if you were one of those four hostages. Obama forgot to mention that the initial payment to Iran had already happened nearly simultaneously with the release of the prisoners. The White House Wednesday refused to clarify whether the money had to be delivered before the four were freed.
However, also on Thursday, Fox News played a clip of an interview they conducted with one of the prisoners, Saeed Abedini, the day he was freed. Abedini said that they kept being delayed “hours and hours” at the airport even though their plane was there and the pilots were ready. When he asked about the delay, he was told repeatedly they could not leave “until the other plane arrives” and “if that other plane doesn’t come we’ll never let you go.”
The Delivery
It’s not just the timing that made the deal suspicious. It was the delivery. The money wasn’t wired. There was no delay until a proper arrangement of U.S. funds could be made. There was no ceremony with a big check acknowledging this diplomatic breakthrough-cum-lottery-win for Iran. The administration got hold of $400 million in francs and rubles, packed it on a pallet, loaded it onto an unmarked cargo plane and landed it into the waiting arms of the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism. And our hostages were free.
No wonder the Justice Department thought the arrangement smelled an awful lot like a ransom payment. Still, the State Department rejected DOJ’s concerns and went ahead with its fly-by-night operation.
The Justice Department isn’t exactly denying the Wall Street Journal account, telling the newspaper the agency “fully supported the ultimate outcome of the administration’s resolutions of several issues with Iran.” “Ultimate outcome” is legal-speak for “At least they got the prisoners back in one piece.” A State Department spokesman declined to comment on the latest WSJ story.
Let’s add one more curious event to the timeline. Remember how Iran grabbed two boats full of U.S. sailors, made them kneel at gunpoint, made them appear in videos, made some of them cry, made a mockery of international law and standards? Remember John Kerry gushing over the Iranians like girls at a Justin Bieber concert? That happened just days before this magical congruence of cash flying one way, hostages flying the other and the Iran nuclear deal officially going into effect.
With Obama desperately needing the Iran deal to be implemented without a hitch, with the hostages still in limbo, with a settlement over the $400 million not yet announced, did the Iranians want to wring a few more concessions or a few more dollars out of its enemy? Or was it yet another coincidence?
John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and “Old News”
Secretary of State Kerry attempted to dismiss the significance of the WSJ bombshell, telling reporters, “This story is not a new story. This was announced by the president of the United States himself at the same time.”
His predecessor, current candidate for president Hillary Clinton, said almost exactly the same thing, like it was from a script: “Well,” she says in the clip below, “the White House talked about this and this is kind of old news. It was first reported about seven or eight months ago.”
“Old news” is a familiar phrase to those who have followed Clinton scandals. As Politistick.com notes when a scandal emerges the Clinton strategy is to deny, deflect, delay and then declare any further revelations as “old news.” Still, in this case, Hillary was not at the helm when the deal was completed, and indeed her answer above is carefully couched in phrases like, “as I understand.”
Meanwhile, Clinton’s opponent Donald Trump is being roasted for suggesting he watched Iranian government video of the Iranians unloading the $400 million. It was actually file footage from Fox News of the January prisoner release. Curious how quickly the media moves away from Obama’s actions to Trump’s mouth.
The “But the Sale Was Going to End” Defense
There’s an old joke. A woman comes home from the department store with a new dress. “Honey, I made us $50!” “Great, dear. How?” “This dress was $100, but I got it half off!” Secretary Kerry is waiving that dress in defending the payment to Iran. He claims agreeing to pay $1.7 billion to Iran to settle the matter of the $400 million was a win for America. “We believe this agreement … actually saved the American taxpayers potentially billions of dollars,” Kerry said. “There was no benefit to the United States of America to drag this out.” After 36 years, how does dragging it out a few weeks make a difference?
The notion that we had to pay Iran this money right now because the only alternative was paying billions more later struck a familiar chord. As President Obama and Kerry were pushing the Iranian nuclear deal, they repeatedly stated that the only alternative to signing the deal they negotiated was war.
This was one of the false narratives — what others would call “lies” — White House adviser Ben Rhodes admitted he created in order to sell the Iranian nuclear deal.
In the wake of Rhodes’ boast and the events surrounding the $400 million payment, it’s no stretch to suggest that while America citizens were ransomed, our credibility was destroyed. (For more from the author of “DOJ Protested Payment to Iran; Prisoners Told They Couldn’t Leave ‘Until Other Plane Arrives” please click HERE)
Here is the transcript and the revelation by Assange…
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Julian, I want to mention something else. In March, you launched a searchable archive for over 30,000 emails and email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was secretary of state. The 50,547 pages of documents span the time from June 2010 to August 2014; 7,500 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton herself. The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the U.S. State Department as the result of a Freedom of Information Act request. Why did you do this, and what’s the importance, from your perspective, of being able to create a searchable base?
JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, WikiLeaks has become the rebel library of Alexandria. It is the single most significant collection of information that doesn’t exist elsewhere, in a searchable, accessible, citable form, about how modern institutions actually behave. And it’s gone on to set people free from prison, where documents have been used in their court cases; hold the CIA accountable for renditions programs; feed into election cycles, which have resulted in the termination of, in some case—or contributed to the termination of governments, in some cases, taken the heads of intelligence agencies, ministers of defense and so on. So, you know, our civilizations can only be as good as our knowledge of what our civilisation is. We can’t possibly hope to reform that which we do not understand.
So, those Hillary Clinton emails, they connect together with the cables that we have published of Hillary Clinton, creating a rich picture of how Hillary Clinton performs in office, but, more broadly, how the U.S. Department of State operates. So, for example, the disastrous, absolutely disastrous intervention in Libya, the destruction of the Gaddafi government, which led to the occupation of ISIS of large segments of that country, weapons flows going over to Syria, being pushed by Hillary Clinton, into jihadists within Syria, including ISIS, that’s there in those emails. There’s more than 1,700 emails in Hillary Clinton’s collection, that we have released, just about Libya alone.
(Read more from “Julian Assange Says “1,700 Emails in Hillary Clinton’s Collection” Proves She Sold Weapons to ISIS in Syria” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/459271639_07cb09817a_b-2.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-08-05 02:53:402016-08-07 00:38:55Julian Assange Says “1,700 Emails in Hillary Clinton’s Collection” Proves She Sold Weapons to ISIS in Syria
States don’t have standing to sue Obama for illegally colonizing their cities with Syrian refugees, but illegal immigrants and criminal aliens have standing to sue for public benefits. That is the state of play in the modern judicial system and the contemporary legal profession.
One of the most basic principles of the social compact theory, rooted in the Declaration of Independence, is that only the existing members of a civil society, through their duly elected representatives, can determine who may enter and become part of that society or under what conditions that individual may become a member. As James Madison wrote in 1835, “[I]n the case of naturalization a new member is added to the Social compact …by a majority of the governing body deriving its powers from a majority of the individual parties to the social compact.” This is why our Constitution vested Congress with plenary power over immigration policy and why the courts, before they became autocratic in recent years, conceded that they have no jurisdiction to second-guess the legislature on any immigration decision.
In Stolen Sovereignty, I warn that the unelected executive agencies and the courts are engaging in social transformation without representation by violating immigration statutes in order to achieve their de-civilization goals. As Conservative Review has observed throughout the past year, Obama is breaking statutes and abusing his power to use parole, refugee, asylum, and temporary protected status – and of course – executive amnesty – to bring in more immigrants against the consent of the people. Likewise, the courts are illegally overturning congressional immigration statutes and granting standing to illegal aliens and criminal immigrants to block deportations and even petition for affirmative rights, such as birth certificates, driver’s licenses, and gun rights.
Yet, at the same time, American citizens, states, law enforcement, and even ICE agents have been denied standing to sue in court when Obama is violating immigration statutes and the sovereignty of the states and the people. Thus, while the courts illegally venture out of their jurisdiction to overturn congressional sovereignty statutes – the most inviolate area of settled law – they refuse to actually grant standing to cases within their core purview, which includes striking down illegal executive actions that run contrary to existing law. Remember that Civics 101 class about courts applying the law instead of nullifying it?
As we’ve noted before, while the federal government controls the refugee process, they must engage in advance consultation with the states at every stage of the resettlement process. Yet, Obama’s Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), in conjunction with taxpayer-funded private organizations, are engaging in the ultimate social transformation without representation – jeopardizing the security, culture, and public services of localities – without even informing them of the resettlement after the fact.
Unfortunately, federal judges already blocked Texas from suing the Obama administration. Last Friday, U.S. Magistrate Judge John E. Ott denied the state of Alabama standing to sue the Administration for not engaging in advance consultation. In a 28-page memo, Ott wrote:
Nothing in the Refugee Act requires defendants to provide plaintiffs with information necessary to assess security and other potential risks posed by refugees, or information necessary to adequately plan and prepare for the arrival of refugees in the state, in regard to security and requests for social services and public assistance.
As I noted last year, statute absolutely requires ORR to take into account security and economic considerations and engage in advanced consultation with the states.
This is yet one more reason why the courts will always be a dead-end for conservatives and why simply “appointing better judges” will not help. Even good judges feel compelled to abide by existing precedent governing rules of standing, which is so one-sided against Americans that illegal aliens have more standing to fight immigration actions than taxpayers and states.
It’s time for Congress to step up to the plate. If Trump and Republicans actually wanted to turn around this pending electoral disaster and defeat Hillary Clinton, the nominee would immediately call for GOP leaders to reconvene for the summer and pass legislation empowering states to reject refugee resettlement. This is even more powerful than placing a national moratorium on resettlement; it allows the people and states to decide the future of their communities. These are the decisions the individual nation-states of the European Union never got to make before their societies were transformed into microcosms of the Middle East and now incur daily terror attacks – to the point that they are no longer newsworthy.
Any takers? (For more from the author of “States Can’t Sue Obama on Immigration Policy, but Guess Who Can” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Barack_Obama_in_Dresden_Germany_2009-3.jpg13912086Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2016-08-05 00:54:222016-08-07 00:41:21States Can’t Sue Obama on Immigration Policy, but Guess Who Can
