Lost amid the uproar over President Trump’s rebuke of four radical “women of color” in the House of Representatives is the possibility that he was entirely justified. For months, these freshmen lawmakers, hyped by the media, have used their office to undermine enforcement of our nation’s laws, especially those related to immigration, labeling anyone who disagrees with them as a “racist.” One of these pugilists, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., stands out as an especially nasty piece of work.
A lawyer by training, Tlaib, born in 1976, occupies the Detroit-area congressional seat held for decades by John Conyers. Like the other three members of her vapid, publicity-hungry “squad” – Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) – she makes no secret of her loathing for America’s identity and laws. Indeed, as a Muslim born to Palestinian parents, Tlaib proudly identifies with their foreign identity. “I’m more Palestinian … Read More ➡
Donald Trump’s enemies have gotten creative lately in examining his past for evidence of lawbreaking. But their creativity has its limits. In Richmond, Va. this morning, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Appeals Court for the Fourth Circuit unanimously dismissed a lawsuit filed two years ago by the attorneys general for Maryland and the District of Columbia accusing Trump of illegally profiting from his continuing financial interest in the Trump International Hotel, located blocks from the White House. The suit alleged that he violated the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause barring presidents and other federal officials from accepting gifts or money from foreign and domestic government officials without congressional approval. The claims, wrote Judge Paul Niemeyer, were too “attenuated” and “abstract” to merit legal standing.
It takes no great insight to recognize there is a rapidly worsening security crisis along our southern border. Remarkably, a union representing the federal employees who handle this crisis is enabling it. Last Wednesday, American Federation of Government Employees Local 1924 filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco in support of a lawsuit to block enforcement of the Trump administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP). Since its launch in January, the program by the end of June had temporarily returned to Mexico more than 15,000 asylum seekers who had been detained at U.S. ports of entry. MPP, reads the complaint, is “fundamentally contrary to the moral fabric of our Nation.” Such high-minded rhetoric ignores the fact that these migrants attempted to enter the U.S. illegally.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, then the many photos of “caravans” of thousands … Read More ➡
On the heels of an annual meeting in which it was called to account by two investor organizations – including National Legal and Policy Center – for its antagonism against conservatives and libertarians, Google has been further exposed, for efforts to prevent President Donald Trump’s reelection and to maintain all the power it wields in order to accomplish it.
Project Veritas, the undercover investigative nonprofit led by James O’Keefe, learned of the effort from an unidentified Google insider who divulged the leftist company’s intentions for the 2020 campaign. In addition to an extensive interview with the whistleblower, Veritas obtained lengthy and detailed footage of top executive Jen Gennai, the tech giant’s Head of Responsible Innovation, who unknowingly explained Google’s strategy for the next election cycle.
As Veritas reported, Gennai said Google’s aim is to avoid a repeat of the election results of 2 ½ years ago.
The Obama-era National Labor Relations Board, with its built-in pro-union majority, gave organized labor plenty of organizing and bargaining advantages, but none perhaps as far-reaching as the “quickie” or “ambush” election rule. Now an appeals court has upheld it. On April 19, a three-judge panel for the District of Columbia federal circuit court, in UPS Ground Freight Inc. v. NLRB, rejected an employer challenge to the rule, which, when put in place in April 2015, dramatically shortened the time available for employers to convey to employees their objections to potential union representation. Plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that the board’s directive to UPS to bargain with a Teamsters local lay outside the scope of its authority and that the rule “values speed at all costs.” And they were right.
Unions, like all organizations, seek to maximize membership. And that requires on some level persuading workers at nonunion sites to see the … Read More ➡
The legacy media (of course) has focused on all the evidence Robert Mueller considered in his report about whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice during the Russian (non)collusion investigation, questioning whether the special counsel made the right decision not to prosecute the Commander-in-Chief.
There are disputes in the testimony between witnesses, which is why Mueller didn’t move forward with a “prosecutorial decision” on that point (or on any other). But setting aside the analysis about what happened, and interpreting it under the law, there is one question that is not being addressed:
“I will tell you this about Russia, if they had anything on me, it would have come out a long time ago, probably a long time before I ran, because they would have been much better off,” President Trump said on Fox News on Wednesday evening.
Until Sunday, it was an article of faith among American liberals that Donald Trump somehow benefitted from the Russian interference in his election campaign. It is time to re-examine that theory.
There are many issues between the United States and Russia but the most fundamental is how much each spends to defend itself against the other. Trump would always favor more military spending than Hillary. This is much more consequential for Russia. America is such a prosperous country that it is not a choice between guns and butter. We buy both. The Russian economy, not well-diversified and reliant on commodity prices, is far more … Read More ➡
Some conspiracy theories describe actual conspiracies. And ignoring the evidence can put a nation in harm’s way. Consider the possibility that an extended Pakistani family used their employment as cybersecurity specialists to steal emails, documents and equipment from dozens of members of the House of Representatives and then transfer them to outside parties, including the government of Pakistan. In a new book, Obstruction of Justice: How the Deep State Risked National Security to Protect the Democrats (Regnery), Daily Caller reporter Luke Rosiak makes a compelling case that this really happened. To their great debit, the FBI, the Justice Department, Capitol Police and lawmakers in both parties ignored the danger signs, and often provided cover for the culprits. Welcome to the Deep State.
It is overwhelmingly accepted among Democrats that Donald Trump and certain among his top aides conspired with Russian intelligence agents via social media to “steal” the 2016 presidential … Read More ➡
Rashida Tlaib isn’t a typical House of Representatives freshman. That may be why so many of her party colleagues are giving her only tacit approval in the wake of her video broadside last Thursday against President Donald Trump. Rep. Tlaib, D-Mich., a Muslim born of Palestinian immigrant parents, having taken an oath of office only hours earlier, called for Trump’s impeachment in highly vulgar and inflammatory language. Party elders, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, offered a rebuke to her statement. But their words seemed more motivated by strategy than by principle. And a likely major explanation for this tacit approval is that Democrats are giving a free pass to Muslims in their nonstop celebration of “diversity.” It’s an attitude that endangers national security as well as coarsens debate.
The 2018 House elections were a windfall for the Democratic Party. Exploiting resentment of President Trump and Republicans generally, the party generated … Read More ➡
Michael Avenatti, plaintiff’s attorney, media presence and sworn enemy of all things Donald Trump, for the past year has been inflicting himself on the public via CNN, MSNBC and other news outlets. It’s part of his campaign to remove Trump from office on behalf of his star client, porn star Stormy Daniels. Yet Avenatti’s main issue for now appears to be whether he can avoid oblivion despite his receipt of online crowdfunding donations. His longtime former law firm, Eagan Avenatti LLP, received a final eviction notice last month from an Orange County, Calif. court despite bagging numerous outsized awards and verdicts. And he’s facing a costly divorce settlement and a domestic battery charge. His many enemies might be thinking that all this couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.
Michael Avenatti, now 47, a native of the St. Louis area, didn’t invent self-promotion within the legal profession. But … Read More ➡